Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/4/2006 4:43:23 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Building a nuclear bomb doesn't require a lot of equipment. What needs time and special equipment is refining the uranium into plutonium. Once the plutonium is on hand, depending on the design of the bomb, construction isn't a particularly big deal. This whole thing is wacko NYT-ism again, IMO. If the documents were, in fact, of a classified nature, somebody should be going to jail for allowing them to be posted on the internet. More likely, the documents were NOT classified (even if the 'experts' at the Times think they should have been), and taking them off the 'net was more a matter of prudence than anything else. Now, if the NYT had published them, leftists all over the country would be bragging about how the Times, once again, is fulfilling the country's "right to know." But, since the Times DIDN'T publish the documents, it must be a horrible thing.

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/6/2006 3:07:15 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

For the record, I remain convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a necessary and laudable measure to prevent a megalomaniac from handing off to terrorists weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of attacking us and our allies. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. government has proof that Saddam Hussein had precisely such plans ready to implement. In fact, such evidence was actually documented in the Iraq Survey Group’s final report released last year with much obscuring fanfare [from the MSM & DNC] about the absence of recovered WMDs. — Frank J. Gaffney Jr. Message 22982244 Spin & obfuscate all you want. No one has yet challenged the findings of the ISG. The ISG report, on its own, provides overwhelming proof that Saddam's removal was justified. Since then, more irrefutable evidence has surfaced to bolster the findings of the ISG. Though the MSM & DNC have ignored, dismissed & intentionally distorted it, none of it has been discredited with credible, independently verifiable evidence. And even though you, the MSM & DNC prefer this tactic when you are on the losing side of a debate, unsubstantiated OPINIONS prove nothing. They simply have no basis in fact or reality.

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/6/2006 4:31:51 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The Verdict Is In By The Editors National Review Online Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang. When the sentence is finally carried out, Iraq and the world will be better for it. And it will be America that made it possible. That is the lesson to be drawn from the death sentence Saddam received yesterday after an Iraqi court convicted him of ordering the murder of 148 men and boys, all civilians, in reprisal for a failed assassination attempt in 1982. The Iraq War has never been more unpopular among Americans than it is now. We don’t expect this to change with the conclusion of Saddam’s first trial. (He has yet to answer on charges of massacring more than 100,000 Kurds in the 1980s.) But we do hope that, on this occasion, Americans will remember both why the war had to be fought and why fighting it was just. The verdict reminds us why the war had to be fought because it represents the irreversible end of Saddam’s ability to threaten America. That threat was real. As Democrats and the media tell things, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in post-Saddam Iraq proves that the war should never have been waged. But its justification always depended as much on the weapons Saddam might build as on the ones he already had built. In the years following Saddam’s removal from power, mountains of documentary evidence have proved that he had every intention of reconstituting his WMD programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted. Given that the sanctions regime had crumbled beyond repair prior to the invasion, the choice was not between containing Saddam and confronting him. It was, rather, between resigning ourselves to his eventual possession of WMD and removing him from power. Whatever his mistakes in implementation, President Bush made the right choice, with the result that the Middle East and the world will forever be free of Saddam’s menace. As to the war’s morality, it should be enough to recall that Saddam tyrannized the Iraqi people — impoverished them and massacred them — and was subject to no law but his whim. Now he has been held accountable for his atrocities in an open and transparent trial. He was granted procedural rights that allowed him to mount a vigorous defense. His judges will publish all of the evidence and testimony on which they based their decision. And he will receive an automatic appeal of the verdict. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the Arab world. For decades, the Left has damned American foreign policy for propping up dictators simply because they were “our” sons of bitches. Accordingly, one might expect to hear the Left voice its approval when America delivers one such dictator to the demands of impartial justice. We’re still listening. Saddam’s trial had its flaws — not least the former dictator’s thuggish bombast, which will surely continue throughout his appeal. Amnesty International and similarly myopic groups have complained that it didn’t look exactly like business at the Hague. But they are asking that Rome be built in a day. An aggressive and destabilizing tyranny has been replaced by a democracy struggling to walk on its own two feet. It would be nice if the perfectionist critics devoted as much energy to condemning the forces in Iraq and the region that want democracy to fail as they do to nitpicking the legal procedures in Baghdad. None of this is to minimize the dire challenges that Iraq still faces. The verdict has apparently not “open[ed] the doors of hell” with new sectarian violence, as Saddam’s chief lawyer predicted it would; but violence as usual is bad enough, and threatens to destroy the new Iraq in embryo. With Saddam’s end coming into sight, Iraq’s people have a chance — with our assistance — squarely to face the future. We gave them that chance. article.nationalreview.com

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/6/2006 6:55:59 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Let's see. "Bush lied, people died" becomes "Bush tells the truth and now people might die?" New York Times Mad Bush Administration 'Leaked' Iraqi Nuke Plan Friday , November 03, 2006 By John Gibson This is exquisitely rich. Today The New York Times is accusing the Bush administration of an illegal leak of secret information, which may endanger American lives. Wow. No sense of irony over there at The Times. They can leak the NSA secret wiretapping program, they can leak the Treasury Department's secret program of following terrorist money, they can leak secret memos on the progress of the war, but none of that, evidently, seems to Times editors to endanger Americans. But this latest so-called leak by the Bushies does. And worse, the so-called leak is — get this — an Iraqi plan to make a nuke bomb. It was posted in a trove of captured Iraqi documents on a government Web site. From that site it has also been discovered that Saddam Hussein was planning terror attacks against the West with Al Qaeda, but that has never interested The New York Times before. Why not? Because it runs counter to The Times' argument that Saddam posed no danger. It has also been The Times' argument that Iraq and Saddam had no WMD, especially not nukes. So now they're screeching about the fact that Iraq did have plans to build a nuke bomb and Bush's crew had it posted on a Web site. Let's see. "Bush lied, people died" becomes "Bush tells the truth and now people might die?" I think The Times buried the lead: Saddam had plans to build a nuke bomb. This goes along with the fact that Saddam's agents were, in fact, shopping for yellowcake in Niger. See Christopher Hitchens' excellent essays on this subject. But it must have been a bad day over at The Times. "Let's see, we have to admit that Bush was right about Saddam and WMD. So how do we make this look bad for Bush? Simple. We point out the evidence of Saddam's WMD was on an open Web site. We can say the Iranians probably got their nuke bomb plans from this U.S. government Web site." Would I be right to call this a flip-flop on the part of The Times? Would I be right to assume the hysteria at The Times about this late awakening to Saddam's nukes might mean the election is only a few days away? I would be right. That's My Word. Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com foxnews.com

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/6/2006 7:07:29 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

WaPo Ombud: We Were Unfair To George Allen By Captain Ed on Media Watch Captain's Quarters The Washington Post ombud, Deborah Howell, addresses reader complaints that their coverage of the George Allen campaign has been relentlessly negative. Her verdict -- they're right: <<< Allen supporters think he can't catch a break; I sympathize. The macaca coverage went on too long, and a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage of what made him a popular governor and senator. But it must be remembered that Allen shot himself in both feet with the "macaca" remark and his clumsy handling of the revelation of his Jewish heritage. Then he declined to talk to The Post for the profile. The profiles of both Webb and Allen were critical, but Webb's was leavened by his quotes. It was bothersome that so much weight was given to "Fifth Quarter," the 2000 family memoir by Allen's sister, Jennifer. The book described family problems and portrayed Allen as a teenage bully. She called it a "novelization of the past," and Post reporters were unsuccessful in corroborating her account. Except for one brief remark, neither Jennifer Allen nor her brothers would comment on it. >>> Even in acknowledging the bias, Howell misses the point. Their coverage of the "macaca" incident went on far too long, and their editorial positions on the race seem to point to a bias in that might explain it. The "Fifth Quarter" exercise was completely lacking in editorial judgment. The Post reported this as if it were a contemporary allegation of marital abuse rather than an unsubstantiated account of supposed meanness by a teen-age Allen, which has absolutely no bearing on Allen's qualifications for political office. It's not bothersome that "so much weight" was given the novel, but that the Post took it seriously at all, to the point of trying to corroborate stories about Allen's temperament as a teenager. Isn't anyone at the Post even slightly embarrassed by that? The Post has consistently ignored Allen's record as Governor and Senator. Allen has repeatedly won statewide elections in Virginia, but the Post has never given any indication why that might be. Instead, it has done its best to mix water and dirt as ammunition in the nation's slimiest race. Howell might want to address that in her next ombud column, and give us an explanation of the editorial judgment that allowed it. Howell also addresses their coverage of Michael Steele. She admits that their coverage of Benjamin Cardin has been "relentlessly positive". Howell also says that the Post underplayed the story about the Prince George's County endorsements for Steele, a significant political story, by giving it a one-column space in the Metro section. All of this is true, but Howell still doesn't connect the dots. We know all of these stories got mangled by the Post. Howell needs to tell us why all of these editorial decisions and slights affected one party in this race, and she needs to do so honestly. Until then, the Post's political coverage will remain suspect, and their overall credibility diminished. (via Extreme Mortman) captainsquartersblog.com washingtonpost.com captainsquartersblog.com extrememortman.com

To: Cogito who wrote (52971)	11/6/2006 8:41:16 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Has this election cycle represented the high water mark of liberal media bias? I'm not sure; there hasn't been anything as out of bounds as the 60 Minutes document forgery. But day in and day out, I have the sense that the current cycle might set a new standard. The liberal media are determined to drag the carcass of the Democratic Party across the finish line, come Hell or high water. Washington Post to Republicans -- we were unfair, tough luck Power Line Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post, finds that her paper's coverage of the Allen-Webb and Cardin-Steele races was biased in favor of the Democrat. In Virginia, Howell concludes, the coverage was too anti-Allen ("a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage. . ."); in Maryland it was too pro-Cardin ("I longed for a more critical eye, especially in the Cardin piece, which seemed relentlessly positive"). But I bet those in power at the Post have no regrets -- unless Allen and/or Steele win, in which case they'll regret not having been even more partisan. JOHN adds: Has this election cycle represented the high water mark of liberal media bias? I'm not sure; there hasn't been anything as out of bounds as the 60 Minutes document forgery. But day in and day out, I have the sense that the current cycle might set a new standard. The liberal media are determined to drag the carcass of the Democratic Party across the finish line, come Hell or high water. powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com