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: Elroy who wrote (54810)	2/1/2007 9:20:23 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

"Face it, it's in the best interests of the USA to leave Iraq and let the local population descend into anarchy and civil war. Sunnis and Shias killing each other for a decade or so in the ME leaves each other as the logical target for the violent extremists among them, and takes "the West" off the radar screen completely. What Sunni do you think is going to plot a bombing in a Dutch disco when you can go bomb the enemy Shia three blocks down the street? How much of a threat to anyone were Iran and Iraq during their 8 year war? ZERO. Leaving Iraq now would be the equivalent of figuring out how to get the North Koreans to attack the Chinese - suddenly, the threat from NK to our interests becomes nil. Same thing if Iraq descends into a Sunni-Shia all out war." Wow. Who knew? It's not "cut 'n' run" spinelessness or political opportunism or budding isolationism or secret leftist desires for America to be "taught a lesson" - it's pure Machiavelli. I feel so much better about the Democratic leadership now. ;-)

To: Elroy who wrote (54810)	2/1/2007 2:14:20 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Has anyone noticed how the MSM has completely ignored Hillary's outrageously treacherous lies? ** Hillary is no Bill By Cal Thomas Townhall.com Columnist Thursday, February 1, 2007 When it comes to flipping on an issue and making you believe he never said (or did) what, in fact, he said (or did), no one can top Bill Clinton. He makes you want to believe him because he is such a good old rogue with a unique gift of persuasion. Had he not been selling himself to voters, readers of his book and audiences at six-figure honorariums, he might have been the top salesman at any car dealership in the country. Bill Clinton could sell snowmobiles to Miamians. Not so with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who thinks the Democratic Party notion of entitlement entitles her to be president. We are asked to believe that this woman is the most intelligent female in America, a person with deep convictions, unique vision and the experience to lead the nation in troubled times. In Iowa last weekend, Sen. Clinton showed why she shouldn't - and I believe won't - be president. She deliberately misled the audience about her vote to authorize President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. The big media has, so far, ignored her flip in favor of pursuing their storyline about the "historic" progress women are making in politics. But thanks to YouTube and other Internet sites, Sen. Clinton will not be able to escape even her recent past. Last weekend in Des Moines, Sen. Clinton attempted to explain her 2002 vote in favor of a Senate resolution "to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (S.J. Res. 45): <<< "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So (President Bush) took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority." >>> Speaking to the left wing, anti-war organization, Code Pink, on March 7, 2003, which can be found on YouTube, Sen. Clinton tried to justify her pro-war vote:** <<< "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision" >>> Sen. Clinton also told the Code Pink women that sometimes the United States has to go it alone and she specifically compared Iraq with Bosnia and Kosovo "where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone." So much for the necessity of seeking allies and additional UN resolutions to follow previous unheeded resolutions before America acts. In her Senate floor speech on Oct. 10, 2002, Sen. Clinton said, <<< "It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape in the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." >>> Later in that speech, Sen. Clinton criticized the UN, saying, <<< "It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates." >>> Adding to her conviction that Saddam must be toppled, Sen. Clinton said, <<< "I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war." >>> One wonders what took such a smart woman until last weekend in Iowa to conclude that she had been duped and, if she can be misled by so many people in whom she has confidence, how will she be able to see clearly as president? Unlike her husband, she won't be able to get away with the political equivalent of "of course, I'll respect you in the morning." Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might. townhall.com

To: Elroy who wrote (54810)	2/1/2007 3:24:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I'd call it treachery. I suppose clever libs will call it "patriotic dissent". **** They Were For It, Until It Was Actually Proposed Power Line Today's Washington Times reports on the Senate Democrats who have changed their minds about the "surge" in Iraq: [A]t least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq ... now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. A few quotes. John Kerry, 2005: We don't have enough troops in Iraq. Joe Biden, 2005: There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency...They're going to need a surge of forces. Not long ago, the idea that the administration had "blundered" by not putting enough troops in Iraq was conventional wisdom among many Democrats. But it appears that they were in favor of augmenting our forces only if there were no danger that it might actually happen. powerlineblog.com washtimes.com