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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (22924)	9/28/2007 7:18:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

mediamatters services the ultra leftists that can't think for themselves. Nothing they say has any relevance for the 90% of the population outside that group. I've got news for you.......the 90% figure is for those of us who read and watch the main stream media. Fox has the remaining 10%. They were behind the fraudulent reporting and creative cutting of Bill O'Reilley's comments from his discourse with ultra leftist Juan Williams. Juan was back on last night as was Al Sharpton stating that the reporting by CNN, NBC and the other kook fringe media was out of line. I saw the whole video........O'Reilly sounded uninformed and rather condescending. Sorry.....that's who he is. As for Juan being ultra leftist, I am a liberal and I have never heard of him. He is someone like Colmes, a facsimile of a liberal, that Fox trots out to show that its "fair and balanced" which we all know is not true.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (22924)	9/28/2007 7:20:44 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Editorial Runaway (Spending) Train If, as he says, President Bush is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, why on earth does he need vastly more money from Congress to wage war? The staggering, ever escalating numbers tell the real story: As long as it’s up to Mr. Bush, the American presence in Iraq will be endless and ever more costly, diverting resources from other national priorities that are being ignored or shortchanged. The administration showed its cards on Wednesday when it asked Congress for an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of the original 2008 spending request, which was made before Mr. Bush announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal. It would bring the 2008 war bill to nearly $190 billion, the largest single-year total for the wars and an increase of 15 percent from 2007. And here are a few more facts to put the voracious war machine in context: By year’s end, the cost for both conflicts since Sept. 11, 2001, is projected to reach more than $800 billion. Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will probably surpass the Vietnam War by the end of next year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. For officials and politicians used to dealing with eye-popping numbers, the additional $42.3 billion may just register as a few more zeros on the bottom line of a staggeringly big bill. But it’s more than enough to cover the five-year $35 billion proposal for children’s health-care coverage that Mr. Bush has threatened to veto. This for a war that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said would cost under $50 billion while his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, predicted Iraqi oil revenues would largely pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. It’s not that Americans don’t want to pay and equip the courageous men and women who defend their freedom. In fact, since 9/11, taxpayers have been remarkably stalwart in underwriting massive war-fighting increases. But the Pentagon budget has to make sense within the larger context of national security. Mr. Bush seems to be placing no financial check whatsoever on military spending, most of it devoted to a war in Iraq that is peripheral to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who are most active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Americans also should ask why the Pentagon should be entrusted with more tax dollars when it can’t seem to spend what it has wisely. Military officials recently revealed that contracts worth more than $90 billion are being investigated — $6 billion for possible criminal charges, the rest for financial irregularities. According to the vague details made public, the new money would pay for the continued American troop presence in Iraq, the purchase of armored vehicles and training Iraq’s new army. But it also contains funds for longer-term goals, such as replacing outdated equipment. Congress must dissect this request carefully, find out why Mr. Bush suddenly needed to ask for the extra money and use the chance to reshape the failed strategy in Iraq. In other words, lawmakers should join Democrat Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in pledging there will be “no more blank checks for Iraq.” Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (22924)	9/28/2007 9:38:53 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Once again, Hollywood tells the American people how stupid they are because they don't embrace Hollywoods lop-sided view of the world. Wednesday, September 26, 2007 All-star Propaganda Signals Hollywood's Isolation Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:24 PM The new film “Lions for Lambs” with Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford won’t hit theaters until November 9, but the screenwriter has already announced that his purpose was to show “how ridiculous the war was” and to scold Americans who for electing “a guy who doesn’t care to read any military history.” The film’s political agenda helped win quick approval from Hollywood honchos and the New York Times reported that “the project may have set a new record for speed.” Nevertheless, director Redford worries that the film may fail because the public’s too stupid to embrace it. “America doesn’t like to look at itself,” he declared. “That’s why Carter got booted. He had the gall to tell people, ‘We’re not doing so good.’ That’s why Reagan got elected: ‘Morning in America.’” Robert Redford’s amazing, enduring preference for Carter to Reagan represents one more glaring, laughable illustration of Hollywood’s isolation from the American mainstream.