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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (16097)	10/3/2007 3:27:36 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224744

You obviously did. Does that make you a nobody, Kenneth? :) Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (16097)	10/3/2007 3:28:05 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224744

Nuclear Deal Reached With North Korea By GRAHAM BOWLEY and HELENE COOPER Published: October 4, 2007 North Korea has endorsed an agreement to disable all of its nuclear facilities by the end of the year, according to a joint six-nation statement released by China in Beijing today, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. As Korean Leaders Meet, Economy Dominates (October 4, 2007) Text of the Agreement (Xinhua) The agreement sets out a timetable for North Korea to disclose all its nuclear programs and disable all facilities in return for 950,000 metric tons of fuel oil or its equivalent in economic aid. Negotiators reached agreement on a draft plan in Beijing on Sunday after four days of six-nation talks. The United States had said on Tuesday that it endorsed the plan but was waiting for approval from other nations involved in the negotiations. The announcement in China today gives final approval by the other five parties to the talks — Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and North Korea. The statement was released by Wu Dawei, head of the Chinese delegation to the talks. As part of the agreement, North Korea will make a full declaration of all its nuclear programs by the end of the year and will complete the disabling of its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. Mr. Wu said that as part of the agreement, Washington would lead an expert group to the capital, Pyongyang, “within the next two weeks to prepare for disablement” and would provide initial payment for the disablement activities. The United States applauded the announcement. “North Korea will get started on its commitment to disable all its existing nuclear facilities by disabling the core nuclear facilities at Yongbyon by the end of the year,” President Bush said in a statement. “North Korea also committed not to transfer nuclear materials, technology, or know-how beyond its borders.” Under an agreement reached in February, North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon facility, but the reactor still has to be fully disabled. According to Xinhua, the agreement today foresees the disablement of the five-megawatt experimental reactor, the reprocessing plant and the nuclear fuel rod fabrication facility in Yongbyon by December 31, 2007. The progress in the disarmament talks came as the leaders of North and South Korea began the second day of a separate three-day summit meeting in Pyongyang, only the second such meeting between the states since the Korean Peninsula was divided in 1945. Christopher R. Hill, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and the lead American negotiator on the Korean nuclear issue, had breakfast on Tuesday with his two bosses — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush — to brief them on progress, said Sean D. McCormack, the State Department spokesman. “We have conveyed to the Chinese government our approval for the draft statement,” Mr. McCormack said Tuesday. “All the parties went back to their capitals. We studied it, examined it, gave our approval to the Chinese.” North Korea has also been seeking a joint statement that would include a written reference to being removed from a United States list of countries that sponsor terrorism. The senior administration official said on Tuesday that “we’ve agreed on a way forward on that,” but declined to elaborate further. The statement issued by China today said: “The D.P.R.K. and the United States remain committed to improving their bilateral relations and moving towards a full diplomatic relationship. The two sides will increase bilateral exchanges and enhance mutual trust.” The initials stand for North Korea’s formal name, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The American official asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. A second senior administration official said the United States has told North Korea that one of the things it must disclose are details of whatever nuclear material it has been supplying to Syria. American and Israeli officials have indicated that a recent Israeli airstrike in Syria was directed at nuclear material supplied by North Korea. If the North Koreans meet the schedule and disable their equipment, it would be a major victory for the Bush administration at a time when it is eager to claim progress on some diplomatic front to offset its problems in Iraq. At a regular news briefing today, Dana M. Perino, the chief White House spokeswoman, said: “What is encouraging about it is that in the past you’ve seen that the North Koreans had shut down the Yongbyon facility. But what they’ve started to do now is to start dismantling it, and they have agreed to dismantle it by the end of the year. We are going to hold them to it. We are going to see if they’re going to be able to make that deadline.” David E. Sanger and David Stout contributed reporting.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (16097)	10/3/2007 4:28:32 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224744

Phony Soldiers, Phony Outrage, and Phony Patriotism October 03, 2007 By Chrisopher G. Adamo Smarting from the public relations disaster of the Betray us ad, a Soros-funded group, Media Matters, ginned up a fake scandal to demonstrate to those who rely on the mainstream media for their news, that "both sides do it." Congressional and Senate Democrats, along with the entire liberal political cabal, have been in a staged uproar ever since last week when Limbaugh made reference to Jesse McBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp who, adorning themselves with fraudulent credentials as members in good standing of the United States military, have been caught in blatant fraud, as they seek to make a case against the war.Rush Limbaugh's attackers have intentionally mischaracterized his criticism of such individuals as an assault the U.S. armed forces, asserting that he derided any troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers." In truth, he did no such thing, and his accusers know it. But why should they hesitate to lie about his words when they have gotten so much political mileage in the past few years by lying about virtually every other aspect of the terror war, the Republican Party, the military, and conservatism in general? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV) reached a nauseating level of sanctimony in his effort to both prove that Democrats "care about the troops" (at least those who fabricate excuses for America's surrender) while attacking Limbaugh and talk radio. Look to Democrats to invoke this latest manufactured firestorm as damming proof of the need to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." But Reid tipped his hand by asserting that Republicans ought to get on the bandwagon of imaginary outrage. Any time liberals begin plugging the bipartisan thing they are really looking for cover and validation from cowardly GOP members. Reid knows full well that he is lying, and that his principled opposition knows that he is lying. He considers his target audience, Middle America, stupid and gullible. Here Reid hopes to make his case stick, at least among those dependent on the likes of CNN, NBC, or the New York Times for its news. Conversely, the shamelessness and brazenness of Reid's lies stand as proof that he and his political supporters understand and accept such fraud as an inherent and viable component of the liberal-Democrat playbook. Of course it is hardly a news flash that the fake anguish expressed by Democrats over this contrived controversy is merely a continuation of the full-throated lies being proliferated by the Moveon.org/Democrat Party/Old media spin machine. The facts of this situation are as available as they are inarguable. They are also inconvenient to the left. So to keep their own story going, Democrat mouthpieces will simply continue to ignore them. When the truth is revealed, as it eventually will be, no liberal retractions or apologies will be forthcoming. The liberal political apparatus will simply move on to its next target to be smeared, knowing full well that it will never be held accountable for this, or any other deception. In truth, Limbaugh was very specific as to which "phony soldiers" he was referring. For Jesse McBeth, the moniker clearly fits. He was drubbed out of the military during boot camp (after only forty four days to be precise), but then went on to claim he had been a member of the Special Forces and under such false credentials delivered a plethora of fabricated stories, deriding the military and the mission. He was prominent in the media for a time. Likewise Beauchamp, who did in fact serve overseas, but whose fabricated fables of abuse and atrocity have been thoroughly refuted by the rest of his outfit. Limbaugh never even went so far as to include among the phonies Senator and former presidential wannabe John Kerry (D.-MA), whose entire "tour of duty" in Vietnam exceeded McBeth's enlistment by only two and a half months. And that brief Southeast Asian visit netted him three Purple Hearts under highly dubious circumstances. Of course if Kerry's version of the affair is correct, he could permanently put the matter to rest while completely discrediting his critics simply by releasing his military records, which, to date, he steadfastly refuses to do. Against this murky backdrop, Democrats on Capitol Hill find an occasion in which they can wave their flags and laud their commitment to God, Country, and the troops, or at least those troops who concoct stories which discredit the terror war and the President's strategy to win it. Such people certainly deserve and receive the unbridled adoration and support of the Democrats. But perhaps the most telling aspect of this latest offensive is the liberal characterization of Limbaugh, on several occasions just this past week, as "unpatriotic." This is quite an accusation coming from people who insist that the most heinous crime any conservative can commit is to "question the patriotism" of America's leftists as they deride the troops, while crediting America's enemies with every rightness of motive and strategy. americanthinker.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (16097)	10/3/2007 8:07:39 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224744

WaPo's Arkin Slams U.S. Troops [Stephen Spruiell] Conservative bloggers sometimes exaggerate and write that so-and-so "slammed" the troops, and then you follow the link and read the comments in context and find out they're not that bad — usually it's a garden-variety criticism of how the war is being managed or, at worst, a "botched joke". But the headline of this post is accurate. Read Washington Post national security reporter William Arkin's latest blog post for yourself. Some excerpts: I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States. [...] I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people. These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. [...] So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society? [...] Then there's this incoherent paragraph: I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people. And the kicker: But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. I hardly need to add anything here. Commenters on Arkin's blog have said enough: I just returned from my mercenary service in Iraq and I'm trying to adjust to life without obscene amounts of amenities. Thank you Mr. Arkin for helping me put this chapter of my life in perspective. For those who haven't been, as near as I can tell, the amenities consisted of a 10 X 10 room in a trailer under the flight path of F-16s, a one block walk to the shower and bathroom, a painfully slow internet connection, and a BX that stocked clothing in XXS and XL Short. Oh...there was the opportunity to work with the most dedicated and honorable people I've ever met. Posted by: DonL \| January 31, 2007 05:20 PM And: As a fellow journalist, but one who gave up the craft for year to serve in the infantry in Anbar Province, I am sickened that a fellow ink-stained wretch would vomit this prose onto us. I might share every cynical point about this administration, this war, the leaders who have guided it and the reasons it is prolonged. Maybe I don't. But I know numerous soldiers — including a few who died — who held varying views about the military, their civilian leadership, the democracy they serve and the Constitution that buttresses their very existence as professional men at arms. They have a right to their opinions, just as this columnist does. They do not deserve to be universally tarred with "Haditha" or "Abu Ghraid," a trick the columnist seems to conjure up on their behalf. I can think of more than 3,000 examples of sacrifices returned to the American people. I knew some of them personally. I'm glad I don't know you. Posted by: Carl Prine \| January 31, 2007 05:18 PM Who is William Arkin? Hugh Hewitt took a shot at that question a few years ago.