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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LowtherAcademy who wrote (109529)	10/10/2007 3:41:13 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

LowertheAcademy, I've never seen that letter before. Thanks for posting it. I don't know if it's legitimate, but I don't see anything in it I didn't already know. In fact, I consider it as further evidence that there were broad range of reasons these guys wanted a regime change. It sort of compliments much of the evidence I've seen about Richard Pearle and the Defense Policy Board promoting regime change in Israel and the U.S. long before 9/11. The part I assume we agree on is that after 9/11 they lied and spun the US and some of our international partners into war. That part is very hard to forgive. I have doubly difficult time with the Richard Pearles of the world because they are not even operating with just US interests at heart. What we may disagree on is whether they are war mongering madmen or people with legitimate concerns that were heightened enormously by 9/11. Obviously, I think they are the latter. I also think some of their concerns were legitimate given the realities of the world. I think those concerns should have been heightened after 9/11 given that there are probably several hundred thousand Muslim extremists in the world and at least 10s of millions of Muslims that support them even if they wouldn't act on their own. I am being "politically correct" with those estimates. I do have some "left" in me). ;-) You may find this hard to believe, but when the country was debating this I spent most of my time discussing it with people that are to the right of center and others that are very pro Israel Jewish friends of mine. Typically they were calling me names like "pink panty wearing woman", "liberal", "idealistic" because I was trying to convince them that there were huge potential downsides to war, the neocons were a bunch of lying shitheads, etc.... The reality to me both then and now is that most people are dug into their positions based on the party they belong to, their visions of the way world should be, their worst fears, and a lot of other things that are preventing them from seeing that neither the left or right is evil or clearly right or wrong. It was actually a very tough problem then and remains that way now. If I was dictator for the last 50 years, the US would not be dependent on middle east oil and I would have done everything I could to make sure none of our major trading partners were either. I would have defended Israel if someone made an aggressive move, but I wouldn't have supported it almost unconditionally, gave it weapons and huge sums of money etc... We wouldn't have to worry about the US dollar's role in the world because we'd have sound money etc... I'd more or less be Ron Paul and stay out of everyone's business unless they were aggressive. The problem is that I wasn't dictator for the last 50 years. ;-) If you made me dictator tomorrow, I would have a boatload of very tough and risky decisions to make. IMO politicians and dirtbags have been screwing up this country so badly for decades starting with the creation of the Fed and then the expansion of government, I don't see an easy way to fix it. I also consider it politically impossible to fix it any time soon without a complete meltdown that leads to a libertarian style revolution. Either that or a benevolent dictator like me. (bg)

To: LowtherAcademy who wrote (109529)	10/10/2007 7:30:15 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 132070

Supposedly the Dems want to stop the mess...then again, i've got a bridge for sale. -ng- ===== Smile, Though Your Head Is Aching By Dana Milbank Wednesday, October 10, 2007; Page A02 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs. But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. "Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk." Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething. "We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders." It was a rather fierce response to the party's liberal base, which frightens many a congressional Democrat. But it wasn't out of character for the new speaker. Pelosi's fixed and constant smile makes her appear as if she is cutting an ad for a whitening toothpaste. But when you listen to the words that come from her grinning maw, the smile seems more akin to that of a barracuda. One reporter asked about Democratic lawmakers who proposed a tax increase for the war. "They were not making legislation; they were making a point," Pelosi judged. Another asked about a Republican congressman's complaints that the word "God" was removed from certificates accompanying congressional flags. "I don't know what his point is," Pelosi volleyed. Complaints that she didn't go far enough on climate-change legislation? "We did not say we were going to do any more than we did." The Senate's stalemate on the war? "We in the House will not be confining our legislation initiatives to what is legislatively possible in the Senate." Pelosi admitted no mistakes and claimed no regrets as she reflected on her first session in the speaker's chair. "I'm very proud of the work of this Congress," she declared. Evidently so: She repeated how "proud" she was nine times. Passing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission made her "very proud," while energy legislation made her "very, very proud," and new ethics rules made her "especially proud."