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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/28/2007 10:15:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93284

lol You haven't a clue as usual....what a moron you are....like I said...you're a lowdown scumbag liar....and every one knows it.

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/28/2007 10:34:39 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 93284

i think the article was right-on............what part of it don't U understand or dispute?

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/29/2007 1:04:19 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 93284

Liar, Liar (Pants On Fire) By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:20 PM PT Politics: Hoping to improve his co-president's chances in Iowa, Slick Willie says he was against Iraq from the beginning. So just who signed the Iraq Liberation Act? Millard Fillmore? Speaking in Muscatine, Iowa, on Tuesday, William Jefferson Clinton uttered perhaps the mother of all falsehoods when he tried to explain that wealthy people such as himself should pay more taxes in time of war. Rewriting history, Clinton said: "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers." First, let us repeat our observation that if wealthy liberals feel they are undertaxed, they are free to write a check to the U.S. Treasury at any time. But opposed to Iraq from the beginning? Perhaps he forgets that, with co-president Hillary at his side, he signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. That law made it the official policy of the United States "to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime." Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clintons, says Bill didn't mean military action necessarily: "As he said from the beginning and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war in Iraq without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs." Are these the same inspectors that Saddam Hussein kicked out of Iraq in 1998, months before Bill Clinton launched air strikes against Iraq designed to take out Saddam's allegedly nonexistent WMD facilities? Explaining the air strikes to the nation in December 1998, Clinton said: "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Clinton added: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly . . . . The international community had little doubt then, and I have little doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use those terrible weapons again." On July 22, 2003, Clinton called in to the Larry King Show to congratulate Bob Dole on his 80th birthday. When King asked him about Iraq, Clinton responded: "Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. "And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in. And this time if you don't cooperate, the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." Which is exactly what President Bush did. U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th and last in a series demanding that Saddam behave and the one that ordered Saddam to make a "full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors" or there would be "serious consequences." Saddam didn't and there were. Bill Clinton supported both military action against Iraq and regime change from the beginning. The Clintons better start telling the truth or there will be serious consequences at the ballot box.

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/29/2007 1:07:07 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 93284

Harry Reid's Junket By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:20 PM PT Free Trade: It's tempting to snicker about Sen. Harry Reid's trip to Latin America as just another congressional junket. But this could be pretty important if Reid comes around on free trade. Let's see if he's serious. With few words, the Senate majority leader announced his intent to improve U.S. ties with Latin America by leading a delegation of six other senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, to Paraguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico over Thanksgiving break. At first glance, Reid seemed to justify the trip with an old-fashioned dose of Bush-bashing. "Senator Reid believes that U.S.-Latin American relations have been neglected by this Administration," "His first and now second trips as Leader have been to the region, a symbolic show of respect and goodwill." It's a stretch to think that Bush has neglected the region when it's Democrats like Reid who've done their utmost to keep Latin American nations from getting permanent free-trade treaties. Is it Bush's fault 46 million Colombians, led by a pro-free-trade president with a 78% approval rating, still have no free trade deal? Wednesday in Bogota, Reid's group visited union officials, a prosecutor and President Alvaro Uribe, all pivotal players on free trade. A day earlier, Reid said he didn't anticipate approving the Colombia pact unless he could verify changes that reduced the murders of union officials, El Universal reported. That raises questions about Reid's sincerity, because Colombia has reduced union deaths sharply since Uribe came to power. Ten years ago some 300 unionists were killed in a year by thugs. This year it's about 25, proportionately lower than the population as a whole. Ironically, the last murdered Colombian unionist died because he advocated free trade. How Reid can go to Colombia, see the growing prosperity, the public safety, the kids now unafraid to go to school, the nightly celebrations of a peace they had never known before, and then insist on shutting all 46 million out — especially after touring lousier places with no free trade, like Paraguay — is impossible to understand. What is known is that Reid has an appalling record on free trade. He's voted against free trade for Singapore, Chile, Oman and Central America, even trying to undermine Costa Rica's popularly approved trade pact last September. The free-market Cato Institute gives Reid just a 17% favorable rating on free trade. Coming to Latin America and telling the locals they aren't good enough for free trade is the wrong way to "improve" Latin American relations. If Reid really wants to do one better than Bush, he should seize the day on free trade and scold Bush for not getting it done sooner. Maybe then this wouldn't be a junket, but an accomplishment.

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/29/2007 1:09:22 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 93284

The Other Surge By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT Winning The War: The best measure of our success in Iraq is the results of the latest election — Iraqis voting with their feet. Some 4 million Iraqis who fled their homeland are returning in droves. The improved safety and security in Baghdad, as well as in outlying provinces such as the former al-Qaida strongholds of Anbar and Diyala, may not have been acknowledged by Democrats in Congress. But Iraqis who fled their homes have taken note and are returning in numbers that are hard to keep track of. Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the U.S.-Iraqi efforts to pacify Baghdad, said border crossings by returning refugees numbered 46,030 in October alone. He attributed the large numbers to the "improving security situation" resulting from the successful military surge orchestrated by Gen. David Petraeus. "We are receiving tremendous numbers of displaced families at the borders of Syria and Jordan," says Maj. Gen. Mohsen Abdul Hassan, head of Iraq's department of border enforcement. "We have difficulties dealing with the large numbers. There are long lines of vehicles." Convoys of Iraqis wanting to return and willing to drive themselves from Damascus to Baghdad are being organized by the Iraqi embassy in Damascus. Syria has absorbed the lion's share of Iraqi refugees during the war. But the Times of London reports that as a result of the Iraqi return, "Saida Zaynab, the Damascus neighborhoods once dominated by many of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, is almost deserted. Apartment prices are plummeting and once-crowded shops and buses are half empty." Hussein Ali Saleh, director of the National Theatre in Baghdad, stages plays for refugees in Damascus. He reports that the al-Najum theatre was filled with 400 Iraqis on an average night. Lately, barely 50 show up. "In the last month, 60% of the Iraqis I know have returned," he told the Times. "The situation has changed completely. They all want to go back. Even my own family back in Baghdad is telling me the situation is much better." "There is a large movement of people going back to Iraq. We are doing rapid research on this," added a spokesman for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. But no research is needed to confirm that the surge has worked. The Iraqi people feel safer than ever as al-Qaida is pushed out of Baghdad and outlying provinces, and the number of car bombings and civilian casualties has dropped sharply. Even the New York Times, which like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had editorially proclaimed the war to be lost, reported Tuesday that people in Baghdad now move freely without fear, even at night. People feel free to move between Shiite and Sunni areas for everyday routines such as work, shopping and school. Just six short months ago, the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Amariyah in western Baghdad was one of the centers of al-Qaida in Iraq operations. Some days there were as many as a dozen car bombings and shootings. Few walked the streets. Today, as the Associated Press reports: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops." Women shop in its reopened stores, and men drink tea in sidewalk cafes. Because we refused to leave, the Iraqi people are choosing to come home.

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/29/2007 5:53:59 AM
From: SeachRE	Respond to of 93284

Amen!

To: Land Shark who wrote (87544)	11/29/2007 9:02:05 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Message 24092438 Up to 13 recs. Kanty Pants....everyone does know it........lol