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: Sully- who wrote (64476)	3/1/2008 3:02:14 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

AP: No casualties = no war By Ed Morrissey The Hot Air Blog The AP fact-checked one of the memes that Democrats have used against John McCain, and come to the conclusion that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama understand the term “war”. Both have tried to “make hay” out of McCain’s suggestion that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years as a proposal for an unending war, especially Obama. However, they leave out a little something from their analysis — casualties: <<< No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq. …. THE SPIN: Obama: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.” Clinton: “I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be — 50 to 100 years.” THE FACTS: The Democrats leave out a vital caveat. When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war. >>> No matter how many times John McCain has to explain it to the two Democrats, they can’t figure out that the presence of American troops does not mean a war exists. Otherwise, we would have been at war with Qatar and Kuwait for the last 18 years, as well as with Germany for the last 60. No shooting — no war. Heck, even the AP can figure out that much — why can’t the Democrats? Let’s put this into the context of today’s dueling videos from the Democrats. When the phone rings at 3 am at the White House, do you want it answered by someone who doesn’t know what the term “war” actually means? Or would you prefer to have it answered by someone who actually knows something about both the military and foreign policy? hotair.com

To: Sully- who wrote (64476)	3/30/2008 12:09:26 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

One Missed Call March 29, 2008; Page A8 In Michael Mukasey, President Bush finally seems to have an Attorney General worthy of the current moment. In Nancy Pelosi's hometown this week, the former judge who once tried terror cases told the Commonwealth Club audience that even he had no idea of the extent of the threat. Speaking of what he hears in his national security briefings, Mr. Mukasey said, "It is way beyond – way beyond anything that I knew or believed. So, if I was picked for the level of my knowledge . . . that was a massive piece of false advertising." As reported by the New York Sun, he also offered a perspective, partly personal as a former Manhattanite, on the necessity of warrantless antiterror surveillance. Before 9/11, Mr. Mukasey said, "We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. We've got" – here the Attorney General paused with emotion – "we've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that." The AG also addressed why immunity from lawsuits is vital for the telecom companies that cooperated with the surveillance after 9/11. "Forget the liability" the phone companies face, Mr. Mukasey said. "We face the prospect of disclosure in open court of what they did, which is to say the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence against foreign targets." Al Qaeda would love that. The cynics will call this "fear-mongering," but most Americans will want to make sure we don't miss the next terror call. online.wsj.com