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 (31580)	6/21/2008 8:47:27 PM
From: MJ	Respond to of 224757

Thanks. Are you betting with real money?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31580)	6/21/2008 8:58:01 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224757

Obnoxious Obama's seal should have a Jacka$$ in the center rather than the American eagle. How dare he distort the presidential seal...the man has started to believe the puff pieces churned out by the lame liberal media. Voters will not approve of his recent arrogance: news.yahoo.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31580)	6/21/2008 9:01:06 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Oddsmakers are betting on McCain--that's why they urge you to bet on Obama.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31580)	6/22/2008 1:08:25 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224757

Liberal New York Times Outs CIA Operative By Mick Wright \| June 22, 2008 In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative. Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent's name would "invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency." In an Editor's Note linked from the story on KSM's interrogation, the Times defended its decision by stating that "other government employees" had been "named publicly in books and published articles" or had chosen to go public themselves, by explaining that its policy "is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely," and by arguing the operative's name "was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article." Times reporter Scott Shane describes his scoop as "the closest look to date beneath the blanket of secrecy that hides the program from terrorists and from critics who accuse the agency of torture." The CIA apparently believes that by publishing the operative's name, the Times put the agent at risk for retaliatory strikes from such "critics" and terrorists, despite his here-described lack of participation in the agency's "harsh interrogation methods." Of course, this is just the latest in a long string of Times articles that have leaked classified and guarded information critical to America's security and that of its people and public servants. Alert readers have long since stopped expecting any level of consistency from the same liberal media that was obsessed with the naming of Valerie Plame (though they've been considerably less obsessed with the actual source of Robert Novak's column, Richard Armitage). The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of Deuce Martinez, an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. Martinez would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency. After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article. The Times's policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover. Mr. Martinez, a career analyst at the agency until his retirement a few years ago, did not directly participate in waterboarding or other harsh interrogation methods that critics describe as torture and, in fact, turned down an offer to be trained in such tactics. The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name. —Mick Wright is a freelance journalist who lives in Memphis, Tennessee.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31580)	6/22/2008 3:01:28 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224757

Congrats - NK endorses Obama: Obama Gets Another Unwanted Endorsement June 22, 2008 at 11:33 am · Filed under Appeasement, U.S. Politics The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance. It’s worth pausing to consider the disturbing rhetorical similarity between the Chosun Sinbo and Daily Kos, although the sheer incoherence of Bush’s North Korea policy makes any comparison to it questionable. Bush’s North Korea policy may be a poor baseline for comparison, but the candidates themselves have given the North Koreans plenty to judge them by. Both Obama and McCain have told us how they’d deal with the North Koreans. McCain has expressed his distaste for the latest variation of Bush’s policy and emphasized his willingness to raise uncomfortable topics, including human rights. Obama has already shown a disappointing lack of consistency in holding North Korea accountable for its intolerable behavior. If I understand Obama’s policy to consist of direct summit talks, aid, and trying to coax North Korea into opening itself up, that same policy was tried for years, without success, by the South Koreans, and it’s now being tried without success by President Bush. If I understand McCain’s policy to consist of tightening sanctions until North Korea verifiably disarms, that was tried briefly by the Bush Administration and showed signs of considerable success until its inexplicable and premature abandonment. (Bear in mind that the sanctions the Bush Administration applied for just 17 months were a pale shadow of the power we could potentially apply but did succeed in driving Kim Jong Il back to the bargaining table. When we lifted the pressure, the North Koreans resorted to form and balked at full disclosure or disarmament. And as we’ve since learned, they weren’t dealing in good faith to begin with. The key to any successful negotiation with the North Koreans is showing them that you’re fully capable and prepared to hasten and accept the collapse of the regime as an alternative.) North Korea’s endorsement of Obama will probably draw comparisons to the unwanted Hamas endorsement of Obama. Hamas withdrew the endorsement after Obama spoke at AIPAC’s convention. Fidel Castro, by contrast, took a more sophisticated and self-aware approach: [O]n Monday [Castro] gave Senator Barack Obama an endorsement of sorts, calling him “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency” while also berating him for his plan to continue the trade embargo against Cuba. “Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor,” Mr. Castro said. “I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him.” [N.Y. Times, The Caucus] Which Castro then proceeded to do, on Obama’s stated support for trade sanctions during a campaign speech to Cuban exiles in Miami. The Republicans’ efforts to capitalize on the Hamas endorsement made me slightly squeamish, because there are separate issues here that shouldn’t be mixed. It isn’t fair for anyone to imply, based on an unwanted endorsement, that a candidate in any way supports the endorsing entity’s ideology or actions. It is fair to ask whether the endorsement suggests that the endorsing entity knows something about the candidate. Why would Hamas or Kim Jong Il both believe that if Obama is elected, his policies would mean boom times for evildoers? Are they wrong? Finally, as with Ron Paul’s refusal to return contributions from white supremacists, it’s reasonable to demand that a candidate unambiguously disavow the endorsement and denounce the endorser. In the case of Hamas, Obama rightly did this. Given that North Korea’s human rights atrocities are as repellent as any since the Khmer Rouge was driven from Phnom Penh 30 years ago, Obama has both the duty to speak out about the evils happening in North Korea today and an opportunity to refute those who say he would merely appease tyrants. freekorea.us