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 (75799)	12/2/2009 8:26:02 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224750

Depending on the weather of course!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75799)	12/2/2009 8:29:32 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Gov. Gregoire: WA will no longer accept Arkansas parolees mynw.com By JAMIE GRISWOLD MyNorthwest.com On Wednesday Governor Christine Gregoire announced that Washington state will not accept paroled criminals from the state of Arkansas until it can be determined "whether Arkansas is living up to its responsibilities." Officials in Washington and Arkansas have been sparring over who had responsibility for Maurice Clemmons who killed four Lakewood police officers Sunday at a Parkland coffee shop. Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, who commuted a sentence of 108 years that Clemmons was serving in Arkansas on crimes of burglary and robbery, told talk show host Michael Medved that he stands by the decision he made based on the facts available at the time. "If the same set of facts were in front of me as I had nine years ago, I would make the same decision." Huckabee said that Clemmons was evaluated by a parole board that granted his release, and that he wasn't exhibiting any of the behaviors that people now describe as obvious warning signs. "Nine years ago we didn't have any indication that this guy had anywhere like this within him. Nothing gave us indication of this. He didn't exhibit signs of the psychosis and sociopathic behavior that he did the last few years once he got to Washington." In response to Governor Gregoire's announcement Wednesday, that Washington would no longer accept Arkansas parolees, Huckabee called up some of the decisions Washington state authorities made more recently regarding Clemmons' confinement. "I wonder what [Gregoire's] going to do about judges who let someone go who has been charged with the rape of a child and the beating of a police officer. I don't understand why this guy got bail. I don't understand why he wasn't extradited back to Arkansas on the parole violations. These are issues that happened recently that should have been the signal." Clemmons was released after posting bail in Washington state on charges of raping a child just six days before he is suspected of shooting four Lakewood police officers. Clemmons was shot to death early Tuesday by a Seattle police officer. The main point at issue is a warrant that Arkansas officials issued for Clemmons. Arkansas corrections officials say the warrant should have been enough to keep Clemmons in jail on an earlier Pierce County charge. But Washington officials say it wasn't handled properly in Arkansas

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75799)	12/2/2009 8:32:03 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

This Will Not End Well By George Will WASHINGTON -- A traveler asks a farmer how to get to a particular village. The farmer replies, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." Barack Obama, who asked to be president, nevertheless deserves sympathy for having to start where America is in Afghanistan. But after 11 months of graceless disparagements of the 43rd president, the 44th acts as though he is the first president whose predecessor bequeathed a problematic world. And Obama's second new Afghanistan policy in less than nine months strikingly resembles his predecessor's plan for Iraq, which was: As Iraq's security forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down. Receive news alerts Sign Up George Will RealClearPolitics foreign policy Barack Obama Afghanistan [+] More Having vowed to "finish the job," Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy. Obama's surge will bring to 51,000 his Afghanistan escalation since March. Supposedly this will buy time for Afghan forces to become adequate. But it is not intended to buy much time: Although the war is in its 98th month, Obama's "Mission Accomplished" banner will be unfurled 19 months from now -- when Afghanistan's security forces supposedly will be self-sufficient. He must know this will not happen. In a spate of mid-November interviews -- while participating in the president's protracted rethinking of policy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described America's Afghanistan goal(s) somewhat differently. They are "to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies" because "al-Qaeda and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaeda still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot of what goes on." And: "We want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." And: "We want to get the people who attacked us." And: "We want to get al-Qaeda." And: "We are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists." But al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan do not number in the tens of thousands, or even thousands. Or perhaps even hundreds. Although "the people who attacked us" were al-Qaeda, the threat that justifies today's escalation is, Clinton says, a "syndicate of terror" of which al-Qaeda is just an important part. But is Afghanistan central to the syndicate? George W. Bush waged preventive war in Iraq regarding (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. Obama is waging preventive war in Afghanistan to prevent it from again becoming "a staging platform for terrorists," which Somalia, Yemen or other sovereignty near-vacuums also could become. To prevent the "staging platform" scenario, U.S. forces might have to be engaged in Afghanistan for decades before its government can prevent that by itself. Before Tuesday, the administration had said (through White House spokesman Robert Gibbs) that U.S. forces will not be there "another eight or nine years." Tuesday the Taliban heard a distant U.S. trumpet sounding withdrawal beginning in 19 months. Also hearing it were Afghans who must decide whether to bet their lives on the Americans, who will begin striking their tents in July 2011, or on the Taliban, who are not going home, because they are at home. Many Democrats, who think the $787 billion stimulus was too small and want another one (but by another name), are flinching from the $30 billion one-year cost of the Afghan surge. Considering that the GM and GMAC bailouts ($63 billion) are five times bigger than Afghanistan's GDP ($12 billion), Democrats seem to be selective worriers about deficits. Of course, their real worry is how to wriggle out of their endorsement of the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, which was a merely tactical endorsement intended to disparage the "war of choice" in Iraq. The president's party will not support his new policy, his budget will not accommodate it, our overstretched and worn down military will be hard-pressed to execute it, and Americans' patience will not be commensurate with Afghanistan's limitless demands for it. This will not end well. A case can be made for a serious, meaning larger and more protracted, surge. A better case can be made for a radically reduced investment of resources and prestige in that forlorn country. Obama has not made a convincing case for his tentative surgelet. George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. But Obama's half-hearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy -- briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a "syndicate of terror") while lunging for the exit ramp -- makes a protracted loss probable.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75799)	12/3/2009 1:22:26 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224750

Iran President Says Nuclear Enrichment Will Grow WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: December 2, 2009 The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that his nation would produce a higher grade of nuclear fuel on its own, escalating its war of words with the international community over its disputed nuclear program. His declaration continued a daily drumbeat of defiant proclamations from the Iranian leadership, which has vowed to expand its nuclear plants and hone its capability to enrich uranium despite strong warnings from the United Nations and Western powers that its program violates its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. “I declare here that, with the grace of God, the Iranian nation will produce 20 percent fuel and anything it needs itself,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told a cheering crowd in the central city of Isfahan, according to the Reuters news agency. Iran claims it needs a relatively high grade of nuclear fuel for civilian uses.