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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 2:10:34 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 85487

You are losing it. Your own CIC is leading the world in hacking warfare with the NSA….even against its own citizens…you and me.

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 2:32:08 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 85487

'This will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history,' predicted a staffer to another House Foreign Affairs Committee member. 'Support is dwindling every day, and phone calls into our Hill and district offices are running about 100-to-1 against taking military action of any kind.' Read more: dailymail.co.uk Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 3:08:29 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Russia sends warship with 'special cargo' to Syria news.yahoo.com Gosh, I wonder what that could be.

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 4:51:58 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

When you say 'I think" I sometimes wonder what you are really saying. anyway, read this if you want. Some good 'food for thought'. Dennis being one of the few actual liberals left in the D party. Published on Friday, September 6, 2013 by Common Dreams Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria by Dennis Kucinich Secretary of State John Kerry made the case to Congress this week, but the questions not asked and the answers not given speak volumes.In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a document to members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted President Bush's claim for a cause for war. The document detailed how there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al Qaeda's role in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S., lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the war. Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria. This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional oversight, which rises above partisan considerations. The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria: Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used. The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation. Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled? Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody? Where was the laboratory analysis conducted? Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas? Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition? Further reading: Brown Moses blog; McClatchy News report; Global Research report. Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons. Which opposition? Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government? Has your administration independently and categorically dismissed the reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state newspaper? Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized? Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels? Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents? Further reading: Global Research report; Wall Street Journal* article; Reuters story; Zaman story (in Turkish -- see Google translate from Turkish to English); Atlantic Sentinel story; AP story* Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad's conventional weapons were insufficient to secure "large portions of Damascus"? Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on? Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not? If, on August 21st a "regime element" was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense? Further reading: McClatchy report; Brown Moses blog Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad's brother personally ordered the attack? Who made the determination that Assad's brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source? Further reading: here Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release? Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively? Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated? Based upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an hour and a half later? Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels -- unintentionally? Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks. Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas? If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion? What is the source of the government's analysis? If the rockets were being tracked via "geospatial intelligence," what were the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination locations? Further reading: FAIR.org report Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate? Further reading: McClatchy report Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack? Further reading: FAIR.org report Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack Will you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature of the conversation allegedly intercepted? What is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source? Have you determined the transcripts' authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake? Was the "senior official," whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad's government? How was he "familiar" with the offensive? Through a surprised acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts! Was he an intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he "confirmed" chemical weapons were used by the regime? Who made the assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st? What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were "directed to cease operations"? Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals? Does the transcript indicate whether the operations they were "directed to cease" were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks? Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim? Do you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which link the CW attack directly to President Assad? Who are the intelligence officials who made the assessment -- are they U.S. intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S. source? Further reading: FAIR.org report and AP story; Washington Post* editorial* Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack Please release all intelligence and military assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack. Who made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals? How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear? Further reading: here The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, not in closed sessions where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We've been there before. It's called Iraq. Visit Dennis Kucinich's website at www.KucinichAction.com This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 5:45:04 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 85487

Could the Creepy Orwellian Vibe at MSNBC Possibly Get Any Creepier? Posted on \| September 6, 2013 \| 26 Comments Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters notices that MSNBC’s Facebook page is basically publishing pro-Obama propaganda memes: Ace of Spades highlighted this, and I was tempted to write an entire post explaining how MSNBC has maneuvered itself into its current bizarre predicament as The Bomb Syria Now Network. I Watch MSNBC So You Don’t Have To™ and I can report that it’s Crazyville over there nowadays. Viewers must find themselves waxing nostalgic for the calm and reasoned voice of Keith Olbermann. The other day, I saw Andrea Mitchell interview Bill Kristol on MSNBC and, if you have any memory at all, you know that Kristol was the Evil Neo-Con Liberals Hated Even More Than Karl Rove during the Bush era. This morning, I woke up early and caught the 4 a.m. replay of Rachel Maddow, and she was so rabidly pro-war you half-expected her to break out into the “Patton” monologue: Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight — wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. What the hell has happened to MSNBC? Like I said, I was tempted to write an entire post explaining it, but then I decided to save that for a Monday column at The American Spectator. But having unfairly teased readers with this idea, now I’ll let you guys help me write the column. (Future headline at Media Matters: “Right-Wing Blogger Plagiarizes His Commenters.”) One of the texts by which I intend to analyze MSNBC is this 2003 item, “An Evening With Eric Alterman.” See where I’m going with this one? Share you insights in the comments. Link your research. Make it easier for me to write that column. theothermccain.com

To: koan who wrote (52960)	9/6/2013 5:46:17 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

MSNBC's ads for Baldwin's show are out: No doubt, gay rights, diversity and tolerance will be an early topic of the Baldwin show: As will an exploration of the left’s call for a new civility in the wake of the horrific incident in Arizona in early 2011. As Baldwin himself asked at the Huffington Post in January of that year: Oh, and speaking of the Huffington Post, Baldwin will be relying on his previous experience there and the goodwill he built up with its readership to help bring in potential viewers to his ratings-starved new network: The actor turned blogger turned newsreader promises keen insights into the men who shape our times: In short, Baldwin really is a great addition to the MSNBC lineup. Or as Jim Treacher asks today, “ Is Alec Baldwin now the sanest member of the MSNBC lineup?”