SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: tejek who wrote (174932)9/5/2003 10:00:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu
   of 807580
 
Ted, Davis asking for help from Clinton is a sign that Clinton's fortunes are turning. He was not nearly the loser that some people tried to make him out to be. He's a brilliant man with a lot to offer.

Clinton's fortunes never really fell off that far. Even during the Lewinsky scandal, he enjoyed strong and steady approval ratings.

Oh my God, where have you been? He has been the butt of so many jokes. I have never seen someone so trashed. And if you still doubt it, read back some of the posts from last year on this thread.

I was talking about the feminists, not the "vast right-wing conspiracy." The very groups who represent women taken advantage of stayed silent when one of their own commits the very sins they crusade against.

It doesn't matter whether the VRWC was already denouncing Clinton at the top of their lungs. The feminist groups stayed silent not because they felt the VRWC was speaking for them, but because they had politically liberal agendas to pursue.

The protests against Ah-nuld are yet more examples of this double-standard. And pointing out the protests of the VRWC during the Lewinsky scandal is irrelevant.

Tenchusatsu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (174931)9/5/2003 10:41:36 PM
From: Jim McMannis
   of 807580
 
Seems like the big difference between Arnold and Clinton is that Clinton was doing it while he was married and in office.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Alighieri who wrote (174933)9/6/2003 2:38:42 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
"It was good for morale," said Major Josslyn Alberle, a spokeswoman for the Fourth Infantry Division headquartered at the palace.

Good for morale? Yeah, I'm sure ole Rummie was a big morale booster. Major Jossie needs to get a clue!

ted

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Alighieri who wrote (174933)9/6/2003 2:41:32 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
Published on Friday, September 5, 2003 by the Daily Mirror/UK


What If We'd Never Gone To War With Iraq?
by Jonathan Freedland

WHAT if the war on Iraq had never happened? What if America and Britain had stepped up to the brink last March, peered over the edge, only to pull back at the very last moment?

Let's say George Bush had been persuaded to give the United Nations inspectors what they wanted: more time.

The British and American soldiers had been told to stand by; the bombs had stayed in their bays.

How different would our world have been? Whose lives would be better, whose worse? Who would still be here, and who would have gone?

Start at the obvious place: Iraq itself.

That statue of Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad's Paradise Square would still be standing, as tall and imposing as ever - and no one would know that, on the inside, it was completely hollow.

The people of Iraq would still be living under Saddam's murderous tyranny.

Those who dared to speak out would lose their tongues, if not their lives.

But the electricity would still be working, and so would the running water and sewers.

There would be no freedom, no marches in the street, no rallies at the mosques. But there would be order.

Those who kept their heads down and their mouths shut could at least count on life's basic services.

The country would be under dictatorship, but not anarchy.

Iraq's National Museum would still contain its priceless collection of mankind's oldest treasures, remnants from the very birth of civilization.

No looters would have broken the glass cases and hauled off Baghdad's ancient wonders for sale on the international market.

THE United Nations building in the capital would still be intact, along with the Jordanian Embassy and the Imam Ali shrine at Najaf, one of Islam's holiest sites.

The UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello would still be alive and so would Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, the leader Iraq's Shi'ites revered more than any other.

The country would not be a magnet for radical Islamist terrorists, said to be flocking from across the Arab world to take shots at the great American infidel: there would be no US occupation to "resist".

Saddam would still be in charge, cracking down on any hint of al-Qaeda activity within his borders - regarding the organization as a threat to his own rule.

Hans Blix would still be around, irritating his Iraqi hosts with his daily requests to snoop and probe every factory and laboratory in the country.

The Iraqis would bob and weave, of course, but with the threat of force hanging over them, they would co-operate, no matter how grudgingly.

Whatever program Saddam once had to devise weapons of mass destruction would now be on hold: thanks to Blix, Saddam couldn't organize a fireworks display, let alone build a nuke, without the world knowing about it. His hands would be tied.

The United Nations would declare that the beast of Baghdad was not dead - but firmly locked in his cage.

In the United States, the landscape would look just as different. George Bush would have shocked his right wing by giving in to the people they regard as whining, limp-wristed, European pinkos. By going through the UN, and delaying war, he would have broken the go-it-alone, gung-ho stance that is holy writ for muscular Republicans.

ONE of that faction - say, Congressman Tom "The Hammer" DeLay - would now be preparing to challenge Bush for the Republican nomination in next year's presidential election.

Donald Rumsfeld would have resigned, along with all the civilian hawks that rule America's defense department. The hardline vice-president Dick Cheney would have quit, too, citing "ill health".

The new star of the administration would be the man who always wanted to give diplomacy more time, the Secretary of State Colin Powell.

He would not be planning to quit next year, as he is now, but lining up to serve as vice-president in the next Bush team. Powell and Bush would be hailed as statesmen everywhere but on the American right. French shopkeepers would hang posters of Bush in the window: bravo to the man who stopped war.

In Britain, impersonators would no longer cast the American president as a simpleton with a monkey walk: he would be hailed as a man of reason and restraint, the greatest US leader since John F Kennedy.

Public opinion in the US would be right behind him, with the polls steady rather than sliding, as they are now.

AMERICANS would have been cheered to see the resources now in Iraq directed instead against al-Qaeda.

With Baghdad safely contained, the US would have concentrated all its might on the hunt for Osama bin-Laden. International allies, anxious to reward Washington for its moderation on Iraq, would have given unprecedented levels of co-operation, leading to success after success in the real war on terror - the campaign to find and capture the killers of al-Qaeda.

Who knows, Bin-Laden himself might be behind bars by now.

If he were, Bush's re-election in 2004 would be safe - with none of those daily headlines about US casualties in Iraq to threaten it. And here in Britain, Tony Blair would look a different man. His determination to stay close to Bush would have paid off: he could claim credit for holding back the US president and averting war. In Europe, he would be a lion among leaders, at the heart of the European Union at last.

By now, he would be launching the Yes campaign for a referendum on the euro.

"Trust me," he could say, and no one would laugh in his face.

AFTER all, he had not gone to war on false pretences. Instead, he had stuck to his word. He had always said that he would be reluctant to go to war without UN backing and - since that backing never came - he had kept the troops at home.

He would style himself as a leader strong enough to influence the world's sole superpower, but humble enough to listen to his people.

They had opposed a war on Iraq, and their voices had been heard.

The Conservatives would be itching to brand him weak - "He threatened force and chickened out" - but they would not find it easy.

After all, if Blair had been weak, then so had Bush - and no Tory wants to badmouth a Republican president.

Iain Duncan Smith wouldn't know what to say.

Blair would be cruising towards a third election victory and all IDS could do is watch.

Alastair Campbell would have gone six months ago.

With no Iraq crisis to manage, he could have quit at a time of his choosing.

By now his diaries would be in the shops, just in time to be a big hit at the Labour party conference later this month.

There, Blair would be feted by activists who had learned to fall in love with their leader all over again.

Lord Hutton would be in his study, poring over law books, weighing up grave, but obscure cases - and almost nobody would have heard of him.

DAVID Kelly would have been announced as a senior member of Hans Blix's on-going inspection team in Iraq, applying his phenomenal expertise to the task of keeping Saddam's hands out of the WMD jar.

After that stint, he would have confidently looked forward to his reward. Most people would not know his name, but those who did would know it as Sir David Kelly.

And somewhere in West Yorkshire, 32-year-old Samantha Roberts would be preparing for a weekend at home with her husband, Steven.

The sergeant from the Royal Tank Regiment would not have been killed at Al Zubayr while trying to calm a civilian riot on the fifth day of the conflict in March.

Tomorrow he would be tinkering with the car or maybe watching a game of rugby.

With autumn underway, maybe he and Samantha would be making plans for Christmas.

But that's not how things turned out, is it?

Jonathan Freedland is a columnist for The Guardian

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Alighieri who wrote (174934)9/6/2003 2:56:21 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
<font color=orange> Here it comes........the spinmeister is getting ready to set us up again. First he'll start with this speech on Sunday, saying how proud he is of our brave soldiers but that they need help. With the encouragement of Mr. Powell, he will say he is going hat in hand to ask for help from the UN for our brave troops.

The speech after this one he'll tell us those mean, bad Frenchmen and Krauts turned us down again and that we'll have to spend hundreds of billions and do it ourselves without the help of anyone. In the background, you'll catch the first strains of "God Bless America".........as Mr. Bush finishes his speech, and that will take a while cause you know how he forgets what he wants to say......then the music will begin to build until all you hear is the music. There won't be a dry eye in the house or the nation.

Of course, Bush will fail to point out that the nations of the UN were expected to help with no participation in the planning or administration of the plan to rebuild Iraq nor will there be any rewards for their labor other than to tell their people they did a good thing!

You should have heard them thurs. nite on FOX........they couldn't stop running the French down. Dang......Hannity, O Reilly, Coulter etc.......they're an ugly, ornery bunch!<font color=black>

ted



**********************************************************

Bush To Address the Nation on Iraq



WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - President Bush will address the nation Sunday night about Iraq amid growing U.S. casualties and criticism about his handling of the war against terrorism.

The last time Bush made such a speech was on May 1 when he landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

Since then, the president has not spelled out how much rebuilding Iraq will cost, how long U.S. troops will have to be stationed there or what happened to the alleged weapons of mass destruction that the administration said Saddam Hussein had.

Bush will speak from the White House at 8:30 p.m. EDT for about 15 minutes, officials said. His address will cap an administration media blitz Sunday; Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will appear earlier on Sunday television talk shows.

The president, in a speech in Indianapolis on Friday, acknowledged that continuing military operations in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism were aggravating the federal budget deficit, which is approaching a record $500 billion.

But he said, ``This nation will spend what it takes to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.''

``My attitude is, anytime we put our troops in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best training and the best possible equipment,'' he said.

``We must never forget the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001, a sobering reminder that oceans no longer can protect us from forces of evil who can't stand what America stands for,'' Bush said.

L. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator in Baghdad, told Iraqis on Friday that the United States ``does not like being an occupying power. Like you, we have wives and husbands and mothers and fathers and children with whom we would prefer to be.''

``We want to go home as soon as possible,'' Bremer said in an address prepared for broadcast in Iraq. But he said the United States had to maintain order until Iraqis can run their own government. In the meantime, he urged Iraqis to help authorities identify and arrest ``the saboteurs and terrorists who are trying to disrupt this process.

``These criminals will not succeed but their campaigns of murder, sabotage and destruction can slow this process.''

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush would talk to Americans on Sunday about the war on terrorism ``and update them on the progress we are making.''

``Iraq is now a central part in the war on terrorism,'' McClellan said. ``And the world has a stake in what is going on, the world has a stake in helping the Iraqi people realize a better future, realize a free and democratic society. The world has a stake in confronting the terrorists that have come into Iraq.''

White House officials said they had requested time from the major networks for the speech and were awaiting responses.

In Indianapolis with Bush, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Bush will give ``an extraordinarily important speech to the nation on Sunday night about Iraq, sketching out the dimensions of our possibilities and our leadership.''

``It will be an extraordinary event and he is ready to do it. He has the plans and he has the support of Hoosiers,'' Lugar told a GOP fund-raiser.

The address will come three days after Democratic candidates for president, at a debate in Albuquerque, N.M., said Bush has unnecessarily put U.S. troops in danger and split the United States from its allies.

As of Friday, 287 Americans had died in Iraq, 149 since Bush declared the end to major combat operations.

Some of the harshest criticism has come from Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who said in the debate, ``This president is a miserable failure.''

In his address, Bush is not expected to announce any troop redeployment, a senior administration official said. The administration, in a change of course, has reached out to the United Nations to encourage other nations to send peacekeeping forces to Iraq.

However, France and Germany have balked, saying the United States is not offering to give the United Nations a big enough role in Iraq's security and reconstruction.

Another major question is how much the Iraq operation will cost the United States. The administration has been unwilling to pinpoint a figure, though estimates have ranged between $60 billion to $80 billion or higher.

The White House said the address was not a response to criticism about U.S. casualties. McClellan cast the speech as a chance for the president to ``talk to the American people about our ongoing war on terrorism with a particular focus on our efforts in Iraq. ... The president believes this is a good time to talk to the American people.''

The address also comes at time when the United States is trying to have the United Nations take a greater role in postwar military and economic efforts in Iraq.

``Iraq is something the world has a stake in,'' McClellan said.

He said the address springs from discussions that Bush had with members of his national security team who visited his Texas ranch last month.

McClellan would not say whether Bush would answer rising calls from lawmakers and Democratic presidential candidates for him to specify the likely costs ahead in dollars and lives.

09/05/03 21:21 EDT

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Alighieri who wrote (174935)9/6/2003 3:08:13 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
Hilarious!! I always wondered what the W stood for! LOL!

ted

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (174936)9/6/2003 3:19:34 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
Ted, Davis asking for help from Clinton is a sign that Clinton's fortunes are turning. He was not nearly the loser that some people tried to make him out to be. He's a brilliant man with a lot to offer.

Clinton's fortunes never really fell off that far. Even during the Lewinsky scandal, he enjoyed strong and steady approval ratings.


I am unclear why you are arguing this point......if his ratings didn't falter, his image certainly did. When he was offered $100k to speak after leaving office, the media was all over it, closely followed by the GOP; complaining that it wasn't worth ten dollars to hear Clinton speak, let alone $100k. For several years, he couldn't get arrested. Why you're pretending otherwise is beyond me.

Oh my God, where have you been? He has been the butt of so many jokes. I have never seen someone so trashed. And if you still doubt it, read back some of the posts from last year on this thread.

I was talking about the feminists, not the "vast right-wing conspiracy." The very groups who represent women taken advantage of stayed silent when one of their own commits the very sins they crusade against.


Like I said, he has that effect on women......that's why the rapist handle by you know who is a bit suspect. There is a woman journalist here in Seattle that is an ardent feminist and an all around hard ass. She has been very critical of Clinton and his behavior with Monica. However, when he came to town, she was giddy like a school girl and admitted she was blown away after he spoke. He's a charmer and women can't seem to resist him.

It doesn't matter whether the VRWC was already denouncing Clinton at the top of their lungs. The feminist groups stayed silent not because they felt the VRWC was speaking for them, but because they had politically liberal agendas to pursue.

Yes, its all a left wing conspiracy. I should have known. ;~)

The protests against Ah-nuld are yet more examples of this double-standard. And pointing out the protests of the VRWC during the Lewinsky scandal is irrelevant.

The major obstacle between Arnold and Sacramento is the Latino vote, not the woman vote. You need to figure out if he has enough votes to get around the Latinos in CA. That's the key!

ted

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Duncan Baird who started this subject9/6/2003 3:24:09 AM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
asia.reuters.com




Russia Says U.S. Draft on Iraq Needs Serious Work
Fri September 5, 2003 09:54 AM ET

By Shamil Baigin

TASHKENT (Reuters) - Russia joined old anti-war allies France and Germany on Friday in rejecting a U.S. draft resolution seeking broader international help in post-war Iraq, saying it needed "further, very serious work."

But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the draft did go some way to meeting concerns that the United Nations would play a central role in solving Iraq's problems.

"The U.S. draft resolution shows some movement toward these principles," he said at a regional cooperation meeting in Uzbekistan in Central Asia.

"But, naturally, for them to be reflected fully, this document still needs further, very serious work."

He urged the United States to address itself to the fact the situation in Iraq was deeply troubled.

"In this respect, one cannot but express surprise at statements made by some Washington officials that life in Iraq is returning to normal and becoming better virtually day by day," he said.

"One should not be misled -- the situation in Iraq is becoming not better, but worse day by day."

The United States, facing mounting losses among its forces, began pressing this week for the adoption of a new resolution encouraging other countries to contribute troops and money to postwar reconstruction efforts.

But French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder rejected the proposal on Thursday, saying it did not hand enough responsibility to Iraqis or the United Nations. Chirac said they were "very, very far removed" from an acceptable draft.

Both leaders, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, denounced the drive to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, launched without backing from the U.N. Security Council.

Schroeder said in Prague on Friday the resolution offered "certain movement" toward an acceptable text, but added: "We still have to see what the resolution will mean concretely."

CLEAR U.N. ROLE

German government spokesman Bela Anda said Berlin wanted "a clear and comprehensive role for the U.N. in the shaping of the future of Iraq" and more details on "the transition to Iraqi self-government with the goal of a restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty as quickly as possible."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told the daily Le Figaro Paris wanted a rapid handover of civil and financial control to the provisional Iraqi administration now headed by U.S. diplomat Paul Bremer and quick elections.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, also attending the Tashkent meeting, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying the U.S. draft was "a basis for discussion and consultation" and Beijing was ready for talks on the matter.

China, like France and Russia a veto-wielding member of the Security Council, has been relatively mild in its criticism of U.S. postwar reconstruction plans.

Though firm in opposing the war, Putin has since sought to avoid jeopardizing the anti-terror alliance forged with Washington after the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. targets.

Putin, who will hold a summit with President Bush at Camp David outside Washington at the end of September, has said Moscow would back the dispatch of a U.N.-sponsored force to Iraq, even under U.S. command.

Ivanov says Russia has not made up its mind about whether it will contribute troops to such a force.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: tejek who wrote (174942)9/6/2003 3:59:30 AM
From: Tenchusatsu
   of 807580
 
Ted, The major obstacle between Arnold and Sacramento is the Latino vote, not the woman vote. You need to figure out if he has enough votes to get around the Latinos in CA. That's the key!

Latinos are almost 1/3 of the CA population, but only 20% of the vote. What's the point of chasing after just 1/5 of the electorate, most of whom are firmly behind Bustamante anyway?

Tenchusatsu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Alighieri who wrote (174935)9/6/2003 12:12:27 PM
From: tejek
   of 807580
 
<font color=green> Can you believe this...........70% of Americans still believe there is a connection bettween al Qaeda and Saddam. Actually, that should read.........that's what they want to believe. Absurd! <font color=black>

ted




**********************************************



Poll: Many Believe in Saddam, 9/11 Link




WASHINGTON (Sept. 6) - Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaida. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A Time magazine/CNN poll released Saturday said most Americans - 71 percent - believe the United States has done a good job in Iraq since the end of major fighting, while 26 percent said it has done a poor job.

Sixty-three percent said the nation was right in going to war in Iraq and 32 percent said it was wrong. But the Time/CNN poll found Americans more closely split on whether the military action was worth the price in America lives, taxpayer dollars and other costs - 49 percent said yes, 43 percent no and 8 percent were unsure.

The poll also found Bush's approval down to 52 percent, from 63 percent in May.

The Time/CNN survey of 1,003 adults was taken Sept. 3-4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

AP-NY-09-06-03 0701EDT

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.