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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (241708)	3/25/2002 12:22:29 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Remember this one? . Is Brock now actually claiming that there was NEVER ANY corruption with the use of state troopers and other officials in the Arkansas state government ?? David Brock: The troopers were not credible sources - therefore it's difficult to know what the truth was. Unbeknownst to me, the troopers were paid to talk to me by one of Newt Gingrich's money men. Later, when they were placed under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case, two of the troopers took back everything they told me. Of course not! because Scaife didn't spend $300 million publicising the truth about the case. You guys are such easy marks. TP

To: John Carragher who wrote (241708)	3/25/2002 12:50:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

RICHARD C. HOLBROOKE on a Gore Administration Foreign Policy: nytimes.com Q - During the first few months of the war in Afghanistan, a lot of people, including Democrats, said that they were surprised to find themselves feeling grateful that Bush had won, because no Democratic administration would have prosecuted this war as well as his administration has. Is there anything to that? A - I've heard that from people, but I reject it completely. First of all, the military leadership in this country was essentially the same group of senior officers that served the previous administration. The military budget was the budget submitted by the Clinton administration. On the military side, I think any President would have responded the same way. And we can win any military victory at any time at any place against any enemy in the world. But the true test of a military action is the peace that follows it. Right now, because of the strict limits that the Pentagon has placed on the international peacekeeping force -- 5,000 troops, no Americans, limited only to the capital city of Kabul -- the country is in extreme danger of falling back into the hands of warlords and drug lords and terrorists. And if this happens, Afghanistan will once again become a sanctuary for attacks against the United States. Q - So what advice would you offer to those in power now? A - We should apply what we learned in the Balkans to Afghanistan. But there are some people in Washington right now who are so hostile on a visceral level to what was done in the Clinton administration that they haven't looked at the successes of that time. This was particularly evident in the Middle East, where they thought the president was too engaged, so they decided to be unengaged. Would the deterioration of the situation have occurred had the United States been more actively involved? I can't say, but it's hard to imagine the situation being more dangerous than it is today. Q - Has the administration taken this military victory as a sign that it can afford to go it alone in general? A - There are people in the administration who have made strange noises -- atonal noises -- that have a unilateralist component. If there are people who hold these views, they will come up against the harsh reality of the world, which is that not even the U.S. can go it alone.