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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31917)	6/9/2002 6:06:44 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

And this time around the president's trusted political adviser, Karl Rove, and defense secretary, Don Rumsfeld, are against any high-profile U.S. initiative, arguing that Yasir Arafat is just another terrorist, and that the real key to turning back anti-Americanism in the Middle East is changing the regime in Iraq. In a region where raw power is revered above all else, they argue, that's what would really secure U.S. strategic interests. I agree that raw power is revered. I also think that a move will be made against Hussein next year, but I do not rank Bush with Truman by any measure. Bush is an oilman and politician. He will protect economic interests, which is, after all the rhetoric, similar to what the Saudis aim for. Going after Iraq in 2003 makes sense; he can skip a lot of campaigning while playing Commander-in-chief. But if he were Truman, he'd be targeting Pakistani nuclear installations well before taking out Hussein. Why? Because Al Qaeda is making mischief in Pakistan and 10s of millions of lives hang in the balance of that MAD hotspot. Compared to that, the Palestinians are a trifle. Bush has yet to show enough gumption to be Truman's waterboy, never mind being on the same playing field.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31917)	6/9/2002 10:09:44 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Where the Buck Stops By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Fairly good Friedman column. A little too cutsey with the Truman comparisons, the contemporary parallels with Truman's divided advice, etc. But the point is made. Looks as if the Bush folk are still stuck in some sort of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. We'll see if those disputes get settled. And if Bush picks the right path. Speaking of the "right", the Times has an interesting article on Ralph Reed's attempts to pull Jewish support for Israel from the Democratic party. In that light, Friedman's comment in his column about the political loyalties of Jewish leaders moving toward Bush, versus the loyalties of the non leadership staying with the Dems was kind of interesting. It was just a passing observation but was there.