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: Rascal who wrote (43784)	9/13/2002 6:45:07 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's called a teleprompter. Here's an image from google: teleprompter.com.mx . There seems to be a more common type (at least from the images) that goes directly over the camera, so the talking head can look really sincere on the tube.

To: Rascal who wrote (43784)	9/14/2002 2:00:13 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Without speechwriters and a teleprompter, Bush's extemporaneous speeches might otherwise sound like this compilation of his quotes: by George W. Bush "I think we all agree, the past is over. Vulcanize society!This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses. They misunderestimate me. I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.Knock down the tollbooth!Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! I wonder how many hands I have shaked?"

To: Rascal who wrote (43784)	9/14/2002 4:28:02 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Measured Pace on Iraq Editorial The New York Times September 14, 2002 Now that President Bush has outlined his strategy for dealing with Iraq, there will be a strong temptation at the White House to press ahead at warp speed in the United Nations and Congress. Mr. Bush was already sounding impatient yesterday, just a day after his address to the U.N. Unless the president has evidence indicating that Iraq is on the brink of fabricating nuclear weapons, he would be well advised to give the Security Council and Congress ample time to deliberate. He will only undermine support for his policy if he tries to stampede everyone into action. The president made a compelling case in his U.N. speech on Thursday for eliminating Iraq's unconventional weapons and insisting that Baghdad comply with the Security Council's longstanding disarmament orders. The combination of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, especially his effort to produce nuclear weapons, and Iraq's brazen defiance of the Security Council represent a serious threat to international order. Mr. Bush, however, did not show that immediate action was warranted. If anything, information provided in recent days by administration officials about the Iraqi nuclear program suggests that Baghdad has a considerable way to go before it can produce the fissile material needed to make nuclear bombs. Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be doing just fine yesterday in rounding up foreign support for a tough new Security Council resolution on Iraq. Russia, one of five nations that wield a veto on the Security Council, warned Iraq that it must abide by the council's directives, an indication that Moscow may eventually support the Bush policy. Driving Moscow to make up its mind instantly is likely to create resistance in the Kremlin. That is equally true for other hesitant members, including China and France. The president's speech drew widespread praise in Congress but no consensus on how to respond. Two Republican senators, Trent Lott and John McCain, say Mr. Bush should get immediate backing for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Democrats seem inclined to be supportive, but do not want to be pushed into voting before they have a chance to hold hearings and debate the matter fully. Absent a clear and immediate threat, decisions about whether to go to war ought not to be made in haste. Questions about the administration's plans should not be equated with lack of sympathy for the objective of confronting Iraq. Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, has said that in securing a Congressional resolution backing force, it would be helpful if the administration described its plans for governing Iraq if Saddam Hussein is ousted and explained how a military conflict in Iraq would affect the worldwide war against terrorism. After the Sept. 11 attacks last year, Mr. Bush did an impressive job of rallying the nation to combat terrorism. If he expects to gain domestic and foreign backing for dealing with Iraq, he will need to treat Congress and the U.N. Security Council as partners and not as mere compliant bodies that can be bludgeoned into acting. nytimes.com

To: Rascal who wrote (43784)	9/14/2002 5:37:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Public responsible for foreign policy By Constance Hilliard Op/Ed - USA TODAY Fri Sep 13, 7:34 AM ET Until the past week or so, I was deeply disturbed by political rumors that Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were angling to rid the Bush administration of Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of the most adept and experienced diplomats of our times. But I've now changed my mind. Maybe it is indeed time for Powell to step down, to put some distance between himself and this White House, which simply may not deserve his singular talents or understand the gifts of perspective and balance he brings to our foreign-policy apparatus. Powell, who favors international coalition-building and multilateral action, has made new allies for America. He has been the principal voice in this administration arguing against the long-term efficacy of military solutions either to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis or to our own ''war on terrorism.'' Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney possesses Powell's diplomatic skills or the larger worldview required to win friends among nations whose populations look different and think differently than they do. Whatever the outcome of this political wrangling at the top, in a democracy it is the American public, not the president's advisers, that bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of our foreign policy. If I have learned anything of enduring value from the 9/11 tragedy it is that, like it or not, we will almost certainly be held hostage to our foreign-policy failures. Hawkish posturing may entertain a certain political segment of the public. But it will not make the world a more peaceful place or our homeland more secure. I've been disappointed to see many Americans retreat into mindless, Stars-and-Stripes jingoism rather than explore the foreign-policy issues exploding all around us. To make matters worse, the views the public does have are often measured by simpleton polls. Not surprisingly, for instance, a majority of Americans respond ''yes'' when asked: ''Should Saddam Hussein be removed from office?'' The results would be far different were the more realistic question asked: ''Would you, as an American citizen, be willing to accept your fair share of the responsibility for the choice of a military over a political solution if war with Iraq led to that nation's disintegration into new rogue states, each with its own terrorist agenda and American civilians as its bull's-eye?'' ________________________________________________________ Constance Hilliard is an associate history professor at the University of North Texas, Denton. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Rascal who wrote (43784)	9/14/2002 6:38:44 AM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So I looked at Bush UN speech again, checked his eyes and head moves even more carefully, and I still fail to see where the hell he could be reading from! His eyes never go below "speaker's horizon line" by more than twenty degrees. They never stopped on the same spot a few times. He was looking at people, many people... even better than what Clinton used to do. Please provide some proof, because I'd hate to be under the impression that you'd want to "shatter another of my images" because he has a political signature...