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

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2179)	10/2/2002 2:09:25 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 3959

moron what a 2 buzzwords can do for you, LOL before I introduced you to them (DU) you still would be calling those du-tipped shells as thermonuclear devices <gggggggg>

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2179)	10/2/2002 4:24:52 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 3959

Misunderstanding the Rice doctrine By Walter Russell Mead Published: October 1 2002 20:53 \| Last Updated: October 1 2002 20:53 In the US and abroad, the consensus view of the Bush administration's foreign policy is twofold. First, it is shaped by a conflict between the liberal multilateralism of Colin Powell, secretary of state, and the conservative unilateralism of Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence. Second, it constitutes a radical departure from the foreign policy of past administrations. Wrong on both counts. Despite the public disagreements between the Pentagon and the State Department, the most striking thing about this administration's foreign policy is its intellectual consistency. The ideas that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, outlined in a Foreign Affairs article in 2000 shape the administration's foreign policy today. In particular, Ms Rice laid down an approach to multilateralism versus unilateralism to which the administration has returned at every important moment since - and that forms the basis of the new US national security strategy. Ms Rice's article rejected the liberal multilateralism espoused by Woodrow Wilson as a basis for US foreign policy. The US must not, she warned, forget the pursuit of its national interest in a grand quest for the common interests of a global world order. This did not mean that the US should act as a Lone Ranger. The key would be to manage relationships with the Great Powers - notably Russia and China - to achieve key US goals. Organisations such as the United Nations should neither be dismissed nor seen as embryonic global governing bodies. To convinced Wilsonians in the US and elsewhere, this sounds like a repudiation of the goal of a liberal international order. What most observers miss is that Ms Rice's position is not new. Wilson wanted the League of Nations to become the core of a global governing body with the power to issue orders to national governments; that is perhaps the key reason why the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles. During the cold war, no US government ever accepted the idea that it needed UN approval for enterprises ranging from the Vietnam war to the invasion of Grenada. A lack of Russian support on the Security Council did not stop the Clinton administration from attacking Yugoslavia over Kosovo. The Bush administration, like its predecessors, rejects the Wilsonian approach to supranational institutions but supports the remaining core principles of liberal internationalism. Why does such a traditional and conservative foreign policy - very much in the mainstream of US thinking throughout the 20th century - strike so many intelligent observers as a dangerous and radical deviation? The key is September 11 2001, which touched off a popular response comparable with the wave of patriotic fury that swept through the US after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The eruption of a new type of mass terrorist threat led the administration to formulate a doctrine of pre-emption that naturally unsettled much of the international community. Pre-emption is not a new idea. Nor is it uniquely American. Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada and Lyndon Johnson's of the Dominican Republic were pre-emptive strikes, as was Winston Churchill's attack on the French fleet in 1940. Normally, a US president announcing such a bold - if incremental - change in US foreign policy would spend months developing a consensus among allies. He would wrap the message in warm and fuzzy talk designed to reassure the country's partners. But George W. Bush does not have the option; US voters want decisive action. Rhetoric aside, US policy remains well within the postwar consensus. Like his father before him, Mr Bush has said he will pursue US interests over Iraq whatever the UN Security Council says - but has also approached both the UN and Congress before taking military action. Despite tough rhetoric, US policies toward Russia and China continue to reflect Ms Rice's commitment to managing those relationships with great care. Military partnerships with Nato and Japan remain the cornerstone of security thinking. Under Mr Bush, the US has paid its UN dues and increased its foreign aid budget. It is both rejoining Unesco and deferring to its European allies over the timing of any US pull-out from the Balkans. No US president has been as decisive and clear as he has about the need for a democratic Palestinian state with secure boundaries. Ms Rice's doctrine of realist multilateralism may not be an inspiring rallying cry and many legitimate and helpful criticisms of it can no doubt be made. But the policy, whatever its faults, is neither rudderless nor radical. Until the critics grasp that, they will continue to have little impact. The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations news.ft.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2179)	10/2/2002 8:35:05 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Congressional traitors Joseph Farah October 2, 2002 In another time, in a similar situation, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., would be indicted for high treason and face the death penalty for the stunt they pulled in Baghdad this week. It would be justice if they received a capital sentence. "I think the president would mislead the American people," said McDermott from Baghdad. He suggested the U.S. is trying to "provoke a war." He said our country has "put a gun to the head of Saddam." Bonior said Iraqi officials have assured them that weapons inspectors will have unrestricted ability to go wherever they want. They promised! They said this while on foreign soil. They said this in a television interview from Baghdad. They said this under the sponsorship of Saddam Hussein. They said this with malice aforethought. They did all of this for no other reason than political benefit. A third congressman, Mike Thompson, D-Calif., wasn't quite so outspoken. He didn't directly denounce the United States on hostile foreign territory. He merely traveled with this pair of immoral misfits and gave aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein along with them. Let me tell you why this is treason. Let me explain why this is the kind of treachery no American should ever forget. Let me tell you why this trio should never again be accepted in polite company and ought to be, at the very least, turned out of their seats in the House of Representatives. On Sept. 11, 2001, this country was viciously attacked without provocation. For a season that was much too short, most Americans rallied together in agreement that such aggression needed to be met by overwhelming force, that the perpetrators of this mass murder needed to be eliminated or captured by any and all means necessary, that the nation would not rest until all those involved had been dealt with once and for all. Just a little more than a year later, the American consensus on these objectives has been broken. Saddam Hussein is morally responsible and culpable for Sept. 11. For years, as Yossef Bodansky and others have documented, he supported Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida in their terrorist plans – even going so far as to provide an airliner they could use to practice skyjacking. Hussein provided money. He provided men. He provided materiel. And he provided bases of operation. People like McDermott and Bonior will tell you that Hussein's interests and bin Laden's simply don't intersect – that Hussein is a secular tyrant and bin Laden is an Islamist zealot. Apparently they thought they had common interests in plotting the demise of America – because that's just what they did for at least a decade before Sept. 11. And that relationship didn't change after Sept. 11, either. In fact, as Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials have begun to point out in recent weeks, al-Qaida terrorist cells are still operating in Iraq with Hussein's approval. They worked together before Sept. 11, and they are still working together. Let's remember why we attacked Afghanistan. There was only one reason. Because the Taliban government was hosting and protecting al-Qaida. There is no difference in Iraq today. And that's why the actions of McDermott and Bonior are beyond despicable, beyond the scope of mere "policy differences," beyond the realm of loyal opposition and dissent in the American tradition. McDermott and Bonior should be shunned by every good American if and when they ever come home. They should be impeached from office. Perhaps they should be sentenced to live in a hellhole like Iraq. This war is not over, folks. It's just beginning. Today WorldNetDaily reports the strong likelihood that al-Qaida is in possession of some 20 suitcase nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. Iraq helped them get some of these weapons. They will be used against us. And if Hussein is allowed to continue in power in Iraq for another decade, he will develop even more deadly weapons with new delivery systems – all designed to be used on the American people. McDermott and Bonior are apologists for Iraq. Iraq is allied with al-Qaida. What does that make McDermott and Bonior to the American people? Enemies. worldnetdaily.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2179)	10/3/2002 9:03:46 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 3959

Dems to Torch: Only crooks who can win Ann Coulter October 2, 2002 Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli's announcement that he was pulling out of the New Jersey Senate race this week looked like a confession of guilt in a Soviet show trial. In the reflection of his dewy eyes, you could almost see Terry McAuliffe mouthing the words to him from the audience. Especially the part where he paid tribute to the great Bill Clinton, to whom Torricelli evidently owes his deeply ingrained sense of ethics. Torricelli will leave public office with just the clothes on his back, a Rolex watch and other assorted jewelry, a TV set, a couple of racks of Italian suits, some Jets tickets, a grandfather clock and three paper sacks filled with small, unmarked bills. But the Democrats had no qualms with the gifted senator (get it?) until he fell behind in the polls. Only then did the call come for Torricelli to withdraw. It had to be done. A woman's right to kill a child is on the line! If Torricelli loses, the Senate could tip to the Republicans, which would be a disaster of unspeakable consequence. Specifically, Democrats will not be able to obstruct the president in performing his constitutional duty to appoint judges. A vacancy on the Supreme Court could materialize and, against overwhelming historical odds, Bush's appointee might be one of five votes to strike down Roe v. Wade. Then – God forbid – the public would be allowed to vote on an important issue! In some of the less-enlightened states, the public might not recognize the fundamental human right to suck the brains out of little babies. Apart from treason, this is all the Democratic Party stands for anymore. Republicans can only marvel at the Democrats' gall and Stalinist party discipline. Vernon Jordan is probably on the phone to Revlon right now trying to get Torricelli that nice job once designated for Monica. If Republicans played like Democrats, President Bush would have offered Torricelli an ambassadorship not to withdraw from the race. The Democrats' 11th-hour switch is in violation of state election law, which puts a 51-day limit on withdrawing from an election. This is not a random filing requirement. Torricelli's Republican opponent, Douglas R. Forrester, has designed an entire campaign – polls, advertisements, issues – on the assumption that he was running against a specific candidate. As soon as his campaign against that candidate began to work and he pulled ahead, Democrats switched the candidate. One may assume that violating the law did not even break the Democrats' stride. The nettlesome part must have been explaining to Torricelli that he was to be replaced by former Sen. Frank Lautenberg – whom Torricelli famously, and not without justice, despises. This entire spectacle is a sham. If Lautenberg is elected, he will resign so that the Democratic governor can appoint a replacement. Torricelli was a place-holder for the campaign, and now Lautenberg will be a place-holder for the election. Democrats wail about every vote counting when they need to steal votes after an election. But in New Jersey they won't even tell the voters who the candidate is. If Democrats could get away with it, they'd claim to be running "Ronald Reagan" in all elections and then fill the seats with the equivalent of James Carville. (Perhaps the Democratic governor could recycle another of his appointees, New Jersey's poet laureate Amiri Baraka, who has been causing a stir lately with poems about how the Jews bombed the World Trade Center.) When Strom Thurmond was approximately 150 years old, the Republicans couldn't get him to resign just two years early to ensure that a Republican governor would appoint his successor. Republicans couldn't even get all Republican senators on board to remove a Democratic president who was a known felon and probable rapist. Meanwhile, not one Democratic senator diverged from the party line on Clinton. Democrats insist that their losing candidates be taken off the ballot 38 days before an election – if that will help them win a majority in Congress. They keep dead candidates on the ballot – if that will help them win a majority in Congress. They put conservative candidates on the ballot in the South and Midwest – if that will help Democrats win a majority in Congress. Two days before Torricelli "decided" to pull out of the New Jersey race, Pasty Mink, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, died of pneumonia. Unlike Torricelli, Mink is evidently irreplaceable. The Democrats have insisted that her name remain on the ballot. It will cost the taxpayers of Hawaii millions of dollars to run a special election if she wins. When Democratic Senate candidate Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash just three weeks before the 2000 election, his wife, Jean, volunteered to be appointed to the seat if he won. Carnahan was behind in the polls before the plane went down, but in an outpouring of sympathy for the grieving widow, the dead man won an upset victory. Now, two years later, the widow is again campaigning on the slogan: "Keep the flame alive." That's considered a good issue in a Senate campaign. Talking about the war is a dirty campaign trick. While Democrats encourage voters to ignore the Democrats' position on the war in the upcoming congressional elections and instead to concentrate on tiny local issues – such as sympathy for the candidate's deceased husband – it is they who have nationalized all congressional elections. As the New Jersey scam proves, it's all about control of Congress. In a gallant statement celebrated as The New York Times' Quote of the Day, Torricelli said: "I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate." He also won't end up on the Clinton death list now either. Nor will Saddam Hussein if Democrats have their way. The only items remaining on the Democrats' death list are honest elections and a million unborn babies. worldnetdaily.com