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: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/1/2002 11:04:07 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

No public official can request, publicly, the assassination of another I'm glad to read this. I was beginning to think propriety, diplomacy, humanity had been declared illegal by Bush through his mouthpiece, Ari.

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/1/2002 11:41:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

No public official can request, publicly, the assassination of another. Oh.. Bush, through Fleischer, just did.. And just because they appear to be "back-tracking" the message was sent... And we won't feel any remorse should someone expend such a bullet. After all, Saddam attempted to kill Bush's father AFTER Desert Storm was over. And I'm sure GWBJr. takes that just as personal as you would were it your father. Again.. Ari likely didn't err in conveying what Bush wanted to convey. The back-tracking is merely plausible deniability.. Hawk

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/2/2002 6:59:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

YOUR POLITICAL PARTIES IN PEACE AND WAR By Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist Sat Sep 28, 2002 richardreeves.com WASHINGTON -- I have a friend who obviously does not like the idea of George W. Bush as president. "Every time he speaks," she said the other day, "I have the feeling that if he says just one more sentence, he will finally reveal what a dope he is." I do not think my leader is a dope. An ignorant zealot perhaps, but not a fool. Then last Monday he did tack on that extra sentence. Speaking in Trenton, N.J., the president said that he needed a congressional resolution for the war on Iraq and he needed it now. "The House has responded," he said, praising the members of the Republican-controlled body of Congress. He could have stopped there, but he didn't. "But the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." The Senate, of course, is controlled by what used to be called the loyal opposition -- now, said the president, they are disloyal, serving those special interests. One "interest," which he did not mention, is organized labor. The president does not want the federal employees shifted into his new Department of Homeland Security to have the right to join unions. It was a mistake, Bush must now know, to have attacked Democrats in the Senate that way, particularly since many of them did what he avoided, that is, fight in a war for their country. The leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Tom Daschle, no veteran, demanded a White House apology in the name of Sen. Daniel Inoyue of Hawaii, a Democrat who lost and arm and won a Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II. The president's mistake was an honest one -- and a revealing one. You don't have to be around this town long to know that Republicans see themselves as more patriotic than Democrats. The president was a cheerleader at Yale and he still is, a real flag-waver, like many other members of both parties. He does, however, have a problem remembering when he should be uniting the country and when he should be dividing it. "Not interested in the security of the American people" is a line that will live in infamy. Apologies are a joke in American politics -- "If I offended anyone, I am truly yada, yada, yada" -- but this time Daschle was right. The president, probably inadvertently, crossed the line in putting Democrats in the same category as Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) or German voters in the you're-either-for-us-or-against-us recesses of his mind and heart. That does not absolve the Democrats of blame in the twisted war debate going on here. Patriotism is not the Democrats' problem. Political cowardice is. Bush and the Republicans are having their way with the Democrats, both in the House and Senate, because the conventional wisdom, backed up by conventional polling data, is that members will lose votes this November if they are seen as insensitive to the White House's pressing need to destroy Saddam Hussein before he ... well, we have not been told convincingly by either side why invading Iraq now should be the government's overriding priority. But whatever is really going on out there, there is political danger for the ducking Democrats. It was amazing to see how heartened members were when their onetime leader, former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites), stood up in San Francisco and actually questioned whether the White House knew what it was doing and whether it had considered the possible consequences, intended and unintended, if we charge into the Middle East. Those Democrats, and some Republicans, too, were thrilled that somebody had actually questioned whether the emperor was wearing any clothes these days. But all that is being said in private. We seem to be stumbling into war, rushing to the dark at the end of the tunnel -- and it is hard to see anybody with a lantern to stand up and make the president explain, in only a few sentences, why taking this bend in the tunnel is so urgent. Why, someone might ask, is this more important than the war on terrorism or domestic economic problems? ___________________________________________________________ RICHARD REEVES, author of President Nixon: Alone in the White House (October 2001), is a writer and syndicated columnist who has made a number of award-winning documentary films. His ninth book, President Kennedy: Profile of Power — now considered the authoritative work on the 35th president — won several national awards and was named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time. His other best selling books include Convention and American Journey: Travelling with Tocqueville in Search of American Democracy. Recipient of the 1998 Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, Reeves writes a twice-weekly column that appears in more than 100 newspapers. He is a former chief political correspondent for The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines, including The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Esquire and New York.

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/2/2002 7:55:59 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JohnM, Now that Saddam has negotiated his way out of unfettered access with the UN, what would you suggest the administration do? John

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/3/2002 9:28:47 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Note to Democrats: Get a Defense Policy By GARY HART Editorial / Op-Ed The New York Times October 3rd, 2002 DENVER — Once again the Democratic Party finds itself on the defensive on defense. Congressional Democrats are responding to a Republican president's initiative, this time in Iraq. And we will continue to be on the defensive until we produce a cohesive foreign policy that spells out our plans for national security and homeland security and describes the circumstances under which American force can be used abroad. The Vietnam era divided the nation but not as severely as it divided the Democratic Party. The party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy still seems incapable, more than 25 years after the war's end, of collectively addressing America's defense posture in coherent and creative ways. Instead, once again, Democrats are responding to a Republican president as individual entrepreneurs trying to protect themselves against the traditional conservative charge of being "soft on defense." For proof of Democratic marginalization on these issues, one need look no further than the polls that consistently show Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats to manage foreign policy and conflict. Though the commitment to national defense should be above partisan advantage, how that commitment is carried out will always divide the parties. If the president is successful in convincing the American people that Iraq is an immediate threat to our security, and the Democrats are simply in opposition, this issue could well decide the Congressional balance of power, propelling Republicans to victory in both the House and the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. There was, and possibly still is, an alternative on Iraq policy. Weeks ago Democrats could have adopted a policy of coercive inspection. This policy would have required United Nations authorization for inspectors, accompanied by a sizeable international military force, to carry out unobstructed and unlimited inspections throughout Iraq. Iraqi resistance, according to the resolution, would have triggered a United States-led military operation to disarm Iraq by force. Thus, any conflict resulting from disarmament of Iraq would be sanctioned by the international community and would not result from unilateral action by the United States. But Iraq is merely the symptom of a deeper problem for Democrats. Conflict is always with us, and to earn national leadership and avoid continued ad hoc scrambling for a position, Democrats must create a national security strategy. We have a history of leadership on these issues. Democratic presidents guided the United States through World War I and World War II. (As a vice-presidential candidate in 1976, Bob Dole famously referred to these, and other less successful ventures, as "Democrat wars.") It wasn't so long ago that Bob Kerrey, Sam Nunn, Al Gore and a few others in Congress sought to produce defense policies that went beyond the robotic endorsement of every weapons system promoted by conservatives. Two decades ago I helped found the military reform caucus in Congress. Belatedly, Republicans are beginning to adopt some elements of the reforms we advocated: the creation of swifter, lighter forces, the cancellation of outdated weapons systems and a defense strategy that acknowledges our vulnerability to attack at home. All these ideas, and more, were available to Democrats two decades ago and could have formed the framework for a positive defense policy. Alas, as a party, Democrats abdicated leadership. Recent speeches by Democratic leaders critical of the current administration have failed to offer a coherent foreign policy alternative to the president's plans. It is not too late for Democrats to dominate the defense debate. Post-cold war defense thinking is still in a muddle and, in the case of the current administration, bellicose and reactive. These ideas of military reform — maneuver warfare, a focus on strategy, advancement of imaginative officers who take initiative on the battlefield, production of quicker, more durable weapons — can form the basis for a 21st-century defense policy. National defense must also fit within the broader context of foreign policy. To this end, Democrats can and must spell out the conditions under which American forces would be deployed to promote peace and protect global security. We can also propose such initiatives as an international peace-making force. And we can show that there are alternatives to the administration's calls for pre-emptive "regime change" — a euphemism for overthrowing governments — and to its aggressive pronouncements that no nation will be permitted to rival us militarily. There are alternatives to Republican-dominated defense thinking generally. But we will not hear them so long as the Democratic Party continues to confine itself to reacting to Republican initiatives and thus continues to shy away from leadership on the security of our nation. On national security, at least as much as on domestic priorities, the American people deserve to know what the Democratic Party is for — and not just what it is against. ________________________________________________________ Gary Hart, a former United States senator, was co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/6/2002 8:59:08 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...The biggest security concern of Americans today is not Iraq or Osama. It's the fear that America itself could be weakened by short-term, greedy decisions, taken by politicians squandering our hard-won surplus or corporate executives squandering our pensions and undermining our markets. And Americans are right to be concerned...>> Anyone Seen Any Democrats Lately? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Columnist The New York Times October 6, 2002 Ever since President Bush took office I've had this feeling that the only serious opposition party in America, at least in foreign policy, was made up of three people, and none of them were Democrats. The only three people Mr. Bush really worries about — the only three people who could take big constituencies with them if they openly parted company with the president on an issue like Iraq — are Colin Powell, Tony Blair and John McCain. What happened to the Democrats? Well, I don't buy their whining that their voices have been cynically drowned out by Mr. Bush's focus on Iraq. The problem with the Democrats is not that they are being drowned out by Iraq. The problem is that the Democrats have nothing compelling to say on all the issues besides Iraq. Iraq is winning control of the agenda by Democratic default, not by Republican design. I spent the last month traveling the country on a book tour, during which I said that what worried me most after 9/11 was what kind of world my girls were going to grow up in. I ran into so many Americans who share that concern. After a talk in Atlanta, one guy came up to me, just opened his wallet and showed me the picture of his daughter. He didn't say a word. The point is that I can assure the Democrats that while Mr. Bush may be obsessed with Iraq, most Americans are worrying about their jobs, the stock market, the environment and the fact that their kids may not grow up in as open and peaceful a world as they did. The biggest security concern of Americans today is not Iraq or Osama. It's the fear that America itself could be weakened by short-term, greedy decisions, taken by politicians squandering our hard-won surplus or corporate executives squandering our pensions and undermining our markets. And Americans are right to be concerned. Because without a strong America holding the world together, and doing the right thing more often than not, the world really would be a Hobbesian jungle. Because I believe that is what is really gnawing at Americans, and because I believe that Mr. Bush is not really addressing this broader concern — but is still running on the momentum of his strong military performance right after 9/11 — there is a leadership opportunity for bold Democrats. But where are they? Where are the Democrats who are ready to argue forcefully that the future tax cuts that Mr. Bush pushed through are utterly reckless and need to be repealed — because they will erode the resources the government needs to remain a Great Power in this age of uncertainty? And they send a terrible signal to our kids, corporate leaders and the world: that all that matters is short-term, me-first gratification. Where are the Democrats who would declare that the best way to enhance our security, make us better global citizens, reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and leave a better planet for our kids is a Manhattan Project to develop a renewable energy source, along with greater conservation? Mr. Bush has totally ignored the longing by young Americans to be drafted for such a grand project to strengthen America. And so, too, have the Democrats. Where are the Democrats who would declare that confronting Saddam is legitimate, but it must not be done without real preparation of the U.S. public? Decapitating Saddam's regime will take weeks. Building Iraq into a more decent state, with a real civil society, will take years. But it is this latter project that is the most important — the one that really gets at the underlying threat from the Middle East, which is its failed states. But do we know how to do such nation re-building, and if we do, do Americans want to pay for it? We need to go in prepared for this task (which is unavoidable if we really intend to disarm Iraq) or stay out and rely instead on more aggressive containment, because halfhearted nation-building always ends badly and would surely weaken us. Why aren't the Democrats clarifying this? At the moment, the Bush team is leading the nation much more by fear than by hope. The Democrats can only win, or only deserve to win, if they can offer a bold alternative. That would be a program for strengthening America based on hope not fear, substance not spin, a program that addresses the primary concern of Americans now: the future for the kids whose pictures they carry around in their wallets. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/7/2002 9:26:13 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ on War in Iraq Iowa: Two possible candidates question a military solution at a party fund-raiser; a third tells the dovish crowd he would back use of force. By RONALD BROWNSTEIN LA TIMES STAFF WRITER October 6, 2002 DES MOINES -- Three likely 2004 Democratic presidential candidates differed over President Bush's policy in Iraq on Saturday night before an audience of influential grass-roots Democratic activists openly skeptical of a second war in the Persian Gulf. At a fund-raising dinner for the Iowa Democratic Party, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean drew sustained applause with sharp questions about the move toward war with Iraq. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has indicated he would support a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, but he alluded only briefly and obliquely to that view in his speech. Iowa is a critical audience for the possible Democratic presidential contenders because its caucus in January 2004 will kick off the race for the party's nomination. Historically, the Democratic activists who participate in the Iowa caucuses have leaned toward dovish positions on national security issues--and that inclination was evident again Saturday night in the applause for the criticism from Kerry and Dean. Kerry repeatedly expressed skepticism about launching an American attack on Iraq without broad international support--though he never explicitly said that he would oppose a resolution authorizing Bush to invade when the Senate votes, probably this week. "I am prepared to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and destroy his weapons of mass destruction," Kerry declared. "I would be willing to be the first to put my uniform back on and go defend this country. But I don't think we should pretend that protecting the security of our nation is defined by turning our back on a century of effort ... to build an international structure of law and to live by those standards." Kerry, citing his experience as a Vietnam veteran, was most impassioned in defending the right of critics to ask questions and dissent from Bush's policy. "We need to understand that you have to ask those questions now, because you don't go to war as a matter of first resort; you go to war as a matter of last resort," he said. Dean, who is already actively seeking the nomination, said he feared that the nation "will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States." And he argued that Bush has not fairly explained to the nation how long American troops may need to be stationed in Iraq after a war. "The president has never said that if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy ... and the president must tell us that before we go," Dean said. He implied that the drive toward war was being fueled by concern over access to oil. "If we had a renewable energy policy in this country," he charged, "we would not be sending kids to die in Iraq." Edwards cited his support for Bush on Iraq only in passing--and muffled it in a charge that the administration was rolling back civil liberties at home. "It is right in my judgment to stand up to Saddam Hussein," Edwards said to notable silence. Then he drew applause when he added: "But it is wrong in the name of war, in the name of the war on terrorism, to let this administration take away our rights." Among the potential 2004 Democratic candidates, Dean has most directly opposed Bush's moves toward war in Iraq. Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore have pointedly questioned Bush's direction, while indicating they could support the use of force under some circumstances. Edwards, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) have said they will back Bush's push for congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. The evening was a testament to the cross pressures facing the potential 2004 Democratic presidential candidates on Iraq. Though polls show the country overall would support military action against Hussein, Democratic partisans have been much more skeptical than other Americans. And in Iowa, which exemplifies the historic Midwestern suspicion of foreign entanglements, those sentiments are probably stronger than elsewhere. Because the state picks its presidential delegates through a caucus, where turnout is usually much lower than in a primary, well-organized anti-war and arms control groups have been able to exert significant influence in years when their issues are prominent. In 1984, for instance, the controversy over the nuclear freeze propelled George McGovern to a surprise third-place finish in the caucus. "Given what a small number of Democrats go to the caucus, if the peace groups organize themselves on this issue--as they will--they can play a much larger role than people expect," said David W. Loebsack, a professor of political science at Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa. In the hallways before the dinner, the talk among the Democratic activists was overwhelmingly hostile toward the prospect of another war with Iraq. Democrats filing into the dinner questioned the morality, the costs and the timing of the war--often in highly pointed language. Several said they believed Bush was manufacturing the confrontation to benefit Republicans in the midterm elections and to divert attention from dissatisfaction over the economy. "It's so obvious what is going on and nobody will speak up," said Richard Black, a retired professor from Farnhamville. "It's all political, a means of keeping attention away from the economy and the stock market." Some argued that it was against American tradition for the U.S. to initiate a war without the threat of an imminent attack. "The U.S. doesn't start wars; it finishes them," said Jerry Alexander from Ames. Others worried about the commitment the U.S. would face to reconstruct Iraq after a war. "We need to be very cautious about getting into another conflict that could tie us up for decades," said Tom Beell, a Vietnam veteran who teaches journalism at Iowa State University in Ames. Several of those awaiting the speeches said they were less likely to support a candidate, such as Edwards or Gephardt, who was backing Bush on the war. "I don't think war is a solution for anything; it just causes more problems," said Yvonne Gaudes, a teacher from Oelwein. Local observers say these anti-war sentiments are probably more intense among hard-core Democratic activists than among Democrats overall--much less the state itself. Despite his support for Bush on the war, Edwards was received at least as enthusiastically as Kerry and Dean. And its unclear whether any rancor over Iraq would last long enough to influence a vote more than a year away. But the strength of the emotions expressed at the dinner suggest that opposition to the war may open a vein of support among activists for candidates critical of the war, like Dean or Gore. Indeed, Gore--who didn't attend the dinner but is expected in the state to campaign for Democratic congressional candidates next week--received lavish praise from several attending for his recent San Francisco speech raising sharp questions about Bush's direction on Iraq. "Quite frankly, I'm really happy that Gore broke the ice and talked about something that was important, and I'd like to hear more of that from the others," Black said. latimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (48732)	10/7/2002 11:01:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here is an interesting piece from "American Prospect" to welcome you back. I suspect that we are probably closer together on this article than on any other I have posted on this subject. Death of an idea September 2002 Postmodernism is finished in philosophy. After 9/11 the denial of objective reality looks neither daring nor clever Julian Baggini Postmodernism is dead, finally killed off after years of sickness as a result of mortal injuries sustained on 11th September 2001. Ideas don't just die, of course. Intellectual fashions come and go but even at their nadir, there remain traces, legacies and adherents who keep the faith. So postmodernists still exist and postmodernism's influence can still be felt. Nevertheless, philosophically speaking, postmodernism is a spent force. To justify this diagnosis, it is important to distinguish between postmodernism as an artistic, cultural and social phenomenon and postmodernism as a philosophical position. In the arts, as Lois McNay puts it in the latest issue of the Philosophers' Magazine, postmodernism is characterised by a "rejection of a consistent, coherent aesthetic in favour of a playful, eclectic style which draws on many different sources." This strand of postmodernism is alive and well; its influence can be seen on mainstream films and television programmes. The use of surreal fantasy sequences in the otherwise conventional comedy series Ally McBeal is an example of how postmodernism's influence has eroded the barriers between hitherto distinct genres. James Brown's new magazine Jack is also stereotypically postmodern, mixing high and low-brow with an eclectic aesthetic that draws on escapist adventure stories, National Geographic and women's glossies. However, neither the production nor the enjoyment of any of these postmodern products requires any commitments concerning the fundamental nature of reality (ontology) or the nature of truth (epistemology). Nor does accepting the postmodern political belief that society has become more fragmented and peoples' identities more blurred. This is tied up with what Jean-François Lyotard called the end of "grand narratives": all-embracing philosophical systems which can explain human experience and history. But that does not amount to a distinct philosophical thesis. Indeed, most of 20th-century Anglo-American analytic philosophy-perhaps the least postmodern alcove in academia-has been based on a rejection of grand systems, such as those of Kant, Hegel and Marx. In its place has been a piecemeal approach to philosophy that is as much opposed to grand narratives as postmodernism. Nor is the rejection of absolute truth the hallmark of a distinct philosophy. There are many ways to be a relativist, not all of them intellectually disgraceful, as Jonathan Rée has recently pointed out in these pages. We cannot locate a philosophy that lies behind these various postmodern positions because there isn't one. What is worse, when people do try to make the leap from postmodernism as a social or cultural phenomenon to postmodernism as a philosophy, they tend to make basic mistakes. Consider, for example, how one might read the following statement by John Dickie (Prospect, June 2002) about how mafia boss Bernardo Provenzano managed to calm public anger about the mob: "... Provenzano has grasped a fundamental rule of postmodern society: 'what does not exist in the media does not exist in reality.'" Understood in one way, this is postmodernism hitting the nail on the head: we tend to form our image of the world based on representations of that world, not the world itself. But understood literally it is nonsense. The whole point of Dickie's piece is that the mafia does exist. The "postmodern rule" is a description of how people think, not a description of epistemological or ontological reality. So what is postmodern philosophy? It is not so much a position as an attitude. Postmodernism does not just reject the idea of objective truth, it celebrates that rejection and advocates an ironic detachment from any issue which seems to take the idea of truth too seriously. Other relativists who reject the idea of objective truth believe there is a question about what takes its place. But for the postmodernist, that is a foolish question that fails to acknowledge the terminal nature of the loss. Redemption does not come by seeking a surrogate for objectivity, it comes from celebrating its non-existence. September 11th illustrated why this was not a sustainable position. It was just possible for Jean Baudrillard to argue in 1991 that the Gulf war did not happen. It would be facile to take this statement at face value, but it illustrates the extent to which modern consciousness distances us from events in the "real" world. Few would be prepared to say that the attacks on the World Trade Centre never happened. On that date, the "real world" stamped its imprint on the collective consciousness of the west. It demonstrated what had previously been argued by postmodernism's critics: that to deny the existence of objective reality and celebrate that denial is politically dangerous and intellectually lazy. Most serious thinkers, including those claimed by postmodernists as their own, such as Foucault and Derrida, have always refused membership of the club and those that did join have been quietly leaving. After 11th September, it is time to move on. A version of this article appears in a special issue of the Philosophers' Magazine on the theme of "after postmodernism" (subs 01442 879097) prospect-magazine.co.uk