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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2011)	10/4/2002 12:04:07 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

This is from September 25, but it is interesting, FWIW: Hal Lindsey Time for bold clarity URL: wnd.com Posted: September 25, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com The U.N. is terrified at the prospect of having to pass a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein for ignoring 16 previous resolutions. It required a visit from the president of the United States to remind them that Saddam was ignoring them. Kofi Annan knew why the president was coming. To save face, he mentioned Iraqi violations in his opening remarks. Annan then said Saddam was the second-worst threat to global peace in the world today. Annan listed Iraq second because, in his view, Israel was number one. This week, President Bush outlined the reasons why Saddam must go for the umpteenth time. Allow me to offer this synopsis: The president says if we don't kill Saddam, he'll kill us. Maybe I'm thick, but I'm not getting it. Isn't that what everybody has said since Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. I know that Clinton said it. I know that then-Vice President Al Gore was in complete agreement. I know that's what Scott Ritter told the U.N. in 1998. President Clinton launched a mini-war called Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Back then, Clinton answered the many "wag the dog" criticisms by fervently making the case that Saddam was a threat to world peace. Today he says Saddam's not a threat to anybody. Which time was he telling the truth? Al Gore gave a speech this week where he suggested the Bush Doctrine makes America an international outlaw. "After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world," Gore said Monday. "We've squandered that, and in one year we've replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do." So now, according to Gore, if America attacks Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, it becomes the world's enemy numero uno. Saddam was the enemy until Bush said Saddam was the enemy. Then Saddam became a relatively harmless dictator who hasn't the means to harm anyone. So I ask again, was Gore telling the truth in 1998 or today? In the Middle East, that principle is called, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Gore has established who his real enemy is, and guess who – it isn't Saddam. He is a lot more concerned about making political gains than dealing with such "minor threats" as Saddam. Meanwhile, President Bush is hammering away at the U.N., suggesting that a failure to pass a tough new resolution against Saddam Hussein will make the global body "irrelevant" to the 21st century. The president proclaimed to 2,000 loudly cheering supporters who were gathered in an Army National Guard Aviation hangar, "The discussion is now in the United Nations Security Council. Soon they will reveal to the world whether they're going to be relevant, or whether they're going to be weak. For the sake of world peace, I hope they're relevant. However, for the sake of freedom and peace, if the United Nations will not deal with Saddam Hussein, the United States and our friends will." Then, last week, the real global enemy attracted the interest of the U.N. and away from "the minor threat" of Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Israel surrounded Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah and demanded the surrender of 20 terrorist suspects. When Arafat refused, the Israelis laid siege to the compound. While Saddam got a total pass for the last four years, the U.N. sprang to action against Israel in less than a week. This simply goes to prove my earlier analysis – in the eyes of the U.N., Israel is world enemy number one. The U.N. Security Council demanded that Israel stop its siege of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's compound. The "prompt action" was assured by the fact that Syria currently holds the rotating presidency on the Security Council. After marathon negotiations lasting until after midnight, the council adopted a European-drafted compromise text on Tuesday. It was a compromise in that it also called on the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for terrorist acts to justice. The United States called the resolution one-sided and had wanted a specific condemnation against Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups for the bombings of civilians. But for all America's tough talk, we compromised again and refrained from vetoing the measure against Israel – just as we have on so many similar draft resolutions in the past. We continue to not make a firm stand in support of our only friend in the Middle East in order not to offend our Arab "friends." I believe it is time to stick with our proven true friends, brand those who are playing politics with America's survival and let the chips fall where they may. Our survival is at stake.

To: calgal who wrote (2011)	10/4/2002 12:25:10 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

Bruce Bartlett October 4, 2002 Bush 41/43 URL: townhall.com In recent weeks, a number of analysts have started drawing comparisons between the economic situation under President George W. Bush (Bush 41) and the current president, George H.W. Bush (Bush 43). This is a matter I have also been considering for some time. Sadly, I have to agree that the parallels are all too similar. In a Sept. 30 Los Angeles Times article, Ron Brownstein clearly articulated the similarities between Messrs. Bush 41 and 43. "Nearly halfway through his term," he said, "President Bush's economic record is beginning to look a lot like that of his father, former President George Bush. That isn't good news for the younger Bush. Or for the economy." The major similarities are these. Both Bushes became totally preoccupied with Iraq to the exclusion of almost everything else. Both presided over economic recessions that were very slow to end. Both seemed utterly disinterested in economic policy and avoided their economic advisers like the plague. And these advisers were unwilling or unable to confront both presidents about the economic reality, and said little publicly except that everything is OK. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill seems especially disengaged. Insiders tell me that he was instrumental in killing a plan to propose new investment tax incentives. President Bush had indicated that such an initiative would shortly be forthcoming after his Waco economic summit in mid-August. But within days, it appeared to die of neglect. I am told that O'Neill argued forcefully that no additional stimulus was needed because the economy did not need it. Joining O'Neill in opposing new stimulus was Commerce Secretary Don Evans, I am told. He shares the treasury secretary's view that everything in the economy is just peachy and opposed efforts by National Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Glenn Hubbard to do something before Congress adjourned. A Sept. 30 Time Magazine article indicates that the split between O'Neill and Evans, on the do-nothing side, and Lindsey and Hubbard, on the do-something side, is getting nasty. The article says there will be a major housecleaning of Bush's economic advisers after the election. It strongly implied that Lindsey and Hubbard would be out and that Evans will "step up to become the public voice of the economic team." For as long as I have been in Washington, commerce secretaries have been trying to promote themselves into major players on economic issues. It has never worked because the Commerce Department simply lacks control over key economic issues, such as tax policy or the budget. Nor does the commerce secretary have the access that White House staffers like Lindsey and Hubbard have. Consequently, all commerce secretaries, with the possible exception of Herbert Hoover in the 1920s, have largely been irrelevant. Clearly, among Bush's economic advisers, O'Neill is and should be preeminent. But his unwillingness to step forward and address the economy's problems makes him seem like a Pollyanna. Nor is he even willing to seriously address the key issues within his purview. For example, rather than put forward a significant tax reform proposal, which almost everyone agrees is desperately needed, he plans to offer a grab bag of tiny little simplification options later this year. The fact that O'Neill is not willing to offer his tax plans before the election is enough to tell you that the effort will probably sink like a stone in Congress. After all, Congress's own Joint Committee on Taxation put forward a similar initiative in April of last year without anyone paying the slightest attention. What makes O'Neill think that rehashing the same hash will have a different impact today? To be sure, the economy is in better shape today than it was at a similar point in Bush's father's administration. Then, taxes were being increased, rather than cut, and interest rates were considerably higher. At the beginning of the 1990-91 recession, the Federal Reserve had the federal funds interest rate at 8.25 percent. By this point in that recession, it had only fallen to 4.75 percent. At the beginning of this recession in March of last year, the fed funds rate was at 5.5 percent and today is at just 1.75 percent. But while some economic comparisons between Bush 41 and 43 may be different, the public perception is almost the same. People felt then and feel now that the Bush White House isn't really interested their personal concerns, caring only about foreign policy. According to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News, the percentage of Americans saying the economy is in excellent or good shape has fallen from 70 percent in January 2001 to only 29 percent today. At the same time, the percentage saying the economy is not so good or poor has risen from 31 percent to 69 percent -- a 180 degree turnaround on both counts. Bill Clinton understood that you have to feel peoples' pain and show that you care, even if you can't actually do anything. He also understood that "it is the economy, stupid." This seems to be a lesson the Bush family has never learned. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.