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: LindyBill who wrote (59943)	12/5/2002 9:39:58 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hoagland on the Antiwar problem. This is what cost the Dems so much in the election, IMO. You share that assessment with Bill Clinton, of course. I certainly wouldn't disagree that was one of the issues that hurt them. But a full analysis is more complicated. I'll skip that for the moment. But we should have a discussion about the election some time. Perhaps the two of us could simply declare that we are going offtopic together and anyone who wishes can read or skip our posts. I continue to believe that Ken Pollack and his coauthor, name escapes me, in that Policy Review piece, laid out the foundations for a very large part of a very different foreign policy, one that is both better and more politically astute, which a Dem candidate like John Kerrey could well draw on. Because it fits precisely with other things he has already said. If you have time, I suggest you read Joe Klein's piece on Kerrey in The New Yorker of a week ago. The piece is not online so it would require a trip to Border's. Moreover, the way Klein frames it, the critique is one roughly shared by Kerrey's buddies, McCain, Hagel, Cleland, Kerry, all the present and former Senate Vietnam Vets.

To: LindyBill who wrote (59943)	12/5/2002 5:50:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hoagland on the Antiwar problem. That was a good column. Much of the antiwar left reminds me of a man who was playing tug-of-war, and has fallen on his back because his opponent stopped pulling. It is the hawks who have taken an activist and a humanitarian position (if only by side-effect); what is the liberal position now? By reflex, the left has become Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers; do you call that a liberal position? Instead of arguing an alternate plan, much of the antiwar movement seems to be made up of know-nothings, too -- if Bush is for it, they're against it, no further questions needed.