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 (61934)	12/15/2002 11:44:10 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Safire has a good idea that is never going to happen. December 16, 2002 Inspect the Brains By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON, The most crucial item in U.N. Resolution 1441 ordering Iraq to submit to inspections or else is this: The inspection teams are empowered to take Iraqi scientists and their families out of the country, away from Saddam Hussein's handlers, for interrogation. Our National Security Council insisted on that clause for good reason: the best intelligence revealing Saddam's germ warfare program and nuclear plans has come from defectors with current knowledge of those "material breaches" of his decade-old surrender terms. Russia and France, having pushed the Bush administration back into agreeing to a long period of "phony war," knew that their refusal to accept our interrogation-of-scientists clause would be a deal-breaker. They acquiesced, figuring that Hans Blix, the see-no-evil U.N. choice for chief inspector approved by Saddam, would not use that power to question the people who know the secrets. Sure enough, as soon as his team entered Iraq, Blix assured Baghdad it had nothing to fear from the interrogation clause. "We are not going to abduct anybody," he announced, "and we're not serving as a defection agency." By characterizing the needed interrogation of the people who know where the germs and centrifuges are as "abduction" and "defection," Blix undermined effective inspection at the start. Abduct means "kidnap." The U.N. purpose is not to kidnap the brains behind Iraqi weaponry; to say so is to cravenly subscribe to Saddam's propaganda. The purpose is to get answers about past and present weapons production from all the key players at the technical table without having them fear for their lives. These include those scientists unconcerned about enabling mass murder as well as those with moral qualms about the perversion of their scientific work. In a curiously muted response, U.S. officials let it be known they were displeased with this bureaucratic dismissal of a hard-fought Security Council decision. Blix then reacted by sending a signal to Iraqi scientists that all but guarantees their continued intimidation by Saddam. Get this: he reluctantly requested a list from Saddam of scientists and technicians the Iraqi dictator thinks should talk to the inspectors. A minor Iraqi official said he'd draw one up in a couple of weeks. If Blix has any interest in getting hard intelligence about germs and nukes, this is what he should do: Draw up his own list ? the names and addresses of the leading 50 scientists are no secret ? and then go and knock on their doors. Ask them to step into a helicopter, with families if desired, and transport them to a safe house outside the country for questioning. The first interviewee should be obvious to longtime readers of this space: Rihab Taha, "Dr. Germs," the British-trained biologist who has been running Saddam's anthrax and botulism laboratories for nearly 20 years. In the mid-90's, when a U.N. inspector caught her in a flat lie, she replied, "It is not a lie when you're being ordered to lie." Would Dr. Germs and her oil-minister husband tell the truth now, if spirited out of Saddam's circle? Unlikely; but if told their secret cooperation might ameliorate sentences at war-crimes trials, they might discreetly provide a few leads. Same with the smallpox virologist Hazem Ali, the anthrax expert Abdul Nassir Hindawi, the nuclear physicists Jaffar Dhia Jaffar and Mahdi Obeidi, all named in The Washington Post yesterday. Even if these scientific Saddamites hang tough, such off-site interrogation of supposed Saddam loyalists would give cover to other Iraqi scientists similarly transported to places where the truth can be told safely. What if Iraq refuses to allow the U.N. surprise outside interviews with scientists not on the regime's approved list? What if Saddam claims that all removals of scientists to safe houses would be ? in Blix's damning words ? impermissible "abductions" by a "defection agency"? That would be a flagrant failure to comply with the U.N. resolution. Added to failure to disclose stocks of media in which germs and deadly viruses are bred, Iraqi refusal to make available unrestricted access to scientific brains (and their spouses and aides) would be a breach so material as to overwhelm even French objections. Don't wait for that sanitized list of scientists, Mr. Blix. You know who and where many of them are. Start knocking on doors today. nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (61934)	12/16/2002 12:45:11 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here is a column discussing some of the Political problems we have been going over. washingtonpost.com The Politics of Polarization By Matthew Dowd Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A25 A lot has been said about the gridlock in Washington, the political posturing and the partisan bickering and fighting. We all see it and watch it happen -- or should I say "not happen" as regards passing legislation in the Senate prior to the November elections. But the question is not often asked: Why does it happen? What causes each side to line up at times as if in a kid's dodge ball fight and throw accusations at the other without either side venturing to the middle? I believe much has to do with the "numbers" behind the political scene. Most voters in this country have become polarized during the past two decades. Roughly 80 percent of likely voters are split by party, and their opinions of politicians reflect this polarization. Self-identified Democratic voters increasingly cast ballots consistently and overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, while self-identified Republicans do the same for GOP candidates at all levels. This polarization is highlighted in the job approval ratings of the presidents during the past 60 years when these ratings are broken down by party. During the terms of Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, the average difference between the approval rating of voters from the president's own party and those from voters for the opposition was about 30 percentage points. Thus, for example, while voters from a president's own party gave him, say, a 70 percent positive job approval rating, the opposition party's voters gave the same president a positive job approval of 40 percent. During the late stages of Richard Nixon's presidency, this approval difference moved up to an average of 40 percent, but in the presidencies of Carter and Ford, it returned to the 30 percent level. It was under Ronald Reagan that the difference in approval ratings rose in a significant and consistent way. The difference between each party's approval ratings for Reagan was about 50 percentage points. During George H.W. Bush's term the average stayed at about the same 50 percent. The size of this divide took another jump during Bill Clinton's presidency -- to an average of 58 percent -- nearly double the difference that had existed for most of the last four decades of the 20th century. During the initial stages of President George W. Bush's presidency, this difference remained about 58 percent. But in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and during Bush's handling of that crisis, the difference in job approval returned to 30 percent -- what it was 50 years ago. As time passed, however, and the country approached the midterm elections, the difference between the parties reasserted itself. Although Bush's overall approval ratings remained at historic highs, the difference between parties returned to the 50 percent level of the Reagan years. Before Al Gore's announcement yesterday that he would not run for president in 2004, polling showed the unsettling prospect of a 71-point partisan difference in the voters' views of him. What does all this mean? Politicians have a tendency to respond to their own constituencies and their base voters. If one party's base voters have a vastly different opinion of the other party's leader than of their own, clearly, the politicians' own positioning, their ability to compromise and their messages will reflect this reality. President Bush has a 95 percent approval rating in his Republican base -- a phenomenal number. And his approval among independents stands at an unheard-of 75 percent. Yet his approval rating among the Democratic base is at roughly 40 percent to 45 percent. It's no wonder that the leaders of the Democratic Party are in no hurry to support the president and compromise on a consistent basis. It's almost as if we are operating in two political worlds. Although overall the president is well liked and has strong approval ratings, the base vote of the opposition party does not see things the same way that the rest of the country does -- and Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democratic leaders find it difficult not to respond to their base. Hence, partisan bickering and posturing rise, and gridlock ensues. Maybe with the presidency and the two branches of Congress in the same party's hands, we will be able to end some of this gridlock. The legislative successes immediately following the November election seemed to point in this direction, but the numbers are daunting. The writer is senior adviser and strategist to the Republican National Committee. washingtonpost.com