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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (1400)	1/15/2003 3:56:44 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

Running Fast Into the Past By MAUREEN DOWD Columnist The New York Times January 15, 2003 George W. Bush designed his entire political career and presidency to make sure he would never face this moment. The moment where he would pick up USA Today one morning midway through his term and read that his stratospheric approval numbers were dropping because more and more people think he is out of touch with average Americans. For the first time since 9/11, Mr. Bush's ratings have slipped below 60 percent in a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll that reflects growing unease with his approach on the economy and taxes, domestic policy and international threats. Craig Patterson, a 45-year-old ironworker in St. Louis worried about dwindling construction jobs, summed it up for USA Today: "I trust Bush with my daughter, but I trust Clinton with my job." Mr. Bush and Karl Rove may be disproving Santayana: They have dedicated themselves to learning from the history of the first President Bush, and yet they seem doomed to repeat it anyway. Bush Senior was fired by voters who thought he was aloof from their economic suffering, overly consumed with foreign affairs and insulated by an inner circle of rich white patricians. He did little to appease his conservative base and, after the '88 campaign, chafed at being positioned by strategists. In his re-election campaign he was reduced to pleading: "Message: I care." W. and Mr. Rove tried to reverse the playbook, coddling their base and being hard-nosed on tactics. The strategist packaged the younger Bush as a leader who cared, even if his compassion never evolved from slogan to policy, even if his concern for those in need of stock dividend tax breaks trumped his concern for those in need of stem cell research. So the pair, fresh from their midterm triumph, must be flabbergasted to hear the same sort of complaints that tripped up Poppy: a Bush favoring rich Republicans and tone-deaf to the alarms of ordinary Americans. In the new poll, Mr. Bush is still seen as a strong and decisive leader whom the American people want to support. They liked his tough talk after 9/11; they did not want America to be pushed around, or seem afraid. us100 But in these anxious times, people are uneasy about the inconsistency of his foreign policy and the inflexibility of his domestic agenda, with conservatives setting the pace at home and in Iraq. It's hard to understand the economic or political logic of Mr. Bush's relentless tax cuts. Felix Rohatyn wryly suggests that, if you want to push the Dow up a few percentage points, it would be better to take the $360 billion in tax breaks and use it to just buy stocks directly. The states are struggling with giant deficits, tax increases and cutbacks in programs so severe that some are releasing prisoners. So what good will it do to put Mr. Bush's little tax break in one pocket while taking money from the other pocket to pay higher state taxes? Despite their desire to support their president, many Americans are uncomfortable with the ideological rigidity of the administration — the headlong tax cuts unashamedly benefiting the wealthy; the selection of judges who want to reverse two decades of social policy; the moves to impose new restrictions on abortion, and the deletion of information on a Centers for Disease Control Web site about lifesaving condoms, which are viewed by the religious right as morally wrong. It's equally hard to fathom the president's bipolar approach to nuclear threats. Yesterday he hurled new ultimatums at Saddam Hussein. "I'm sick and tired of games and deception," he said, even as he responded to Kim Jong Il's games and deception with pleas and promises to send food and oil to Pyongyang. There are inspectors in Iraq who are not finding nuclear weapons, while inspectors have been kicked out of North Korea, which has admitted to a nuclear weapons program. So what's the message here? If Saddam had already developed nukes, we'd send him a fruit basket? But since he hasn't, we'll send him Tomahawk missiles. We know Saddam's weak, but we're pretending he's strong so America can walk tall by whupping him. North Korea used its own version of our pre-emptive strike doctrine to blackmail us, and make the administration's global swaggering look suspiciously selective. And where in the name of Rummy is Osama? ___________________________________________ Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times' Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper's Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. nytimes.com

To: PartyTime who wrote (1400)	1/15/2003 8:01:09 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

First article - lots of good stuff in this article - much of it mirrors my own thoughts. While such leftovers are a "marginal" amount of material, says Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish former director of UNSCOM, "there is considerable risk they can produce chemical weapons. "I have very serious concerns about missiles," says Mr. Ekeus, now head of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. "We don't know how much they smuggled in there. My theory is that they have built production lines." Just hours before a three-day American bombing assault in late 1998, the UN withdrew its inspectors. Mr. Hussein has never allowed them to return. Precisely. Terry Taylor, a British senior UNSCOM inspector from 1993 to 1997, says the figure of 95 percent disarmament is "complete nonsense because inspectors never learned what 100 percent was. UNSCOM found a great deal and destroyed a great deal, but we knew [Iraq's] work was continuing while we were there, and I'm sure it continues," says Mr. Taylor, now head of the Washington office of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies. In 1995, Iraq was caught importing missile parts via Jordan, for example, and hiding them on the bottom of the Tigris River. Though the nuclear file is usually the first to be dismissed as virtually "closed," Taylor says dismantlement efforts were incomplete. Iraq was working to master simultaneous timing of explosions, "and even at its most intrusive, UNSCOM could never have found that." The nuclear program was Iraq's "most prized, and given the nature of the regime, I don't think they have given up on that objective ... I think they could have nuclear weapons very, very quickly, if they got hold of fissile material – it could be a matter of a few months." The Iraqis "are the greatest [people] in the world at hiding these things from inspectors," he adds. "My view is, we don't need any more evidence [before taking action]."