SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11980)1/21/2003 9:54:12 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 18472591



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11980)1/21/2003 11:05:51 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
HOWARD DEAN: NO NONSENSE, NO GUFF

By Mary McGrory
Columnist
The Washington Post
Mon Jan 20,10:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean was here last week, and writer James Fallows introduced him to a National Press Club audience as "the interesting candidate," which is code for a novelty candidate in the presidential bazaar. It's someone who is more likely to be fun than president.

On the face of it, Dean is pretty preposterous. He is a middle-size doctor from Vermont, a small state where he was a five-term governor and which has three electoral votes. He has raised $100,000 (New England rival Sen. John Kerry has $3 million) and nobody knows his name. But commentator Mark Shields says that when he speaks around the country, he gets more questions about Dean than about any of the other five Democratic contenders.

He has other assets: for instance, enormous self-confidence -- a fellow Vermonter delicately calls it "a doctor's certainty" -- and the gumption to say what he thinks in a manner he hopes will remind voters of John McCain or even of his hero, Harry Truman.

Democrats are, in the words of New Yorker editor David Remnick, "cowed, confused, incoherent," but Dean is none of the above. He speaks out boldly against the war in Iraq -- his senatorial rivals all voted for it, a fact that Dean stresses.

At the National Press Club, before a forum sponsored by The Atlantic Monthly, Dean gave a brisk review of Washington's mistakes, the blunders of the president and the blinders on Congress. The president is all wet about the tax cuts, he says. The $350 billion deficit projected does not even include the $200 billion bill for the war forecast by economic adviser Larry Lindsey, who, Dean noted, got sacked for his politically incorrect math.

The country needs health insurance, says the doctor, yet Congress is arguing about the wrong thing, the Patient's Bill of Rights, which would not make the slightest difference because "it would not bring health insurance to a single American."

Using no notes, he strode smartly through the issues. On education, he derides Bush's education bill as "no school left standing" because it is all mandate and no money. On the war, the president "has not made the case for a clear and present danger in Iraq" and should be telling us instead his postwar notions of occupation in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and the nation-building he once rejected. "We need an energy policy," he told the large, attentive crowd. "We need to discuss this stuff."

"Words make a difference," he said, in discussing the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes. "We've done them before," he noted -- in Grenada, Panama, Haiti -- but by enunciating pre-emption as a doctrine, Bush had inadvertently encouraged the Chinese to claim a "clear and present danger" in Taiwan. In a city where it is considered unpatriotic to question a paragraph in the Homeland Security Bill, this is pretty strong drink.

The questions about Dean, called "Hoho" in the Green Mountain State, are: Will he be this year's new star who wins primary plaudits but burns out early? Will he be a slightly less eloquent version of Adlai Stevenson, whose goal was to talk sense to the American people, or John McCain, with his straight-talk express? Will he just provide therapy for liberals whose only comfort is derived from "The West Wing's" lefty Yankee president Josiah Bartlet? Liberals would have to swallow, hard, Dean's A rating from the National Rifle Association, but they may weigh that against his stand against the war.

"I intend to win," Dean says, which is what they all say -- except he lists his constituencies. One, of course, is the gay community, which is grateful for his signing of Vermont's civil unions act. This could make white Southerners see red, but Dean says those alienated could be balanced out by a showing by blacks, who "respond to my message that I want everyone to be free." One of his African-American Yale roommates is organizing for the South Carolina primary.

He thinks he will appeal to fiscal conservatives, because he is the only Democrat in the field who has balanced a budget: He was governor of Vermont. He'll have doctors, he says. They would obviously like one of their own to preside in the overhaul of the health insurance situation.

A less defined constituency, and one that would not mind his deficits of fame and fortune, is that group of people who have a low threshold on guff in their political candidates. So far Dean is the class of the field in that respect. "They're looking for authenticity," he said.

We don't have to hear about his family, either. He told Vermont Seven Days columnist Peter Freyne that he doesn't believe in bringing his family into campaigns. His doctor wife, Judith Steinberg, doesn't do politics.

news.yahoo.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11980)1/21/2003 11:13:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Message 18472422



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11980)1/22/2003 1:11:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Did we learn anything from our involvement over in VietNam...?

Let's Opt Out of Absurd War with Iraq
by Linda McQuaig
Published on Sunday, January 19, 2003 by the Toronto Star

If there was one vital lesson that Washington learned from its long, painful war in Vietnam, it was this: Never attack a country that can't easily be subdued.

The fierce Vietnamese resistance, resulting in 58,000 U.S. deaths, soured the American public on U.S. adventurism abroad for years to come — a development that greatly frustrated hawks on the American right.

It wasn't until the 1983 invasion of Grenada, when the U.S. military overwhelmingly subdued the tiny Caribbean island's teensie military force, that Washington was said to have shaken the "Vietnam syndrome." Pundits hailed Ronald Reagan for making Americans proud again.

As Washington prepares now to invade Iraq, it's clear the Bush administration has taken to heart that key Vietnam lesson — never pick on someone your own size; pick on someone much weaker. Certainly, Washington prefers waging war against countries that don't fight back (something the feisty North Koreans seem to have figured out.)

But President George Bush has clearly noticed how his popularity soared with all his post-9/11 tough talk, and seems determined to get a solid war victory under his belt before facing the U.S. electorate next year.

(Afghanistan just didn't work out; after Bush swaggered around threatening to take him "dead or alive," Osama bin Laden proved harder to find than a weapon of mass destruction in Baghdad.)

Enter Iraq — so oil-rich, so under the thumb of a cartoon-style bad guy, so defenseless. Now there's a war worth fighting.

In fact, "war" isn't really the right term. It takes two to make a war; someone's got to fight back. What the U.S. is about to do in Iraq is more like shooting fish in a barrel.

Of course, we're told exactly the opposite, that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein threatens the world.

What's never explained is why this "threat to the world" wasn't able to muster even minimal resistance when Iraq was repeatedly bombed by the U.S. during the 1991 Gulf War.

The U.S. military "met no resistance from Iraqi aircraft and no effective anti-aircraft or anti-missile groundfire," notes University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle. "Iraq was basically defenseless."

Since then, Iraq has been weakened still further by a decade of crushing sanctions and bombing raids by U.S. and British warplanes.

Iraq has failed to shoot down even one of those planes.

And the U.N. inspections of recent weeks have so far failed to find any cache of deadly weapons. Unless the fighting ends up street-to-street in Baghdad — something Washington is keen to avoid — U.S. casualties should be minimal.

Given the staggering weakness of Iraq, war is not only unnecessary, it's downright absurd. If the inspectors do find some deadly weapons, why don't they simply confiscate them? Who's going to stop them?

If deadly weapons could be removed without pulverizing the Iraqi people, would that be so bad? (A confidential U.N. report predicted 500,000 Iraqi casualties in a war, the New York Times reported earlier this month.)

Bush impatiently insisted last week that "time is running out." But for what?

With the Iraqis on their knees, offering no resistance to U.N. inspectors, it's hard to imagine what time pressures are posing problems here — other than the U.S. election timetable. (Doesn't that infernal Hans Blix realize Bush needs a war victory to launch his re-election bid? What the hell is Blix thinking, dragging these inspections out like this?)

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien signaled last week that Canada won't join a unilateral U.S. attack — a welcome development — but Chrétien suggested we would participate in a U.N. action.

A more principled position — and one that would also, incidentally, make our lives here safer — would be to refuse to take part in the bloodbath in Iraq, no matter what the U.S. manages to get the U.N. to agree to.

There was another important lesson from Vietnam — that war is best fought by others.

Some of those keenest for war in the Bush administration — including Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, senior officials Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle — never served in Vietnam.

Sometimes called "chickenhawks," they make up for their shyness about going into battle themselves with their enthusiasm for others doing so. (Bush avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard, and then failing to show up for guard duty for months at a time.)

But with the massive U.S. assault about to be unleashed on enfeebled Iraq, the Pentagon may have finally found a way to wage a war so safe (for U.S. soldiers) that even a young George Bush wouldn't have been scared to participate.

____________________________________________________
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator. Her column appears every Sunday.
Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

###

commondreams.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11980)1/22/2003 2:16:02 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Greenspan shows his true colours

Message 18471631