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: paul_philp who wrote (75406)	2/19/2003 12:09:27 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings What is he talking about? Powell has been travelling all the time.

To: paul_philp who wrote (75406)	2/19/2003 4:03:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is going to drive LindyBill and a few others crazy but I think Friedman is right. Bush has done a terrible, terrible job of selling the war on Iraq. No, there were two ways to go at this. Win goes nuts about "War Marketing" but it is the job of the Prez to sell it. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson had to "Sell" the public on their respective wars. Wilson and Johnson had a tough time, FDR had the Japanese to do it for him. I watched and listened to Hitchens do it the way Friedman wants. The problem with that approach is that is does not work if you want the UN support, and we decided to go after that support.

To: paul_philp who wrote (75406)	2/19/2003 9:35:04 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It doesn't drive me crazy, as I agree that Bush has not done a good job of articulating the justification for going after Saddam which, by the way, I think Friedman misunderstands. It's about keeping Saddam from getting nukes, pure and simple. It all flows from that premise, the rest is window-dressing. And it is a very good justification, though a bit complex for J6P to fully understand. Perhaps the Bushies think the public won't buy the need to act now to deter two or three horrible scenarios in the future. In any event, I think the nuke justification should have been put immediately on the table and repeated until even kindergarten-age children understood it. The public would have eventually gotten it. A simple, difficult-to-rebutt point would have made all the difference in the world.

To: paul_philp who wrote (75406)	2/19/2003 11:40:38 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

It's nice to be able to agree with you, even if rarely. I'm more than a little surprised that Powell has not done more, perhaps he has been kept from doing so. I thought of him as the adult in the crowd. The most troubling thing is that the Bush folk have taken a world wide favorable consensus, following 9-11, and turned it on its head. For me, that's more troubling than Iraq but less troubling than the continued work of Al Q.

To: paul_philp who wrote (75406)	2/22/2003 3:01:20 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Re the NY Times article: "Some of this we can't control. But some we can, which is why it's time for the Bush team to shape up — dial down the attitude, start selling this war on the truth, give us a budget that prepares the nation for a war abroad, not a party at home, and start doing everything possible to create a global context where we can confront Saddam without the world applauding for him." This situation reminds me of Johnson and his problem paying for the Vietnam war at the same time as the "Big Deal". But Reagan proved that this country doesn't fall apart in the face of big deficits, so I doubt that the Bush administration is worrying too much about it. -- Carl@buygold.com