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

To: TigerPaw who wrote (13766)	3/1/2003 2:55:46 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The latest from PIMCO's Bill Gross (the largest bond fund manager in the world)... pimco.com <<..."I speak now, and risk client, public, and press censure because I was silent 35 years ago. I sailed off to Vietnam, came back and collected my Veteran's benefits and was none the worse for the experience. But hundreds of thousands, including some friends - were - and that is the point I suppose, in speaking out now. The crux of the current argument involving Iraq is this: All would agree, especially since 9/11 that America has a right to defend herself. The question is how far we can go in that defense and in the process what cost to the American spirit and the American soul. President Bush and others say that we must take almost every step to insure our internal safety. He argues that, in addition, those steps will bring positive changes in regimes dominated by oppression; Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Iran are but steppingstones towards a new democratic world order with America at the center. I know the arguments - I'm even temporarily persuaded by them during emotional speeches such as Bush's State of the Union. I suspect, however, that by invading "evil doer" nations, we may lessen our vulnerability but lose a piece of our soul in the process. Yes, I'm aware that Iraq is in noncompliance with UN resolutions and that its leader is a near madman. I'm also aware, however, of how absolute power corrupts and how we may be crossing a thin line. Preemptive attacks? Kill them before they kill us? No one has experienced such Hours in the United States before. I am heartbroken that it has come to this and I fear for my country's proud heritage and even more for its future."...>>

To: TigerPaw who wrote (13766)	3/2/2003 10:07:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Bush's secrets A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL 3/1/2003 LONG BEFORE Sept. 11, the Bush administration started closing down public access to government records by withholding the names of energy industry executives who spoke to Vice President Cheney's task force on energy policy in early 2001. Congress's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, sued to get that information but was turned down last December by the first judge to hear the case. Last month the GAO -- despite having argued in court that defeat in this case would be ''extremely damaging'' or ''fatal'' to its ability to do its job -- decided not to appeal the ruling. The GAO's head, Comptroller General David Walker, said he did so because pursuing the case ''would require investment of significant time and resources over several years.'' Walker denied a published report that he gave up after being threatened by Republicans in Congress with a reduction in his office's funding. He said he did confer with congressional leaders and that a majority, including Democrats, advised against an appeal. He would not identify the leaders he spoke with. In any event, it is deeply damaging to the cause of open government for the GAO to drop this case. The suit that Walker had brought was the first such action in the agency's 81-year history. In all previous attempts by Congress to get information from the White House -- including data on Hillary Rodham Clinton's health task force -- the GAO was able to secure what lawmakers needed without going to court. The energy issue is not dead, even though the Senate last year rejected the made-in-Houston policy of the White House that was largely rubber-stamped by the House of Representatives. The Senate is now under Republican leadership, and the recent negotiations on the appropriations bill made it clear that the administration has not given up its dream of turning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over to the oil companies. Especially if the Bush energy policy is resurrected, the public has a right to know which energy executives made their views known to the task force as well as the short list of conservation or environmental advocates who were contacted. But the bigger issue is: Will the administration be unchallenged in its attempt to operate in secrecy? Fortunately, other organizations, including the conservative public interest group Judicial Watch, are also suing for energy task force information. But as the GAO argued in court, the administration's sweeping argument in rejecting the GAO suit would be ''literally devastating to the GAO's ability to obtain any information from the executive branch under any circumstances.'' Letting the Bush position go untested is a defeat for Congress's ability to secure the information it needs to pass the nation's laws. This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 3/1/2003. boston.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (13766)	3/2/2003 8:01:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Bush and Blair to Ditch UN if France Blocks Intervention by James Cusick Published on Sunday, March 2, 2003 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland) AS hopes fade of winning a second UN resolution, Britain and the United States are now preparing the ground to argue that both governments already have the implied authority of the UN for conflict. Sources close to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday admitted that if 'there was no prospect of winning a second resolution' -- due to the use of a UN Security Council veto by potentially France, Russia or China -- 'then we may consider abandoning it altogether'. Washington also yesterday altered its strategy in exactly the same manner when Pres ident George Bush, referring to the existing Security Council resolution 1441, said the US was determined to enforce its terms, which demand that Saddam Hussein surrender his country's weapons of mass destruction. Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, called the new draft resolution presented to the UN last week simply 'an affirmation of the council's willingness to enforce its own resolution'. Over the coming week, Tony Blair is expected to reinforce the message that it is the 'authority of the UN', already explicit in the unanimously agreed resolution 1441, that must be upheld. In effect, the Prime Minister is preparing the ground for the political mayhem both inside his party and beyond should a second UN resolution fail to materialise and he takes British forces into war alongside the US. Key to winning support in the Security Council would have been Iraq's defiance and obstruction of UN orders to disarm. But yesterday Iraq, reluctantly, agreed to the destruction of four of its outlawed al-Samoud 2 missiles. At a military base just outside Baghdad, bulldozers were brought in to crush the missiles under supervision of the UN. A potential timetable to destroy the remaining 100-plus al-Samoud 2 missiles was also discussed with the UN. Around 50 of the missiles are with Iraqi forces scattered around the country and will have to be brought in to be destroyed. And for the first time in a month, Iraq agreed to unsup ervised interviews with Iraqi scientists, a small number of which have taken place already. Although Dr Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, described Iraq's move on its missiles as 'a very significant piece of real disarmament' both the US and UK remained sceptical. If Blix reinforces a signif icant positive shift in Iraq's level of co-operation when he delivers his latest report to the UN this Friday, it may put the final nail in the coffin for any hope of agreement on a second resolution. France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said yesterday that the destruction of the missiles 'confirms that inspectors are getting results'. He said Iraq's decision to comply was an important step in the disarmament process. As one of the harshest critics of the US-UK position, and having already demanded inspectors be given more time, it now seems inconceivable that France will now not use its veto in an attempt to avert war. However, the White House said Iraq's compliance was 'propaganda wrapped in a lie inside a falsehood'. Straw warned the international community that it 'should not be taken in' by Saddam. He dismissed Iraq's promise to destroy all its al-Samoud 2 missiles as 'a cynical attempt to divide the Security Council'. To end the crisis Straw said Saddam only had to say he was in 'complete, immediate and full compliance of resolution 1441'. Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri said: 'We are co-operating because we want to co-operate, because we think it is to our benefit. We don't need anyone to tell us to co-operate.' A senior source in the Foreign Office said that following Blix's report this Friday: 'It will probably be towards the end of the following week that the UK-backed second resol ution will be formally put to the Security Council. It is likely we will demand a formal vote, essentially to confront France or whoever and flush out their use of their veto. We would want to make it evident who had halted the resolution. But if there is no prospect of winning, that strategy may be abandoned altogether.' Meanwhile, Turkey's parliament, after a day of high drama and confusion, yesterday finally denied US forces use of Turkish territory to launch a northern attack on Iraq. US supply ships and armaments had been waiting outside Turkish ports, with troops in the US also awaiting final authority to fly into Turkey. However, the Turkish parliament will reconvene on the issue this week. The US -- which has promised a massive financial aid and trade package to Turkey -- are said to be furious at the potential logistical chaos this will bring to its battle plans. A northern front is regarded as crucial to the prospects of a quick, short war. ©2003 smg sunday newspapers ltd commondreams.org