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: lurqer who wrote (14054)	3/6/2003 10:13:37 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The latest from columnist Richard Reeves who writes from Paris... Bush And His God Are Scary In Europe BY RICHARD REEVES* Universal Press Syndicate March 6, 2003 richardreeves.com <<...People are afraid of President Bush. The polls declaring that Europeans think we are a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein reflect real attitudes and a certain logic...>> <<...It is a bit startling to hear old friends talk with feeling about the danger from America. It is much more intense than the suspicion of President Reagan when I lived her in the 1980s. History has shown that priests of various kinds are a great deal more dangerous than cowboys. Although his rather fundamental religious beliefs were not that different from those of George Bush, Reagan rarely made a big deal of his godliness, and he was seen as being less religious than his born-again predecessor, Jimmy Carter. In fact, though Europeans, governments and people alike, disagreed with Reagan about many things, he offered what is really wanted here: strong and predictable American leadership. President Bush is not seen as either of those things. But success is its own reward. Europe, old and new, will fall in line (and stand in line for their share of desert oil) if the United States runs Saddam out of town -- and somehow maintains control of the Middle East. But that is not an easy thing to do. After their first invasion of Lebanon in 1978, the Israelis stayed there for almost 22 years, and not one day more -- and got nothing but grief for it...>> *RICHARD REEVES is the author of 12 books, including President Nixon: Alone in the White House. He has written for the New York Times, the New Yorker, Esquire and dozens of other publications. E-mail him at rr@richardreeves.com.

To: lurqer who wrote (14054)	3/6/2003 11:27:58 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

New Poll Shows Bush Would Lose to Democrat in Election Published on Thursday, March 6, 2003 by Reuters NEW YORK - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursday. The Feb. 26-March 3 nationwide survey of U.S. voters by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University found that by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin, voters would pick the as yet unknown candidate out of nine Democrats running over the Republican incumbent. The survey of 1,232 voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. "This month, we find that an unnamed Democrat would edge out President Bush," said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute director Maurice Carroll. "The political winds are hard to read this early, but we do know that war and a bad economy are not good for anyone, especially sitting presidents." Bush is expected to run for reelection in Nov. 2004. Nine Democrats have announced their intention to seek their party's nomination. Bush narrowly lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore in 2000 but became president by winning the decisive electoral college vote based on returns from the 50 states. Carroll said the survey revealed that U.S. voters, even with no mention of weapons of mass destruction, support U.S. war against Iraq to force President Saddam Hussein from power by 57 percent to 35 percent. By almost the same margin, 56 percent to 38 percent, voters said Washington should wait for United Nations support instead of going to war alone in the Gulf. Bush's approval rating was at 53 percent to 39 percent, the poll found, but only 9 percent were "very satisfied" with the way things were going in the United States. Thirty-five percent said they were "somewhat satisfied," 28 percent "somewhat dissatisfied," and 26 percent "very dissatisfied." The pollsters said that when asked what was the most important problem facing the United States, 31 percent said it was war with Iraq followed by 27 percent who believed it was the economy or unemployment and 14 percent terrorism or security. Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd commondreams.org

To: lurqer who wrote (14054)	3/7/2003 4:35:43 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush follows 'the man with the plan' By HELEN THOMAS HEARST NEWSPAPERS Friday, March 7, 2003 WASHINGTON -- Why Iraq? And why now? The fact that many Americans ask those questions -- and get different answers -- is further evidence that President Bush has done a poor job of providing an understandable, credible explanation for his crusade against Iraq. There is the theory that he wants to get even with Saddam Hussein for the Iraqi's assassination attempt on his father. There are the theories that he wants to help Israel or that he wants to get Iraq's oil. Past U.S. military operations didn't require this multiple-choice approach when Americans were asked to help out with blood and taxes. Now comes a new theory embedded in a book, "Bush's Brain," by two Texas correspondents, James Moore, a TV broadcaster, and Wayne Slater, bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News in Austin, Texas. They credit Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, with persuading Bush to bring Iraq onto center stage where it is the dominant issue in the country today. Rove, who had been in Republican politics since his college days, locked onto Bush in 1993 and was on the ground floor in pushing Bush's successful candidacy for governor of Texas. Since then he has been Bush's chief political guru. The authors contend that the debate over acting pre-emptively against Iraq and the timing "all show the trademarks of a disciplined campaign by Karl Rove." They speculate that Rove wanted to keep war on the front burner to mask worries about the economy, corporate corruption, the high cost of prescription drugs and rising budget deficits, among other things. Bush-Rove saw the advantage of transforming the amorphous war against terrorism into a more conventional military campaign, where the enemy was identifiable and his address was available. They said that Rove used the president's popularity in the post-9/11 war on terrorism to have him "concentrate on the threat posed by Hussein." "Unflagging in his verbal attacks on Iraq," the authors added, Bush was able to express "certitude, a confidence of cause, which drew people to him and to his party's candidates" in the fall elections. They explained "Americans like a president who can make decisions and believe in himself." "Karl Rove understood the political value of this key Bush characteristic," Moore and Slate wrote. The authors don't have a lot of evidence to support their theory. But then Bush doesn't have a lot of evidence to support his theory about why we should go to war with Iraq. The Texas journalists know Bush and Rove from their days in Austin. And they know how the former governor and his election campaign strategist work together. And they, like many of us, appear to be grasping to understand Bush's crusade for war. Adding it up, the authors come up with their Rove theory. By zeroing in on Rove, the authors are piling on the Bush aide who gets blamed or credited for just about everything the president does, for good or ill. Never in my many years as a Washington journalist has such enormous power been ascribed to a presidential aide. If Rove's public image is accurate, Bush is the second most powerful man in Washington. Against this background of omnipotence, it seems inevitable that the looming war with Iraq would end up on Rove's desk. The authors say that Rove will always be "the man with a plan" to guide Bush through any crisis. The prospect of war began in the 2002 fall election campaign and it has been pumped up ever since. Rove, the authors say, successfully stressed the upcoming war with Iraq and tax cuts to put the Republicans over the top in the mid-term elections by shoving other issues to the back burner. A political judgment was made "about making Iraq the object of our national anger," according to Moore and Slater. This strategy was seized on even though "containment and deterrence had worked with Iraq" and even though the Central Intelligence Agency "was unable to connect Saddam Hussein to Islamic terrorists or to developing weapons of mass destruction." Of course, it did not take much effort to paint Saddam as "evil." His was already a reviled household name in that department. The authors said Rove claimed that Bush had told him that "he has not regretted a single decision he has made since 9/11." They added that this sense "of being absolutely correct is a dangerous trait." But never fear. The authors wrote that "the president's future is controlled by a reliable and facile mind" -- Rove's. "Karl Rove will always be the man with a plan." And apparently our future is in his hands, too. Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2003 Hearst Newspapers. seattlepi.nwsource.com