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: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 12:08:09 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

On of the best posts I've seen for framing the problem that Bin Luddite brought to our attention. Message 18739827 Because I agree we're in a war with a failed culture, I disagree with the authors emphasis on the military as the solution tool. This is not only because it's the wrong tool (likely to lead to counter-productive "victories"), but because it leaves our military with an unacceptable vulnerable exposure. That's not to say the military should never be used in this war, but that it's use should be judicious (rare and ephemeral). What is needed is no less than a cultural (religious) reformation, and (IMO) this can't be imposed from the outside. It can, however, be stimulated and monitored from the outside. To successfully wage such a war requires creative original thought. Unfortunately, that commodity is in short supply in this administration. Now, as a country we will pay the price for our failed corrupt political duopoly that gave us a choice between "dumb and dumber" in '00. I recall at the time (in '00), it was said that it didn't matter that Bush wasn't that bright, because he had "good advisors". How can someone who is a "dim bulb" know when he's getting good advice? What his advisors (neo-cons) did was trot out a previously rejected policy and repackage it for post 9-11. An attempt to correctly assess the problem and tailor an appropriate solution was never made. It was the same ole "wrapping and agenda" SOP of this intellectually bankrupt administration. How many casualties will it take before this country wakes up to the obvious? JMO lurqer

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 8:07:49 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Coalition forces have found a chem weapons facility in Iraq, about 90 miles SE of Baghdad. " A huge chem weapons facility" Hey scott, was it built by the germans or by the French ? Where was Hans Blix ? Were we paying that friggin clown to do something, or what? What a waste of money.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 8:47:10 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Scott, how come you don't ever find, post or comment on stuff like this? foxnews.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 9:28:25 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

yeeeepers.. Hans Blix must be a union employee. How else could he rake in such sweet pay and expense reimbursements yet produce so little ? We got screwed out of our money and screwed out of our safety by this dope.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 11:50:17 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 89467

There was a media pollster on the radio earlier today. He said that Fox News is snagging 80% of the viewers of the war coverage. CNN has about 8% and the major networks about 3% each. Fox of course is pretty conservative and is supportive of the Iraqi mission. What this tells me is that the long cyclical wave of sentiment among voters starting prior to last fall that allowed moderate conservatives to sweep the elections is likely still very much intact.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/23/2003 11:53:34 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 89467

Bush's approval rating: 70% up from 56% two weeks ago T. Blair's approval rating wrt the iraq situation: 51% up a lot from two weeks ago -- NYT-CBS news poll

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15282)	3/24/2003 2:08:26 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Poisonous wartime politics Donald Lambro Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's bitter attack on President Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict, just as U.S. forces were heading into war, hit a new low in partisan politics. Playing politics domestically was once off-limits when our country was poised to plunge into battle. By publicly supporting your president, your nation and your military — even when you privately disagreed with their actions — you helped foster a unified front, prevent delays or distractions that could cost lives and contribute to getting the troops back that much sooner. Politicking during wartime was an unwritten, understood taboo because, to the rest of the world, we must be a truly united state during times of crisis. After Mr. Bush announced last week that the long period of diplomacy to get Saddam Hussein to disarm was over, Mr. Daschle fired an angry anti-war missile at him, just as American forces massed along the Kuwaiti border ready to end Saddam's evil regime. "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country," Mr. Daschle said at a political event. His charges escape logic: If we had continued the U.N. inspections ad infinitum, as he and his counterpart in the House, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, wanted to do, untold numbers of innocent Iraqis would have perished as Saddam continued his already documented butchery and campaign of oppression. He would have been stronger and more entrenched than ever. And why does Mr. Daschle blame the United States for so-called diplomatic failures, but not France, Germany and Russia, all of whom are up to their eyeballs in business dealings with Iraq and may have added considerable leverage to the case against Saddam Hussein? Looks like — at least where Mr. Daschle and Mrs. Pelosi are concerned — that the "blame America first" Democrats of the 1970s are back. Mr. Daschle's outburst triggered an angry response from the usually placid House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who said the senator's remarks "may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close." In fact, Mr. Daschle's harsh political broadside was out of step with party leaders outside of Washington who wanted a united front over the war. About a dozen Democratic state chairmen and party leaders around the country, interviewed the day after Mr. Daschle's remarks, opposed the war, but said that once hostilities were imminent, they must close ranks behind the war effort. "When you have your people going to war, you have to support them," said New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Kathleen Sullivan. "We had the debate and now we are in a different situation. I have serious reservations about this war, but every American believes we should get in there, do the job and get out of there." As Mr. Daschle battled the president on Iraq last week, the Democratic Leadership Council was advising the rest of the party "to rise above the partisan fray and avoid letting their anger ... distract them from the national interest in winning this war. "Now is the time for Americans to unite in support of the president and our troops," a DLC spokesman said at the beginning of last week "The time is over for recriminations." Former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta faults his party for not fashioning a stronger alternative to deal with Iraq. "The Democrats would have done better if we had spoken with a stronger voice and had developed a coherent position about what should have taken place with regard to [Saddam] Hussein," Mr. Panetta told me. "That message was never clear and Democrats were viewed as being totally against the war or at least ambivalent." Yet the party's top-tier presidential candidates (albeit with some caveats) have backed Mr. Bush's war plans to topple Saddam. Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman were all in Mr. Bush's corner on this months ago. "Bush is a Republican. I'm a Democrat," Mr. Lieberman said last week. "In fact, I'm seeking the office he holds. But at this moment there's not an inch of distance between us." Such an unholy alliance on the war could pose huge problems for the top-tier candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire where "the prototypical Democratic primary voters are very opposed to the war," says pollster John Zogby. That could open the way for a dark horse candidate like Howard Dean, the feisty former Vermont governor who is the strongest anti-war candidate in the pack. Several weeks ago the DLC lectured Democrats about the dangers of resurrecting "the ghost of Democrats past," warning that they were being seen as the party that "cared about national security ... too little." Last week Mr. Daschle was beating the anti-war drums, but saying nothing about national security. Americans weren't fooled: Polls showed 70 percent of the nation supported Mr. Bush's war to rid the world of a very dangerous guy. Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist. washingtontimes.com