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: lurqer who wrote (23211)7/24/2003 9:10:42 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
Well, I tend to think Lieberman's slightly left of center.
I happen to agree with a fair amount of his political views
as well. He's but one example of political leaders who are
slightly left & right of center that I respect & also agree
with a good deal of their political views.

IMO, anything taken to the extreme is often quite
problematic & often leads to taking other things to their
extreme in order to justify/satiate the original extreme
activity/action/POV.

And that's generally what my problems is with certain
politicians on the left, many media outlets & so many folks
here on SI.

It's the extreme things they do & say to cling to their
POV's. Spin is one thing. Seeing more negatives than
positives in those with differing political views is not
unexpected behavior. When one needs to conjure false things
out of thin air & attribute them to your opponent or state
outrageous lies about them, or blatant distortions &
intentional deceit to bring them down..... and to do all of
this on a regular basis, well, then I have a problem with
such extreme behavior.

That however, does not make my political views extreme in
any way, shape or form.

FWIW, Lieberman is also seen by a large number of Americans
as being slightly left of center.......

From: unclewest

Here comes Joe...

Finally a Demo leader who comprehends the big picture.

foxnews.com

PHOENIX — Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman (search) unleashed a torrent of attacks Wednesday, but this time, not all were directed at President Bush.

Much of the Connecticut senator's ire was aimed at his top rivals.

"The anti-tax-cut, soft-on-defense, big-spending Democrats will take the Democratic Party to the edge and maybe over," Lieberman told Fox News while campaigning at a state-of-the-art job training center in Phoenix (search).

Though all smiles at the campaign event, Lieberman is trailing in the polls and fighting for survival.
<font size=5>
A centrist in an increasingly liberal party, Lieberman defends his support for war against Iraq, and calls the anti-war rhetoric of his opponent, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search), as the talk of an unelectable dove.
<font size=4>
"I don't believe the American people are going to elect for president in 2004, post 9/11, in an unsettled world, a candidate who has been opposed to the use of military power against a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein," he said.
<font size=3>
In the past week, several of Bush's detractors have joined Dean on the offensive, accusing the president of misleading the public with intelligence that his own agencies say was not up to snuff.

On Tuesday, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (search), who sponsored the Iraq war resolution in the House of Representatives while minority leader last year, joined the barrage, accusing Bush of "chest-beating unilateralism" and Republicans of "machismo."
<font size=4>
But Lieberman says some of those detractors, including his opponents Gephardt, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search), and to a lesser extent North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (search), are hypocritical for first backing the war but later complaining about it.

Lieberman himself faults Bush with not gaining enough international support to finish the job of bringing freedom to Iraq, but he said his opponents' accusations discredit only themselves.
<font size=3>
"When you constantly criticize the war, even after it's over, even after the world is so much safer with Saddam Hussein gone and the people of Iraq have a chance for a better life, you send a message of softness on defense," he said.
<font size=4>
Lieberman, who in 1994 helped found the policy-oriented, moderately-thrusted Democratic Leadership Council (search) with former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore, considers his candidacy an epic fight to keep his party from a self-destructive lurch leftward, and calls the Democratic race a "struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."

To that end, he also maintains his centrist credentials on the economy, for which he ripped Dean and Gephardt for promising to repeal the Bush tax cuts.

"Some of my opponents in the Democratic primaries oppose all tax cuts, would repeal all Bush tax cuts. I don't. I believe some tax cuts are an important tool of fiscal policy to get the economy going again," he said.

Lieberman did leave room for an attack on the president, saying Bush has done nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs.
<font size=3>
But he also slighted Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards on health care and energy issues, saying their ideas are too liberal and out-of-date.

"Some of my opponents have big spending answers to big social problems. That's old stuff. It's not going to work," he said.
<font size=4>
While some wonder if Lieberman is Republican-light, one Democratic source familiar with the senator's philosophy said he is "progressive in almost every sense of the word as it is traditionally used."
<font size=3>
The source said Lieberman uses language that a lot of conservative voters can understand, and that will make him more appealing in the general election. But it may take a year for his candidacy to resonate with Democratic primary voters.

"Many Democratic voters are angry at President Bush. Bush promised to change the tone in Washington, but he is almost nakedly partisan," the source said, adding that Bush's "representations, you could almost say lies" used to persuade Americans to go to war has angered many Democrats.

"What's resonating right now with Democrats is anger" like Dean's, the source said.

But Arizona may be the best place for Lieberman's pointed attacks. Though an early primary state, Arizona contains only 10 electoral votes. In the 2000 election, Bush and Vice President Cheney won the election. In 2002, Democrat Janet Napolitano took the governor's seat.
<font size=4>
The state's Democratic Party chairman warns that the liberal tendencies emerging from New Hampshire and Iowa's primary voters could hurt the national party.

"We don't want to get stuck in an ideological corner. And I think that's the danger somewhat in New Hampshire and Iowa -- that sometimes the nominee has to appeal to that narrow slice of our party, and even narrower slice of the national voting population, in order to win those states," said chairman Jim Peterson.



To: lurqer who wrote (23211)7/24/2003 10:23:41 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 89467
 
L..re Lieberman as irrelevant....
Ditto.........
t



To: lurqer who wrote (23211)7/24/2003 10:34:05 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
IRAQ..WORSE THAN VIET NAM

Body Counts
Uday and Qusay’s deaths will not stop the guerrilla war. Why Iraq could be worse than Vietnam


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


July 24 — Those of us who’ve covered the Third World’s wars are used to looking at mugshots of the dead, whole photo albums of corpses.

SOME HUMAN-RIGHTS organizations collect them to show the brutally murdered victims of evil dictators. Some generals collect them (I’m thinking of a Turkish general in particular) to show, body by body, their victories over elusive guerrillas. And sometimes the victims in one collection and the guerrillas in the other are the same. That’s the problem with counterinsurgency: separating “the innocent” from “the enemy.”
The new photographs of Saddam Hussein’s sons—close-ups of bearded faces on bloody plastic—look pretty much like any other cadavers dragged out of a firefight, and better than many. Uday’s face was twisted from a wound slashing across the nose, but not imploded beyond recognition, as such faces often are. Qusay’s was unscarred, grimacing.
For American forces these were all but the baddest of the bad guys. For most Iraqis, they were a bad dream that seemed never to end. No question of innocents here. Uday and Qusay were the enemy, full stop, and when they died, so did even the remotest chance in hell a Saddamite dynasty.
But let’s not make too much of this triumph. The body counting is far from over in Iraq. As the death toll for Americans goes up day by day and folks back home are having to think about what it means to fight what’s now acknowledged to be a guerrilla war, you’re starting to hear comparisons with the long, soul-destroying counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Well, Iraq could be even worse.
Nordland: Why Weren't Uday and Qusay Taken Alive?

In Nam, there was a government, however feeble and corrupt, to invite us in. There were structures, including a bureaucracy and an army, that could be improved, advised, derided or deplored—but which at least existed. In Iraq, thanks to the American blunders and indecisiveness of the last three months, there is no army. There are precious few police. And there’s barely a bureaucracy to speak of. The United States has to do just about everything, but it looks as if it didn’t prepare for anything. “People in the conspiracy-minded Arab world just can’t believe you could make such mistakes,” a Jordanian business consultant told me this afternoon. “They see a great plot to dismember an Arab state or whatever. But they’re just misreading your incompetence.”
The Iraqi people themselves were not implicated in the overthrow of the dictator, any more than they were involved (apart from the bounty-hunting informant) in killing his two sons. This was a favor the Iraqis did not ask, a revolution in which they did not participate and a debt of gratitude they do not feel. Even for those many Iraqis who loathed Saddam and his sons, there is something humiliating about the spectacle of Uncle Sam arriving on their doorstep like a deus ex machina to dictate their history. Now they don’t want the Americans to stay, but they’re afraid for them to go and leave an even more dangerous power vacuum. So there are many Iraqis who say reluctantly that they approve of the U.S. presence.
Winning a guerrilla war requires more than just presence, however. The response to rebellion has to be clear, direct, very brutal and very invasive not only for the enemy but for the innocents. And we shouldn’t kid ourselves about this. There is a terrible sameness in the history of effective counterinsurgencies. As a Guatemalan general once told me after shooting up the highlands of his country from a helicopter, the people in areas where insurgents operate need to be taught a simple lesson: we, the government, can protect you from the guerrillas, but the guerrillas cannot protect you from us, and you are going to have to choose. It took years, internment camps and horrific human-rights abuses, but eventually the Guatemalan rebels were crushed. The Turkish general with his accordion-album photos of Kurdish corpses won a similar victory in the east of his country. As did the Algerian generals in theirs. But it’s hard to call those triumphs a liberation, which is what Operation Iraqi Freedom has claimed to be.



Newsweek International July 28 Issue

So no wonder Washington wants to believe Saddam and his late sons are the inspiration for those guerrilla attacks that cost the lives of another three Americans just today. No wonder Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz clings to the idea that paid assassins are at the heart of resistance to the benevolent American presence. And we should all hope that’s the case, because if it is, then the end of Saddam, which may come soon, could really mean an end to the war.
But Adnan Abu Odeh, a former advisor to Jordan’s King Hussein and one of the region’s real wise men, offers another scenario. He suggests the Iraqi people see themselves struggling against two enemies now: Saddam on the one hand, the American occupiers on the other. “Ironically, if Saddam is killed as well as his two sons,” says Abu Odeh, “that will accelerate the process of seeing the Americans as the real enemy.”
The dynasty is over. The dying is not.

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.