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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (5834)	8/24/2003 6:09:24 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793645

Saudis continue to suprise me with their help in rooting out the terrorists. I wonder what brought on the big change. Teaming Up Again? time.com The U.S and Saudia Arabia are working together to build an antiterrorist task force despite tensions over the 9/11 report ...Sources tell TIME that a group of FBI and IRS agents are scheduled to fly to Riyadh this week to start work at a joint center that could one day house two dozen financial experts. "It's difficult to overestimate the potential value of this joint effort," says Treasury general counsel David Aufhauser, the top U.S. official dealing with terrorist finances. The Saudis seem to have plenty to offer. They have arrested or killed some 200 al-Qaeda suspects since the May 12 Riyadh bombing that took 35 lives and have found documents, including financial records, that could provide useful leads...

To: NickSE who wrote (5834)	8/24/2003 6:20:37 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793645

if the US fails in Afghanistan or Iraq, it won't be due to a lack of money IMO, lack of money early in the Afghanistan and Iraq nation-building exercises will be the key reasons for failure in both places. In Afghanistan we lost a key and obvious opportunity to absorb the armies of the warlords into a central national army controlled by Karzai. All that was needed in the month after the Taliban defeat was some relatively pitiful salaries to retain and convert some 50,000 warlord troops into a central National army. It would have cost less than $100 million a year to instantly strip the warlords of their armies and establish a strong national army almost overnight. The boneheads that control policy at Defense however, had to start from scratch, training for months a few thousand troops according to American Army standards. So, the warlord troops got back to the warlords, where they are now protecting a thriving heroin-based economy, and don't give a rat's ass about the resurgent Taliban. In Iraq, the unintended consequences of the looting turned upside down Plan A from Rumsfeld's geniuses (the only existing plan) and it was too much to figure out that a generous dollop of aid up front to give all the looters jobs fixing the infrastructure and picking up garbage would have started reconstruction early in the game and probably short-circuited the nascent guerilla war. But, no, the geniuses were waiting for the gusher of oil revenues to pay for any serious reconstruction and economic revival. Four months later, they are still waiting. Thank God for guys like McCain who boldly proposed a drastic increase in monetary aid (very close to what I said was needed, $20 billion), as well as more troops. This is not what the majority of the American people want according to the latest poll. But, if we listen to the polls, we might as well pack up and leave Iraq now.

To: NickSE who wrote (5834)	8/25/2003 4:07:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793645

Odd poll results, pointed out by "The Weekly Standard." AS THIS WEEKEND'S Los Angeles Times poll shows, there are still plenty of choices for Republicans. Once again, we have a statewide survey that finds Republicans split--22 percent for Arnold, 25 percent for three other Republicans (including former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth, who's running as an independent but is listed on the ballot as a Republican). In case you're keeping score at home, here's how the first three recall polls handicap the field: LA Times (8/16-8/21) PPIC (8/8-8/17) FIELD (8/10-8/13) Average Recall Davis 50-45 58-36 58-37 55.3-39.3 Bustamante 35 18 25 26 Schwarzenegger 22 23 22 22.3 McClintock 12 5 9 8.7 Ueberroth 7 4 5 5.3 Simon 6 4 8 6 A FEW THOUGHTS: As the risk of running afoul of Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times' pollster, her survey raises lots of questions. (It's worth noting, by the way, that the results are based on a sampling of a wider pool of registered voters, not just likely voters. The PPIC and Field polls stick to likely voters.) Oddity #1: Schwarzenegger has a positive press conference, runs an upbeat bio spot on statewide TV, and yet the Times reports that only a late surge in the poll brings him back to the same level as the Field and PPIC polls. One would assume that, after firming up his credentials as a fiscal conservative, Arnold would get more support from the right. Oddity #2: Democrats had a week in which the dominant story line was intraparty division. Dianne Feinstein told Democrats to vote "no" on recall and skip the second half of the ballot; House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said to vote "yes" on Bustamante. Yet, according to Times, anti-recall sentiment is growing. It just doesn't add up. Oddity #3: Bustamante received key endorsements from Democratic leadership groups, but also unveiled a budget "fix" that, if approved, amounts to the biggest tax increase in California history. Yet, in a survey adjusted for heavier-than-usual Republican turnout, Bustamante's poll numbers are nearly twice as strong as the PPIC's findings. Oddity #4: The Times find that more than one-third of moderate Republican voters would support Schwarzenegger, and one-fourth would vote for Bustamante. This, even though the media have been telling voters night and day that Arnold is pro-choice and pro-gay rights--moderate to liberal on social issues. Bustamante's strength among Republicans sounds fishy: It's the kind of support you'd expect for a more familiar candidate, like Feinstein. What this does suggest is that pollsters could have egg on their faces the morning after the recall vote. Unlike normal elections, recall carries all sorts of variables: an unpredictable turnout; the possibility of first-time voters drawn by a celebrity and a Latino Democrat; and the possibility that voters will be confused by a lengthy, two-part ballot. Toss in the other wildcards of California politics--for example, Republicans won the governor's race in 1982 thanks to an unexpectedly large absentee vote--and it could mean a late night of result-watching on the West Coast.