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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (4231)	8/24/2003 7:55:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

It's time to fire Rumsfeld ___________________________________________ SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Sunday, August 24, 2003 The United States has more serious problems in Iraq than President Bush could have imagined when he declared major combat at an end. Before he faces more surprises, the nation's first MBA president should take management action. Relieve Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. The president needs a Defense Department in which professional views about what military force levels hold sway, change can occur without perpetual turmoil and military planning avoids undermining diplomacy. None of that is likely under the domineering Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is brilliant, dedicated and hard-working. It's said he gets results and has won two wars, right? It certainly didn't look that way last week when Americans watched scenes from the bombed U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Continuing U.S. casualties, sabotage and insecurity plague Iraq. In Afghanistan, we now have more troops than ever and the Taliban have been on the offensive, leading to 90 deaths in a seven-day period. So much for driving them into caves. Afghanistan needs additional resources to become a stable nation. Every day, Iraq's troubles make it more certain that Rumsfeld was wrong in his assessment of troop needs. His rapid action plan brought quick victories. But just as Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, security requires several hundred thousand military. News accounts raise questions about whether Rumsfeld is simply a demanding boss or one who may inadvertently limit what he hears from aides. When pressed on troop-level questions months ago, Rumsfeld repeatedly ducked behind the planning of his generals. He now says that his generals haven't requested additional troops. Such talk has enough suggestion of buck-passing to be a management concern. If Rumsfeld brings some genius to hiring decisions, it hasn't been apparent. He's surrounded himself with neo-conservatives bent on war, including Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the Sept. 11 massacres, and such Defense Policy Board members as Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich. Somehow, Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter was picked to head the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, where he suggested creating a massive personal data program and a terrorism futures trading market. Rumsfeld also has proven to be an impediment to diplomacy. Numerous accounts show how Secretary of State Colin Powell has been undercut within the administration. During the Iraqi war preparations, Rumsfeld insulted allies with such phrases as "the old Europe." In Germany, he followed up with public praise for Romania and Albania's help in Afghanistan, but none for Germany's leading role. Powell needs to be in charge of diplomacy, untroubled by an out-of-control defense secretary. Rumsfeld is the bright, abrasive boss whose usefulness expires quickly. If the president has any thought of a more international approach to security threats, he must remove Rumsfeld from his leadership team. seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (4231)	8/24/2003 8:29:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

GOP should fear Wesley Clark tallahassee.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (4231)	8/24/2003 8:35:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Editorial: Draft Clark? ______________________________ August 22, 2003 Wesley Clark talks like a candidate, acts like a candidate and, by Labor Day, he may be a candidate. The retired Army general is inching ever closer to joining the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. "Draft Clark" committees are independently raising money, running ads and organizing volunteers. Some party regulars want him to run. He's a ferocious critic of President Bush on the war on Iraq, and with his military credentials — NATO commander during the Balkans bombing campaign — his critique has credibility. On CNN's Late Edition — part of acting like a candidate — he said Bush went into Iraq under "false pretenses" and now the nation has no choice but to follow through, even though America is "more vulnerable, more committed, less able to respond." His positions on other issues are carefully hedged — part of talking like a candidate. Having grown up in Little Rock and gone on to be a Rhodes scholar, he bears comparison with another Arkansas native who went on to high office. At age 58 and after 34 years in the military and four as an investment banker, Clark is a political novice. But the race could use a fresh face and a new perspective because, frankly, the nine candidates now in the hunt haven't exactly set the world on fire. The candidate who most excites Democrats — Hillary Clinton — insists she's not running. And if this race doesn't work out for him, there's always 2008. A lot of American presidents had at least one unsuccessful race under their belt. Welcome to the political wars, General. tcpalm.com