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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (113190)	8/28/2003 5:20:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl: I don't think its fair to judge Wesley Clark based on 1 comment he made...He has said Iraq did NOT present this country with an 'imminent threat' and he WOULD NOT have authorized a dangerous and expensive pre-emptive strike on Iraq. He also said that by attacking Iraq it could trigger more terrorism and look what we have. We need a leader who is willing to work with allies (and the U.N.) and only use war as A LAST RESORT. It's now very clear that this was 'an elective war'...It's George Bush's war -- and there was such a rush to attack Iraq WITHOUT adequate postwar planning that we are all paying the price.

To: Bilow who wrote (113190)	8/28/2003 6:21:28 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Wait, Carl. This is what you posted as the basis for your characterization of Clark as worse than Bush. “Our troops over there are having a very hard time right now. If we gave those troops another division or two, they wouldn’t turn us down,” Clark said. But when asked during the post-speech news conference if he would send more troops to Iraq if he were in the White House today, Clark skirted the issue. The "skirting" referred to is given in the next line of the piece, which you omitted from your quote: First, we have to have a far-reaching political strategy,” he said. I suppose if a yes or no answer is required not to be a skirter, saying "First, we have to have a far-reaching political strategy" is skirting. But it's equally reasonable to interpret that as meaning that he wouldn't send more troops until there was a far-reaching political strategy. (Any more than he would have sent the first troops in without one of those, he is presumably implying.) As for whether he's a moron, or worse than Bush or not, I don't know. But saying that he wouldn't send more troops in, even if our troops are having such a hard time they wouldn't turn them down, until there was a far-reaching political strategy isn't proof of it, and isn't, imo, skirting anything. The writer of the article wanted a Yes or No, for a headline, and didn't get it so he called what he did get "skirting," instead of writing "he explained," or "he said firmly." He produced a sexier product with the "skirted" verb. So: I think maybe you were too harsh, Carl....

To: Bilow who wrote (113190)	8/28/2003 6:40:58 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think Clark means troops from other countries. Right now the national news is humming about Bush agreeing to ask for troops from the UN. It's being called a seismic policy change. And then there is this. I guess Old Europe and the UN aren't so irrelevant after all..... Bush aims to mend his European fences By James Harding in Washington Published: August 28 2003 21:05 \| Last Updated: August 28 2003 21:05 The White House is planning a series of face-to-face meetings next month between President George W. Bush and some of his most awkward counterparts in Europe. US officials say the sessions planned with Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany are not intended as a co-ordinated rapprochement with leaders who have proved obstructive critics of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's treatment of the UN. But as Washington seeks further international support to stabilise and rebuild Iraq, the meetings will prove a critical test of Mr Bush's handling of the transatlantic relationship. Mr Bush is expected to meet Mr Putin at Camp David in the last week of September, amid quiet concern in Washington over what is supposed to have been one of the main achievements of the administration's foreign policy. White House officials said the meetings were simply part of Mr Bush's continuing work tending to important and complex relationships with key allies. US and foreign diplomats suggest Mr Bush, who has made much of the personal relationship he has forged with the Russian president, has become lukewarm towards Mr Putin. Administration officials are said to be alarmed at the recent assault on business and attacks on the press in Russia, and disappointed that Mr Putin has stood behind France and Germany on Iraq. "The president has cooled [towards Mr Putin]," says one person closely involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Everyone is worried about the negative trend." His comments echoed those of another, recently privy to a conversation with Mr Bush on the subject. Conservative figures in Washington's foreign policy establishment, he said, have begun to question what Mr Bush has to show for his very public friendship with Mr Putin. "There is a view that at the first sign of any American weakness, the Russians return to form," he said. Russia has been consumed in recent weeks by government raids on the offices of Yukos, the country's largest oil group, and the arrest of its chief shareholder, in a battle that has depressed the market and pitted prominent corporate figures against Kremlin associates of Mr Putin. The president, who is well ahead in the polls for re-election next March, has remained above the fray. Mr Bush's meeting with Mr Chirac is scheduled to take place over lunch in New York on September 22 or 23, according to French officials. The get-together between Mr Bush and his most obstinate critic over Iraq will come in the margins of the UN General Assembly. Mr Bush is due to address the UN on September 23 and officials say he will reprise the "challenge" he made in September last year to the international community to join the fight on international terrorism. French officials say Mr Chirac met foreign policy advisers this week to discuss the meeting with Mr Bush, which was proposed when the two men last talked face-to-face at the Group of Eight summit in Evian in June. The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Schröder, which is likely to be a 30-minute get-together in one of the meeting rooms in the UN building, is being viewed by diplomats and White House officials as "an ice-breaker". The personal relationship between Mr Bush and Mr Schröder has been notoriously bad and the leader of the world's sole superpower and the leader of Europe's largest economy have not had a one-on-one meeting since May 2002. Right now the national news is humming about Bush agreeing to ask for troops from the UN. It's being called a seismic policy change. (I guess the first time Bush met Putty-Put and looked into his eyes and saw his "good heart" he failed to see the saavy politician. Rascal @ WolfieAndRummyMustBeFeelingPunked.com