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: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 12:07:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Foreign policy on the fall runway _________________________ By Daniel Schorr Commentary The Christian Science Monitor from the August 29, 2003 edition WASHINGTON – The march to war can be said to have started a year ago Wednesday with a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Cheney asserted that the threat of Iraqi unconventional weapons made "the risks of inaction greater than the risks of action." The idea of military action to depose the regime of Saddam Hussein had been stirring in the so-called Wolfowitz wing of the Republican Party since the first Bush administration. But the Cheney speech sounded like a trumpet call. In public nothing much happened immediately. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." A year later, with Iraq conquered but not subdued, President Bush contemplates his product line for a fall season that heads toward next year's election. More Americans troops have been killed since the war officially ended than during the "major" hostilities, and Iraq appears to be becoming a rallying point for Islamic militants throughout the region. Speaking to the American Legion in St. Louis Tuesday, the president appeared to preview his fall policy model by calling for patience and lumping Iraq in with Afghanistan and Gaza as a generalized terrorist threat exemplified by the 9/11 attack. The administration appears to be bent on keeping troop strength from becoming a political issue. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the veterans, "It would be a mistake to conclude that more troops are needed in Iraq." It remains to be seen whether and how long Americans will respond to appeals for patience. On the one hand the administration faces demands, some from Republicans, that American forces in Iraq be strengthened to deal with the guerrilla threat. On the other hand, if American casualties continue at the current rate, there is likely to be a rising demand, reminiscent of the Vietnam War, to pull out of the quagmire and refer the problem to NATO or the United Nations. There are already signs that the administration is concerned about a demand to pull out, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the veterans in St. Louis, "We must remain patient. When Americans begin a noble cause, we finish it." From Lebanon to Somalia that appears to be a questionable assertion. But, never mind. This is apparently just test marketing for policy positions to be introduced after Labor Day when the president faces an increasingly skeptical public in the preelection season. ___________________________________ • Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio. csmonitor.com

To: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 1:01:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Conflict between Cheney and Rove on changing US strategy in Iraq. csmonitor.com

To: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 3:20:39 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Message 19257728

To: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 3:25:22 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

This is worth reading... ______________________________ FirstName: Steve LastName: Merriam City: Boxford State: MA Date: 08/29/2003 Time: 02:50 PM Comments: Mr. Clark, I'm sending my second letter to encourage your candidacy for President after having given it more thought . Our nation's strength lies not with its economic or military power, it is with the ideals we have developed over the past 200 years. "America" is not only a place, it is an idea. The idea that ordinary people can create a viable and vibrant society that permits opportunity, freedom and a sense of human fairness. The political experiment our revolutionary forefathers started is still in progress. Yet it has become a successful model of governance that is admired throughout the world. Now that we are the clear dominant power on the planet we stand at a crossroads. How will the American experiment fare over the next 200 years? Will the world look back in 2103 and concede that the American model failed, as many empires before it have done, because arrogance and greed led to its undoing? That it became the entity that was so hated in the world that it was doomed to fail? Because as our own history tells us, people who are dominated and oppressed by a greater power eventually rise up to establish a new order. I believe a person could lead America with a vision for the future that will sustain, not only our citizens, borders and assets, but the American experiment itself. This will require a much different approach than the one being followed by the present administration. America will fail if we are so arrogant that we believe we can chart a course for the world on our own terms. America will fail if we don't recognize that the natural resources upon which we feed are limited and must be conserved. America will fail if we no longer are admired for our insistence on human rights and dignity. America will fail if We The People cede the control of our own democracy to corporate interests which are focused on near term returns rather than the long-term sustainability of the nation. And finally, America will fail, as many nations have before, if we misuse religion to justify our arrogant actions. From what I've read you recognize that we have chosen the wrong path and need to get on a different path if we expect to be continue our 200 year experiment. Please recognize that our ideals do not deserve another four years of abuse by the Bush administration. I will agree with many who were ashamed by Bill Clinton's personal behavior while in the White House, but I always felt he was damaging his own reputation and legacy rather than the nation itself. With Bush its different. His arrogance and disregard for the views of the world is childish and projects an ugly image of America that makes me sick. Never have I been embarrassed to be an American until now. Unfortunately, I don't believe the current candidates have proposed a different vision of where we go next. They each assail Bush and talk about new programs, but don't see that a fundemental change of direction is required if we are to sustain nation for the long term. I'm hoping that you do have this vision. I'm hoping that you see past the special interests and corporations to the American ideal and a government paid for and run by its people for the benefit of its people. Please give us a choice other than the Bush vision for the future of America. Please run for President of the United States. Thank You, Steve Merriam draftwesleyclark.com

To: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 5:16:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Message 19258134

To: Rascal who wrote (26724)	8/29/2003 7:19:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Joe Conason's Journal ________________________ Some of the Democratic Party's biggest donors have withheld support from the current field, waiting to see what happens. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark could be it. - - - - - - - - - - - - salon.com Aug. 29, 2003 \| Waiting for Wesley Despite my best intentions, a bicycle accident stopped me from posting yesterday. When I should have been writing, I was in the E.R. No serious damage done, but my right arm is in a sling and my left hand is bandaged -- so the typing tends to go slowly. (Just before the crash, I thought I glimpsed a tall, pasty-looking man in a Fox News baseball cap throwing sand on the bike path, but that could just have been wishful thinking.) So please bear with me: Between the sling and the rigors of book promotion, I am trying to post as often as possible. And speaking of Big Lies, check out the article adapted from Chapter 9 ("Faith, Compassion and the Mayberry Machiavellis") on the Nation magazine's superb Web site. Like everyone else, I'm fascinated by the possibility that former NATO commander Wesley Clark will enter the Democratic presidential race. At a party on Wednesday evening, I ran into a major Democratic fundraiser whose credentials as a party insider date back to the Carter administration. His view is that it is simply too late for Clark to become competitive financially, particularly with Howard Dean looking so prosperous. Yet Amy Sullivan effectively rebuts that and other pessimistic assumptions in this excellent Washington Monthly analysis. washingtonmonthly.com As Sullivan recalls, "John McCain raised $3.7 million in three weeks from online donations alone." Of course Howard Dean has also achieved remarkable success with online fundraising this year. And Sullivan says that many of the party's biggest donors have withheld support from the current field, waiting to see what happens. Clark could be what happens, because he possesses some of the most attractive qualities of both Dean and John Kerry without their problems. He has an exemplary military record. He has executive experience. He doesn't have to explain a vote in favor of the Iraq war. And he would enter the race with enviable name recognition. He has also displayed a willingness to tangle with the worst thugs in the GOP, namely Tom DeLay. They will send any such chicken hawks to rough up Clark at their own peril. For some additional perspective on the former general's political and social views, listen to yesterday's interview with him on "McMullen & Johnson," a news and current affairs program on Sirius Satellite Radio's Sirius OutQ, America's first national gay and lesbian talk radio broadcaster. The hosts grill him on "don't ask, don't tell" and other topics -- and while Clark may have played coy about his party affiliation, there's not much doubt about his liberal political inclinations. As an Arkansan who grew up during the segregation struggle, Clark says his favorite Supreme Court justice is Thurgood Marshall. He also says: "What we've got is a government that's taken us to war under false pretenses. It's failed to plan adequately for the aftermath of that conflict. It's continuing to call for more fighting in the Middle East and that in turn is detracting from the war on terrorism. That's not part of the war on terrorism. We made it a fight over there and it's not helping make us any safer." It will be up to Clark to make this race and win. The Democrats will be fortunate if he decides to try. [1:30 p.m. PDT, Aug. 29, 2003] - - - - - - - - - - - - About the writer: Joe Conason writes a daily journal for Salon. He also writes a weekly column for the New York Observer. His new book, "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth," is now available.