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: Neeka who wrote (7126)	9/8/2003 2:50:11 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793838

ANDREW SULLIVAN It was a good speech, well delivered. The only unnerving feeling I got was when the president said he didn't want or need more U.S. troops. I remain unconvinced - but, hey, I'm open to persuasion. Max Boot says we need more civilians instead. Fine. Let's have more civilians. But we need to be told exactly what the problem is and how we're going to fix it. The president didn't exactly do that. What he did do was lay out the broad objectives of the war on terror, explain better how Iraq is a central part of it, and with a request for $87 billion, showed that he means business. That was overdue and refreshing. Again, the speech would have seemed far less defensive if Bush hadn't given the impression months ago that the war was over. If there's been some public wobbling, I think it's partly because of post-war hubris by the administration itself. But I think the White House understands that now. Critics will say that the Iraq-terror connection, brutally outlined in the Washington Post yesterday, is a result of the war and didn't exist beforehand. They're wrong. The links between Baathist remnants and al Qaeda are obviously stronger now than the links between al Qaeda and the Saddam regime a year ago - but they all always had a common goal: the prevention of the liberalization of the Arab world and the defeat of Western interests through terror, both state-sponsored and otherwise. We've flushed them out but we haven't yet destroyed them. Now we have a chance to go in for the kill. If Bush can successfully persuade people that violence in Iraq is a) unavoidable and b) an opportunity, then he will be far more persuasive in the coming months. And we all need him to be. andrewsullivan.com INSTAPUNDIT WATCHED BUSH'S SPEECH: It was an outright challenge to the neo-McGovernites, and even more of a challenge to those wafflers (and several are beginning to appear) among the Democratic presidential candidates, specifically mentioning Somalia and Beirut (bipartisan bugout history there), and noting that lessening our commitment would be a disaster, and play into the terrorists' hands. ("They want to shake the will of the civilized world.") Not bad, but the Administration will have to keep on the ball. The best point was his direct reference to what he said after 9/11, to the effect that this would be a long and multifaceted war. This isn't a time to go wobbly, and Bush made that clear. If he sticks to it, we'll win, and so will he. instapundit.com