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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (10116)	10/1/2003 12:13:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793725

There's not much in Mongolia that anyone would want. Yak butter and sheepskin coats, I guess. I like Sullivan's take on Blair's speech yesterday. God, I wish Bush had speechwriters like this! _____________________________________________________________________________ BLAIR'S WAR: For all the retroactive nay-saying, Tony Blair turns the tables on his critics with this part of his speech yesterday to the Labour Party Conference: Imagine you are PM. And you receive this intelligence. And not just about Iraq. But about the whole murky trade in WMD. And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from historical fact. That Saddam's regime has not just developed but used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under the noses of the UN Inspectors. And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing. And I look at Saddam's country and I see its people in torment ground underfoot by his and his sons' brutality and wickedness. So what do I do? Say "I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch its wrong?" Leave Saddam in place but now with the world's democracies humiliated and him emboldened? You see, I believe the security threat of the 21st century is not countries waging conventional war. I believe that in today's interdependent world the threat is chaos. It is fanaticism defeating reason. Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse. Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then? Bush should, in my view, say something similar at some point. I know that any concession with regard to fallible pre-war intelligence can lead to the anti-war hysterics piling on and the Democratic opportunists playing clairvoyants. But the point of concession is to say that he took the right decision, even if the intelligence turned out to be flawed, and may have to make a similar decision again. The threat has not gone away. It's a complicated war and not susceptible to swift or easy fixes. But it's still a war we have to fight. Or perish. andrewsullivan.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (10116)	10/1/2003 12:19:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

The Arafat Barrier By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON — By unleashing and sustaining suicide bombers against Israeli civilians, Yasir Arafat outfoxed himself: the Palestinian boss has given substance to the Israeli dream and U.N. promise of "defensible borders." Two-fifths of the barrier against terrorist infiltration is already built. Its purpose is to remove the extremist Palestinians' threat of suicide attacks from what was once called the peace process. Having driven the Israelis to build a protective fence, Arafat now wants it built along the Green Line that made Israel's cities so vulnerable in the past. That won't happen; the barrier — 6 percent of which is a wall to stop sniper fire at passing school buses — can be seen outside the suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where many of the 200,000 West Bank Jews live. A "double fence" will also protect the high ground around Ben-Gurion Airport. But what about the Jewish families in the thriving Ariel salient, with its 7,000-student college, which juts into hotly disputed territory? Arafat wants those residents left exposed to his "martyr's brigades." The Bush White House, in deference to European and U.N. diplomacy, has asked Israel's government to think twice about the fencing needed there. Bush aides even hint darkly of limiting that small part of our $9 billion loan guarantee that goes toward building controversial portions of the fence. Sounds menacing, but the U.S. guarantee, which costs us nothing, saves Israel about 1 percent on its borrowing costs; on 30 miles or so of fence, I figure that holdback would penalize Israel a few million dollars. Ariel Sharon's cabinet meets today to consider "the battle of Ariel." (The Hebrew name of both the town of 20,000 and the current prime minister can be interpreted as "a lion of God" or as the poet Milton's rebel angel.) Hard-liners will argue for building the fence "east of Ariel," incorporating it into the protected zone. Sharon is no more likely to give up Ariel, now or post-Arafat, than he is to change his first name. He once proudly showed the hilltop town to then-Governor Bush from the air, and has an affinity for its courageous townspeople. Long before that, when Sharon seemed washed up in politics, he choppered me into Ariel, where voters received him with cheers. They trust him. He also remembers how Arafat, when presented with almost all the West Bank by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton, interpreted that huge concession as weakness and launched the second intifada. Dennis Ross, who was at Clinton's side, says that not even the deal offered the Palestinians in 2000 of 97 percent of the West Bank included the give-up of Ariel. Now here is where the current fencemanship gets interesting. A pretty good source in Jerusalem tells me that in today's cabinet meeting, Sharon is going to count on the continued trust of his friends in Ariel. Rather than play to the Israeli grandstand by rejecting the U.S. concern, Sharon is likely to urge his cabinet to respect the Bush advice. That does not mean to abandon Ariel; far from it. It means to postpone the inclusion of the five-village salient inside the main Arafat barrier until the last stage of the fence's construction. Meanwhile, fencing can encircle each of the villages, defending them as islands, or perhaps a horseshoe-shaped barrier not attached to the main line with Israeli troops stationed in the gap. That would show the world that Israel respects America's intercession, and would demonstrate that only Bush — not the Europeans or U.N. — can influence Sharon. Meanwhile, the fence-building elsewhere goes on, and the decision to build "east of Ariel" need not be made for months. Israelis are bracing for another attack by Arafat's commanding faction. In its aftermath, Israel's decision to extend the fence to defensible positions will be made. All along, Sharon will insist that the fence is a security device, not a political border. That gives future Israeli governments opportunity to improve territorial defenses if a Palestinian partner does not soon emerge. When that peacemaker does emerge, he or she will find the defensible-border issue already settled — thanks to Yasir Arafat. nytimes.com