SI
SI
discoversearch

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: KonKilo who wrote (12620)10/17/2003 12:03:24 AM
From: Neeka  Respond to of 793608
 
Who is 'they', and how did 'they' go 'after' RL?

I don't know who "they" are. Ed Asner made the first reference. It is an interesting question though, and I think I know who some of them are. "They" obvoiously contacted the ex maid and paid her lots of money for her story. Don't be surprised if she starts driving a new Lexus.

M

Ed Asner: 'Hannity's next ... just like we went after Limbaugh'



To: KonKilo who wrote (12620)10/19/2003 8:59:56 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793608
 
"Grey skies are going to clear up, put on a happy face!
____________________________________

POLITICS

The Clouds May Be Clearing for Bush and GOP
Progress in Iraq and the U.S. economy could leave the president sitting pretty for 2004.
By Walter Russell Mead
LA TIMES
Walter Russell Mead, a contributing editor to Opinion, is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.
October 19, 2003

NEW YORK — Since May 1, when President Bush touched down on the deck of the U.S. aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit, it was a downhill slide for the Bush administration. Iraq increasingly looked like a quagmire, no weapons of mass destruction turned up, and the economy didn't produce jobs. The administration's poll numbers accordingly sank, and the president's political clout weakened. As American soldiers continued to be killed in Iraq, TV announcers somberly remarked after each death: "That makes (fill in the blank) American combat deaths since the president declared an end to major hostilities."

It was springtime for Democrats. Bush-bashing became their favorite sport. The administration's $87-billion request to pay for Iraq's and Afghanistan's reconstruction and the U.S. military presence there was God's gift to Democrats. Last week, the House and Senate approved versions of the bill, but the request had offered many opportunities for Democrats to torture the administration, ask it embarrassing questions and force Bush to spend more and more political capital on the profoundly unpopular legislation. For the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the Democrats had seemed to have recovered their balance and learned to function well as an opposition party.

Like the Chicago Cubs, though, the Democrats may have peaked too soon. Bush's poll numbers have stabilized. Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory in the California gubernatorial recall election has sent a thrill through the Republican Party. In Iraq, the violence continues, but the lights are now on, kids are returning to school, Turkey has agreed to send troops to the most dangerous part of the country (Sunni Iraq) — and the Bush administration won unanimous support from the U.N. Security Council for its plan for Iraq.

This doesn't mean Bush's problems in Iraq are over. The drumbeat of death will go on for some time. Discontent in the ranks and among reservists (and their families) will continue to rise. Questions about weapons of mass destruction will not go away — and, especially if Saddam Hussein is not captured or killed, the politics of Iraq will remain uncertain and potentially full of nasty surprises.

The new harmony at the U.N. Security Council is only skin-deep. Allied money and troops aren't flowing into Iraq yet — and may never. Old Europe and its friends aren't ready to kiss and make up with the Bush administration. The French, Germans and Russians still steam over the U.S.-led invasion. They remain worried that a new Iraqi government, with U.S. backing, may try to repudiate some of the debt Hussein contracted in cozy deals made with French, Russian and German companies. They want the U.S. to pay the highest possible price — in money and even in blood — for the invasion to lessen the chance that the Bush administration or its successors will ever act without their approval. "You broke it; you fix it," is Old Europe's basic attitude on Iraq — and it will never willingly do any favors for an administration it fears and despises.

Even so, time is on Bush's side. The distance between the U.S. and the rest of the world over Iraq will narrow. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Old Europe want Washington to draw up timetables and set dates for elections and a handover of power to a new Iraqi government. Although the U.S. believes that schedules are unhelpful, as time passes, the tasks will get easier. The reality is, the United States wants to do exactly what the rest of the world would like it to do in Iraq — hand control back to a freely elected, stable Iraqi government at the earliest possible moment.

Iraq is making progress toward forming a new government, and that government will be able to assume more and more security responsibilities. By next spring, the new Iraqi police and army will be deploying, enabling the administration to start pulling out U.S. troops well before the November elections.

That will be the best possible news for the Bush administration. With troops coming home, most voters will move on to other issues. Once convinced that the U.S. doesn't face a Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq, public opinion will probably accept the administration's case for the war without too much complaint. Die-hard peace activists and the hard-core Bush haters will continue to loathe the president, but they will be a minority, and flogging dead horses is never the way to win elections in the U.S.

The administration's other big problem, the economy, also appears to be turning around. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 32% from its 2003 low, while the Nasdaq is up 53%. Although Germany and France are scaling back their growth projections, the U.S. looks set to return to 4% annual growth next year. Recent falls in the dollar should both reduce the trade deficit and stimulate job growth.

Pessimists have worried that the huge federal budget deficits now facing the country might kill economic recovery. Any sign of improvement, they have feared, might send interest rates rising to levels that could choke off growth before jobs are created.

That no longer seems probable. Interest rates, though up from the near-historic lows seen this summer, are nowhere near levels that would threaten the recovery. Inflation, thanks in part to cheap imported goods, remains extremely low. Consumer prices rose only 0.3% in September, the latest month for which figures are available. The core rate of inflation has been lower for the last year than at any time since 1966. With inflation so low, interest rates are unlikely to rise to dangerous levels, and the economy should continue to rebound.

There is better news yet for the Bush team. The early stages of a rebounding economy are notoriously "jobless." That is, gross domestic product rises, the stock market goes up, but unemployment refuses to budge. The main reason is that business is cautious; it doesn't want to make new investments or restart hiring until it is sure the recovery is more than a mirage. It's beginning to look that way now.

If all this is true, and next spring finds Bush announcing troop withdrawal schedules in Iraq while unemployment falls at home, the GOP, not Democrats, will be looking forward to November.



To: KonKilo who wrote (12620)10/20/2003 8:08:23 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793608
 
The "New York Times" realizes that the Democrats are going to have to get positive about how they would handle Iraq.
_______________________________________

EDITORIAL
Waiting for Democrats on Iraq

with the future of America's postwar occupation of Iraq looking longer by the day, the political debate over the issue has taken on new urgency. As American soldiers continue to die and the cost to American taxpayers continues to mount, the Democratic presidential candidates have started to sense that Iraq could turn into a liability for President Bush's re-election campaign. Unfortunately, they have so far been mostly jockeying to produce the best sound bite about who was the first and loudest to denounce Mr. Bush's flawed policy. They need to do better.

They have received little help from their comrades on Capitol Hill. Last week Congressional Democrats challenged Mr. Bush's request for $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. One of their leading demands, converting some of the money into loans, picked up enough Republican support to prevail in the Senate. Unfortunately, it's a terrible idea. Turning aid into a loan dumps more debt on a country that is already sinking in it. It's also the worst kind of election-oriented pandering that only serves to hide the true costs from voters.

A more immediately useful idea was the House Democrats' proposal to require the administration to submit a detailed accounting of all American-financed reconstruction spending and to notify Congress of all noncompetitive bidding. These requirements should be restored to the legislation before final passage, so taxpayer dollars don't excessively enrich politically connected companies like Halliburton and Bechtel.

Virtually all the Democratic presidential contenders are now skewering one or another aspect of the administration's flawed postwar policies. But many of these same candidates voted for the war. (Representative Richard Gephardt even appeared beside Mr. Bush in the Rose Garden last fall to urge Democrats to vote for a war resolution.) Mainstream Democrats did the country no favor by failing to raise more questions earlier about the administration's unilateral approach to Iraq. Those who want to take over the making of foreign policy should spell out their own ideas for fixing what is wrong in Iraq and suggest how they would respond to similar crises.

Almost all the Democratic contenders talk about enlisting more help from America's allies and the United Nations. What's missing is an explanation of how they would achieve this desirable goal given the obvious reluctance of many countries to contribute troops as long as America retains exclusive political control. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman are headed in the right direction when they suggest putting the U.N. in charge of Iraq's political reconstruction and transferring more authority to Iraqis. Sharing power might also bring more competitive bidding for contracts.

On another big issue, Senators Lieberman and Kerry are right to call attention to the strain Iraq places on the army and reserves. Senator Kerry usefully suggests expanding the active-duty force by 40,000, half of them specialists in the postconflict assignments now falling to the reserves. Other candidates need to address this issue. One of them in particular, Gen. Wesley Clark, has the expertise to speak knowledgeably about it.

The candidates also need to tell Americans where they stand on the larger issue of preventive war. The prewar intelligence failures in Iraq and the failure, so far, to find threatening unconventional weapons strike at the basic premises of Mr. Bush's alarmingly novel strategic doctrines. What alternative ideas do the Democratic contenders have for handling threats like North Korean, and possibly Iranian, nuclear weapons programs and for dealing with countries that give aid and sanctuary to international terrorist groups? And what would they do to keep Afghanistan, the scene of America's first post-9/11 war, from falling back into chaos with a revived Taliban?

It is in the nature of modern campaigns to offer sound bites rather than substance. But voters have a right to ask for more and to press the Democratic candidates to present real alternatives to Mr. Bush's policies in Iraq and beyond.

nytimes.com



To: KonKilo who wrote (12620)10/21/2003 2:31:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793608
 
Even Joe Klien has had enough. Is it too much to ask that politics be put aside on this one issue of transcendent importance, where lives are literally at stake?
________________________________________________

Sunday, Oct. 19, 2003
Profiles in Convenience
By JOE KLEIN - TIME MAGAZINE

In 1982 Colin Powell called Wesley Clark "an officer of the rarest potential." In 1978 Alexander Haig said Clark was "an officer of impeccable character." We know this because the Clark for President campaign released 200 pages of similar encomiums last week, internal evaluations covering 30 years of the general's Army career—a blindingly impressive document, the stuff of legend and political ads to come. Unfortunately, the paeans to Clark's character, courage and leadership came during a week when he was showing none of the above with regard to the $87 billion that President Bush has requested to maintain the American military presence in Iraq and begin the reconstruction of that country.

Clark's initial position was laughable. He refused to say how he would vote on the $87 billion because he wasn't a member of Congress. Chastened by a Washington Post editorial that called his position "astonishing," he retreated: the $87 billion, he said, should be sent "back to the drawing board." The general was suffering from laryngitis when I called, so an aide told me that Clark favored two separate bills. One would be money for the troops; the other would be for reconstruction—with a dollar amount scrubbed more carefully than the Bush Administration's rather flabby $20 billion and with greater international cooperation, a quicker, clearer transition to Iraqi authority and restrictions on the contracts going to American corporations like Halliburton.

Sounds great. Trouble is, that's not what Congress was voting on last week. It was voting on the $87 billion, up or down. In that case, the aide said, Clark would have to be opposed. Opposed to funding the troops on the ground? I asked. No, he's in favor of that, I was told. But he would still vote against the $87 billion? Yes, Clark was opposed to giving the President a blank check.

Clark was not alone in this embarrassment. I had similar conversations with representatives of the Howard Dean and John Kerry campaigns, and with Senator Kerry himself—who expressed outrage over the way the Administration had gone to war and about Bush's dangerously unplanned post-Saddam campaign. Both Dean and Kerry said they would vote for the $87 billion if it was funded by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of taxpayers. Kerry co-sponsored an amendment proposing just that, which was defeated, leaving the impression that he was more concerned about who was paying for the $87 billion than about how it was being spent. Senator John Edwards took a similar position; he also voted with Kerry in favor of a successful but questionable amendment that would turn $10 billion of the reconstruction money into a loan.

To be fair, the Democrats' near inchoate indignation is understandable. Bush has got us into a real mess in Iraq. Despite last week's tepid support from the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. will not be receiving very much military or financial aid from the world because there is continuing outrage over America's unilateral decision to go to war. The original casus belli was, at the very least, oversold. The post-Saddam period has been marked by American arrogance and incompetence. The prognosis for Iraq is grave. It is not even clear that the three main ethnic and religious groups—the Kurds, Iraqi Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims—can be knitted into a coherent country. But these are not plausible reasons to oppose the $87 billion. The only real alternative to rebuilding Iraq, whatever that takes, is an American withdrawal that would leave the region in chaos and stand as a significant defeat in the global campaign against Islamic radicalism.

My guess is that each of the Democratic presidential candidates who "opposed" the $87 billion would have voted the opposite way if his vote had been critical for passage. Their opposition was equal parts fury and political convenience—the polls say a solid majority of Americans are against spending more money in Iraq. It was also a way for those who favored the war, like Kerry and Edwards, to make amends with the peaceniks who dominate the Democratic primary electorate. Of course, Bush was playing politics too, by combining into one bill the popular funds for troops with the unpopular funds for reconstruction. But the President had the moral high ground: clearly, more money is needed to fund the Iraq occupation.

Is it too much to ask that politics be put aside on this one issue of transcendent importance, where lives are literally at stake? Happily, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt did the right thing last week. "I will support the $87 billion," Gephardt said, "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq." This will not help Gephardt in Iowa, but it was an act of courage—Lieberman has made a habit of such acts in this campaign—and a stark contrast to the position taken by both Kerry and Clark, the two alleged warriors in the Democratic field.
time.com