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: Dayuhan who wrote (13228)10/21/2003 2:50:53 AM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793568
 
Societal taboos regarding homosexual marriage is anything but pretend. Very few individuals "pretend" about the existing realities......in fact I think most of us would be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't have a knowledge of the existence of, and a firm opinion about homosexuality.

I'm not sure if this is pertinent, but something about the pictures beaming into our living rooms depicting daily life in Iraq is missing and it's been bothering me since the beginning of our conflict there. And I'm not sure why it is so, but where are the women in those scenes? Where were the women when the TV cameras showed the statue of SH come tumbling down last April in the town square. And why didn't I see one woman in the bleachers cheering on the horses and their riders at the newly reopened race track in Baghdad today? Why don't I see women in the market place bartering for their families meals or shopping for necessities in the newly opened shops on the main downtown streets of Iraqi cities? Does the fact that I don't see any women.....other than in teaching roles at newly reopened schools.....in any of these scenes indicate a lack of interest in women as a whole in the society we are so desperately trying to establish in Iraq?

I have wondered what part...if any...homosexuality plays in the deliberate exclusion of women from participating in the minutia of daily living in Iraq that normally takes place in other societies?

For a very long time I have been looking for this subject to be addressed on these threads. Up until now it has been taboo......so to speak.......so before anyone jumps down my throat let me make it clear that I ask these questions clearly out of a lack of understanding and an innate curiosity. But let me also state that I am dead serious when I ask.......where are the women, why are they absent from the scene and if homosexuality *doesn't* play a role then why the ban?

I don't know, homosexuality may not play a role at all. But if it does, there is no way that any kind of agreement about the sanctioning of same sex marriage will be acceptable to a large portion of our society. (and just to reiterate a common understanding; that may be because our society *is* based on the Christian faith)

And to be sure, the argument will be made, that the fundamental law being broken is the law of procreation, and that mankind didn't have anything to do with writing that one.

M



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13228)10/21/2003 4:00:03 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793568
 
To Some in GOP, Bush's Troubles Become a Liability

By Juliet Eilperin and David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A01

COLUMBUS JUNCTION, Iowa -- Dave Boyd, sipping a Busch Light in his lawn chair as Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) approached, was troubled. As a production operator at an auto interiors shop in Iowa City, he worried about the Bush administration's bid to revamp the nation's overtime rules.

"I think it would cut into our income quite a bit," Boyd said of the plan, which would make some middle-income workers ineligible for overtime pay.

"I voted against it," replied Leach, who was attending the town's annual Columbus Day parade. "The theory of those who advocate it is that it gives management more flexibility." But "lots of people would be affected by it" negatively.

Until recently, few Republican lawmakers would be so quick to distance themselves from President Bush. But the president's approval ratings have fallen sharply since April, the nation's job growth remains sluggish and large numbers of Americans feel the nation is putting too much money -- and not enough wise planning -- into Iraq.

Although many Republicans are optimistic that Bush will win reelection next year, all nonretiring House members (and a third of senators) have their own 2004 reelection campaigns to worry about. Some GOP incumbents -- especially those in the several dozen House districts that Democrat Al Gore carried or nearly won in 2000 -- are showing an increasing willingness to vote against key White House initiatives and to reassure constituents that they think and act independently of the president.

Leach was among 21 Republicans who joined most Democrats when the House voted 221 to 203 to bar the administration from implementing the overtime revisions. Scores of Republicans bucked the White House by voting to overturn a Federal Communications Commission rule making media mergers easier, and several also voted, against Bush's wishes, to allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries.

Such erosion of GOP solidarity was rarely seen when Bush's approval ratings were higher, but it hardly signals a deep or permanent break between the White House and congressional GOP moderates. Republican lawmakers from swing districts say that Bush generally remains popular with their constituents, and that jobs, not Iraq, are number one on voters' minds. Many GOP House members are taking a cautious line: focusing on the possibility that Bush can't help them at reelection time, yet continuing to support him as much as possible.

Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) said he foresees an easier time for Bush next year in the Sunshine State, site of the dramatic 2000 election recount. "I don't think Bush is going to find Florida as close as it was last time," Shaw said. "I think Jewish voters may break more for the president" because of his strong support of Israel.

However, Shaw noted, "Drugs for seniors is a huge issue." Shaw has voted twice to allow importation of Canadian drugs despite the White House's objections.

Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) hails from a district that Gore carried in 2000. He said he has not heard a lot of complaints about Iraq or the $87 billion that Bush wants to spend there and in Afghanistan, and he feels confident about his own reelection prospects.

The district has the lowest unemployment of any in Connecticut, in part because of two huge Indian gambling casinos that employ 40,000 people. This month, Simmons, who is on the Armed Services Committee, announced a $10 billion, multiyear contract for submarine construction at Electric Boat in his district.

"For the first time in years, EB is hiring, not firing," he said.

Nonetheless, Simmons is guarded about Bush's prospects, saying that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) will generate a big Democratic vote with his reelection campaign and that it is possible that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- the 2000 vice presidential nominee -- will be on the presidential ticket again.

"I operate off a base of 23 percent Republicans, so I am running every day," he said. "It may be the president won't take the district, but I will."

Simmons's neighbor, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), has a more skeptical view of Bush's standing. Shays said some constituents are beginning to lose confidence in the president, whom they have traditionally seen as a forthright man with a strong sense of mission.

"There's a question mark -- he either doesn't know or he doesn't want to share," Shays said. "Both of those are hurting him badly."

Between the war and the faltering economy in recent months, Shays said, "it wasn't a great time, and the way he has handled it has made it even worse."

In most instances, the jobs picture -- and especially the loss of U.S. jobs to China (and to Mexico, to a lesser extent) -- was the first and main issue raised by these Republican lawmakers in recent interviews.

The bluntest was Rep. Phil Gingrey, a freshman from Georgia. "This is a patriotic district, and people support the president on what he is doing in Iraq," Gingrey said. "But they are upset by the loss of jobs. I think [Secretary of Commerce Donald L.] Evans and the administration are finally getting it, that we are in an economic war with China and if we lose that war, winning in Iraq is not going to mean that much."

Gingrey recently co-sponsored a bill to threaten the Chinese with tariffs on their goods coming into the United States.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) also said that loss of manufacturing jobs "is the first thing [constituents] bring up. A lot of small manufacturers say they are being hurt by China's manipulation of exchange rates. I've called on the administration to take strong action against that."

Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), a moderate from the Chicago suburbs, is favored to win reelection and is closely allied with the president. But his constituents remain worried about the shaky financial shape of United Airlines and Motorola, two key employers.

"The job thing has bite," Kirk said. His constituents "would like to hear more about it, and they would like to have the president talk more about it. You can't talk about it enough."

Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), a fellow Midwesterner, is also worried.

"We have a lot of machine shop owners, first- and second-generation Americans, and they are concerned," he said. "They see some signs of the economy improving, but they see a lot of tool-and-die trade going to China. They're concerned that in a few years, they will be servicing the equipment, not making it."

Some Republicans in swing districts said they believed Bush had gained ground compared with where he was in 2000. Freshman Rep. Jim Gerlach's Pennsylvania district narrowly favored Gore three years ago. Now, Gerlach said, Bush is making inroads.

"I think he'll be better in some suburban areas," Gerlach said. "That will be helpful to me."

Rep. Mike Ferguson (N.J.), another northeastern Republican from a swing district, said Bush "comes across as a strong and decisive leader. That's the thing people have come to like and respect about President Bush."

But Shays said some Republicans might be hurt by their ties to the president if the situation in Iraq and the nation's economic outlook worsen.

"For people like me who are such strong supporters of the president, when the president is making mistakes and you're defending him, it impacts you," he said. "Conversely, when he's doing well, it benefits you."

Leach faced a tough reelection fight last year, and is keenly aware of voters' unease. He has watched his district's manufacturing base erode and the conflict in Iraq worsen.

"America as a 'making society' is in jeopardy," Leach said. "It's very alarming what's happening."

Among dozens of Iowa voters interviewed recently, several said they did not blame Bush for the country's current problems. Trish Mohror, a rural mail carrier from Wapello, said that it will "take a while to recover" economically, but that Bush was cleaning up the mess former president Bill Clinton had left him. Luke Horak, an insurance agent, said people should start to "focus on the things that are going right."

But more voters sounded like Leonard Hixon, a retiree and independent who works at a grocery store a few days a week. "He's paying too much attention to people over there than people here," he said, referring to the funds Bush requested for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even some local Republican officials worry about the president's reelection prospects.

"For Bush to get reelected, two things have to happen: The economy has to improve quite a bit, or Iraq has to be concluded successfully," said Jim Howell, GOP chairman for Louisa County. "If both of those things are in the tank, he'll have a rough road."

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) said the Iraq funding also troubles his constituents. "There's no question about supporting the troops," he said, "but I do get questions about the money on top of that. And people say we ought to be loaning them the money, because they have the oil revenues."

washingtonpost.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13228)10/21/2003 4:08:28 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793568
 
Clintons lack of trust in, and use of, the CIA is astounding. I resigned not over that case--indeed we had prevailed on the central counterintelligence issue--but over my continuing lack of access to the president.

___________________________________________

Unprepared
"Why America Slept" before Sept. 11.

BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY
Mr. Woolsey was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995. WSJ.com

With his title, Gerald Posner draws a parallel to John F. Kennedy's "Why England Slept," the chronicle of Britain's sloth during the interwar years. And there are indeed parallels: Neither Britain after World War I nor the U.S. after the Cold War could bring itself to face the threats of new totalitarian movements--Nazism then, Islamism now. In "Why America Slept," Mr. Posner provides a useful and highly readable overview of not really why but how America slept, though I would caution against buying all its details.
The "why" may be unknowable. Britain's weariness in the interwar years was understandable--it had lost an entire generation in the trenches of Flanders. But why does this country, after it wins a war, habitually assume that the world has been permanently repaired? Why did we go on a holiday from global watchfulness in the roaring '90s, just as we had in the roaring '20s?

Whatever the reason, Mr. Posner's mosaic seems to me to get the big picture right with regard to "how."

A few examples: Congress makes it illegal to deny visas to members of terrorist groups. Sixteen boxes of plans for Islamist terror taken from Rabbi Meir Kahane's assassin in 1990 sit unopened in New York City Police Department custody for years. Law-enforcement authorities conclude promptly that a lone, deranged individual is responsible for any given terrorist act even if substantial leads point toward backing from the Middle East. The CIA and FBI fail to talk to one another; both fail to talk to the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the State Department. Arabic documents are mistranslated by the few overworked linguists, substantially delaying investigations. Politically correct guidelines keep the CIA and FBI from recruiting terrorist informants. American universities go on jihad against the INS's efforts to obey the law and keep track of basic information about foreign students. The White House turns down offers of important information from Sudan about al Qaeda and misses opportunities to grab or kill bin Laden. Fund-raising for terror, such as the Holy Land Foundation's and an amazing North Carolina cigarette-smuggling ring, elude the FBI and INS for years. Three major national commissions tell the government to get serious about terrorism and are ignored. Counterterrorism budgets are cut. Insightful FBI agents, working to delve into potential airline hijackings, are thwarted by headquarters and don't learn of one another's efforts. The CIA fails to tell the State Department about two terrorists being tracked in Malaysia--they get visas and become 9/11 hijackers.

In such a way did America sleep.

Mr. Posner's final chapter is a stunning picture of the interrogation of one of al Qaeda's senior members, who supposedly told his interrogators in spring 2002 that certain Saudi princes aided Osama bin Laden and had advanced knowledge of a 9/11 attack. Three of the princes named in this interrogation, it is said, died soon after the man's testimony was made known to the Saudi regime.

Overall, "Why America Slept" seems to paint a representative picture of our somnolence, but my experience of being interviewed for the book, as a former director of the CIA, might give some readers pause about details. My comments about one grand jury are applied in the book to another; the time of a trip is wrong; two points attributed to me (about FBI and CIA leads and Sudanese intelligence officers) must have come from elsewhere; Dee Dee Myers didn't interrupt nor did George Stephanopoulos address me in the meeting on Somalia; I'm given more credit than I deserve or have ever asserted for having suspicions in 1993 of Iraqi involvement with the first World Trade Center bombing; and no meeting with the FBI on information-sharing--at least none I know of--ended in "angry argument."
More important, Mr. Posner has some key points about the Aldrich Ames spy case badly wrong. CIA counterintelligence chief Paul Redmond, the person most responsible for catching Ames, brought two FBI agents fully into the mole investigation in 1991, not 1993. After Ames was caught in early 1994 the most contentious issue, ignored by Mr. Posner, was whether the chairman of the intelligence committee, Sen. Dennis DeConcini, would succeed in using the case as an excuse to transfer to the FBI responsibility for all counterintelligence, including operations overseas aimed at penetrating foreign intelligence services.

This most unwise proposal was indeed strongly opposed by the CIA--and it was this proposal, not mindless bureaucratic infighting, that was the source of the disagreements the CIA had with Sen. DeConcini and the FBI during 1994. Unknown to any of us at the time, the DeConcini/FBI approach would have had the effect of displaying the nation's total counterintelligence effort to a Russian spy, senior FBI agent Robert Hanssen.

Further, Mr. Posner puts my conversation with Vice President Al Gore concerning my lack of access to the president in the spring of 1994, making it seem to be part of the Ames case, rather than when it actually occurred--in late autumn, after the key decisions concerning Ames had been made. And contrary to Mr. Posner's claims, I resigned not over that case--indeed we had prevailed on the central counterintelligence issue--but over my continuing lack of access to the president.

I'm willing to assume that my experience with Mr. Posner is an exception and that I was the only interviewee who read the book with a puzzled frown. Still, he should get into the habit of checking his quotes and notes, maybe twice.
opinionjournal.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13228)10/21/2003 6:56:26 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793568
 
I think, upon reflection, that George Schultz is my favorite Secretary of State
Money Quote: Mr. Shultz's practice of telling new ambassadors to go to the globe in his office and "point to your country." Their country, he was usually forced to explain, was not the country to where they were going but the United States. Too many persons at the State Department seem to have trouble remembering that.
________________________________________________

Inside the State Department
By Lyn Nofziger
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 21, 2003

DANGEROUS DIPLOMACY
Joel Mowbray
Regnery, $27.95, 312 pages

If reporter Joel Mowbray thinks he is on a Department of State blacklist now, he should wait until the department's bigwigs read author Joel Mowbray's book, "Dangerous Diplomacy," subtitled "How the State Department Threatens America's Security."
Mr. Mowbray is the reporter and columnist who, when he was covering the State Department for National Review, had a penchant for asking tough questions and writing tougher stories, both of which made him few friends and more enemies among the department's upper echelons. In his book, thoroughly documented, he pulls no punches, names names and explores attitudes and actions that will outrage any reader who thinks the department should put the interests of America and American citizens first.
Too often, Mr. Mowbray believes, State Department officials put the interests of other nations ahead of those of the United States. And too often, the interests of this nation's citizens are deemed less important than keeping other nations happy.
Chief among Mr. Mowbray's villains is Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage whom Mr. Mowbray calls "a trusted friend" of Saudi Arabia, the home of most of the September 11 terrorists. Mr. Mowbray discloses that nine months after the terrorist attacks Mr. Armitage, in a letter to the Justice Department, wrote that merely believing a person poses a terrorist threat is not a good enough reason to deny that person a visa to enter the United States.
The department itself, Mr. Mowbray reveals, has a regulation reading that "advocating terrorism through oral or written statements is usually not sufficient ground for finding an applicant ineligible" for a visa. The State Department's visa practices along with its treatment of American citizens, largely women whose children have been kidnapped by foreigner husbands and held in the husbands' homelands, are particular objects of Mr. Mowbray's ire.
Mr. Mowbray's articles for National Review are generally credited with forcing the State Department to end what was known as the Visa Express program in Saudi Arabia, which, in effect, allowed just about any Saudi who could afford to come to the United States to get a visa with only the most casual, if any, scrutiny. Under the program, which was instituted three months before the September 11 attacks, three of the terrorists received visas. In fact, at least l5 of the l9 hijackers were in the United States legally, thanks at least in part to slipshod State Department practices.
Mr. Mowbray devotes a chapter to the plight of Americans fighting to get their children back. The problem, as he sees it, is that the State Department is not as interested in helping American citizens as it is in maintaining good relations with other nations. The fate of one child or the anguish of one parent is not nearly as important as is getting along with, say, Saudi Arabia or even Sweden.
Mr. Mowbray is convinced that the major problem with the State Department is that it has too many career Foreign Service officers in high places and not enough political appointees whose loyalty would be to the president's (any president's) policies and not to those that have evolved through the years in the department. Mr. Mowbray believes that Secretary of State Colin Powell "committed a fatal mistake in deciding that his top priority would be to promote and enhance the role of careerists at state." He notes wryly that "while Powell may have won the hearts of the Foreign Service he did not win their minds."
Mr. Mowbray recognizes that many of the State Department's practices and policies require the support of Congress. He names three senators, in particular, as knee-jerk supporters of what it wants or opposes. They are Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, currently chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel and Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden. He accuses them of "standing in the way" of any congressional effort to reform the department.
Mr. Mowbray admits that "fixing" it would be a difficult if not impossible job for any secretary of state. A major roadblock is that it is nearly impossible to fire Foreign Service officers and almost as difficult to get rid of those employees who have civil serviceprotection.He credit's George Shultz, secretary under Ronald Reagan, with having made some reforms, but calls the results "mixed." However, he likes Mr. Shultz's practice of telling new ambassadors to go to the globe in his office and "point to your country." Their country, he was usually forced to explain, was not the country to where they were going but the United States.
Too many persons at the State Department seem to have trouble remembering that.

Lyn Nofziger, a Washington writer, was a political consultant to President Ronald Reagan.

washtimes.com