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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (78428)	10/28/2003 6:45:38 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Free Advice to G.O.P. nytimes.com By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Republicans seem to think they don't have to think when it comes to Iraq. They only have to applaud the president and whack the press for not reporting more good news from Baghdad — and everything will be fine. Well, think again. I've often pointed out the good we have done in Iraq and unabashedly hoped for more. No regrets. But some recent trends leave me worried. Unfortunately, there are few Democrats to press my worries on the administration. Most Democrats either opposed the war (a perfectly legitimate position) or supported it and are now trying to disown it. That means the only serious opposition can come from Republicans, so they'd better get focused — because there is nothing about the Bush team's performance in Iraq up to now that justifies a free pass. If Republicans don't get serious on Iraq, they will wake up a year from now and find all their candidates facing the same question: "How did your party lose Iraq?" If I were a Republican senator, here's what I'd tell the Bush team: • What in God's name are you doing forcing Iraqis to accept Turkish peacekeeping troops? Are you nuts? Not only will Turkish troops in Iraq alienate the Kurds, our best friends, but they will rile the Shiites and Sunnis as well. Honor is hugely important in Iraqi society, and bringing in Turkish soldiers — Iraq's former colonizers — to order around Iraqis would be a disaster. "If we bring in the Turks, it will bring back bad memories," notes Yitzhak Nakash, a Brandeis University professor and author of one of the best Iraq books, "The Shi'is of Iraq." "Worse, a Turkish presence in Iraq will only prompt the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis to try to increase their influence. That is no recipe for a stable country." It's time for the Bush team to admit it made a grievous error in disbanding Iraq's Army — which didn't even fight us — and declare: "We thank all the nations who offered troops, but we think the Iraqi people can and must secure their own country. So we're inviting all former Iraqi Army soldiers (not Republican Guards) to report back to duty. For every two Iraqi battalions that return to duty (they can weed out their own bad apples), we will withdraw an American one. So Iraqis can liberate themselves. Our motto is Iraq for the Iraqis." • Attacks on our forces are getting more deadly, not less. Besides those killed, we've had 900 wounded or maimed. We need to take this much more seriously. We're not facing some ragtag insurrection. We're facing an enemy with a command and control center who is cleverly picking off our troops and those Iraqi leaders and foreigners cooperating with us. Either we put in the troops needed to finish the war, and project our authority, or we get the Iraqi Army to do the job — but pretending that we're just "mopping up" is a dangerous illusion. • The neocons need a neo-Baath. I'm glad we banned the Baath Party, but the ban was not done right. It needed to be accompanied by a clear process for people who simply joined the Baath to secure government jobs, like school directors, to recant and be rehabilitated. Just tossing these people out has purged thousands of technocrats, weakened the secular middle class and left a power vacuum filled by religious groups. Also, Iraq needs a party that can express the aspirations of Iraq's Sunni minority and give them a stake in the new state. Right now, the Sunni mainstream in Iraq isn't sure how it fits into any new order, so the worst elements are opposing us and the best are apprehensively sitting on the fence. • "There is now a struggle for power emerging within the Shiite community," says Mr. Nakash, "between those clerics and secular leaders who are ready to give the Americans a chance and a grass-roots leadership that wants to challenge both the Americans and the traditional Shia hierarchy. This grass-roots leadership is seeking control of mosques, followers, religious authority and income from religious taxes. Iraq is rapidly moving toward the politics of militias and arms. This trend has to be stopped." Bottom line: We still haven't established a moderate political center in Iraq ready to openly embrace the progressive U.S. agenda for Iraq and openly defend it. That center is potentially there, but because, so far, we have failed to provide a secure enough environment, or a framework for Iraqis to have the national dialogue they need to build a better Iraq, it has not emerged. We need to fix this situation fast. Instead of applauding without thinking, Republicans should be telling that to the president.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78428)	10/28/2003 8:11:39 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Schiavo and Healthcare Rights The condition of Ms. Schiavo - said by her doctors to be in a vegetative state from which she will not recover - tugs at the heartstrings. Equally saddening is the unseemly fight between her husband and her parents over money and who knows best what her wishes would have been in such an event. He says she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive in such a state; they dispute that. A succession of Florida court rulings has upheld the spouse's right to make the final decision about her treatment. But the decision of the Florida legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to intervene in the case and attempt to overrule the judicial process is also profoundly disturbing. After Michael Schiavo decided Oct. 15 to remove the feeding tube that doctors say keeps his wife alive, the legislature rushed to pass an extraordinary law applying only to Ms. Schiavo, which attempted to overturn the court decisions and authorized Governor Bush to order the feeding resumed. Governor Bush and state lawmakers may sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. In part, their actions reflect the deeply felt religious attitudes of many Americans toward sustaining human life as they define it. But it's hard not to suspect that their action is as much about "pro-life" politics and the 2004 presidential election as about Terri Schiavo's well-being. Many legal experts believe the Florida Supreme Court will find the law unconstitutional - the state constitution guarantees the right to refuse medical treatment. Many say the law also infringes upon the separation of judicial, legislative, and executive powers. If anything, the Schiavo case underlines the importance of having a written "living will" that outlines a person's desires about their future healthcare treatment. People have a responsibility to inform themselves about their state's laws governing such issues. In the absence of a written document, many states assign responsibility for healthcare decisions regarding incapacitated persons to the spouse, sometimes after consultation with impartial doctors. If in those cases other family members are allowed to intervene and thwart the guardian's decisions, it's hard to know where the arguments would end. Parents could challenge children appointed as guardians and vice versa. Siblings could challenge each other. The result would be chaos. In the end, decisions about healthcare treatment are best left in the hands of individuals, their legal guardians, and their healthcare providers, in accordance with state law. The courts should get involved only to ensure that state law is correctly applied and to uphold all sides' rights in the process. But legislatures and governors - who are generally motivated by political considerations and are not competent to determine the patient's best interests or the effectiveness of one course of treatment over another - should not presume to diagnose individual cases or to prescribe treatment. csmonitor.com