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: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15668)	11/9/2003 12:55:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793670

How to Win in Iraq By John McCain Sunday, November 9, 2003; Washington Post Iraq is not Vietnam. There is no popular, anti-colonial insurgency in Iraq. Our opponents, who number only in the thousands in a country of 23 million, are despised by the vast majority of Iraqis. The Iraqi insurgents do not enjoy the kind of sanctuary North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos provided. They do not have a superpower patron. These murderers cannot carry the banner of Iraqi nationalism, as Ho Chi Minh did in Vietnam for decades. But if we are to avoid a debate over who "lost" Iraq, as we debated who lost Vietnam a generation ago, we must act urgently to transform our early military success into lasting political victory. We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal. The United States will fail in Iraq if our adversaries believe they can outlast us. If our troop deployment schedules are more important than our staying power, we embolden our enemies and make it harder for our friends to take risks on our behalf. When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. Politics at home has handicapped our progress. Today some Democrats who supported the war in Iraq oppose spending the money required to win the peace. Others blindly criticize the administration without proposing an alternative policy that preserves U.S. interests. With the exception of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, who are committed to victory in Iraq, it is unclear what the other Democratic presidential candidates would do differently to ensure an American victory -- or how they would handle the consequences of the early American withdrawal some advocate. Howard Dean has expressed ambiguity about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan anger is no substitute for moral clarity. REST AT washingtonpost.com

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15668)	11/9/2003 3:50:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Politicians Run From the Senate Many strong potential candidates reject parties' overtures, citing private and political factors. By Janet Hook Times Staff Writer November 9, 2003 WASHINGTON — The world's most exclusive club is facing a surprising problem: A lot of people don't want to become members. With elections for the U.S. Senate only a year away, leaders of both political parties have gotten the cold shoulder from many people they begged to run. It has been 10 months since Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) announced he would retire in 2004; Democrats still have no serious candidate to replace him. Republican hopes of toppling Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who won by only 428 votes in 1998, suffered a blow when a popular GOP House member said no. Incumbents anticipating tough reelection fights in Arkansas and Missouri are breathing more easily now that some formidable potential opponents have declined to run. Even the White House, which recruited some of the GOP's strongest Senate candidates for 2002, has come away empty-handed in several states where President Bush tried to persuade popular politicians to run. REST AT latimes.com