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: John Carragher who wrote (15875)	11/11/2003 12:17:59 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793731

Good news for Bush in "Roll Call." Values are the key. Last part of the article. November 11, 2003 GOP Has Scored Major Gains In Swing States By Mort Kondracke Pew found that "a year before the election, the divided electorate looks strikingly similar to the one reflected in exit polls from the 2000 election." The electorate is split 50-50 between Bush and the Democrat. Whites favor Bush by about the same margin, as do men, married persons and regular church attendees. What may be dangerous to Bush is that he has lost ground among independents, who split 51-49 in his favor in 2000, but now divide 52-48 against him. On the other hand, in every poll, Bush beats a named Democratic opponent. In the Pew matchup, he beat Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.) by 6 points; Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) by 8; retired Gen. Wesley Clark, 10; frontrunner Howard Dean, 11; and Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), 12. Averaging the performance of the Democrats, Pew found that Bush gained the most ground against them (as compared with an unnamed Democrat) among independents, conservative Democrats, women and those who believe that the war in Iraq was the right decision. If Bush's approval ratings are at their lowest point ever right now, it's worth noting that in late 1971, President Nixon had just a 49 percent approval rating and in late 1983, Ronald Reagan's was at 49 percent. Both won in landslides. And President Bush's father in 1991 still had a 56 percent approval rating and went on to lose the 1992 election. Current approval ratings have yet to factor in an improving economy - the 7.2 percent third quarter growth rate, surging productivity and reduced numbers of new jobless claims - all of which are bound to help Bush. Extravagant Democratic attacks on Bush's credibility and trustworthiness have caused no dents in his reputation. An October Zogby International poll showed that 56 percent of voters are "proud" to have Bush as president and only 26 percent "ashamed." By 64 percent to 31 percent, they consider him "honest and trustworthy." It would seem that Bush's re-election rides on one thing: success or failure in Iraq. At this point, according to Pew, 60 percent of voters say that going to war was the right decision and only 33 percent say it was not. Democrats, who think it was wrong by a margin of 54 percent to 39 percent, are out of step - for now. realclearpolitics.com

To: John Carragher who wrote (15875)	11/11/2003 1:37:31 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793731

Here is an excellent article from a Military Blog. "Belmont Club" Clinging to the Enemy's Belt" It was the North Vietnamese Army that first popularized the counterintuitive notion that there was greater safety in combat by getting closer to the enemy. For them, "clinging to the enemy's belt" meant getting so near to American lines that the US advantage in heavy weapons could not be fully exploited. The successful forecast of an attack on Saudi Arabia, enabling Americans to dodge the danger, is an example of how the US is putting this principle into practice. The American ability to know more about a threat within Saudi Arabia than the Saudis themselves is impressive indeed. The partial American penetration of the terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia marks the second instance of an imperfect, yet still valid threat warning. The first was Bali. CNN reported that "U.S. diplomatic and intelligence officials say they repeatedly told the Indonesian government of information suggesting terrorists were planning attacks against 'Western tourist sites' in the two weeks before the Bali bombings." But regrettably, the information was not specific enough to forestall the particular attacks in either case. The Al Qaeda operations probably did not come to the attention of intelligence fully described. In all likelihood, they had their genesis in tantalizing snippets and obscure references, emerging from the background until each was deemed worthy of a code name and assigned to a cell of analysts for further tracking, like a weather system growing into a monstrous cyclone. The picture was probably fragmentary and pieces were missing, but data, although time-lagged were coming in all the time, until the trackers knew within limits when and where it would make landfall. Not enough to save everyone, but enough to save some. How did America get to know so much? By getting close to the enemy. Much US intelligence comes from enemy contact. Incidents like this raid by British Special Forces on the Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq probably resulted in enemy personnel and document captures -- sources of data. Such raids are not one-offs but part of standard operating procedure. The fascinating Third Infantry Division after-action report (page 76) reminds us that Special Operations Forces and "other government agencies" operate within the battlespace of American conventional forces, like infantry divisions, pursuing "targets and missions of national interest". Whether within ground units or stealthily coming ashore from US naval vessels, operatives in contact with the enemy seize data, like the voluminous information taken from the Iraqi intelligence files, whose volume has been compared to that of the East German Stasi. Those who advocate "bringing the boys home" and withdrawing into the illusory safety of a fortress America might consider that in certain respects, the most dangerous place of all to be is out of contact with the enemy. From the perspective of Al Qaeda, and indeed any terrorist organization, the key object of maneuver is to open out the distance between themselves and possible contact. The Al Qaeda's obsessive search for sanctuary, whether in the deserts of Northern Africa, within the chaos of disintegrating societies or as guests of a dictatorship amounts to a quest for enabling space, without which there is no room to wind up, hatch plots, concoct weapons and train. If Al Qaeda aims to wage asymmetrical warfare by taking its enemies by surprise and breaking contact at will, transposing this principle suggests that continuous contact is tantamount to turning the tables on them. Sad that. belmontclub.blogspot.com