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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: laura_bush who wrote (31374)	11/12/2003 1:25:08 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Invasion, occupation and degradation...soldiers break into Iraqi homes tying up women and children there. Shocking images shame US forces By Yvonne Ridley and Lawrence Smallman Monday 10 November 2003, 0:46 Makka Time, 21:46 GMT Fearful women and children are bound by US soldiers A series of shocking pictures revealing US soldiers tying up Iraqi women and children in their own home has provoked international outrage. The occupying forces have now come under renewed fire for their treatment of ordinary Iraqis as shown in the pictures published today by Aljazeera.net. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is conducting an investigation and seeking advice before taking further action. "This kind of image increases resentment of American troops in Iraq and can also play a major part in demoralising troops who are having to tie up small children. "We are seeking to raise this issue further in the appropriate arena," said Washington CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. A spokesman for the London-based Islamic Observation Centre said the pictures showed a "complete disregard for the human rights of the Iraqi people". He added: "A normal human being should be repulsed by the very idea of tying up children. Carrying explosives "You have to question the mental state of soldiers who are being forced to do this." A child, aged around six, watches nervously as a US soldier ties her The IOC recently supplied pictures to Aljazeera.net showing US soldiers frisking a four-year-old boy in an Afghan village in Paktika as part of a military operation. A senior officer justified the action at the time saying the child could have been carrying explosives. He added the security of US soldiers came first before any hearts and minds operation. Those particular pictures provoked a huge, mixed response from Aljazeera users who inundated the website with feedback expressing concern. This latest series of pictures was sent to US military headquarters Centcom in Florida for a comment. Major David Farlow warned Aljazeera.net not to publish the pictures on this site. "It would be irresponsible. I can't second guess what has happened here without knowing all the facts but US forces operating in Iraq have to use the appropriate level of restraint to the mission. "US soldiers will use minimum forces wherever possible," he added. However John Rees, head of the British Stop The War Coalition, condemned the behaviour of the occupying forces. Colonial occupiers "This kind of behaviour produced a response which forced the British out of India and will undoubtedly force the British and Americans out of Iraq. This picture shows a US soldier frisking a four-year-old Afghan "The American and British forces in Iraq are showing all the worst traits of colonial occupying forces throughout history." A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence in London said: "There are a range of options available to the commander on the ground based on the information received. Restraint depends on the situation." However a senior military source said: "This sort of action would be highly unusual for British troops and would have to be authorised at the highest level. "We just don't do things like that. We are working very closely with Iraqi people on the ground in Basra and prioritise in winning hearts and minds. "We made a dreadful error earlier on in the campaign and lost some military police as a result. It was a tragedy which we have learned from and do not want to repeat."

To: laura_bush who wrote (31374)	11/13/2003 9:10:25 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

NEWS: GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine as campaign theme Posted on Wednesday, November 12 @ 10:00:38 EST boston.com By Anne E. Kornblut, Boston Globe WASHINGTON -- Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas. The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world," Gillespie wrote. "Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath." Inviting a fierce foreign policy debate in the months to come, Gillespie continued: "The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole were treated as criminal matters instead of the terrorist acts they were. After Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that we will no longer simply respond to terrorist acts, but will confront gathering threats before they become certain tragedies." Republican strategists maintain that this tack is consistent with Bush's style: direct, sweeping, and bold to the point of brazenness. But by going on the offensive on Iraq -- effectively saying "bring 'em on" to his potential Democratic rivals, daring them to question his fundamental foreign policy doctrine in the face of a rising body count -- Bush is taking a measurable political risk. Starting with a major foreign policy address last week, Bush has begun embracing a subject that has proved increasingly problematic for him both in the public dialogue and the polls. His position is designed to change the conversation from the situation on the ground in Iraq to the philosophical decision of whether to attack prospective supporters of terrorism in the first place. But some strategists and analysts in both parties say he's unlikely to succeed unless the drumbeat of fatalities slows down. "It seems to me they [Republicans] are benefiting from having the bully pulpit and just repeating their message all the time," former Clinton national security expert Daniel Benjamin said. "But at the end of the day, bad news on the ground trumps all that repetition in Washington. And they have a real problem on their hands squaring those two things." ......more