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: sylvester80 who wrote (31395)	11/12/2003 12:54:26 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 89467

prospect.org By Zbigniew Brzezinski Web Exclusive: 10.31.03 Print Friendly \| Email Article The following is a transcript of the speech delivered by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski on Oct. 28 at New American Strategies for Security and Peace, a conference co-sponsored by the Prospect in Washington, D.C. The speech followed an introduction by David Aaron, a former deputy national security adviser. David, distinguished guests, friends, and there's some overlap between the two categories. It's very touching to be introduced by a close friend, a colleague who worked very closely with me for four years, with whom we tried to forge policies that would be responsive to the realities of power and to the demands of principle. To the extent that there were any accomplishments to which I can lay claim I am certainly more than eager rightfully so to share them with David Aaron. What more can I say about that introduction. Since our relationship with President Jimmy Carter was invoked perhaps the only additional thing I can say is to repeat what he recently said after being equally generously introduced. He came up to the podium and said of all of the introductions I have ever heard this one was the most recent. Ladies and gentlemen, forty years ago almost to the day an important Presidential emissary was sent abroad by a beleaguered President of the United States. The United States was facing the prospect of nuclear war. These were the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Several emissaries went to our principal allies. One of them was a tough-minded former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson whose mission was to brief President De Gaulle and to solicit French support in what could be a nuclear war involving not just the United States and the Soviet Union but the entire NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact. The former Secretary of State briefed the French President and then said to him at the end of the briefing, I would now like to show you the evidence, the photographs that we have of Soviet missiles armed with nuclear weapons. The French President responded by saying, I do not wish to see the photographs. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me. Please tell him that France stands with America. Would any foreign leader today react the same way to an American emissary who would go abroad and say that country X is armed with weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States? There's food for thought in that question. Fifty-three years ago, almost the same month following the Soviet-sponsored assault by North Korea on South Korea, the Soviet Union boycotted a proposed resolution in the U.N. Security Council for a collective response to that act. That left the Soviet Union alone in opposition, stamping it as a global pariah. In the last three weeks there were two votes on the subject of the Middle East in the General Assembly of the United Nations. In one of them the vote was 133 to four. In the other one the vote was 141 to 4, and the four included the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. conn't

To: sylvester80 who wrote (31395)	11/12/2003 5:28:22 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

At the time of the carrier strut, I noted that between then and the aught four election was just over a year and a half - conveniently divisible into three six month periods. The first of these three, May Day to Halloween, periods has now passed. So let's look at the change in the twin determinants (IMO) of GWB's reelection bid - Iraq and the economy. At the beginning of May, from Rove's perspective, Iraq looked great, while the economy was more problematical. Now the positions of these two determinants have reversed. The economy is roaring and Iraq has become "a thorn in the side". Six months ago, much of the change could be predicted. With the continuing liquidity flotation act from the Fed (plus, in the opinion of some, aided by direct market manipulation) and the tax rebates, the economy has been "juiced" to (at least temporarily) an intoxicated high. Meanwhile, the predictions of those familiar with ME history, that any occupation force would have bull's eyes painted on their backs, has sadly proven true. Moreover, the predictions that "sowing the wind" with an arrogant go-it-alone attitude would "reap a whirlwind" of "you made your bed, now lie in it" when the inevitable crunch came, have also proven true. Is past prologue? Will the twin determinants reverse again before the next dance around the May pole? For me, the crystal ball is more clouded than last May. The economy is churning, but is this sustainable for another year - even with the Fed's overt (and perhaps covert) help? It is my personal belief that we have not destroyed the Great Bear that slew the Secular Bull in 2000. Rather, I believe that an ephemeral, unstable reprieve in the decline to a valuation low, has been engineered. The key word in the previous sentence is unstable. Without "touch up" efforts, I suspect the economy/market will quickly collapse. So will the Fed et al be able to Houdini the current recovery into lasting for another year? From a demographic perspective, the possibility exists. The spending of the boomers won't precipitously decline until the aught six - aught seven timeframe. OTOH, the "pump priming" has produced such an overvalued market and over extended consumer, that it will be increasingly difficult to maintain these elevated levels (see moneycentral.msn.com ) Iraq is not completely clear either. If the occupation resistance remains largely confined to the Sunni triangle, improved intelligence may slowly attrite the perpetrators. All GWB (read Rove) needs is for the rate (and severity) of the attacks to stop escalating. A lessening of the attacks, coupled with “progress” on formation of an Iraqi government (e.g. a pending vote on a constitution) will be spun into “Mission Accomplished”. OTOH, a spread of the violent resistance would preclude a rosy Rove scenario. In this regard, the recent US- PKK battle in the north and the bombing of the Italians in the south, may be portents. When everything is going well, you don’t make changes. Bremer’s sudden Washington “command performance” indicates the need for a change. We know what the plan was, but the Iraqis can’t seem to follow the script. The Governing Council was supposed to have a plan to expedite a constitution by December 15. Instead, they put the kybosh on the Turkish troops – which jeopardizes the plan to draw down American troops prior to the election. The CIA report highlights the erosional effect the resistance is having on Iraqi cooperation. So now we have a Washington confab to formulate a new policy. Remember this is after the “mid-course correction”, we had last August. Will this new policy be sufficient for Bush to finesse his Iraqi dilemma without alienating his right wing? We’ll know by May Day. lurqer