SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17500)11/24/2003 3:36:31 AM
From: unclewest  Respond to of 793727
 
And what do we tell them we will do if we catch them selling nukes to Al Qaeda?

I believe we have already answered that question to them.

I don't believe that keeping the 2nd Infantry Division on point is going to deter anything anymore. This is a light Division with only 2 Brigades with a total of 4 Infantry and 2 armor Battalions. There is no way they stop a NK assault across the DMZ. And there is no way for us to reinforce them with ground troops...so what is the point of keeping them there?

The old plan of keeping ourselves positioned at danger points to deter aggression is no longer feasible. That plan called for rapid reinforcement at the point of attack. The Clinton cuts in our Armed Forces were just too deep. We no longer have the capabilities necessary to execute that strategy.

The original plan called for invading Iraq with 500,000 troops. We went with less than half...not because we wanted too...rather because we had too. And even with that it left us unable to respond effectively with ground forces elsewhere in the world.

The resolve and strength of our enemy coupled with our weaknesses are going to make this a very long war. That is already obvious to me.

McCain smells the problem and keeps yelling about it...but he has yet to propose increasing our Armed Forces end strength, nor has he suggested reinstating the draft. I believe both will be needed to eventually have a chance to win. McCain keeps demanding more and more...but he is doing nothing to provide the resources to accomplish what he wants. That is a rookie leadership error.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17500)11/24/2003 8:56:45 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793727
 
One striking thing about Keller's style is that he doesn't dismiss criticism of the paper out of hand. "I look at the blogs. . . . Sometimes I read something on a blog that makes me feel we screwed up. A lot of times I read things that strike me as ill-tempered and ill-informed."

Bill Keller's Changing Times

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 24, 2003; Page C01

NEW YORK -- Bill Keller says he will soon announce a policy at the New York Times that "cuts back on the reflexive use and the pointless use of anonymous sources," which has "gotten out of hand."

Such things used to take an eternity here in the storied newsroom on West 43rd Street. But since taking over as executive editor in the wake of the Jayson Blair debacle, Keller sees "a great opportunity to break some logjams."

No one has ever assumed command of the Gray Lady the way Keller did four months ago -- after a staff revolt against his predecessor, Howell Raines -- and the new boss is putting his stamp on the place. He's named the paper's first ombudsman and mandated credit for Times stringers and researchers -- both key recommendations of the committee formed in the wake of the Blair scandal.

More important, staffers say, Keller has cleared the air, giving mid-level editors more authority and encouraging staffers to spend more time with their families (he walks his daughter to school and has a weekly date night with his wife).

"We're not as self-obsessed as we were during the summer," Keller says. "We're not talking about the collective psychotherapy of the summer. We're talking about stories."

The front page has a more unorthodox feel these days, with pieces on a law firm's footnoted memo on ordering sushi, dog ownership by Zip code and the Daily News debut of former Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove.

Some staffers grumble that there are too many hand-holding meetings in an effort to "de-Howellify things to the point of absurdity," as one put it. Others say the Times seems to be a step behind on some recent national stories, and they question whether Keller's approach is too laid-back.

Keller dismisses talk that he is taking the edge off Raines's "flood-the-zone" coverage. "We are in a brutally competitive business and I like to win," he says. "I don't approach every story as a military campaign, but if anybody doubted we still do 'to-the-barricades' coverage when called for, go back and read our coverage of the blackout. . . . My approach will sometimes be aggressive in terms of pulling out all the guns and deploying special forces, and sometimes be more like guerrilla warfare, and sometimes a long, slow slog."

The top brass are being reshuffled, with Keller tapping a new managing editor, metro editor and Washington bureau chief and looking for new czars for business, science and the Book Review. It hasn't escaped notice that Keller has promoted the likes of Jill Abramson (now managing editor), who stood up to Raines, and metro editor Jonathan Landman, who wrote the famous memo declaring that Blair had to be stopped. But he has also named Patrick Tyler, who was viewed as close to Raines, as London bureau chief.

"I don't believe in holding grudges," says Keller. "There's no loyalty test."

Landman, now an assistant managing editor, calls Keller "an excellent listener" whose style reflects that of Times editors before Raines. "Many people in important jobs feel for good and honorable reasons that they need to demonstrate leadership a lot -- which they view as needing to take over, and to have an opinion even when they don't have one," he says. "Keller is not like that. He's patient. He's willing to wait and let ideas emerge. The contrast with Raines is considerable."

Says Assistant Managing Editor Michael Oreskes: "People are able to go about their work without fear that someone's going to club them with a two-by-four."

Keller is accustomed to complaints about slanted coverage. Asked about the Bush administration's charge that reporting on Iraq has been overly negative, he says: "I'm sure they're hoping editors will stop and take stock and say maybe we owe them a few more stories about what's going right in Iraq. That's not necessarily a bad thing for editors to do. Maybe in response to carping from the White House, the coverage has become a little more sophisticated."

One striking thing about Keller's style is that he doesn't dismiss criticism of the paper out of hand. "I look at the blogs. . . . Sometimes I read something on a blog that makes me feel we screwed up. A lot of times I read things that strike me as ill-tempered and ill-informed."

Perhaps the best example of Keller's open-mindedness toward outside critics is his choice for the Times's first public editor. He picked former Life managing editor Daniel Okrent, whom he had never met, rather than a Times veteran.

"Maybe we were a little too closed off to how the world sees us. . . . The more I interviewed people, the more I realized it would be more interesting to listen to someone who hadn't grown up in our culture," Keller says. Over time, he admits, "I may want to eat those words, or the staff may want to shove them down my throat."

A former managing editor who was passed over for Raines in 2001, Keller could be forgiven for basking in the spotlight that is finally his. But he avoids television appearances and most cocktail parties, saying he usually ends up talking to his wife in the corner. Keller clearly has no desire to become one of this city's bold-faced names. "I'm not wild about the celebrification of journalists in general and I don't much enjoy it myself," he says.
washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17500)11/24/2003 9:25:28 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793727
 
Sharon Goes Step Further in Peace Plan
Israeli premier says 'unilateral' move to dismantle selected settlements could jump-start talks. Critics are skeptical.
By Laura King
LA Times Staff Writer

November 24, 2003

JERUSALEM — Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon disclosed the existence of a plan to dismantle some Jewish settlements in an attempt to jump-start the peace process. But Sharon's political foes, Palestinian officials and the Israeli public responded Sunday with a considerable show of skepticism.

Sharon told his Cabinet on Sunday that a plan for "unilateral" Israeli steps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — details of which had been printed in all the major Israeli newspapers that morning, after a series of well-orchestrated leaks by senior members of Sharon's staff — is under consideration. He did not discuss the details or specifically confirm the content of the Israeli media reports.

Israel's dismantling of so-called settlement outposts — that is, small offshoots of existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank built in the last two years — is mandated under the U.S.-backed "road map," the implementation of which collapsed over the summer amid a flurry of attacks and recriminations.

But Sharon's plan — even if it only exists, for now, in the form of a carefully floated trial balloon — marks the first time his government has raised the possibility of dismantling Jewish settlements in the absence of Palestinian concessions.

Critics were quick to point out that Sharon spoke only of relinquishing increasingly difficult-to-defend settlements in the Gaza Strip, and a few of the more isolated Jewish communities in the West Bank. Other observers saw it as a potentially significant step — if the Israeli leader follows through.

After a seven-month roller-coaster ride of heightened hopes and bitter disappointments over the "road map" — and the grinding day-to-day reality of more than three years of conflict — Israelis and Palestinians alike are inclined these days to look for action rather than words on the peace front.

"Anybody who is not skeptical has been on a different planet these last three years," said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political science and communications at Hebrew University. "Whether Sharon is serious or not is very hard for anybody to tell — and until the first settlement is actually evacuated, I don't think anyone can know for certain."

One key indicator of whether Sharon is prepared to take the measures outlined in the plan will be whether he chooses in coming weeks to openly defy his right-wing coalition partners, who flatly rule out giving up any settlements.

On Sunday, Sharon struck a conciliatory stance toward the hard-liners in his government, telling ministers that no new measures had been decided upon, and assuring them that any new plan would be put to a Cabinet vote.

Even so, the prime minister's rightist allies threatened to bolt if the proposal goes forward — a move that would bring down Sharon's ruling coalition and force him to seek new governing partners.

"The removal of even one settlement automatically places us outside the government," said Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman of the hawkish National Union party.

The opposition Labor Party said, in effect, that when it came to Sharon giving up settlements, it would believe it when it saw it.

"Sharon's under pressure, he knows that his government is failing — this isn't serious," said a leading Labor lawmaker, Ophir Pines-Paz. "The fact is that not one settlement has been removed, construction hasn't been frozen, and he's barely removed a token illegal outpost or two."

But Pines-Paz added: "If he does follow through and implement these difficult, even painful moves, he would find a partner in Labor."

In recent weeks, both Israel and the Palestinians have been working to position themselves for an expected meeting of Sharon and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Korei.

But the process has been moving slowly, and the two men's first talks as leaders are now unlikely to take place until after a three-day Muslim festival marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan. The start of the holiday, Eid al-Fitr, is determined by the sighting of the new moon, and will probably begin Tuesday.

Palestinians dismissed the reported Sharon proposal as mere jockeying in advance of those talks.

"These are public relations moves only," scoffed Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat.

Even some of Sharon's own comments appeared to support the thesis that he was searching for ways to shore up his domestic support.

Sharon's popularity has plummeted recently, amid the release of several alternative peace plans by leading Israeli and Palestinian political figures, and stinging high-profile criticism from four ex-domestic intelligence chiefs over Israel's strategy during the course of the current 38-month-old Palestinian uprising, or intifada.

"I just wanted the Israeli public to know that its prime minister has not stopped thinking about how to get out of the impasse with the Palestinians," Sharon told the Yediot Aharonot daily.

According to accounts published in Sunday's editions of all major Israeli newspapers, the plan is a contingency one, to be put into effect if no other means of restarting the peace process is found.

Sharon's government stressed, however, that it remains committed to the "road map" as the peace plan of choice.

Under the Sharon plan's reported terms, Israel would move some Gaza settlers to the Negev Desert and transplant others to larger settlement blocs in the West Bank.

Successive Israeli governments have demonstrated an aversion to giving up territory under fire, and even some of Sharon's more moderate allies were dismayed at the idea of pulling out of Jewish settlements while fighting continued.

The settlement most prominently mentioned in reports about the plan is the community of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip, which is the target of near-constant attacks by Palestinian militants.

"Evacuating a settlement like Netzarim is a symbol, and will encourage those who want to drive us out of here," said Science Minister Eliezer Zandberg of the centrist Shinui party, Sharon's most important coalition partner. "I hope it doesn't happen."

But illustrating the internal divisions so characteristic of Israeli politics, the leader of Zandberg's party, Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, has advocated giving up Netzarim.

Israelis are reminded almost daily of the cost in young soldiers' lives of defending the settlements, particularly in Gaza.

Israel Radio reported Sunday that an army unit that last month lost three of its soldiers guarding Netzarim, two of them women, had been returned to duty at the settlement. The unit had been temporarily replaced by military reservists after the soldiers' deaths, which came in a predawn Palestinian infiltration.

latimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17500)11/24/2003 8:53:45 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 793727
 

And what do we tell them we will do if we catch them selling nukes to Al Qaeda?

We make sure they know - before they are caught - that if one of their nukes is used against us by anyone else, it will be treated in exactly the same manner as a direct attack - with total retaliation.

They are as capable of calculating risk and reward as anyone else, and they don't want to die.