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: unclewest who wrote (19068)	12/8/2003 7:51:43 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793691

I was adding to your frustration. not trying to justify the attack. Not only were these children killed but i believe he got away or was not there to begin with.

To: unclewest who wrote (19068)	12/8/2003 1:17:26 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793691

DEC. 8, 2003: IDENTITY POLITICS Who Is Vladimir Putin? By David Frum - NRO At the very beginning of his presidency, President Bush placed a big bet on Russian President Putin. This weekend’s manipulated elections to the Russian Duma are causing some to say that Bush’s bet was misplaced. Putin is revealing himself to be an authoritarian ruler, disdainful of all restrictions on his power. Look now for him to amend the Russian constitution to allow himself a third term. Internationally, he is revealing himself as more and more hostile to American interests, not least in Iran, whose nuclear program would have stalled a long time ago without Russian aid. But the fact that the bet is not paying off does not prove it was wrong to place it, and for two reasons. First, the bet did initially yield rewards for the United States, including Putin’s acquiescence to a huge expansion of the U.S. presence and influence in Central Asia. Without Putin’s support, the campaign in Afghanistan would have been much more difficult and possibly less successful. Second, Bush praised Putin not because he was unaware of Putin’s bad tendencies, but because he hoped that the sunshine of American friendship might nurture Putin’s good tendencies – and they did exist. By insisting that the then newly installed Russian president was a democrat, Bush hoped to help encourage him to become one. Political leaders, real leaders, cannot be content with merely predicting outcomes. They will wish to try to affect outcomes. Sometimes the attempt to produce a better outcome means that leaders must put their energy behind the less plausible prediction. That’s what happened in the Putin case. Alas, it looks as if Bush’s hopes will not be vindicated. He was wrong about Putin. But he would have been wronger still not to have tried. Who Is George W. Bush? When President Bush signed the Medicare reform act, which creates the first major federal entitlement program in a quarter-century, I suggested that this burst of big spending ought at least to retire the claim that George W. Bush is a radical right-winger. Radical right-wingers want to get rid of programs, not create them. These words of mine provoked self-described Bush-hater Jonathan Chait, and here is his reply, from the current New Republic (registration required): My “argument," Chait says, "betrays a common misunderstanding of the precise nature of the president's right-wingery. Bush's extremism does not lie in the purity of his devotion to the teachings of Milton Friedman but rather in the slavishness of his fealty to K Street. The distinction is a fine one, but it's highly revealing. In most instances, being pro-free market and pro-business amount to the same thing. Businesses usually want the government out of their way, which is why the business lobby threw its weight behind Bush's efforts to cut taxes, scuttle workplace safety standards, and so on. The way you tell the difference between a free-marketer and a servant of business is how he behaves when the interests of the two diverge. And all the evidence, including the Medicare and energy bills, points to the conclusion that Bush is happy to throw free-market conservatism out the window when business interests so desire.” Can anyone seriously believe that the reason that George W. Bush signed the prescription drug bill was to please American business? Chait justifies his odd interpretation of the benefit by complaining that it was larded up with “giveaways” to business groups, like this one: “It [the prescription drug benefit] specifically prohibits the federal government from using its negotiating power to hold down the cost of the drugs it purchases. (Got that? Those who spend your tax dollars are forbidden from striking a good bargain with the drug companies.)” Chait is referring here to provisions in the benefit to deter the federal government from using its new near-monopsony position in the prescription-drug market to impose de facto price controls, as governments in Canada and Europe have done. It’s peculiar to call the lack of price controls a “giveaway”: I don’t feel that the government gives me anything by refraining from regulating the earnings of opinion journalists, and I am sure that Jonathan Chait feels the same way. But even if the price-controls provision were a giveaway, it’s a giveaway intended to mitigate the inherently anti-competitive effects of a much bigger giveaway: the giveaway of subsidized medicines to America’s senior citizens regardless of need. That’s what Bush signed, and anyone trying to get an ideological fix on him needs to reckon with that rather large fact. nationalreview.com

To: unclewest who wrote (19068)	12/8/2003 5:36:22 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793691

US-Led Afghan Forces Launch Massive Operation Against Islamic Militants VOA News 08 Dec 2003, 14:22 UTC The U.S. military in Afghanistan says it has launched its biggest-ever ground operation against Taleban and al-Qaida remnants. A U.S. military spokesman says some 2,000 coalition troops across eastern and southern parts of the country are taking part in Operation Avalanche. The spokesman says its mission is to crush the Islamic militants who have regained strength and have been carrying out attacks against coalition forces and aid workers. However, the offensive is being overshadowed by the accidental killing Saturday of nine Afghan children during a U.S. air strike on an alleged terrorist hideout. Officials in Kabul say a joint team of Afghan and U.S. military personnel is at the scene in a remote part of the southern Ghazni province to determine the cause of the civilian deaths. American military officials and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said they were deeply saddened by the tragic incident and expressed regret for the loss of innocent lives. They promised the coalition will make every effort to assist the families of the victims. U.S. officials say the terrorist they were hunting, Mullah Wazir, died in the airstrike, but some Afghans in the area are disputing that account. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked the coalition for an explanation, and the United Nations has called for a swift and public inquiry into what it called a profoundly distressing tragedy. Some information for this report provided by AP, AFP and Reuters. voanews.com