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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (7427)12/11/2003 12:27:06 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Bush vs. Dean
W. is likely to win, but not in a traditional landslide.

By November 2004, it will have been 16 years since any presidential candidate won an absolute majority of the vote. Between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the war on terrorism, a majority of American voters was unable to agree on a president. The country, that is to say, could not reach a political consensus.











That recent history helps put into context claims that beating Howard Dean would be easy work for George W. Bush next year. Bush would be likely to win that match — very likely, even. He is unlikely to equal the percentage of the vote Nixon won in 1972 or Reagan won in 1984. But by post-1988 standards, a 53-percent showing would be impressive enough.

The country seems to be more closely divided on the central questions that divide the parties than it was in 1972 or 1984. One of Bush's top aides recently told one of my colleagues that if McGovern were running today, he would get 46 percent of the vote or more. But Bush's advisers seem to realize that landslides aren't all that valuable. (What did they get for Nixon or Reagan, besides a place on the statistical charts?) They do not necessarily mean that a candidate will have coattails. David Frum remarked yesterday that 2004 could be "a catastrophic defeat," a "wipeout," for the Democrats (italics his), and that it was "shaping up to look a lot like 1988." In 1988, the Democrats lost the presidential race but won House and Senate seats.

Indeed, the goal of an electoral landslide and the goal of coattails can be in tactical conflict. A presidential candidate who's cruising to reelection may decide to run up his electoral-vote total rather than helping his party. That was the bitter complaint of many Republicans in 1972 and 1984. If Bush finds himself sitting comfortably next year (which I don't expect), he will campaign for House and Senate candidates. That may make a difference in two or three close races. Not much more than that is possible, especially in the House, where most seats are not competitive. A Dean candidacy is unlikely, in short, to result in substantial Democratic losses.

One supposed problem for Dean won't be. Frum also noted that the governor does not run well among black voters. He does not seem to have much appeal at the moment, but I am sure that will change. Dean may very well have sewn up the nomination by the time blacks vote in large numbers. In the general election, labor and Democratic party ads will be portraying the Republicans as neo-segregationists. Under those circumstances, getting a large black turnout for Dean will be feasible.

All of the above said, I'm still confident that Bush will win, for the reasons I mentioned in this space yesterday. William Kristol argued yesterday that Republicans were being overconfident about Dean, and that they would not be able to correct that problem by merely saying that they are not overconfident. The truest claim in Kristol's op-ed (which I criticized yesterday) was that underdogs can win. But it does not follow from that truth either 1) that one should pretend an underdog is not an underdog, or 2) that recognition of the underdog's status as an underdog constitutes overconfidence.

Kristol's claim, of course, applies to the Democratic primaries as well. The candidates other than Dean are underdogs, and they continue to have a chance to win. Underdogs can win, although that's not the way to bet.

URL:http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312100842.asp



To: calgal who wrote (7427)12/11/2003 12:27:22 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
December 10, 2003, 9:15 a.m.
EuroCash
What does the Palestinian Authority do with European money?

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

When the international donors' conference convenes in Rome next week to consider a new contribution of $1 billion to the Palestinian Authority, it is likely to continue to ignore the PA's ongoing funding of terrorist activities.











According to Hannes Swoboda, a member of the European parliament's ad hoc working group on aid to the PA, "No wrongdoing or misuse of funds by the Palestinian Authority, no instances of funds being used for terrorist activities instead of infrastructure development, have been proved."

His denial followed that of the European Union's external-relations commissioner, Christopher Patten, who on July 17 wrote in the Financial Times that "[t]he EU has worked throughout the bloodstained months of the Intifada to keep a Palestinian administration alive and to drive a process of reform within it....At every step, the EU's help was made conditional on reforms that would make a viable Palestinian state a reality one day and in the short term make the Palestinian territories a better, safer neighbor for Israel."

By the time Patten and the members of the European parliament (MEPs) had made these statements, the Israeli government had already given them volumes of captured Palestinian documents providing evidence that the PA was using EU funds to pay for homicide bombings, the upkeep of terrorists, weapons, and bomb-manufacturing plants; vacations, travel, scholarships and medical treatments for members of the Palestinian leadership and their families; and — not least — Chairman Arafat's personal bank accounts.

How is it possible that the International Monetary Fund, CBS, the BBC, and even the PA itself were all able to document the PA's misuse of funds while Commissioner Patten failed to acknowledge it?

Despite thousands of the PA's own documents — some signed by Yasser Arafat himself — Patten, Swoboda, and many other MEPs not only continue to deny that European tax money has funded Palestinian terrorism, but also claim that the PA documents, authenticated by American, German, and Israeli experts — and even by the Palestinians themselves — are "forgeries produced by Israel."

The IMF report "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released last September in Abu Dhabi, was based on the same PA documents that the Israeli government had earlier provided to Patten and the European Parliament. The report concludes that at least 8 percent ($135 million) of the PA's annual budget of $1.08 billion is being spent by Arafat at his sole discretion — and does not even take into account Arafat's control of 60 percent of the security-apparatus budget, which leaves him with at least $360 million per year to spend as he chooses. In addition, the report states that $900 million in PA revenues "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000, and that the 2003 budget for Arafat's office, which totaled $74 million, was missing $34 million that Arafat had transferred to pay unidentified "organizations" and "individuals."

Patten and many of the MEPs constantly deny that EU funds have been misused. They refuse to acknowledge that the PA leadership is corrupt and uses its aid money to fund terror, choosing instead to grant the PA ever more aid. According to the IMF report, much of this money continued to be misappropriated even under the PA's reform-oriented finance minister, Salem Fayyad.

The EU's moral standing and fiscal accountability are also questionable. For the ninth year running, the EU Court of Auditors refused to approve the EU's €100 billion annual budget because the auditors could not account for 90 percent of the funds to the PA. The MEPs claimed that it was not the EU but the IMF and the CIA that supervised the PA budget. But the IMF has publicly denied this responsibility many times, and there is no evidence that the CIA has had anything to do with EU funds to the PA.

As for evidence that aid money was used to pay homicide bombers, Swoboda insisted that "there is no proof that any terrorist acts they committed were ordered by the PA — they may have been acting alone. Only if the DNA of the suicide bombers will match the DNA of those who received euros will we accept it as evidence."

Swoboda's comments did not come as a complete surprise. A week earlier, in an interview with Palestinian journalist Kawther Salam, Swoboda had said, "There was recently an opinion poll in Europe which places Israel among the top rank of the countries seen as creating dangers for peace. I think that we should take the results of this poll seriously."

In the meantime, the Belgian police announced that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), together with Belgian and German police, began investigating the payment of EU aid money to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — one of Yasser Arafat's Fatah terrorist groups, listed by the EU as a terrorist organization.

It seems that the stronger the evidence of EU complicity in funding Palestinian terrorism, the stronger is the MEPs' refusal to acknowledge their role. Their anti-American and anti-Israeli attitudes explain their willingness to give ever more funds to Arafat while pressuring Israel to compromise its national security. Moreover, the EU continues to support other Islamist terror organizations dressed as NGOs, such as Hamas, that operate throughout Europe.

Further aid payments should cease until the PA explains how it spent more than $6 billion in aid during the last decade, and returns the missing funds to the Palestinian people. But, incredibly, the World Bank last week gave an additional $15 million in aid to the PA, and, over the weekend, the EU awarded the PA $40 million for "reforms and emergency economic aid."

History gives us little reason to think the PA will stop funding terrorism. Maybe it's time to hold European donors legally accountable for the return on their investment.

— Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It, is director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy.


URL:http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ehrenfeld200312100915.asp