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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2753)	12/15/2003 1:51:02 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 90947

Punishing the dissenters William F. Buckley (archive) December 15, 2003 \| Print \| Send Unnamed administration spokesman: You agree that what I tell you will be completely off the record? Questioner: Yes, sir. But let's get right to the point: The exclusion of France, Germany and Russia from bidding was -- A: Just plain dumb. Q: Why does the administration do things that are just plain dumb? A: The way life works in high-circle administrative life, Joe -- Q: You don't need to be condescending. I've been around a long, long time, looking in on White House cultures. A: I didn't mean that. I mean, what experienced people know about that culture isn't being very widely applied in this situation. What was the objective? The objective was for the administration to pass out the word to France, Germany and Russia -- we'll call them the Dissenters -- that there are unpleasant consequences for failing to side with the United States on major policy issues that have to do with national security. Q: Is that why the Pentagon used the phrase "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States"? Which by the way, what does that mean? That we can't let the Dissenters bid for $18 billion in prime contracts in Iraq because to do so would fail to protect essential security interests? A: You're right. That formulation was gobbledygook, the kind of thing that George Orwell would never have permitted. Look, the objective was to register U.S. displeasure with muscle behind that displeasure. There are commercial interests in the Dissenter nations that will be sore to have been excluded from the prime bidding. Q: But the order didn't rule out subcontractors from the Dissenter nations getting into rebuilding Iraq. A: That's right. The ban is only at the first level. Germany's BDI group blurted it out. Herr von Wartenberg, BDI's managing director, admitted that the only firms affected in any way are those that don't have subsidiaries in any one of the 63 countries allowed to take part in the tenders, which means, roughly speaking, nobody. Q: Well, if it's not going to have a practical economic effect, why do it? A: Satisfaction. The White House people liked the feel of a reproach. Recall JFK's dictum: Don't get mad, get even. Q: But we aren't even getting even, if you're telling it right. Not only that, we've handed the Dissenter nations an excuse to get out of the pool of countries that could help Iraq by giving up debts. Russia especially, with $8 billion owed. They've already said maybe they won't move on that, and Canada is spitting mad -- A: Yes, they're angry. They'll cool off. One phone call, Bush to Ottawa, was all that took. We'll just have to leave it that a point has been registered. Are you asking me to defend what was done, step by step? I can't do that. In situations like this, there isn't clear cockpit control. The White House is sore at the Pentagon guy who let it out, but what's to be done about that, fire Rumsfeld? The U.S. can sort of back away -- a series of equivocations. Like, Who is a prime bidder? Who is a subcontractor? Is there a World Trade Organization problem here? It'll blow away. Q: It's not going to blow away for Bush at the next debate of the Democratic presidential candidates. They'll team up on the theme of the administration's incompetence. And they'll go on about economic opportunism, commercialism, favoritism. Is it true Halliburton is getting an extra buck for every gallon of gas it ships over? A: Halliburton is, for the Democrats, the gorilla, the monster, the archetype of GOP favoritism/greed/exploitation. Q: What's to be done about that? A: If this gets out, I'll know you've betrayed me. Q: If what gets out? A: My secret remedy for the Democrats. ... They should buy Halliburton. Why not? Ask George Soros to buy it. Figure $10 billion, in round numbers. Q: You must be kidding. A: Just pretend you never thought of it. William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, a Townhall.com member group. ©2003 Universal Press Syndicate

To: calgal who wrote (2753)	12/15/2003 1:51:15 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

The ungentlemanly antics of Al Gore Kathleen Parker (archive) December 15, 2003 \| Print \| Send Has ambition ever been so naked? Al Gore's betrayal of his own former running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as he endorsed Howard Dean has provided one of those rare moments of political clarity: Gore will do whatever it takes to (a) become president; (b) exact revenge against the Clintons. Forget the war in Iraq; forget Bush's foreign policy; forget Dean's platform. Al Gore is for - and about - Al Gore. It was all over his face as he and Dean held hands following their surprise announcement. No one was in love in that picture. And why would they be? They're mutual users, the tit-for-tat brothers, a marriage made in political purgatory. Gore "loves" Dean for what Dean can give him. A Supreme Court nomination. A Cabinet position. Another vice presidency? And Dean loves Gore for bringing him the establishment credibility he needed. What makes this folie a deux so entertaining, of course, is that Gore deeply wants the man he endorsed to lose. Gore's endorsement is the kiss Fredo gets before his little boat ride with Michael Corleone's hitman. If Dean loses, then Gore is set for 2008 and ready to take what he surely believes is his due. Being secretary of state in the Dean administration wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to Gore - that was Florida 2000 - but it would fall short of what he wants. Gore has every right to endorse whomever he wants for his own good reasons. But he may have made a critical mistake in betraying Lieberman so publicly - and without apparent remorse - consequently defining for many Americans that certain something that always bugged them about Gore. Not his legendary woodenness or his occasional exaggerations, but his extraordinary Me-ness. Obviously, politicians are a different breed of animal. You have to have a high degree of grandiosity to enter the fray and a thick enough skin to withstand the slings and arrows. And at some point everyone risks buying his own myth. Gore seems to have bought his, and along with it, possibly the farm. Despite all the political maneuvering that obviously went into his secret agreement with Dean, Gore overlooked something that may have left him critically wounded come 2008. It's one of those old bugaboo "traditional" values that many Americans nonetheless still hold dear, as much for its rarity as its importance. Loyalty. Gore didn't have to endorse Lieberman, whom he once considered the best man to succeed him as president. He didn't have to withhold his endorsement from Lieberman's opponents. But he did have to call his old pal and tell him in advance of his intentions. That would have been the gentlemanly gesture. The decent thing. The least he could do. But Gore did less than least, calling several hours after the world, including Lieberman, already knew of his endorsement through the media. Gore's backhand doubtless stung all the more in light of Lieberman's own loyalty in declining to run for president until Gore had made his own intentions clear. Only when Gore declared he wouldn't run in '04 did Lieberman declare himself. Posting comments on his Web site about the Gore endorsement, Lieberman has taken the familiar high road: "I was proud to have been chosen by Al Gore in 2000 to be a heartbeat away from the presidency - and am determined to fight for what's right, win this nomination and defeat George W. Bush next year. "I have a lot of respect for Al Gore - that is why I kept my promise not to run if he did. Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward." Ironically, part of the reason Gore picked Lieberman as his running mate in 2000 was because of the Connecticut senator's reputation as an honest, honorable and principled man. Gore needed Lieberman, who had been an outspoken critic of Bill Clinton's marital vagrancies, to help cleanse him of the Clinton taint. Without question, Lieberman lent moral stature to Gore's presidential bid, imbuing the ticket with an air of decency from which Gore benefited. By his betrayal of Lieberman, Gore may have squandered his moral equity and exposed his ambition for what it is: All about Al. ©2003 Tribune Media Services