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: Lane3 who wrote (22422)	1/1/2004 6:46:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

No, it hadn't been posted. If the idiot Brits had quit eating brains none of them would have died. This has been "Mediaed" to death, and it will continue. Interesting survey from the "Healing Iraq" Blog. Notice the opinion about Saddam attacking Israel in 91. Some things are not going to change. Daily news and comments on the situation in post Saddam Iraq Tuesday, December 30, 2003 Iraqi poll results regarding Saddam Hussein's capture These polls conducted by the Iraqi Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) were published in Azzaman daily Baghdad edition two days ago. I searched the web to see if they had a website but unfortunately they don't seem to have one yet so I took the liberty to translate and publish the results here. Dr. Sa'dun Al-Dulaymi head of the ICRSS stated that the surveys were carried out in eight major Iraqi cities and that a thousand Iraqis participated. Here are the complete results. Distribution percentage of participants: Baghdad 32% Arbil 15% Diyala 7% Basrah 15% Karbala 10% Mosul 11% Ramadi 6% Faluja 4% Gender of participants: Male 81% Female 19% Education: Illiterate 9% Primary 20% Intermediate 18% Secondary 19% Bachelor degree 15% Associate degree 18% Professional degree 1% 1)What was your reaction to Saddam Hussein's capture? Overwhelming joy 59% Shock and confusion 20% Sadness 16% None of my concern 5% 2)Are you personally convinced that it was really Saddam who was captured? Yes 86.9% No 13.1% 3)Do you think that Saddam deserves a fair trial? Yes 84% No 16% 4)Do you prefer that Saddam be tried by: An Iraqi court? 60% An Iraqi court with International advisors? 15% An International court of justice? 25% 5)What is the fair judgement you believe Saddam deserves? Execution 56% Imprisonment 25% Clemency 19% 6)What do you think a speedy trial of Saddam would achieve? It would prevent an internal schism or conflict 45% It would ensure security and stability 30% It would increase chaos 14% It would help end the occupation 10% Others 1% 7)How do you think Saddam's capture would affect the resistance? Decrease resistance activities 53% Increase resistance activities 27% Cessation of resistance 20% 8)How do you see Saddam's capture? He surrendered without resistance 52.4% He was drugged or anaesthetized 31.5% He was taken by surprise 12.6% Others 3.4% 9)Which is more important to you? Providing security 54.9% Providing fuel 35.8% Saddam's capture 34.4% Providing electricity 28.8% Improving the economic situation 5.3% 10)Do you agree that those who suffered from the regime should be compensated? Yes 12% No 88% 11)How do you consider Saddam's policies and actions on the following issues: A)The Iraq-Iran war: Crime 77% Justified action 23% B)Invading Kuwait: Crime 79% Justified action 21% C)Attacking Israel in 1991: Crime 18% Justified action 82% D)Mass graves: Crime 81% Justified action 19% E)Gasing the Kurds: Crime 87% Justified action 13% F)Forced deportation: Crime 82% Justified action 18% G)Killing religious and national figures: Crime 83% Justified action 17% For more information about ICRSS and the survey you can email icrss@hotmail.com healingiraq.blogspot.com # posted by zeyad : 12/30/2003 08:21:03 PM

To: Lane3 who wrote (22422)	1/1/2004 7:34:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

Dean is blowing it so badly that the Media is shocked. They are waiting for the Democrats to wake up. ''He seems to not appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought.'' Dean keeps giving foes campaign fodder January 1, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Steve Murphy, Rep. Richard Gephardt's campaign manager, this week professed to being baffled. How is it possible, he wondered, that Howard Dean's bizarre comments about Osama bin Laden attracted so little news media attention? The answer is that apart from being obscured by the holiday season, the Democratic presidential front-runner's words got lost in his own stream of unusual remarks. Dean's post-Christmas comments that he could not suggest a penalty for the terrorist leader and author of the 9/11 catastrophe until he was judged guilty had no time to sink in before he began saying things that stunned his party's faithful. Dean sniped at Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe for not protecting him from the party's other candidates, and warned of his 1.5 million supporters defecting if any other Democrat is nominated for president. Dean's holiday performance reflects the yearlong pattern by the former governor of Vermont. To characterize Dean's remarks as leftist tilt that can and will be corrected by a quick pivot to the center is a faulty diagnosis of the doctor's disease. James Carville this week summed up the Dean problem: ''He seems to not appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought.'' For Carville to make this comment on national television gets the attention of Democrats, including Dean and his campaign staff. Carville, making no pretense at objectivity, is a passionate partisan emotionally committed to George W. Bush's defeat. As architect of Bill Clinton's 1992 election victory, he is in demand for party functions nationwide and a vigorous fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee. Carville, neutral in the race for the presidential nomination, rarely speaks ill of a fellow Democrat. But he did on CNN's ''Crossfire'' Monday: ''I'm scared to death that this guy just says anything. It feels like he's undergone some kind of a political lobotomy here.'' Maria Echaveste, a Dean adviser who was President Clinton's deputy chief of staff, sat across the table from Carville looking like a deer caught in the headlights. ''Not every candidate ends up being president from the day he walks out there,'' she said. ''They mature. And this is what this man is doing.'' Off camera, she suggested Dean needs a little rest. Being overworked is a poor excuse for Dean's holiday gaffes. They began last Friday when the Concord (N.H.) Monitor published an astonishing interview with Dean. After reiterating that capturing Saddam Hussein did not make America safer, he asserted in regard to Osama bin Laden that ''we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.'' Dean usually will not budge from his bloopers, but his staff was so shaken by this that on Friday he tried backing away. He told the Associated Press he advocated the ''death penalty'' for bin Laden under ''the rule of law.'' Two days later in a Sunday meeting with reporters in Iowa, Dean was even more puzzling. Scolding McAuliffe for not protecting him from other candidates, he said: ''If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening.'' As DNC chairman in 1992, Brown did not lift a finger as other candidates savaged front-runner Bill Clinton. In the same Sunday session, Dean warned that ''if I don't win the nomination,'' his million and a half supporters are ''certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.'' Echaveste found it difficult to explain these outbursts. Yet, the most disturbing of Dean's holiday gaffes came before Christmas. Answering a questionnaire from the Quad-City Times in Davenport, Iowa, asking his ''closest living relative in the armed services,'' Dean listed his brother Charles -- actually neither alive nor ever a military veteran. He disappeared at age 23 in 1974 while visiting Laos as an anti-war civilian as part of a world tour, and his body was discovered last month. I asked Echaveste off camera Monday why the governor would make such a mistake. ''That's an old story,'' she replied. While there is no statute of limitations on gaffes, this one appeared in print only Dec. 14. What bothers James Carville and other loyal Democrats about their prospective nominee is what this pattern portends for the future. www.suntimes.com Back to regular view suntimes.com