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: unclewest who wrote (23720)1/10/2004 11:49:01 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
Good "on the trail" about Gephardt.


For Gephardt, Staid's the Course
Battling Dean in Iowa, Congressman Banks on Experience

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 10, 2004; Page A06

DES MOINES, Jan. 9 -- Janet Delaney, a retired schoolteacher, braved subzero temperatures this week to check out Dick Gephardt, a man whom she admires, but whom she feels may be -- to put it bluntly -- a has-been.

"The thing with Gephardt is that he's old hat," said Delaney, from the back row of a Burlington hall. She is still agonizing over her vote in the Jan. 19 caucuses, the first major balloting of the presidential race, and allows how she also likes Howard Dean "because he's something different. He may sound abrasive, but he gets his point across."

Ditto for Cherry Klein, a local Planned Parenthood official, also grappling with her vote. "Gephardt had some pretty good points as far as issues. . . . But Dean -- look what he's done in reaching so many people. . . . He's not connected to Washington. He wants to make a big change."

Delaney and Klein's quandary -- echoed by a number of voters who came to hear Gephardt this week -- illustrates not only the fluidity of the race but also Rep. Richard A. Gephardt's challenge. Neither charismatic nor flashy, the Missouri congressman is taking the "turtle" route to the caucuses, as he methodically plods through the small towns of Iowa day after day, delivering his stump speech verbatim, in drafty community centers and rural restaurants. At 62, Gephardt is the oldest candidate in the nine-way race for the nomination. His crowds are generally low-key -- largely middle-aged people or seniors worried about health care and jobs.

His campaign is banking on his vast union support for turnout -- but also on a late-breaking voter epiphany of sorts. "We believe people will ultimately ask themselves, 'Do I want to vote for a prom date or someone I want to be married to for 20 years?' " said a senior campaign aide.

In his second shot at the brass ring in 16 years, Gephardt must win the state he won in 1988 to remain viable in this race, his aides and political strategists maintain.

In an interview this week, Gephardt conceded that Dean "was the first one to really tap into the anger that's out there. Some people are just attracted to that. But I think as time goes on though a lot of people will say anger is not enough. In a time of terrorism . . . with all the difficulties we face, people are not going to leave the horse they're on -- Bush . . . to jump on a horse that is not experienced, that doesn't have steady hands, that doesn't have demonstrated reliability. My task in this has always been to make experience an asset, not a liability."

A straightforward and sometimes bland speaker, the candidate tries to humanize himself and his policies through personal stories. He talks about growing up poor. He describes his universal health care plan by telling about his son Matt's battle with cancer as a toddler. "He's a gift of God. . . . Matt wouldn't have survived if we didn't have insurance," he says. He shares how he is repaying his daughter Kate's college loans because she could not afford to do so on a teacher's salary.

Gephardt also pounds home his experience as a member of Congress and House leader, and he has sharpened his attacks on Dean, criticizing the former Vermont governor for supporting trade agreements with Mexico and China, and for siding with Republicans on proposed Medicare cuts in the mid-1990s.

In 1988, Gephardt dropped out of the race after winning Iowa and placing second in New Hampshire because he did not have enough money or a strategic plan to capitalize on the successes. This time, he's been ducking out of Iowa for day trips to New Hampshire, where he spent part of Friday, as well as going to the Feb. 3 primary states.

The strategy is to win here -- where local polls have him in a tight fight with Dean -- do well in New Hampshire the following week, propelling him into South Carolina and a string of midwestern states on Feb. 3, including Missouri, his home state.

"In 1988, we were Iowa-centric," Gephardt said in the interview. "When we got out of here, we really had no structure. We really didn't have anything going on anywhere and we did not have enough money to run ads. . . . I feel better about our campaign in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in North Dakota."

Gephardt dismisses questions that he has not raised half as much money as Dean, saying the money will show up if he wins Iowa. He does seem annoyed at what he refers to as the media's coronation of Dean. "The media loves the Hula Hoop of the day," he said.

As for Al Gore and Bill Bradley's endorsement of Dean, and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's on Friday, Gephardt said that Iowans are "fiercely independent" and will follow their best instincts.

Through it all, Gephardt seems at peace, having made the decision that this could very well be his last political race -- he has opted not to run for reelection to Congress, where he has served for 27 years.

So, just how big does he have to win here to stay in the race? "I mean, you can run a hundred hypotheses," he said, shrugging. "What if we tie? What if I'm one behind? You'll know the result when you see it."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



To: unclewest who wrote (23720)1/10/2004 11:51:14 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
"We can't do an attack on the US, Clark got elected!" Where is Clark's brain?



Clark Vows No Terrorist Attacks
Security Issues Dominate in N.H.

By Jonathan Finer and Paul Schwartzman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 10, 2004; Page A07

CONCORD, N.H., Jan 9 -- After two days of jousting over their various tax plans, Democratic presidential candidates crisscrossing the Granite State turned their attention to national security Friday, prompted by a statement from retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark that if he were elected president there would be no further terrorist attacks in America.

The "two greatest lies" told to Americans in recent years are that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could not have been prevented and that future attacks are inevitable, Clark told the editorial board of the Concord Monitor, according to an article published Friday.

As president, Clark added, he would "take care of the American people" and "we would not have one of these incidents."

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), who often touts his record on security issues, and who is well behind Clark in New Hampshire polls as both men seek support from the state's independent voters, called Clark's claim "odd" and said such a blanket guarantee "runs the risk of creating a credibility gap."

Earlier in the day, on a New Hampshire public radio call-in program, Lieberman said that "one of the reasons September 11 happened was because we were disorganized."

He also reiterated a claim he last aired in mid-December that "repeated meetings" between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officers during the 1990s suggest the possibility of a link between the terrorist organization and the government of Saddam Hussein. "I couldn't conclude that they were not involved with al Qaeda, because there were all these contacts," Lieberman said. "There's smoke there, and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility that there might have been fire."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said this week that he had not seen "smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Lieberman's hawkish reputation is a key aspect of his frequent claim to being "the electable Democrat" who could defeat President Bush by "going after him in areas where he is considered strong," such as national security.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), before leaving New Hampshire for Iowa, said: "I don't think any of us saw anything to prevent 9/11. The truth is we all failed on 9/11." Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), also campaigning in New Hampshire, called Clark's comments an "overstatement," adding that because the United States is an open society, it is vulnerable to attack.

Clark stood by his remarks Friday, but he acknowledged, "Nobody can guarantee anything in life but it's clear that we can do much more to prevent an attack on the American homeland."

"When I'm president of the United States, he said, "I will do more."

Bush, the retired general said, "took us after the wrong opponent." Clark typically chides Bush for focusing more on Hussein than on al Qaeda.

Staff writer Vanessa Williams contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



To: unclewest who wrote (23720)1/10/2004 2:59:19 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
Good article on Sanchez

January 11, 2004 - New York Times
In the General's Black Hawk, Flying Over a Divided Iraq
By JOHN F. BURNS

ABU SAIDA, Iraq, Jan. 9 — Aboard a Black Hawk helicopter skimming nose down at 50 feet across a landscape of palm groves and semidesert north of Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez gazed out at lone shepherds and donkey carts and villagers staring back at the airborne flotilla hastening northward across Iraq's horizons.

Then the headset crackled, and General Sanchez, 52, from Rio Grande City, Tex., who commands the 38-nation coalition of allied forces in Iraq, summarized his thoughts in a way that encapsulated America's challenge here nine months after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "They don't want us here, but they don't want us to leave, either," he said. "That's our dilemma; that's the problem we have to solve."

General Sanchez began life at the bottom of the American pyramid, going to work as a dry-cleaner's delivery boy at the age of 6 to augment welfare payments that supported his Mexican-American family in Rio Grande City, a few miles from the border that his paternal grandfather first crossed in the early 1900's. Now, addressing "the problem we have to solve," he is into his seventh month as commander of 125,000 American troops in Iraq, the most coveted and challenging field command for any American officer since the Vietnam War.

A month ago, General Sanchez's troops captured Mr. Hussein, the biggest moment in the occupation since the Iraqi dictator's statue was toppled in Baghdad on April 9. General Sanchez was in an Army medical clinic about three hours later when Mr. Hussein was brought in by helicopter, manacled and hooded, from his underground spider hole near Tikrit. That, General Sanchez said, with the quietness that is one of his trademarks, brought "a certain sense of accomplishment."

A day spent with General Sanchez on Friday, on a trip to this town about 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, to visit 90 men in a tank company of the Fourth Infantry Division, showed the patterns of light and dark that American troops endure everywhere across Iraq.

Here in Abu Saida, every rooftop is watched for insurgent spotters who infiltrate the town from the south and wait for a chance to launch a rocket-propelled grenade or a sniper attack. To get there, the general's Black Hawk took extra precautions, flying one day after another Black Hawk was brought down by rocket fire near Falluja. All 9 soldiers aboard the medical flight on Thursday were killed.

At Abu Saida, even the base the Americans have set up on the edge of, in an abandoned Iraqi police station, is called Forward Operating Base Comanche, with echoes of a fort in Indian country during the 19th-century expansion across the Great Plains.

The base commander, Capt. Ralph Overland, 28, from Phoenix, is on his second stint with Company C of the Third Battalion of the division's Second Brigade; he was seriously wounded by rifle bullets to his leg during a raid on an insurgent hideout in Abu Saida last summer.

Captain Overland is at once a soldier hunting the insurgents, and a sort of proxy mayor receiving petitions from scores of townspeople every day. The Americans are helping to rebuild schools and clinics and water-pumps and roads, helping to restore electricity, and training about 250 men to serve in the new American-backed Iraqi police force, and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. It is a difficult mix, captured in one of his exchanges with General Sanchez at a briefing before the general's walkabout.

"When you go out after the enemy, are you shooting to kill or capture?" General Sanchez asked at a briefing with American officers. Captain Overland replied: "If they have weapons, we shoot to kill, sir. We kill 'em." He repeated, "If they engage us, we kill them, sir."

The brigade commander, Col. David Hogg, 45, of Omaha, moved forward to emphasize the need for harsh soldiering to counter the hazards in Abu Saida, and General Sanchez nodded. "That's as it should be," the general said.

But he moved swiftly on to what he calls the key to American success here — on one hand, pushing back the insurgents, and relieving the pressures on Iraqis who are victims in far greater numbers than Americans of the insurgent attacks; on the other, showing the path to a better future for all Iraqis with practical improvements in everyday life. At Abu Saida, the American troops have spent $150,000 on improvements, and have approval to spend at least $535,000 more.

"It's about gaining and retaining the consent of the people," General Sanchez said to the officers who gathered in front of a satellite map of the Abu Saida area in the dim interior of the command post. "That's what we're here for, fighting a war, and building a nation."

Flight Over the Desert

The general spent the day on a walkabout among the troops and townspeople at the bazaar in Abu Saida and a stopover for a closed-doors briefing at the Second Brigade's headquarters on the desert floor outside Baquba, about 15 miles south of here. On the flights that day, his Black Hawk was flanked by two Apache attack helicopters bristling with Hellfire missiles on outriggers, their infrared sensors rotating in the nose for any sign of insurgents below.

Heading east out of Baghdad, then northeast, on a path calculated to lessen the risk of ground fire, the cluster of four helicopters flew over a landscape that is a monument to what American troops have accomplished, and failed to accomplish, in Iraq.

Below, stark in their ruins, stood the National Olympic Committee headquarters, used by Uday Saddam Hussein, the dictator's oldest son who was killed by American troops in July, as a center for torture, rape and murder; the complex of buildings that make up the General Security Directorate, command center for the most brutal of Mr. Hussein's secret police agencies, taken over now as an American base; and the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, obliterated in August and October by suicide bombers who succeeded in driving both organizations from Baghdad.

Other buildings visible from the helicopter were ministries and clinics and warehouses looted and burned when American troops failed to stop the rampage that followed the capture of Baghdad. This was the Iraq that General Sanchez and L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civilian administrator, inherited. Last summer was at the bottom of the American experience here, when Iraqis who cheered the toppling of Mr. Hussein's statue began to say they might have been better off if the Americans had never come.

Out into open country, the helicopter passed over villages bustling with commerce, booming here under the American occupation, even as most Iraqi men remain out of work; over fields of spring wheat; and over canals brimming with aquamarine water. General Sanchez, chatting on the headset with a fellow officer about their sons' college graduations in June, paused. On the helicopter's flank, workmen were stringing cables from utility towers, restoring electricity that collapsed during the April looting. "That's the first time I've seen that; that's great," he said.

A conversation with General Sanchez away from the pressures of his command suggests that much that informs his approach to the challenges here goes back to his childhood, growing up among the poorest of the poor in south Texas. His father, a welder, abandoned the family when he was still in elementary school; his mother worked as a hospital caretaker to support five children. The general, as a boy, commuted among odd jobs, helping to pay the family bills.

In time, General Sanchez became the first in his family ever to graduate from high school. While his older brother went to Vietnam with the Air Force, he won an R.O.T.C. scholarship to Texas A&I University in Kingsville, and went on to join the Army. He speaks without any trace of bitterness about his origins. "I guess I never realized then that I was that poor," he said in an interview before the trip to Abu Saida. "Pretty well everybody else in the Hispanic community was on welfare, too. We just thought we were fortunate because we were in America."

In Rio Grande City, high school counselors advised him to follow his father into welding, but General Sanchez said he learned as an R.O.T.C. cadet at school that the Army offered an escalator out of poverty. Still, his early Army career was a struggle at times, he said, as a Hispanic-American who had not been to West Point. "It was a totally different military then," he said. "It was the aftermath of Vietnam, and there was a lot of racial stuff within the ranks."

One year, as a lieutenant, a senior officer preparing his efficiency report told him that he would get 15 points less than fellow officers who were West Point graduates, General Sanchez said. "But I accepted that, and told myself, `I'll just have to work harder.' " Asked if any of the West Pointers in that officer group became generals, he paused to think, then replied, "I don't know of any others who made it to general officer. I think one of them made it to colonel."

An important chance in his more recent career came when he served as a deputy in Kosovo in the late 1990's to Gen. John P. Abizaid, now the chief of Central Command based in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, with overall responsibility for the war in Iraq. General Sanchez arrived in Iraq after Mr. Hussein's overthrow as a major-general commanding the First Armored Division, responsible for the war in Baghdad. Within weeks, he was promoted lieutenant-general and given command of the American-led coalition of 38 nations.

Among the low points since then was the loss of 81 American soldiers killed by insurgent attacks in November. The high point, unquestionably, was the capture of Mr. Hussein on Dec. 13. General Sanchez, following the operation from a military compound at Baghdad airport, said he and other officers approached the operation that night as routine, because American troops had been close to Mr. Hussein "many times" before, without snaring him. "It was one more time," he said.

General Sanchez said a radio call from Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the Fourth Infantry Division, brought news that Mr. Hussein had been captured. "General Odierno said, `Sir, I think we've got Saddam, now we're looking for his tattoo,' ' General Sanchez recalled.

The tattoo proved inconclusive, since the Americans found not a tattoo but a surgical scar where a tattoo appeared to have been removed. By then, General Sanchez said, he had ordered all communications within the American command shut down, to stop any leaks before the capture could be confirmed.

Then, the general flew to another American military facility and waited for Mr. Hussein to be brought in. "It seemed like forever," he said. After three hours, he found himself standing in a military clinic watching Mr. Hussein being processed. "As I stood and watched him, it was a feeling of disbelief, that a man could be as evil as Saddam was and reduced to that," he said. "Along with that, there was certain sense of accomplishment at what our soldiers had achieved."

Mr. Hussein, he said, was "talkative" in the clinic, but General Sanchez chose to say nothing. "I'm not sure he even knew who I was, since I had my flak jacket on, and that covered my name," the general said. "I felt that it was inappropriate for me as the senior officer in the country to engage in a discussion."

Meeting G.I.'s and Iraqis

As the sun went down in Abu Saida, General Sanchez set off for a walk about the town. The town lies on the eastern edge of the Sunni Triangle that runs north and west of Baghdad, and is the center for 90 percent of all attacks on American troops. But unlike most settlements nearby, Abu Saida has a large Shiite Muslim majority.

Captain Overland, briefing General Sanchez, said most of the insurgents who have attacked American forces were Sunni Muslim groups from farther south.

Outside the American headquarters, General Sanchez clambered on a tank to chat with crewmen who, like others in the American garrison at Abu Saida, have been retrained as infantrymen for patrols, firefights and other duties around the town. As he kibitzed with the crewmen, one, Hector Quijada, 20, from the Bronx, stepped forward and spoke in Spanish. The two men, the general and the specialist, then spoke quietly for several minutes.

Afterwards, Mr. Quijada, speaking in a fractured English, said he and his family had migrated to the United States four years ago, settling in New York, where his father worked in a plastics factory. What he wanted the general to know, he said, was that he was a hero among Mexican-Americans, and among Mr. Quijada's friends in his hometown of Cancún. "I told him that the people of Mexico always talk about General Sanchez, everybody gets excited about him."

With the muezzin a nearby mosque calling the faithful to evening prayers, General Sanchez set off to walk through the town.

After unholstering his pistol for the start of the walk, the general quickly put it back again, and set out slowly moving past kebab stands, generator repair shops and bazaar stalls piled high with oranges and lentils and spring onions. People in the street watched, uncertain who the visitor was. A few applauded. "America good!" they said.

At the end of the main street, a man in a black cloak and a kaffiyeh, the red checked headdress favored by many rural people in Iraq, stepped forward speaking a pidgin English. "Mister!" he said. "I want talk to you, mister!" The man was Muhammad Hussein, 60-year-old retired headmaster of a local primary school, and he launched into a litany of Abu Saida's expectations of America: More money for schools and clinics; the repair of roads torn up by tanks; an improvement in his pension of about 1 U.S. cent a month.

Then Mr. Hussein paused, in the gathering darkness, and asked courteously who the American visitor was. "We don't know you, sir," he said.

"My name is General Sanchez, and I have come to Abu Saida to say hello," the general replied. Mr. Hussein seemed momentarily taken aback, then pressed ahead. "Then you take me to Baghdad, I talk to you in Baghdad, I want to speak only to you, we settle problems of Iraq," Mr. Hussein said.

General Sanchez, anxious bodyguards urging him to move on, replied, "I'm not sure I could take you in my helicopter, that's against regulations." Mr. Hussein, smiling broadly, shook the general's hand, and the American party moved on.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: unclewest who wrote (23720)1/11/2004 1:55:49 AM
From: goldworldnet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
<font color=red> ROLL CALL LIST #2 <font color=black>

Message 19678098

* * *



To: unclewest who wrote (23720)1/14/2004 8:12:49 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793677
 

I thought the China visits by Nixon, Reagan and GB were what opened up China and improved our relations.
I don’t think you could point to any single item and say that it opened up China. It’s a process that’s been going on for some time.

After the fall of the Soviet Union there was a move to place China in the role of “evil empire”, and to try and to strive for a “victory” over China, marked by a formal fall for the Communist Party. There was a good deal of hysteria over it: remember NewsMax and the great nonexistent “Chinese naval base” in the Bahamas?

At the same time, others were pointing out that China was moving away from Communism at the fastest rate it could manage, that economic liberalization would ultimately be the key to spurring political liberalization, and that a confrontational approach aimed at radical change would not be beneficial to China or the US.

The Clinton administration adopted the latter philosophy, and while the merits or demerits of any given action can be infinitely debated, it’s pretty clear in retrospect that it was the right thing to do. If they had followed the opposite approach, things could be a good deal harder for us now.

I spent a good deal of time in the late ‘90s pointing out that while Clinton might be a jackass, a confrontational China policy would not be a terribly productive thing for anyone. That debate, and its eventual descent into pettiness, sank the Asia Forum thread, once among the best on SI.

As I’ve pointed out before, a lot of Republicans were so busy pointing at China as the Next Great Enemy that they completely missed the chance to point at the real Next Great Enemy.

I am for the principles of free trade that NAFTA proposes.

You could have fooled me. You sound positively left wing on the issue… or you sure you aren’t a closet union activist, humming “we shall overcome” while nobody on SI is listening?

Ok, let me take the conservative role for a change…

Ross Perot's prediction that, with NAFTA, the giant sucking sound you will hear will be the export of American jobs has certainly materialized.

What is an “American job”? Is it carved in stone somewhere that once a job has been done by an American, it is henceforth and forever an “American job”, and can only be done by Americans? Why shouldn’t Toyota assemble cars in Mexico and sell them in the US? Why shouldn’t GM do the same thing? Why should Americans be forced to pay higher prices for manufactured goods to subsidize an overpaid and uncompetitive labor force?

Don’t give me this Gephardt bullshit about “American jobs” being taken by starving sweatshop workers that sleep on cardboard boxes, either. There are people sleeping on boxes in these countries, yes, but they aren’t the ones working for multinational corporations. They’re the ones without jobs, and there will be a whole lot more of them if American corporations are not allowed to invest in other countries. In every case I’ve seen – and I’ve seen plenty – American and multinational companies pay at or above local scale, and generally provide a relatively enlightened management culture. The wages they pay are spent locally, and really do trickle down, unlike foreign aid, which amounts to little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.

If we want the developing world to stop being torn apart by brain drain, unemployment, and poverty, if we want to stop these countries from being breeding sumps for terrorism and chaos, we have to give people in these countries a chance to do productive work. That means letting our people buy their products, especially agricultural products, and letting our companies hire them, preferably without having them sneak into our country. There’s no other way to produce real development and give these countries the ability to purchase the goods we can produce efficiently.

Of course this takes time, and of course there are sacrifices. So what? Our economy is growing, profits are up, consumer spending is high. Our unemployment rate is among the lowest in the world, barring those distorted by socialist-style charity jobs. Our per capita income is miles above that of many of the countries to which we are exporting jobs. So why are you telling me that we can’t afford to let our companies give productive work to people who want to work, not to be subsidized? Protectionism, remember, is as much a tax as anything the IRS imposes. It works the other way too. Our companies repatriate profits from all over the world, and the more prosperous other countries are, the more of our stuff they will buy.

it will only work equitably on a level playing field

Free trade is a level playing field. Trying to impose American wages on other countries skews the playing field – if labor will cost as much in Mexico as it does in California, there’s no incentive for companies to go there.

the standard of living is in decline for tens of millions of Americans and an increasing number of states are in serious financial trouble.

Yes, the standard of living in the ‘90s was irrationally and unsustainably high, and that is now correcting. That’s what happens when bubbles break. We can't expect that we can have low-skill workers living upper middle class lifestyles, and keep our products globally competitive at the same time. States are in serious financial trouble because they got accustomed to the ‘90s free ride, and now they have to adjust to competitive realities. These are indeed tough bananas, but no matter what you bleeding-heart liberals say, coddling is neither desirable nor, in the long run, possible.