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

To: American Spirit who wrote (8785)	1/10/2004 4:32:29 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Fighting for Clark's soul By Paul Greenberg The struggle for the political soul of Wesley Clark goes on. On one side are those of us who would like to see the general rise above petty politics and campaign as a unifying figure who can bring the country together on a higher level than the usual, deadening, partisan razzmatazz. We're cheered when Gen. Clark delivers a thoughtful speech about the need for pre-school education or why we must not fail in Iraq, whatever differences Americans may have had over whether our troops should be there. But on the other side of this tug-of-war is a campaign staff filled to overflowing with knee-jerk libs who are trying to make The Candidate over in their own image. When they're in the ascendancy, Wes Clark becomes indistinguishable from much of the rest of the Democratic pack, each trying to outhowl the other before the party faithful, each appealing to the same familiar cast of hungry special interests — from the teachers' unions to the plaintiffs' bar. This year, the political operatives around him are out to present a new model of Bill Clinton — a Hummer in camo colors instead of a tricky little pickup outfitted with Astroturf. You could see, hear and taste their handiwork when the general threw some raw meat to the True Believers at Florida's Democratic Convention. He roused the howling masses by claiming the last presidential election was stolen in Florida — no matter what those postelection polls actually showed. Typical was USA Today's conclusion in April of 2001: "George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standards advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals." But the general proved his point, if it was he could demagogue as well as anybody else in the Democratic race. Well, almost anybody else. Al Sharpton's still in the campaign. But Wes Clark is no slouch at this low game. For example: "We've got a president today who's so deeply divisive, so carelessly indifferent, so incredibly lacking in judgment, wisdom and leadership, that this ship is about to capsize." Really? Do you think the general really believes all that in his calmer moments — that the United States of America is about to go under? Is this the realistic four-star general who's going to rise above partisanship and unite the country? Or just another rabble-rouser? Maybe the general was engaging in what Wendell Willkie tried to shrug off as just "campaign rhetoric" when pressed to defend some of his more outrageous charges against the indomitable Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Every politician does it, right? But Wesley Clark's great appeal was that he wasn't supposed to be every politician. He was supposed to be a different kind of candidate. But it's not always easy to see any difference. All too regularly, the general's campaign degenerates into a series of sound bites. Here he is again on the subject of the nefarious George W. Bush: "This is a president who is all bully and no pulpit when it comes to our nation's security, all mouth and no money when it comes to supporting our children, and all photo and no opportunity when it comes to fixing the mess here at home." Snappy patter, but not exactly presidential material. This is the kind of thing presidents usually leave to their James Carvilles and Ann Coulters, or to their vice presidential candidate — the way Gerald Ford left the ax jobs to Bob Dole, and Bill Clinton used Al Gore. Which reminds me: Who is Wes Clark's idea of one of the greatest American presidents? Yep, Bill Clinton. Nothing polarizing and divisive about that president. Wesley Clark is conducting a kind of split-level campaign, trying to position himself as the moderate Democratic alternative to Howard Dean but, when addressing the party faithful, sounding just like him. This week the general was tacking back toward the center with his tax plan, which accepts the Bush tax cuts — even though it includes a populist dig at The Rich and The Corporations. At least he's headed in the right direction. Literally. Gen. Clark needs to decide who he is — a statesman above the fray, which was the essence of his original promise as a presidential candidate, or just one more of the scrappers mixing it up in the swirl of partisan fuss 'n' feathers known as the Democratic primaries. If he tries to play both of those conflicting roles, people will notice. And in this more serious decade, they might even care. Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: American Spirit who wrote (8785)	1/10/2004 7:12:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Fired Treasury secretary plans to lash out at Bush abqtrib.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (8785)	1/10/2004 11:22:56 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

It seems like the Bushies have lied about 'the Iraqi threat' and the decision to go to war... FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL ONEILL SAYS INVASION OF IRAQ WAS PLANNED IN THE FIRST DAYS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LONG BEFORE 9/11, IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW SUNDAY ON "60 MINUTES" drudgereport.com Sat Jan 10 2004 09:12:37 ET The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill. O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says. In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book. Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth." Developing...