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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7874)	3/17/2004 8:19:56 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 81568

And Bush has tariffed steel. Niether of these resulting in the US being sued by the WTO Huh? More false information on your part. And don't try to tell me this time that's it's some tangential point in your post. It is the main point, and you made it up. Here's what really happened. The WTO ruled in July 2003 and on appeal upheld that ruling in December 2003 that the Bush steel tariffs were a violation of international trade rules. As they were entitled to do under WTO rules, the EU threatened to impose billions of dollars in retaliatory sanctions on several U.S. products, including Harley Davidson motorcycles, forcing Bush to reverse the tariffs: news.bbc.co.uk EU scores steel victory over US Steel tariffs have raised costs for US industry The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has confirmed that US tariffs on steel imports are illegal. The WTO's announcement is a victory for the European Union (EU), and puts fresh pressure on Washington to withdraw import duties on steel. The WTO appellate body upheld the decision of a panel of trade judges that the tariffs were not consistent with international trade rules. The US said it "disagrees" with the ruling and would review the decision. "We disagree with the overall WTO report - we are going to study it, look at its implications and go from there," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said while travelling with President George W Bush on a trip to Little Rock, Arkansas. The World Trade Organisation had said the US measures were "inconsistent" with free trade agreements. We hope that President Bush will act quickly to remove the... restrictions, so that we can get on with supplying our US customers on a fair and equitable basis It said: "The appellate body recommends ... the United States to bring its safeguard measures, ... into conformity with its obligations under WTO rules", the 186-page ruling said. The EU, whose steel industry has undergone a painful reorganisation, had joined forces with Brazil, Japan, and other exporters to complain to the WTO about the US tariffs, imposed 21 months ago. Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme, British Trade Minister Mike O'Brien, said: "We hope the Americans will lift these tariffs, which the WTO have said are unlawful. "If not then we (the European Union) will have to impose retaliatory measures. I hope the Americans will now comply with the WTO ruling." The European Commission has drawn up a hit list of US imports worth about $2.2bn a year - including Harley Davidson motorcycles, citrus fruits and textiles - which will be targeted with retaliatory sanctions. 'Re-balancing measures' The hit list is said to have been calculated to inflict maximum pain on states whose support will be crucial to President George W Bush's re-election campaign next year. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy has said the retaliatory import tariffs could be in place as soon as early December if the US does not now back down. After the decision an EU statement said: "It should be noted that members affected by the US measures will be entitled to apply re-balancing measures and take any other appropriate action in accordance with WTO rules." And Arancha Gonzalez, EU trade spokeman, said: "There are rules and we all need to respect the rules." The row traces its origins back to January 2002, when the Bush administration imposed tariffs of up to 30% on steel imports in an effort to protect US producers from tough foreign competition. The US said the tariffs were a temporary measure designed to give its beleaguered steel industry a chance to restructure, and were therefore consistent with WTO rules. Following the WTO decision a spokesman for Anglo-Dutch steel firm Corus said: "We welcome today's decision by the WTO Appelate Body against the US Section 201 measures. "We hope, in light of this decision, that President Bush will act quickly to remove the 201 restrictions, so that we can get on with supplying our US customers on a fair and equitable basis." He said exports to the US had generally held up in 2001 and 2002, but would be down in 2003. Profits depressed Following Monday's WTO announcement the US Trade Representative's office said the tariffs, "were intended to provide the domestic industry with the breathing space needed to restructure and consolidate". The US's move had provoked howls of protest from steel exporting nations worldwide, who complained to the WTO. The trade watchdog delivered an initial ruling in the EU's favour in July this year, and the appellate body has upheld that decision. The US government is considering whether to extend its steel import tariffs to March 2005, after coming under heavy pressure to do so from steel producing states. But the tariffs have also been heavily criticised by US manufacturers, who complain that their effect has been to push up steel prices, depressing profit margins and causing job losses.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7874)	3/17/2004 9:34:13 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Kerry is right, foreign leaders want Bush beaten thehill.com An ominously off-balance White House finally seems to have found a bit of traction in taking John Kerry to task for claiming that many foreign leaders are hoping he ousts President Bush from the White House this November. White House surrogates have spent several days pressing Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) to name names. And yesterday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan upped the ante by claiming Kerry was lying. “Either [Kerry] is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president,” McClellan intoned. Late Monday, Boston Globe reporter Patrick Healy, who filed the pool report that included the quote in question, announced that he’d gotten it wrong. Kerry said “more leaders,” not “foreign leaders.” Still, the context shows pretty clearly that foreign leaders of some sort were the folks Kerry was talking about. And in the week since the quotation was first reported, he’s never denied that this was what he meant. The first thing to note about this brouhaha is that this was a really foolish thing for Kerry to say. As we’ve already seen, it’s left Kerry open to all sorts of dingbat Manchurian-candidate-type slurs about his being a pawn of foreign governments or his having made unknown, scary promises to foreign heads of state. Last week, the Republican National Committee put out a memo darkly claiming that “Communist North Korea Is Only Government On Record Supporting John Kerry.” Then a slightly less breathless Vice President Dick Cheney demanded that Kerry tell Americans what he’d promised to those foreign leaders to make them so supportive of his candidacy. American elections aren’t about the views of foreigners. They’re about the views of Americans. If most people around the globe think the American president is reckless, untrustworthy or simply dangerous, that may be something American voters want to take into account in making their judgments. But that’s a more subtle point — and there are better ways to address it than the one Kerry chose. But McClellan’s claim that Kerry is lying just doesn’t pass the laugh test. Yes, Kerry’s remark was ill-advised. But one of the main reasons that it was a bad idea to say this is that it’s so obviously true. Indeed, up until the White House glommed onto this recent line of attack, the administration’s contempt for the views of foreigners has been something it had been proud of and boasted of often. Remember the president’s cocky boasts about not needing anybody’s “permission” to launch the Iraq war? Just consider a few facts. The record of foreign elections over the last two and a half years is telling. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a foreign leader who has supported Bush in any high-profile way and then survived a national election. True, it’s hard to find many examples beside Jose Maria Aznar. But that’s because it’s hard to find any foreign heads of state who have been supporters of the president. More revealing is how many foreign heads of state and candidates for national office from traditional American allies have successfully played the anti-Bush card in their election campaigns. The clearest examples are President Roh Moo-hyun, who won election two years ago in South Korea as the first South Korean presidential candidate to openly question the U.S.-ROK security alliance, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who pulled out a razor-thin victory in his 2002 re-election campaign by campaigning against Bush’s Iraq policy. Washington has tended to view Schroeder’s gambit as cynical and craven, particularly for the leader of a country that has been so closely allied to the United States for half a century. But there’s seldom a shortage of craven or cynical politicians in the world. For understanding America’s current standing in the world, the key point is not so much that Schroeder was or wasn’t craven as that his tactic was successful. Nor is it much of a surprise. As Fareed Zakaria — hardly a lefty or a Bush-hater — noted a year ago, the president’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.” For anyone who follows foreign policy even remotely closely, it has to be close to a given that the overwhelming majority of foreign heads of state and foreigners in general hope that Bush will be heading back to Crawford next January. The president’s deep unpopularity among foreigners and foreign governments is a fact that either campaign could probably use to its advantage. But the fact itself can’t be denied. ____________________ Josh Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each week. Email: jmarshall@thehill.com