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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39960)	3/19/2004 8:28:59 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Bush needs to talk less and listen more<< James P. Pinkerton There's a single War on Terror, and all the Good Guys are on one side and all the Bad Guys are on the other side. That was President George W. Bush's argument Friday as he marked the one-year anniversary of the Iraq war. Bush's speech was a reminder that his speechwriters can whomp up new justifications for the Iraq war faster than reality can knock down the old ones. And so, while glib White House phrasemakers might persuade most Americans that Bush is Mr. Right, most of the rest of the world sees things differently, and that bodes poorly for the president's "you're with us or against us" approach. Gone, of course, were the precise references to liters of nerve gas and uranium yellow cake that filled up Bush's speeches at this time in 2003. Instead, the president chose to emphasize another justification: The New Line is that there's a single worldwide War on Terror and that all non-terrorists should follow his leadership. As he said, "There is no neutral ground." The president continued, "There is a dividing line in our world . . . separating two visions of justice and the value of life." In other words, it's just that simple: good vs. evil, kill or be killed. Bush's goal was to rally the world to his side, describing the war against terror as the "inescapable calling of our generation." And we are all in this war, he continued, equally and totally -- "there can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy." But wait just a second here: Americans might not feel comfortable cozying up to some of the 15 countries Bush named as fellow victims of terror, including nuke-exporting Pakistan and terror-funding Saudi Arabia. But Bush was on a roll, throwing a big blanket of bonhomie over a motley crew of governments: "In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain to Russia to . . ." Stop right there -- Russia? The Russians first invaded Chechnya, a small Muslim land not far from Turkey, in the late 18th century. Ever since then, the Russians have alternated between oppressing, deporting and exterminating the people there, all in the name of Russian-Soviet-Russian "greatness." Human rights organizations around the world have condemned the Russians for decades, albeit to no avail. Indeed, Bush's own State Department has joined in the criticism, declaring, "Human rights violations committed by Russian forces in Chechnya need to be curtailed and abusers held accountable." But the Russians, led by the dictatorial and undemocratic Vladimir Putin, know that they can ignore words written on mere scraps of diplomatic paper. And so they continue to slaughter the Chechens -- and, by the way, continue to be slaughtered right back. One could argue, to be sure, that, as a matter of cynical realpolitik, America must side with the Russians against the Chechens because we need Russia's help on the war on terror. Of course, it would help if the Russians would stop helping other anti-American countries such as Iran. Yet, the notion that we need allies, even those with bloody hands, is a plausible argument for statecrafters to make. But it's not the argument that Bush made. And, as a result, the president's speech will not prove effective at rallying international support as the pro-U.S. coalition continues to shrink. Just on Thursday, Honduras announced that it, too, would withdraw its troops from Iraq. The problem with Bush's argument is that it was couched in moral absolutes, asserted in the complete presumption that the U.S. president is best equipped to ascertain absolute good and absolute evil around the world. But other countries disagree; they argue that the United States has increased terrorism by invading Iraq, not decreased it. And a look at every day's news story datelined Baghdad would seem to vindicate that argument. In the future, if Bush wants international help -- and we need it to stop weapons-of-mass-destruction proliferation much more than we need it in regard to Iraq -- he will have to talk less and listen more. But don't bet on it. Because it's obvious that Bush, stoked up by his speechwriters, is 100-percent convinced that he is 100-percent right. newsday.com lurqer

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39960)	3/20/2004 1:38:05 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

KAREN SILKWOOD, DR. DAVID KELLY, CLIFF BAXTER.... What do they have in common? Re: Didya notice how the former vice chairman of Enron conveniently committed suicide right around the time he may have authorized his lawyer to cooperate with the Justice Department...I have a hunch he knew way too much (Lay, Skilling and others could have quietly hired a mafia hitman to arrange an accident)... I've always thought that Enron VP Cliff Baxter was murdered. Did you see the "suicide note" he left? He addressed it to his wife and in the text he referred to his children not by name but as "the children". What father on earth would be so indifferent as he was sitting in the median of a boulevard in a gated community considering blowing his brains out with un-ballistically traceable rat shot with the wrong hand?