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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 10:45:26 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 769670
 
I know that is what you and other Bush hating morons are hoping for Kenny....



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:23:08 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
a fortune teller ??? gypsie ???
c-span.org



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:26:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
Neville Chamberlain, en Español
Spain's new leader is an anti-American appeaser.

BY RAMON PEREZ-MAURA
Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:01 a.m.

MADRID--Spain will have a new government now: It is Socialist, as we know, and vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq. The prime minister-elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is an old-fashioned European man of the left: pacifist in his "distaste" for war, and deeply anti-American in his posturing and rhetoric, to say nothing of his innermost instincts. If one were, as a laboratory experiment, to manufacture precisely the sort of Spanish leader the U.S. would find most uncooperative at this juncture in history, he would resemble Mr. Zapatero almost exactly.
The Popular Party, which lost, was by contrast a standard-bearer for the most pro-American policies in Spain's democratic history. Its departing leader, Jose Maria Aznar, was George W. Bush's foremost European ally--in this he was no less constant than Tony Blair--and a man who believed passionately in an Atlanticist direction for Spain. An alliance with the U.S., he knew, was also the way to restore to Spain a modicum of her old clout in the world--as well as to free Spain from the asphyxiating grip of France. And as all Americans know, he believed in the prosecution of the war against terror, of which he saw the war in Iraq as an inseparable part.

So where does this leave the Spanish-American alliance, so refreshing in its departure from the "Old European" mold, and so effective in its harmony between Messrs. Aznar and Bush? What will the impact of the Socialist victory be on the foreign policy (such as it is) of the European Union, which has been at its least anti-American in years, thanks to the muscular Atlanticism of Mr. Aznar and Tony Blair? And what is Washington to make of--and to do about--the manner in which the Socialists exploited last week's terrorist attacks in Madrid?
The Socialist Party took a free ride on that atrocity and placed blame for the deaths on the governing Popular Party for having aligned itself with the U.S. and British governments on Iraq. Mr. Zapatero's message to Spain's electorate on the eve of the election was as simple and powerful as it was invidious: We have been attacked for siding with the U.S. in Iraq. More ire was directed at America than at those who slaughtered innocent Spaniards.

If the Socialist Party were to win, voters were told, Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and any further Islamist terrorist attacks avoided. The ethical implications of such a stand didn't make much of an impact on the voters. The fact that al Qaeda may have killed 200 people in Madrid and a contender for power reacted by promising retreat and not retaliation was seen--in the terrible shadow of the event--as a good option by a majority of the electorate. But the message to al Qaeda from our Spanish "Neville Chamberlain" was: If you manage to strike at us, we will run away.

Early on Monday morning, the prime minister-elect, Mr. Zapatero, announced that all Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by June 30. He also said that "Blair and Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. . . . You can't organize a war with lies," before going on to declare that he would "try to restore magnificent relations with France." The implications of all this for bilateral Spain-U.S. relations could not be more clear.

The Socialist Party believes that it was wrong for Spain to become a close ally of the U.S. over the last few years, and those ties will be loosened forthwith. The Spanish left has frequently depicted the Bush administration as a bunch of warmongers seeking to expand U.S. imperialism around the globe. The left's policies are so radical that when, in January, Mr. Zapatero asked to be received by his fellow socialist colleague Tony Blair as a boost for his election campaign, Downing Street turned down the request. This happened even as Mr. Blair found time to host Mariano Rajoy, Mr. Aznar's presumptive successor, for breakfast.

Washington had better take careful note. The Spanish Socialist party has not the slightest interest in trying to save the privileged relationship that Spain and the U.S. have had during the last four years. On the contrary, Mr. Zapatero is determined to put Spain back into the fold of France--back, in fact, to where Spain's foreign policy had been for 200 years until Mr. Aznar decided to stand up and give Madrid its own voice. Spain will now, once more, be infantilized as France's junior partner--or, to put it bluntly, will become France's Sancho Panza. (Dominique de Villepin must be uncorking champagne by the caseload. Spain will be pliant again; all's well with the world.)
A few European governments will be delighted to see the volte-face in Spain's foreign policy. Five days before the Spanish elections, France's Le Monde newspaper, an icon of Europe's left-wing intellectuals, published a two-page interview with Mr. Aznar under the front-page headline "The lesson of Jose Maria Aznar to the French right." France's Gaullist president, Jacques Chirac, who never even tried to conceal the disgust Mr. Aznar's policies provoked in him, is likely to receive Mr. Zapatero with a big-brotherly hug.

The same will happen with Gerhard Schroeder, Germany's chancellor, and the leaders of a few other middle-sized European countries. The implications for other European leaders who took a stand like Mr. Aznar's on Iraq--Mr. Blair, Silvio Berlusconi or Portugal's Jose Manuel Durao Barroso--are transparent. What if terrorists strike next in London, or in Rome, or Lisbon, and the opposition parties there say--as they did in Spain on March 11--"We told you so!"

The demise of the U.S.-Spain alliance will be bad for Madrid. Prime Minister Aznar visited the White House more times than all the previous heads of the Spanish government combined. He created a relationship that was decisive when Morocco invaded a Spanish-held island off its coast in July 2002. European allies, headed by France, ignored Spain's plea for diplomatic support, claiming it was a purely bilateral dispute. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to act as a go-between for Madrid and Morocco and conferred American approval as Spanish troops retook the island.

Furthermore, U.S. intelligence cooperation in the fight against Basque terrorism has been decisive in many successful strikes by the Spanish police, which now has ETA virtually surrounded. All of that could now be lost.

The U.S. stands to suffer, too, from the "Zapatero effect." In December 2002, it was the Spanish navy that so expertly intercepted a North Korean ship bearing Scuds destined for Yemen. And Spanish troops, as everyone knows, have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in Iraq. On the political stage--whether in Brussels or at the U.N. Security Council--Washington has relied on Spain to break France's lock on European foreign policy.
There is still a chance that relations between Madrid and Washington will not take a calamitous course in the long term--and that is if John Kerry wins in the U.S. elections in November. Spanish Socialists are praying that the Bush administration will depart in defeat, and are looking forward to Mr. Kerry with an unseemly impatience. A Kerry administration, they hope, will accept--and even welcome--the new soft approach of the government in Madrid. After all, how is Mr. Kerry's foreign policy different from Mr. Zapatero's?

In the meantime, the U.S. must prepare for drastically reduced cooperation from Madrid, and start to plan for the departure of Spanish troops from Iraq. Spain is no more a pillar in the war against terror, and Washington had better get used to it.

Mr. Perez-Maura is assistant editor of the Spanish daily ABC.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:33:39 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 769670
 
On the bright side it means that john f'ing kerry will not have to worry about son's of bitches knocking him down any more after Nov. 11. That is fantastic new for America

.
. : .
. : | : .
. | | | ,
\ | | /
. ,-'"""`-. .
"- / __ __ \ -"
| | .I. | |
- --- | _`--^--'_ | --- -
|'`. ,'`|
_- \ "---" / -_
. `-.___,-' .
/ | | .' | | | `.
: | :
. : .
.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:37:01 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Zapatero tells Kerry to drop dead, as Paul Krugman's favorite anti-Semite endorses the senator.
3:18 p.m. EST
Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO

If there is any reason at all for patriotic Americans to consider voting for a man on the basis of his foreign endorsements, it is that he may be better able to persuade those leaders to act in accord with American interest. Zapatero's contemptuous attitude toward Kerry gives the lie to that argument. The new Spanish leader is unwilling to consider keeping his country's commitment to Iraq even though it would probably help Kerry politically.

The Associated Press reports Kerry picked up another foreign endorsement yesterday: from former Paul Krugman advisee Mahathir Mohamad, erstwhile prime minister of Malaysia:

"I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.

"But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.

Mahathir's comments about the "Jewish lobby" are hardly surprising; as the Anti-Defamation League notes, he has a long history of anti-Semitsm. As we noted in October, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman thinks Mahathir's anti-Semitism is President Bush's fault.

Maybe Krugman should sign on as an adviser to the Kerry campaign. He could urge the candidate to explain to the American people how President Bush caused Mahathir to make anti-Semitic remarks in the very next breath after endorsing Kerry. Instead, the Kerry camp is very much on the defensive; Kerry adviser Rand Beers issued the following statement yesterday:

John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable. The world needs leaders who seek to bring people together, not drive them apart with hateful and divisive rhetoric.

This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.

Yet not two weeks ago Kerry was boasting about all the endorsements he had supposedly received from foreign leaders. If this guy weren't so damn electable, we'd say he has no chance of winning.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:42:23 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
Did Kerry Get Dowdified?
Salon's Eric Boehlert thinks John Kerry has been the victim of a Dowdification, and he accuses us of being an accessory to the crime. (In a shameful lapse of civility, he also resorts to name-calling, disparaging us as one of "Bush's tools in the conservative media.") At issue is the following comment from President Bush, which we cited last week:

Just days ago my opponent indicated he's not comfortable using the word, "war," to describe the struggle we're in. He said, "I don't want to use that terminology."

Boehlert argues that Bush took the Kerry quote out of context and thereby distorted its meaning. Well, you be the judge. Here's what Kerry said, in an interview with the New York Times:

The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war--not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future.

So when Kerry said "I don't want to use that terminology," what he meant was that he didn't want to call the "war of ideas," which is "much more" important in the war on terror than the "war on the battlefield," a "war." The war on terrorism is a war, but it's a war that's mostly a not-war. We'll give Boehlert this: Bush's comment made Kerry's statement seem a lot clearer--sorry, less nuanced--than it actually was.

You have to give Bush credit, too, for being extremely fair to his opponent. Recently the incumbent began airing an ad criticizing the challenger for his vote to defund the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry cried foul, and now, the Associated Press reports, the Bush campaign is airing a new version of the ad that actually includes Kerry's defense: ''I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it."



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:45:09 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
From the New York Times' account of John Kerry's snowboarding trip to Idaho:

The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis--just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."

The German magazine Der Spiegel, meanwhile, has this promo for an article on Kerry's better half:

President John Forbes Kerry would bring an unusual wife to the White House. Teresa Heinz Kerry is wealthier and older than her husband, and some people say she is cleverer, more aggressive and stronger than him too. Can America cope with this lady? Teresa Heinz Kerry knows her way around, she has got around a lot: born in Mozambique, she went to school in South Africa and to university in Geneva, she speaks five languages, has translated for the United Nations, and she knows the world. Which is why she knows, and says out loud, that the United States can at times be quite immature.

So that Secret Service agents is a %$!# and Americans are immature. One almost starts to think these people are haughty.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (553941)3/20/2004 12:46:43 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
No Neutral Ground
"There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."

BY GEORGE W. BUSH
Friday, March 19, 2004 12:47 p.m.

(Editor's note: President Bush delivered this speech at the White House this morning.)
We are representing 84 countries united against a common danger, and joined in a common purpose. We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat. Each of us has pledged before the world: We will never bow to the violence of a few. We will face this mortal danger, and we will overcome it together.

As we meet, violence and death at the hands of terrorists are still fresh in our memory. The people of Spain are burying their innocent dead. These men and women and children began their day in a great and peaceful city, yet lost their lives on a battlefield, murdered at random and without remorse. Americans saw the chaos and the grief, and the vigils and the funerals, and we have shared in the sorrow of the Spanish people. Ambassador Ruperez, please accept our deepest sympathy for the great loss that your country has suffered.

The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war. And in this new kind of war, civilians find themselves suddenly on the front lines. In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain, to Russia, to Israel, to East Africa, to Morocco, to the Philippines, and to America. They've targeted Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. They have attacked Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. No nation or region is exempt from the terrorists' campaign of violence.

Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock, and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another. And each attack must be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve and bolder action against the killers. It is the interest of every country, and the duty of every government, to fight and destroy this threat to our people.

There is no dividing line--there is a dividing line in our world, not between nations, and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life. On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, "We choose death, while you choose life." We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love live, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life, tolerance and freedom, and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending. There is no neutral ground--no neutral ground--in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.

The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies--they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united and decisive action.
In this contest of will and purpose, not every nation joins every mission, or participates in the same way. Yet, every nation makes a vital contribution, and America is proud to stand with all of you as we pursue a broad strategy in the war against terror.

We are using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge, and to find their leaders. Over the past 30 months, we have frozen or seized nearly $200 million in assets of terror networks. We have captured or killed some two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders, as well as many of al Qaeda's associates countries like the United States, or Germany, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Thailand. We are taking the fight to al Qaeda allies, such as Ansar-al-Islam in Iraq, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia, and Southeast Asia. Our coalition is sending an unmistakable message to the terrorists, including those who struck in Madrid: These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice.

Our coalition is taking urgent action to stop the transfer of deadly weapon and materials. America and the nations of Australia, and France, and Germany, and Italy, and Japan, and the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Norway have joined in the Proliferation Security Initiative all aimed to bind together, to interdict lethal materials transported by air or sea or land. Many governments have cooperated to expose and dismantle the network of A.Q. Khan, which sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. By all these efforts, we are determined to prevent catastrophic technologies from falling into the hands of an embittered few.

Our coalition is also confronting the dangerous combination of outlaw states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction. For years, the Taliban made Afghanistan the home base of al Qaeda. And so we gave the Taliban a choice: to abandon forever their support for terror, or face the destruction of their regime. Because the Taliban chose defiance, our coalition acted to remove this threat. And now the terror camps are closed, and the government of a free Afghanistan is represented here today as an active partner in the war on terror.

The people of Afghanistan are a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. Citizens of Afghanistan have adopted a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. The new Afghan army is becoming a vital force of stability in that country. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the children of Afghanistan are back in school, boys and girls.

This progress is a tribute to the brave Afghan people, and to the efforts of many nations. NATO--including forces from Canada, France, Germany and other nations--is leading the effort to provide security. Japan and Saudi Arabia have helped to complete the highway from Kabul to Kandahar, which is furthering commerce and unifying the country. Italy is working with Afghans to reform their legal system, and strengthening an independent judiciary. Three years ago, the people of Afghanistan were oppressed and isolated from the world by a terrorist regime. Today, that nation has a democratic government and many allies--and all of us are proud to be friends of the Afghan people.

Many countries represented here today also acted to liberate the people of Iraq. One year ago, military forces of a strong coalition entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands, to defend our security, and to liberate that country from the rule of a tyrant. For Iraq, it was a day of deliverance. For the nations of our coalition, it was the moment when years of demands and pledges turned to decisive action. Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East, and a crucial advance for human liberty.
There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends. Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression and instability in the Middle East. It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under sanctions. And it is a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq, are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like.

There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we're dealing with them. But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation? One year after the armies of liberation arrived, every soldier who has fought, every aid worker who has served, every Iraqi who has joined in their country's defense can look with pride on a brave and historic achievement. They've served freedom's cause, and that is a privilege.

Today in Iraq, a British-led division is securing the southern city of Basra. Poland continues to lead a multinational division in south-central Iraq. Japan and the Republic of Korea--South Korea--have made historic commitments of troops to help bring peace to Iraq. Special forces from El Salvador, Macedonia and other nations are helping to find and defeat Baathist and terrorist killers. Military engineers from Kazakhstan have cleared more than a half a million explosive devices from Iraq. Turkey is helping to resupply coalition forces. All of these nations, and many others, are meeting their responsibilities to the people of Iraq.

Whatever their past views, every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq. And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East. And they have made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives.

By attacking coalition forces--by targeting innocent Iraqis and foreign civilians for murder--the terrorists are trying to weaken our will. Instead of weakness, they're finding resolve. Not long ago, we intercepted a planning document being sent to leaders of al Qaeda by one of their associates, a man named Zarqawi. Along with the usual threats, he had a complaint: "Our enemy," said Zarqawi, "is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day--this is suffocation." Zarqawi is getting the idea. We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction. We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq.

Many coalition countries have sacrificed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the fallen soldiers and civilians are sons and daughters of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, the United Kingdom and the United States. We honor their courage, we pray for the comfort of their families. We will uphold the cause they served.

The rise of democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great step toward a goal of lasting importance to the world. We have set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment and terror. We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region, and destruction to cities in America and Europe and around the world. This task is historic, and difficult; this task is necessary and worthy of our efforts.
In the 1970s, the advance of democracy in Lisbon and Madrid inspired democratic change in Latin America. In the 1980s, the example of Poland ignited a fire of freedom in all of Eastern Europe. With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater Middle East.

One man who believed in our cause was a Japanese diplomat named Katsuhiko Oku. He worked for the Coalition Provision Authority in Iraq. Mr. Oku was killed when his car was ambushed. In his diary he described his pride in the cause he had joined. "The free people of Iraq," he wrote, "are now making steady progress in reconstructing their country--while also fighting against the threat of terrorism. We must join hands with the Iraqi people in their effort to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists." This good, decent man concluded, "This is also our fight to defend freedom."

Ladies and gentlemen, this good man from Japan was right. The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty, and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense. It will surely be said of our times that we lived with great challenges. Let it also be said of our times that we understood our great duties, and met them in full.

May God bless our efforts.