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: CalculatedRisk who wrote (10426)	3/28/2004 4:57:40 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 81568

3) Pursuing a foreign policy that changes the breeding ground for terrorism (Bush has ignored this area). This only works if both sides want an accomodation. If we take Arafat as an example - I do not believe he wants anything less than victory - not accomodation. Wether or not I am right in this is the key to the issue. Until the Arab world confronts its own problems - does anyone think there will be an accomodation? Time is endless in negotiations with Arabs - it is my hypothesis that they are in no hurry to resolve anything. They believe utltimately they will win - not accomodate, The above is the crux of the issue - is it correct?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (10426)	3/28/2004 6:58:53 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

If you consider Bush weak on terrorism, you will be absolutely outraged with Kerry's policies. We would return us to days of paralysis by analysis. Consider his speaking habit of long drawn out speeches. That same tendency would govern his major decisions...an invitation for terror attacks. Besides, al Qaeda made one assassination attempt too many on Pres Musharraf and he is now determined to catch bin Laden. He has the best motivation--self preservation.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (10426)	3/28/2004 7:18:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

A Moment of Moral Clarity _________________________________ After unconscionable foot-dragging by the White House, we're beginning to get to the bottom of the most searing event of our time By Jonathan Alter Newsweek April 5 issue On Sept. 14, 2001, I was in the press pool at ground zero and stood five feet from President Bush, who had mounted a crushed fire truck, slung his arm around an exquisitely wizened firefighter and told the world through a bullhorn that the terrorists would soon be hearing from the United States. It was more than a defining political moment for this president; it kicked off a period of bracing moral clarity. Whatever his stumbles on September 11 or before, Bush understood that a wounded nation needed clear lines drawn in the dust of the Twin Towers. He went on to deliver one of the finest speeches to Congress in modern memory. Sadly, Bush has never understood that moral clarity is rooted in what might be called constitutional clarity. That's another way of saying accountability, which is itself a bureaucratic way of saying that for more than 200 years we've thrived on airing our messy, dirty and often tangled linen in public. It's an important part of who we are. Last week was a great one for constitutional clarity, not just at the 9/11 hearings on Capitol Hill but at the Supreme Court, where Michael Newdow, a nonlawyer dad atheist, got a chance to hold the government accountable for what he sees as its legal contradictions over the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether one thinks Dick Clarke is an American grandstander, a Frank Capra hero or some mixture of the two, his appearance was, as Martha Stewart used to say, a good thing. He took responsibility for the failures of antiterrorism policy ("your government failed you"), which did more than provide some relief for the families of the 9/11 victims. It set the tone for an important national debate. Don't hold your breath waiting for Bill Clinton or Bush to admit they failed; beyond "mistakes were made"—Ronald Reagan's response to the Iran-contra scandal—presidents can't fall on their swords without weakening themselves. But after unconscionable foot-dragging by the White House, we're beginning to get to the bottom of the most searing event of our time. After years of arguing about sex and a million other passing dustups, it's the right argument at the right moment. Elections are supposed to be about big things like this. Before the cameras, the commissioners and witnesses, Democrats and Republicans acted with a seriousness of purpose befitting the occasion. The many failures of Clinton administration policy—including the distractions of the Lewinsky scandal—should be fully documented in the final report. As former senator Bob Kerrey (and potential veep candidate on an all-Vietnam Kerry-Kerrey ticket) put it in questioning the Clintonites: "If we're attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked, why [did] we continue to send the FBI over?" The Bush leaguers were the Bush political operatives, who sent everyone out except Barney the dog to trash Clarke, even speculating that he might be a perjurer for simply having been a good soldier when he appeared before Congress back in 2002. He said nice things about Bush antiterrorism policy when he was in government. Big deal. The fact that he was not a whistle-blower then hardly destroys his credibility now. Especially when others in the administration are siding with Clarke. His basic claim is that fighting terrorism was "important" but not "urgent" to Bush before 9/11. Condoleezza Rice insists: "We acted on these ideas very quickly." Unfortunately for Rice, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage conceded at the hearings: "We weren't going fast enough." This should hardly be a surprise, considering that the Bush administration's first big meeting on a new antiterrorism plan wasn't held until Sept. 4, 2001. But conceding as much would undermine Bush's rationale for re-election—that he is the only one who can be trusted on terrorism. So the smearing continues. Robert Novak even played the racism card, asking Rep. Rahm Emanuel, "Do you believe that Dick Clarke had a problem with this African-American woman, Condoleezza Rice?" But that was a small blot on an uplifting week in Washington. As both a pragmatist and a believer, I don't have a lot of patience with trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. It doesn't seem a lot different than "In God We Trust" on the back of currency. But Michael Newdow, the atheist plaintiff who wowed the Supreme Court audience last week with his little-guy legal talents, was acting in the same spirit as the 9/11 commission, forcing the highest government officials to explain themselves. Making justices justify and presidents preside in a spirit of openness and accountability—that's what gives us moral clarity when we need it. msnbc.msn.com