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: Orcastraiter who wrote (12418)	4/5/2004 2:15:10 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

Fewer Say Bush Is Serving Middle Class Poll Shows Americans Split Over Whether President Has Governed Compassionately By Dana Milbank and Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 4, 2004; Page A06 As he approaches the November election, President Bush has shed a good part of the "compassionate conservative" image he cultivated during the 2000 election, a Washington Post poll has found. Bush came to office three years ago with a message that he was different from traditional Republican conservatives because he was promoting programs for the poor and disadvantaged. But with his presidency dominated by foreign policy issues and such traditional conservative favorites as tax cuts, he has dropped from his speeches the compassionate conservative moniker that was his trademark in 2000. contd ... washingtonpost.com

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (12418)	4/5/2004 2:29:44 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

U.S., allies must unleash barrage militarily, politically, economically Published April 5, 2004 The graveyards of empires litter humankind's history, sorrowful remnants of once-proud and mighty intervening militaries that met fierce local resistance and eventual defeat. Given the prospect of more mob mayhem of the sort that the world witnessed in Fallujah last week, will Iraq become America's 21st-century graveyard? No -- that is, if the United States and its allies stay the course. In fact, the intervening nations have no choice at this point -- unless they wish to condemn Iraq to the ravages of a vicious civil conflict, destabilize neighboring countries and endanger key interests in the region and beyond. Such a disrupted landscape would create multiple opportunities for extremists and greatly complicate the war against terrorism. In short, the only realistic option is to remain in Iraq and prevail. Many Americans -- especially the families and friends of those who have died or sustained serious injuries -- may not appreciate that advice. They have had enough of Iraq. To them, it already has become the Mesopotamian Stalingrad. Their distaste only grows as the nation suffers through some of the intervention's most difficult days. The intense grind of reconstruction and democracy-building poses enough difficulties. But when one adds the ugly acts of insurgents -- ranging from Saddam Hussein loyalists to foreign extremists to Iraqis disgruntled over the handling of the post-battle phase of the intervention -- the situation appears out of control, the returns quickly diminishing. Those circumstances should come as no surprise, though. Long before the intervention, many reasonable, informed analysts of the Iraq conundrum outlined a sober vision of what to expect from the use of force. Indeed, the violence in Iraq today recalls the aftermath of military actions in many other countries. One should expect outnumbered and outmatched insurgents to resort to any tactic -- including the most barbaric. In particular, insurgents the world over know that by drawing blood they may affect public opinion in the populations of the intervening nations. Rest assured that Saddam loyalists and foreign extremists are monitoring the reaction of Americans to the Fallujah killings. And count on them to build on their outrageous deeds. There are indications of expanding cooperation between the loyalists and foreign extremists, despite their philosophical differences. That development implies convenience and a common adversary -- the U.S.-led forces -- rather than a lasting and meaningful alliance. But it requires a response. In the face of the mounting fury, the United States and its allies must unleash their own barrage --militarily, politically and economically. It would be tempting, but hasty, to seek immediate retaliation in Fallujah. Having ably handled far more deadly attacks against Americans, such as Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush knows better. He opted then to allow patience, solid planning and guile to shape the U.S. response. A similar strategy should apply in Fallujah. Political and economic initiatives hold equal importance. To the extent that Iraqis see a measure of political authority returning to them, they will look upon the intervening nations with greater favor. And to the extent that normalcy returns to Iraq, with people enjoying regular access to food, key services and health care, discontent will diminish. The United States cannot -- and should not have attempted to -- accomplish those goals substantially on its own. I look forward to the day when Washington will hand the bulk of the burden in Iraq to the United Nations and remain engaged as one of many partners. If the United States and its allies stand firm, I have every expectation that a free, democratic Iraq will take root during the next several years, leaving Fallujah and other trouble spots to serve as graveyards only for those who would deny such progress. orlandosentinel.com

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (12418)	4/5/2004 8:13:57 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

CLARKE: I don't know. .... CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference. ..... I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know. How do you interpret anything in Clarke's testimony as being an order to Clarke from anybody re. the bin Ladins? Wish projection?