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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (39979)	4/18/2004 2:08:26 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793963

What nonpartisan commission? April 18, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton administration lawyer defended as a wholly nonpartisan member of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has contributed more heavily to political candidates -- almost all Democrats -- than any other commissioner. Government records show Gorelick, President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, donating at least $32,500 to federal candidates since 1998. Only $4,250 of that went to Republicans. She gave the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign last year when he was struggling. The commission chairman, former Republican New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, defended Gorelick last Friday after House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner called for her resignation. Sensenbrenner contended Gorelick had disqualified herself by constructing in 1995 the wall between the FBI and the CIA under attack by the commission. Kerry's discretion Sources close to Sen. John Kerry say he still feels the pain of being passed over for vice president four years ago and wants to avoid inflicting that punishment on anybody else as he picks his own running mate. Kerry was announced as a contestant in 2000 as Al Gore held a public competition for vice president. Senators Joe Lieberman and John Edwards ended up as the finalists, with Kerry eliminated early after being led to believe he had a real shot to be Gore's choice. With Kerry determined not to mislead anybody, no list of prospects has been put out. Unofficial lists come from people who are not close to the presumptive presidential nominee and do not know his mind. Kerry's mistake Prospecting among thousands of words uttered by John Kerry, Republican researchers spotted gold Tuesday in a Washington Post op-ed column by the prospective Democratic presidential nominee that attempted a nonpartisan approach to Iraq. ''[W]e are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis,'' Kerry wrote, ''lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.'' The unfortunate word was ''frustration,'' which Republicans say Kerry applied to the Iraqi fighters who are murdering Americans. That will be used repeatedly against the Democratic candidate. Kerry has taken a less combative posture on Iraq since he clinched the nomination, angering some anti-war Democrats. Describing the ''frustration'' of Iraqi gunmen, therefore, was a mistake rather than a calculated strategy. Karen for governor? Following Karen Hughes' impressive performance on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' on April 4, the Bush adviser's friends and supporters in both Washington and Texas started quietly boosting her for governor of Texas in 2006. Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded to the governorship in 2000 when George W. Bush became president, has indicated he will seek another term. But Perry has many enemies, and the word in Texas political circles is that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison could challenge him for the Republican nomination. Conservative activists do not consider Hughes one of them and are not talking about her for governor. However, insiders who are not fond of either Perry or Hutchison are starting to promote Hughes, a former television journalist who has never run for public office. Senate strategies Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, facing Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's ultimatum that could block all of President Bush's judicial nominations, is considering a tough counter-strategy. Daschle has threatened to prevent any vote on 45 proposed federal judges unless the president ''gives assurance'' that he will not make any more recess appointments. That process, used when the Senate is in recess, puts a judicial nominee temporarily on the bench without being confirmed. Frist is being urged to file cloture petitions, which would cut off debate and force a vote on each of the 45 stalled judges. If Democratic discipline holds as it has in the past, none of the judges will get the 60 votes needed to impose cloture. However, Democrats may get the blame for preventing the Senate from doing business.

To: LindyBill who wrote (39979)	4/18/2004 5:46:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

Bennet's analysis is totally stuck in the moribund peace process framework (now, there's a real quagmire for you!), in which he respectfully repeats the Palestinian claims, and unable to notice that there is a war on. Consider the difference between this Israeli security officials acknowledge that, at least in the short run, strikes like the one on Mr. Rantisi boost the popularity of Hamas among Palestinians and further weaken the governing Palestinian Authority. But they say that, over time, Hamas may begin to crack apart under the pressure. Hamas has been exploring taking a role in helping govern Gaza once the Israelis leave. Mr. Sharon's advisers argue that another advantage to the unilateral approach is that Israel no longer needs to care about how Palestinians run their own affairs. Palestinian officials say that Mr. Sharon has worked to radicalize the Palestinians to avoid a peace agreement. In the first two years of the conflict, when attacked by Hamas bombers, Israel retaliated against institutions of the Palestinian Authority. Israel said it was trying to goad the Palestinian Authority to act against terrorism, but Palestinian officials said the real intent was to destroy any legitimate Palestinian government. Having undermined Palestinian moderates, they say, Mr. Sharon is now claiming there is no possible peace partner, to avoid negotiations that would cost him more territory than he plans to yield unilaterally. and Greg Myres account, also in the NYT: Despite the ominous message, Israel has significantly weakened Hamas over the past two years, and it is not clear whether the most dangerous Palestinian faction can deliver on its pledge to launch a renewed wave of suicide bombings, as it has done frequently in the past. Israel's killing of Dr. Rantisi in a Saturday night missile strike, and a similar attack on March 22 that took the life of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, are the two most dramatic examples of the sustained Israeli offensive against the group. While the Israeli military actions have generated retaliatory bombings in the past, the overall number of Palestinian attacks has dropped substantially since they peaked in the spring of 2002. nytimes.com Myre is able to notice that Israel and Hamas are having a low-grade war, and Israel seems to be winning. Bennet is not able to notice it, and must report war news only second hand, via the voices of Sharon's aides. But he soberly repeats Palestinian claims that Sharon is avoiding the peace table, without ever reporting the basic disagreement about what negotiations consist of. The Israelis think they consist of talking, without terrorism; but the Palestinians think that negotiations include the use of suicide bombers. Does Bennet ever manage to mention this difference? He also laments the "radicalization" of the Palestinian "moderates" without mentioning that these "moderates" have been invisible for the last three years. If they had shown up in the two years since Bush called for Palestinian reform, we might have a different story. A story closer to the one that Bennet keeps trying to fabricate.