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

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 6:04:24 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 769670

Top Worldwide Bush Approval Falls to a Record Low in Newsweek Poll (Update1) May 15 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush faces the disapproval of a majority of Americans for the first time in his presidency, with only 42 percent saying they approve of the job he's doing, the lowest number yet in a Newsweek magazine poll. Bush's overall job approval rating in the survey conducted May 13 and 14 fell from 49 percent in the last Newsweek poll almost a month ago, while the number of respondents who say they approve of his handling of Iraq also dropped to 35 percent from 44 percent. Forty-one percent of registered voters say they want Bush reelected, down from 46 percent. Over the last month, Americans have learned that U.S. military personnel abused Iraqi prisoners and a 26 year-old American civilian in Iraq, Nicholas Berg, was beheaded by terrorists in the country. During April, 174 American soldiers also died in combat in Iraq. The thinning support for Bush, 57, hasn't pushed Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and presidential candidate, ahead of his opponent. The last Newsweek poll found that Kerry, 60, would have defeated Bush, if the election were held at that time, with 50 percent of the vote to Bush's 43 percent. In the new poll, the candidates are in a statistical tie. The U.S. must continue its fight in Iraq following Berg's murder, Bush said in his weekly radio address today, adding that success in that conflict won't be derailed by the abuse scandal. Clashes with U.S. soldiers left 41 Iraqi militiamen dead in the last twenty-four hours, Cable News Network reported, citing coalition officials. Five U.S. soldiers also died in the last day. Staying in Iraq A majority of Americans appear to agree with Bush on keeping U.S. soldiers in Iraq, according to Newsweek. In the magazine's poll, 57 percent of respondents said that despite the prison abuse scandal, the U.S. can still ``achieve its goals'' in Iraq and shouldn't withdraw troops from the country. The top U.S. commander in Iraq yesterday banned prison interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, stress positions and the use of military dogs to intimidate detainees. Military investigators have portrayed the mistreatment as the work of a few undisciplined soldiers rather than tactics ordered by commanders to aid military intelligence efforts. In the Newsweek poll, 45 percent of respondents said ``higher- ups'' in the military chain of command authorized abusive treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. Still, fifty-seven percent of those polled said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should keep his job. ``All Americans know that the actions of a few do not reflect the true character of the United States Armed Forces,'' Bush said in the radio address. ``No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.'' Kerry Response Kerry, who criticized the indictment of seven U.S. soldiers in the abuse scandal, has called on Rumsfeld to step down over his handling of the war in Iraq. ``We have a duty to guarantee that, when mistakes are made, those responsible are held accountable whether they are at the bottom of the chain of command or at the top,'' Kerry said in the Democratic response to the President's radio address. While most American's agree with his commitment to remain in Iraq, they don't approve of the way Bush is doing his job overall. Bush's approval rating is now lower than the ratings Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan enjoyed at the same point in their first terms as president, Newsweek said. In May 1996, Clinton garnered a 48 percent approval rating while Reagan's rating reached 54 percent in May 1984, according to Newsweek. Both men were re-elected. Gerald Ford, who lost his bid for a second term as president, had a 47 percent approval rating in May 1976. George H. W. Bush, who also failed to win re-election, had a 35 percent approval rating in May 1992. The margin of error in the new poll of 1,010 adults, contacted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for Newsweek, was plus or minus 3 percentage points. quote.bloomberg.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 6:05:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Have<font color=brown> you seen this one.......its long but well worth the read!<font color=black cdi.org

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 6:19:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Rumsfeld 'gave secret OK' 15/05/2004 23:07 - (SA) Washington - US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a secret programme that encouraged interrogation methods used at Abu Ghraib prison, where Iraqi prisoners were abused, The New Yorker magazine said on Saturday. Rumsfeld had approved "a highly secret operation" last year, which "encouraged physical coercion and the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq," New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote, citing current and former intelligence officials. Excerpts of Hersh's report have been released ahead of publication this week. Hersh said the clandestine Defence Department operation was known as a Special Access Program (SAP). 'Do what you want' Its rules were: "Grab whom you must. Do what you want," according to one former intelligence official cited by Hersh. The US defence secretary's decision to import such techniques into Iraq, after their use in Afghanistan, was opposed by members of US intelligence organisations, the report said. "They said, 'No way. We signed up for the core programme in Afghanistan, pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets, and now you want to use it for cab drivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets,'" the former intelligence official told Hersh. The intelligence source said the CIA objected to the programme's use inside Abu Ghraib, where a scandal involving the mistreatment of Iraqis has sparked Democratic calls for Rumsfeld's resignation. The CIA ended its SAP involvement in the jail. Leaked photos from Abu Ghraib have shown US soldiers abusing Iraqi inmates, forcing them into sexually humiliating positions. Hersh writes that Rumsfeld left the detailed planning to Pentagon intelligence chief Steve Cambone, but that the programme was ultimately approved by Rumsfeld and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers. The Pentagon wanted to use tougher interrogation techniques as the US plan to occupy Iraq was hindered by a growing insurgency, Hersh wrote. "So here are fundamentally good soldiers - military intelligence guys - being told that no rules apply," a former military intelligence official told Hersh. When the New Yorker and CBS published photographs showing US soldiers sexually abusing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib amid allegations of assaults and beatings, "the (Pentagon) cover story was that some kids got out of control," Hersh said. "As far as they're concerned, this is a covert operation, and it's to be kept within the Defence Department channels," the former intelligence official told Hersh. Hersh is an award-winning US journalist who broke the story of the My Lai massacre, when US soldiers executed Vietnamese civilians during the war in Vietnam. news24.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 6:47:45 PM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Quite disturbing predictions...some may be outright dangerous to all.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 8:10:02 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I like the part about economic policy: - flat income tax - no tax on capital gains or dividends - massively cut government spending and "entitlements" It all sounds great to me!

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 8:32:44 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

"esteemed"? ROFLMAO!!! William the Bastard's pet dwarf is only "esteemed" among the anti-American sewer rats...

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/15/2004 10:41:01 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 769670

What's the guy smoking? GZ

To: stockman_scott who wrote (575679)	5/16/2004 1:36:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Dancing Alone By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: May 13, 2004 It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home? "Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics." Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West. I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics. Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr. Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels. Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida. And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.") Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence. nytimes.com