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 (53952)	7/12/2004 10:18:33 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793618

The Corner - RIVKIN ON FENCE DECISION [Rich Lowry] FYI, NR/NRO laws-of-war maven David Rivkin sent me this e-mail about the Israeli fence: “Dear Rich: By now, I have read the ICJ opinion regarding Israeli fence in full. It is the worst, most biased, most non-judicial opinion I have ever seen. It ranks right up there with Stalin's show trials. It engages in no analysis of either the relevant international treaties or says anything about the relevant state practice. Its discussion of history is so biased, it is almost embarrassing. For example, in discussing the genesis of the first Arab/Israeli conflict, it says as follows: 'The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan [the 1947 UN Partition Resolution], contending that it was unbalanced.' This is a funny way of describing the fundamental rejection by the Arabs of Israel's right to exist in an independent state. The opinion also rejects the notion that Israel has any right of self-defense against a non-state actor like the Palestinians. This is completely contrary to international law, that has always recognized that one can engage in a state of armed conflict against a non-state actor. It is also inconsistent with the Security Council's recent -- post-September 11 -- resolutions, which specifically acknowledge that the U.S. has the right to defend itself against al Qaeda. International law aside, since the UN treats the Palestinian authority as a quasi state, the ICJ position is particularly hypocritical. The bottom line is that this opinion brings discredit to the Court and casts international law as nothing more than a tool of partisan politics. Other than this, this is a damn good opinion.” Posted at 09:51 AM PREDICTION [Jonah Goldberg] In the wake of the 60 Minutes interview, it's become clear to me that by the end of this campaign Mrs. Heinz Kerry will be seen as a considerable liability for the Kerry team. Mrs. Edwards will be seen as a real advantage. Posted at 09:09 AM A THEORY [Rich Lowry] According to the AP poll last week, Bush seemed to get a small bounce from the Edwards selection. Other polls show a tiny Kerry bounce, but Bush's job approval rating still climbing. What's happening here? The Edwards selection helped knock Iraq off the front pages, and anything that de-emphasizes Iraq helps Bush, since it has been the main thing dragging him down. This means that any big Kerry campaign events that dominate the news--no matter how well rolled out, like the Edwards announcement--work in some sense in Bush's strategtic favor, since they serve to overshadow Iraq. Now, of course, part of what is going on here is that Iraq has simmered down a bit over the last two weeks, and there are no longer daily CPA breifings to provide the cable channels with easy video. But there is still news in Iraq. Last week, five of our guys were killed in a mortar attack and almost no one knows about it, because it ran on page A-20. The biggest threat to Bush's presidency was that bad news out of Iraq was making people feel sour about everything. When instead of seeing bombings in Iraq, they see pictures of an all-American Edwards family posing for the cameras, they feel a little better, which marginally helps the incumbent, George Bush. At least that's my theory.... nationalreview.com