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 (65678)	8/30/2004 11:41:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793990

Bill Safire is more upbeat: Four Connected Elections By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: August 30, 2004 George W. Bush comes to the G.O.P. convention on the heels of victory in the Najaf primary. As a young, anti-American cleric turned a revered house of worship into a fortress, thereby to seize leadership of Iraq's Shiites, the grand ayatollah slipped out of the country for medical treatment. This left the dirty work of reducing the firebrand's "Mahdi Army" to American firepower. Then, lest the final closing-in give rise to an Iraqi Alamo legend, the ayatollah neatly timed his return to lead thousands in a peaceful march into the shrine and the remnants of the occupying rebels vanished. Not quite an electoral "primary" - the al-Sadr forces prefer bullets to ballots - but the result was political. Nobody now doubts who is the most powerful Shiite leader. And though he cannot publicly express his gratitude to the foreign soldiers who made possible his victory over the abusers of sanctuary in Najaf, the ayatollah is on the side of a general election soon. Two other elections will affect that expression of nascent democracy in a land once known for Saddam's tyranny and sponsorship of terror. One is in October in Afghanistan. On a recent visit to D.C., President Harmid Karzai told me he expected that seven million out of the nine million eligible Afghan voters would register to vote. That seemed a vain hope, since nobody had the habit and with opium growers and warlords roaming the precincts, voting would be risky. What happened? So far, 9.9 million Afghans have registered, which is a little embarrassing, but the lust to get more than one registration card is only human to a populace that hid its oppressed womenfolk until the U.S. and its allies overthrew the Taliban. The Afghans don't take the right to vote for granted, as half of us do. The other election that will influence the scheduled vote in Iraq is the one that seems to have caught the attention of the citizens of New York City. (As I write this, I can see a demonstration by a group of Chinese representing a sect oppressed by the Communist rulers in Beijing. Dressed in yellow and red costumes, they exercise gently, dance gracefully and politely hand out fliers. New Yorkers never saw such a peaceful demonstration. Other marchers bearing coffins are depressing, but for now - Go, Falun Gong!) This is an election essentially about the political will to carry the war on terror to the sources of terror and to maintain that will despite the costs. That is not the only issue to affect the voting decision we make. This week, President Bush is expected to rise above the dog-eat-dog days of August to present plans for medical and retirement incentives on the domestic front. (In proposed tax-free accounts, the word "private" is out; the word "personal" is in.) And the supporting stars of the G.O.P. firmament - McCain, Giuliani, Franks and Schwarzenegger - will try to get swing voters into the swing of not changing horses in mid-war. But Bush's September song must deal with the paramount issue of the national will to carry the fight to the enemy. Though there have always been many to whom taking the offensive gives offense, a majority of Americans will be willing to "stay the course" if a persuasive leader can ennoble the cause. In "World War IV," a brilliant, long, sweeping review of our foreign policy in the past century in the current Commentary magazine, the neoconservative Norman Podhoretz makes the historical case for optimistic assertiveness over "realistic" accommodation. He sees the roots of the Bush Doctrine in the successful Truman Doctrine, and reminds us that the sustained resolve that won the three global wars of the past century can prevail in the present generation's rendezvous with terror. I'm more of a new libercon than an old neocon, but such a determined mindset on our time's paramount issue - of global safety in freedom - attracts me to the crowd in New York that points with pride at what we're doing rather than the bunch in Boston that viewed with alarm all we've done. Look ahead, you guys. No culture-warring, no back-pedaling, no pouting at celebrity Bush-bashing, no poll-bounce fixation, no Kerrymandering. "In war, resolution"; in campaigning, uplift. nytimes.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (65678)	8/31/2004 1:37:10 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793990

>>Barry Rubin is pessimistic I agree with his analysis of what is going on. I have no doubt Bush agrees. How to handle it will be decided after the election, of course. When I think back to the beginning of the intifada (aka the practice run for the WOT), I remember that the Israelis were in a similar position of not being able to respond. The strictures of the Oslo accords and the chance of the hoped-for peace deal immobilized them from any real response; all they could do is play defense and complain. Slowly, over the course of the 4 years since, the rules have changed, the gloves have started to come off, and they have figured out working responses to an enemy that fights in cities and behind children. Hit the leaders, show you're not afraid to fight inside the cities, cultivate a network of informers. The Americans have been watching, and the Iranians should remember that covert war is a game two can play.