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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (24182)	9/20/2004 2:32:02 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

lol

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (24182)	9/20/2004 2:32:28 PM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Hard to argue that one

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (24182)	9/20/2004 2:47:25 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

That Novak column about an Iraq pullout looks more like disinformation than information. Getting Out? by Robert Dreyfuss I’m not sure what to make of the latest insider leak from the Bush administration to Robert Novak of Plame fame. In a column titled “Bush’s Escape Route,” Novak says that “well-placed sources in the administration” say that in 2005 Bush will pull out of Iraq and leave that country to its own (Shiite) devices. Even Paul Wolfowitz, angling to be the next secretary of defense, wants to get out of Iraq fast, says Novak. And Novak says: “Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality." And then: “Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream.” There are straws in the wind, of course, that the neocons are losing debates in the administration. U.S. diplomats are talking with Syria—Syria!—about joint military patrols along the Syria-Iraq border. And so far at least, with the United States happily stymied by the more sensible Europeans over a showdown with Iran over its nuclear program, the neocons don’t seem any closer to winning the argument for unilateral action there. And then, of course, there is the ongoing (but strangely silent now) investigation into Neocon World by the FBI, over charges of nefarious intelligence connections to Sharon’s Israel. But I’m not ready to give the Bush administration absolution for its Iraq policy yet. My guess is, Novak’s column is a foil, designed both as a feint to get the White House past the election. Once safely re-elected, Bush’s new team (sans Colin Powell, of course) can ratchet up the pre-emptive war strategy once again, and relaunch its Iraq offensive. Just in the past few days, the U.S. military in Iraq is leaking news that it is preparing a city-by-city offensive for November and December 2004 to search and destroy Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and other Iraqi strongholds of the resistance. Yes, four Republican senators —McCain, Lugar, Hagel and Lindsey Graham—yesterday blasted the Bush administration for bungling in Iraq. But they are calling for more engagement, not less. “No, I don’t think we’re winning. We’re in trouble, deep trouble in Iraq,” said Hagel. But they don’t seem to be wanting a pullout. “We’re going to need more people [in Iraq] over time,” said Graham. McCain, bloodthirsty as always, said that the United States has to take out Fallujah and the other “sanctuaries” of the insurgency, and he called for 90,000 more U.S. troops. And Lugar said that Iraqi government forces aren’t ready to do the job, implying that it will take more U.S troops. So I’d guess Novak is blowing smoke. We shouldn’t expect an American pullout from Iraq next year. (That’s true even if Kerry wins.) The question is: Will we be there, and taking casualties, 10 years from now? Monday 9:46 AM