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: puborectalis who wrote (632015)	9/24/2004 8:31:45 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Let's Get Real By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: September 24, 2004 Never mind the inevitable claims that John Kerry is soft on terrorism. What he must address is the question of how his policy in Iraq would differ from President Bush's. And his answer should be that unlike Mr. Bush, whose decisions have been dictated at every stage by grandiose visions and wishful thinking, he will get real - focusing on what is really possible in Iraq, and what needs to be done to protect American security. Mr. Bush claims that Mr. Kerry's plan to secure and rebuild Iraq is "exactly what we're currently doing." No, it isn't. It's only what Mr. Bush is currently saying. And we have 18 months of his administration's deeds to contrast with his words. The actual record is one of officials who have refused to admit that their fantasies about how the war would go were wrong, and who have continued to push us ever deeper into the quagmire because of their insistence that everything is going according to plan. There has been a lot of press coverage of the administration's failure to do anything serious about rebuilding Iraq. Less attention has been given to its parallel failure to take the security problem seriously until much of Iraq had already been lost. Long after it was obvious to everyone else that we were engaged in an escalating guerrilla war, Bush appointees clung to the belief that they were fighting a handful of dead-enders and foreign terrorists. As a result, they casually swelled the ranks of our foes - remember, Moktada al-Sadr was never going to be our friend, but he didn't have to be our enemy. They even treated Iraqi security forces with contempt, not bothering to provide them with adequate training or equipment. In an analysis titled "Inexcusable Failure," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies details how the U.S. "failed to treat the Iraqis as partners in the counterinsurgency effort." U.S. officials, he declares, are "guilty of a gross military, administrative and moral failure." That failure continues. All the evidence suggests that Bush officials still think that one more military push - after the U.S. election, of course - will end the insurgency. They're still not taking the task of fighting a sustained guerrilla war seriously. "Three months into its new mission," The New York Times reported, "the military command in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces has fewer than half of its permanent headquarters personnel in place." At the root of this folly is a continuing refusal to face uncomfortable facts. Confronted with a bleak C.I.A. assessment of the Iraq situation - one that matches the judgment of just about every independent expert - Mr. Bush's response is that "they were just guessing." "In many ways," Mr. Cordesman writes, "the administration's senior spokesmen still seem to live in a fantasyland." Fantasyland extended to the Rose Garden yesterday, where Mr. Bush said polls asking Iraqis whether their nation was on the right track were more positive than similar polls asking Americans about their outlook - and he seemed to consider that a good sign. Where is Mr. Bush taking us? As the reality of Iraq gets worse, his explanations of our goals get ever vaguer. "The security of our world," Mr. Bush told the U.N., "is found in the advancing rights of mankind." He doesn't really believe that. After all, he continues to praise Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, even as Mr. Putin strangles democratic institutions. The subtext of Mr. Bush's bombast is that because he can't bring himself to admit a mistake, he refuses to give up on his effort to turn Iraq into a docile client state - an effort that is doomed unless he can figure out a way to come up with a few hundred thousand more troops. We don't have to go there. American policy shouldn't be dictated by Mr. Bush's infallibility complex; our first priority must be our own security. And in Iraq, that means setting realistic goals. On "Meet The Press" back in April, Mr. Kerry wasn't as forthright about Iraq as he has now, at long last, become, but he did return several times to a point that shows that he is on the right track. "What is critical," he said, "is a stable Iraq." Not an Iraq in our image, but a country that isn't a "failed state" that poses a threat to American security. The Bush administration has made such a mess of Iraq that even achieving that goal will be very hard. But unlike Mr. Bush's fantasies, it's still in the realm of the possible.

To: puborectalis who wrote (632015)	9/24/2004 8:49:17 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

John Kerry's Message to the Enemy Written by Barbara Stock Friday, September 24, 2004 The Kerry campaign has settled on a battle cry: ''Iraq is the new Vietnam.'' John Kerry couldn’t use his sterling war record to propel him into the White House so he will now walk across the bodies of dead Iraqi children, coalition civilians who are having their heads sawed off for the shock value, and American soldiers who remain in harm’s way. Kerry’s friends depict surrendering marines in their pro-Kerry campaign ads and Kerry struts around America sending devastating signals to the enemy by calling Bush ''unfit'' to lead. Kerry says Bush is far too ''resolved'' in his determination to defeat the enemy. Bush should accept defeat, as Kerry has. That may sound harsh, but just as the protesters of the 1960’s encouraged the North Vietnamese to continue killing until the anti-war activists wore down the government, John Kerry is not only encouraging the Islamic terrorists to step up their attacks, he is almost begging them to do so. The terrorists in Iraq heard John Kerry call interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a liar. Mr. Allawi, a courageous man that Saddam ordered killed--who knows he could be assassinated at any time--is treated like scum by this arrogant rich man from Massachusetts. Iraq cannot, must not, succeed. That simply doesn’t fit into John Kerry's campaign plans. What is John Kerry’s subliminal message to the enemy? Make Iraq a ''free fire zone'' and kill as much as possible. Car bombings, beheadings, RPG attacks, roadside bombs, a suicide bomber who rams a hospital--anything goes as long as the body count is high and vivid pictures of total and complete chaos are shown nightly on every American news broadcast. The more broken bodies shown on American television screens the better it will be for Kerry. John Kerry has a very short time to convince Americans that Iraq is a lost cause that never should have been undertaken because America is too weak to defeat this enemy without France and the United Nations. John Kerry wants America to believe that he is an avid supporter of our military. Kerry’s history shows otherwise. Kerry came home from Viet Nam and with a vengeance turned on his fellow vets. His main campaign promise to voters in Massachusetts was that he would vote against ''anything military.'' Kerry made statements that our military should be under United Nations control to be dispersed around the world at the organization’s whim. Now this man wants to be the commander in chief of the armed forces. One can only imagine what horrors would await those in uniform should Kerry succeed in convincing the majority of Americans that Iraq is an ''un-winable quagmire'' that only he can save us from--by withdrawing. Forget what he says publicly; he will abandon the Iraqi people. Kerry has made this promise to his anti-war core voters. In desperation, John Kerry has resurrected the same plan that gave the North Vietnamese, by their own admission, the will to fight on--to continue the killing of our soldiers and innocent civilians. If the enemy increases the killing, it will give substance to the battle cry that Kerry needs to sway those voters still on the fence. The attacks in Iraq have indeed increased and the body count has risen. Just as 33 years ago when he provided inspiration to the enemy when he testified before Congress, Kerry now is making subtle promises to the terrorists: make sure that Iraq seems to be an endless killing zone and together we can push a man out of office we that both hate--George Bush. The terrorists will expect a reward for their hard work and Kerry will not disappoint them. He certainly has no interest in fighting them. As president, Kerry will pull the troops out of Iraq and leave that country to radical Islamists as a reward for their assistance with the hope that Iraq will be enough for them. He will do it slowly, in the first few months, then quickly, proclaiming that the United Nations now has control. The terrorists will have won and Iraq will be their playground. Oil rich Iraa will be theirs. The United Nations is useless and will be no challenge for these murderous animals. The blue-helmeted United Nations ''peacekeepers'' will run at the first shot. Kerry will not contemplate the repercussions of his actions. He will not consider the disgrace of tucking tail and running away from an enemy who will then export the war here, to America, because we will be seen as weak once again. John Kerry can’t get past his life-long disgust of all things military. Kerry is not thinking past November 2, 2004. John Kerry is a true liberal who believes that a strong military is an evil force that only makes us ''targets.'' John Kerry praises those world leaders who stand against us and scorns and insults those that stand with us. Put Iraq with its oil-producing ability next to Iran and Iran’s budding nuclear program and picture both these countries under radical Islam’s control and what picture to you see? Let’s not forget about Syria, also under the strong arm of the Ba’ath Party and a harbinger of terrorists. Now, instead of sporadic terror attacks in a couple of cities in Iraq, the civilized world will be facing at the very least, a triumvirate of radical Islamic terrorist-controlled countries with nuclear weapons and billions of dollars of oil. They will, in effect, have control of the world’s economy via the oil and weapons that can obliterate any enemy that dares challenge them. Their victory will be complete--almost. There will be the small matter of the North American Continent, target rich and full of infidels that need to be killed. For those who need to kill like a junkie needs a fix, their new playground will be California, Texas, Indiana, and Rhode Island. With fifty states to choose from, they can take their pick. Europe, already seen as weak, can wait. Europe will be dessert after an American main course. People must understand. We must stop these killers in Iraq. If we don't, you can expect a suicide bomber in an elementary school near you. The goal of radical Islamists is not just to conquer Iraq. Their goal is to conquer the world. Never forget that.