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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (146894)	10/2/2004 12:29:37 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So is that a vote to bomb as required in Iran to destroy their nuclear capabilities? Otherwise the course is clear, the mullahs will be armed and dangerous. Too bad our "Allies" have thier hands so far into the Iranian wells of bubbling crude that they cant resolve this issue with their Iranian business partners.

To: michael97123 who wrote (146894)	10/3/2004 12:46:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq: Politics or Policy? _________________________ By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST THE NEW YORK TIMES October 3, 2004 Sorry, I've been away writing a book. I'm back, so let's get right down to business: We're in trouble in Iraq. I don't know what is salvageable there anymore. I hope it is something decent and I am certain we have to try our best to bring about elections and rebuild the Iraqi Army to give every chance for decency to emerge there. But here is the cold, hard truth: This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever. What happened? The Bush team got its doctrines mixed up: it applied the Powell Doctrine to the campaign against John Kerry - "overwhelming force" without mercy, based on a strategy of shock and awe at the Republican convention, followed by a propaganda blitz that got its message across in every possible way, including through distortion. If only the Bush team had gone after the remnants of Saddam's army in the Sunni Triangle with the brutal efficiency it has gone after Senator Kerry in the Iowa-Ohio-Michigan triangle. If only the Bush team had spoken to Iraqis and Arabs with as clear a message as it did to the Republican base. No, alas, while the Bush people applied the Powell Doctrine in the Midwest, they applied the Rumsfeld Doctrine in the Middle East. And the Rumsfeld Doctrine is: "Just enough troops to lose." Donald Rumsfeld tried to prove that a small, mobile army was all that was needed to topple Saddam, without realizing that such a limited force could never stabilize Iraq. He never thought it would have to. He thought his Iraqi pals would do it. He was wrong. For all of President Bush's vaunted talk about being consistent and resolute, the fact is he never established U.S. authority in Iraq. Never. This has been the source of all our troubles. We have never controlled all the borders, we have never even consistently controlled the road from Baghdad airport into town, because we never had enough troops to do it. Being away has not changed my belief one iota in the importance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq, to help move the Arab-Muslim world off its steady slide toward increased authoritarianism, unemployment, overpopulation, suicidal terrorism and religious obscurantism. But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the "base" won't like it. Impose a "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it. What I resent so much is that some of us actually put our personal politics aside in thinking about this war and about why it is so important to produce a different Iraq. This administration never did. Mr. Kerry's own views on Iraq have been intensely political and for a long time not well thought through. But Mr. Kerry is a politician running for office. Mr. Bush is president, charged with protecting the national interest, and yet from the beginning he has run Iraq policy as an extension of his political campaign. Friends, I return to where I started: We're in trouble in Iraq. We have to immediately get the Democratic and Republican politics out of this policy and start honestly reassessing what is the maximum we can still achieve there and what every American is going to have to do to make it happen. If we do not, we'll end up not only with a fractured Iraq, but with a fractured America, at war with itself and isolated from the world. nytimes.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (146894)	10/3/2004 4:05:14 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Kerry Endorsement From a Major Arizona Newspaper (in Senator McCain's Home State)... _____________________________________ Elect Kerry Editorial Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona \| Published: 10.03.2004 Four years ago, George W. Bush became president of a thriving America. Not only had his predecessor eliminated the national deficit, he had left the new president a $236 billion budget surplus. Unemployment was at a record low of 4 percent. The nation was not at war. The current president's policies have had a negative impact on each of these areas. We believe John Kerry can reverse that trend, and we endorse him for president. In less than four years, President Bush, the avowed conservative, turned a record surplus into a record deficit, now estimated at $422 billion. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent and then improved a bit, but this summer, 5.4 percent of the work force was still unemployed. The peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration evolved, under President Bush, to a falsely justified war and an economy that declined sharply and is barely staggering back to solvency - though even that faltering solvency is seriously jeopardized by impractical tax cuts for which our children will pay dearly. Economist Milton Friedman has observed, with considerable wisdom, "A tax cut that adds to the deficit today is just a tax hike on future taxpayers." It is clear that a change is needed. We believe the policies and management style that Kerry represents offer more hope than the current administration's stubborn allegiance to isolationist rhetoric, the unjustified use of military force and economic policies that provide instant gratification to some and long-term danger to the nation as a whole. For many voters, unfortunately, the election is essentially a personality contest. People tend to regard the candidates the way they do celebrities. And while that is always a mistake, this year it would be a particularly egregious mistake to vote without examining closely the leadership qualities and philosophical underpinnings of each presidential hopeful. Kerry demonstrated his leadership abilities, as well as his fidelity to principle, with his bravery during the Vietnam War and with the dissent that he expressed when he returned home. That dissent took as much courage as - maybe more than - the young John Adams' decision some 250 years ago to take on the legal defense of British soldiers who had fired on a Boston mob that had been pelting them with rocks. The domestic and international problems facing Bush are not likely to vanish if Kerry is elected, but Kerry's experience in the Senate - especially his time on the Foreign Relations Committee - makes him better prepared to move the nation toward achievable goals and stronger international coalitions. President Bush had never served in a state legislature or either house of Congress before he was elected. His only preparation for the job had been six years as governor of Texas and social contact with his father's friends and associates. The effects of this shallow background, coupled with a simplistic world view, can be seen in the deadly chaos of Iraq, the decline of U.S. prestige abroad and impending domestic crises in health care and Social Security. What is needed now is not only a realistic strategy for addressing changes but a manager who can assemble a team to achieve them. Kerry's campaign has been working closely with former President Clinton and officials in his administration. Unlike President Bush, these are individuals with a proven track record of creating jobs, eradicating deficits and promoting prosperity in a peacetime economy. President Bush's economic policies - cut taxes and regulation and let free markets develop unrestrained by government regulation - would likely create wealth, but for a very limited segment of society. The people who prosper from the debt service the government pays, as well as highly skilled workers, will do well. We cannot say the same for the vast middle class, for those whose jobs have been outsourced and those for whom the Bush tax cuts - though they are politically attractive - are a pittance. And for that enormous population that still cannot afford health insurance, or for seniors whose Medicare premiums just went up 17 percent, the tax cuts are useless. Come January, either Bush or Kerry will have to address the deteriorating mess in Iraq as well as the deficit and the approaching drain on the Social Security trust from baby boomers reaching retirement age. And just as there is no evidence that Bush ever accepted the predictions of his intelligence and security experts with respect to Iraq, there is nothing to suggest that he will reverse his politically opportunistic tax cuts. Kerry would deal with taxes more realistically, increasing rates but only for those earning at least $200,000 a year. President Bush had four years to prove himself and did poorly. It is time to elect a president with a broader understanding of international affairs and a greater concern for the welfare of those living on slender incomes. Elect John Kerry. azstarnet.com