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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (62321)	8/22/2005 8:40:21 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

Isn't it great that in America that everyone is entitled to express their OPINIONS? I'm glad to see that you have found a Republican that you can agree with.

To: abstract who wrote (62321)	8/23/2005 7:25:53 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

SEN. HAGEL'S VIETNAM SYNDROME By JOHN BYRNES NEW YORK Post Opinion August 23, 2005 IT's every citizen's right to express an opinion on political matters — and the responsibility of elected officials to publicly discuss ideas and misgivings about policy. Still, you have to wonder what Sen. Chuck Hagel hoped to gain from his latest dissent. The president is out to remind the public of the issues on the line in the war in Iraq. In Salt Lake yesterday, he laid out the case for staying the course: Defeating terrorists. Building a constitutional democracy. Spreading freedom and opportunity. Ridding the Mideast of terror and oppression. But Sen. Hagel, a fellow Republican, publicly compared the Iraq war to Vietnam. Twice. Not very loyal — and not very honest. Take Hagel's rather contradictory comments on Sunday, on ABC's "This Week": "We should start figuring out how we get out of there, but with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur. We are locked into a bogged- down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam." This echoed what he'd said Thursday on CNN: "The longer U.S. forces remain in Iraq, the more it begins to resemble the Vietnam War." According to Hagel, increased casualties means we can't be winning, we must be losing. By that definition, every war becomes a losing proposition on Day One. Hagel has one valid point: The longer this goes on, the greater the risk that casualties will erode public support. But that becomes more likely when American politicians serve as the propagandists of enemy forces. The senator could make the point about public opinion without undermining the president. The war is not yet won, but it's far from lost. What we need to win, is will. The will to defeat hardcore Baathists, who are fighting to restore a regime modeled on Saddam's and would immediately resume oppression of Shiites and Kurds and any other dissenters. The will to defeat "foreign fighters," aka terrorists, who pour into Iraq to face off with our forces. Hagel is consistent in contradicting himself: He voted in 2003 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee helped pass that bill. And even now he allows that it's unwise to set a timetable for withdrawal: "You must always have flexibility in these things, and a judgment call by the president." But he also called the president "disconnected from reality" in those Thursday remarks. You can't have it both ways, senator. If this is another Vietnam, then your vote put us there. If the president is out of touch, why are you allowing him judgment calls? What are you after? Whatever it is, could you remember something important? With rights comes responsibility — and the duty of a senator is not only to weigh in, but to weigh the facts first. Maybe Vietnam wasn't worth fighting for. That's the accepted doctrine on the left. But, a few years after we pulled out, we allowed a vicious communist government to dominate Vietnam. Should we do the same again — let a rabid anti-American minority take over Iraq? We didn't lose Vietnam on the battlefield. We lost it here. Because we couldn't sustain the will to fight. Because too many voices at home wanted to quit. Don't mistake Iraq for Vietnam. It is a strategically located, oil-producing state. Millions of Iraqis voted in January's election. A dedicated but small insurgency would enslave those voters if we let it. Is an Iraqi civil war in our interest? Do we really want the country back in the hands of Saddam's loyalists? The Iraqi government needs time. We gave the Vietnamese almost 20 years before we talked ourselves into quitting. Don't the Iraqis deserve another year or two, before we quit on them? Sgt. John Byrnes served in Iraq with the Army National Guard's 2-108th Infantry Battalion. E-mail: jrb1013@aol.com nypost.com

To: abstract who wrote (62321)	8/23/2005 10:47:16 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

Things that make you say Hmmmmm.... Congress must be very careful in what we say and what we do as we proceed along a very dangerous path. We must be careful not to weaken or neuter the President in front of the world. The world is very dangerous and unpredictable. Congress must not micromanage foreign policy. I have been as outspoken as any Senator on this floor about the concerns and the differences I have with this administration on foreign policy. It is the responsibility of the Senate to question that, to probe that. But we have to understand that whatever we say and do has consequences, reverberations, ramifications. America must speak to the world with some sense and some semblance of unity. We cannot allow our foreign policy to unravel before the eyes of the world during a very dangerous time. The world needs American leadership, consistency, presence and engagement. Without it, without American leadership, the world becomes an even more dangerous place. - Senator Chuck Hagel - June 02, 1998 usaengage.org