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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (15792)	11/15/2005 3:01:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

RE: WAR AND "RIGHTS" Mark R. Levin The Corner To put it succinctly, it's remarkable that the commander-in-chief's authority to detain and interrogate unlawful enemy combatants was stronger before 9/11 than it is today. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15792)	11/15/2005 3:15:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE SENATE VOTES DOWN A TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner Here's what Joe Lieberman said about it Carl Levin's (just defeated) amendment: <<< SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: .... … "I had other concerns about Senator Levin's amendment, including particularly the last paragraph which I believe creates a timetable for withdrawal, and I think that is a mistake, particularly in the next 3 to 6 months as the Iraqis stand up a new government. It may not be the intention of the sponsors, but it does send a message that I fear will discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, and it will confuse the Iraqi people and affect their judgments as they go forward." corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15792)	11/16/2005 7:39:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE SENATE'S SHAME NEW YORK POST Editorial November 16, 2005 Et tu, Bill Frist? It's disturbing enough that Democrats have become so hostile to America's efforts to fight terror, particularly in Iraq. But now Republicans — like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist — also seem to be peeking at the polls and going all wobbly on the Iraq campaign. It's pathetic. And dangerous. True, the resolution pushed by Senate Republicans yesterday, which passed 79-19, is non-binding — and far less feckless than what Democrats sought. The bill demands that 2006 be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." The Dems, by contrast, wanted to set a precise timetable for a pullout of U.S. troops. But both statements send a message to terrorists that U.S. resolve is waning. That Americans are tiring of the fight, recoiling from their losses and destined to get the troops out of Iraq — ASAP. That is, it's just a matter of time for the thugs: If they can just hang on long enough, America will quit — and they'll win. How sad. It is exactly that kind of wobbliness that encouraged the jihadists to launch their savage war in the first place. They looked at America's withdrawal from Beirut. And Somalia. And Vietnam. Indeed, the Vietnam War scenario is becoming all too relevant. In that fight, America agreed to provide arms and material to South Vietnam and to help defend it against the North. But Congress eventually cut off that support (even though — contrary to the received wisdom — Saigon was doing quite well for itself by then). Not only did that sap the South's strength, it also sent a message to Hanoi that America had no stomach to repel an invasion. The South was left to its own fate — and the North swept in. Carnage ensued. Remember the Boat People? Yet America's stake in Iraq's survival is far, far greater than it was in South Vietnam's. If U.S. troops leave before Iraqis are able to kill the remaining thugs and assure their nation's future, the terrorists will rejoice, regroup — and re-attack. In Iraq. Jordan. Maybe France. And, eventually, New York. In truth, the idea of pressuring President Bush to bring troops home defies all logic, save for political posturing. Why would Washington want to trust hastily trained Iraqis to wage the War on Terror on America's behalf? Is this nation too soft to fight its own battles? And make no mistake: Iraq is the most important battlefield today in the War on Terror. Certainly Democrats, many of whom voted to invade Iraq, have been despicable on the subject. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid bragged about forcing the Senate "to change the policy of the United States with regard to Iraq." But for the GOP — Frist and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, who, in essence, recycled the Democrats' shameful plan, sans exact withdrawal deadlines — to go along is truly disheartening. In the end, the War on Terror won't be dictated by polls or political jockeying, but by facts on the ground. Better that ground be in Iraq — than New York. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15792)	11/17/2005 10:46:41 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

AIDING & ABETTING By JOHN McCAIN NEW YORK Post Opinion November 17, 2005 IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas. At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success. Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them. Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there. Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory. But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory. A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks. And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win. The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq." Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down? Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving? The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home. We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory. Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail. Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war. Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq. nypost.com