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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (52290)	12/13/2005 2:43:47 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 361732

Amen Bro....touche!

To: geode00 who wrote (52290)	12/13/2005 3:38:30 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361732

New Orleans will recover. What about Bush? radnor-inc.com

To: geode00 who wrote (52290)	12/13/2005 4:00:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361732

Beyond The War Spin _____________________________________________________ By E. J. Dionne Jr. / Columnist The Washington Post Tuesday, December 13, 2005 After this week's elections in Iraq, will our national debate be about what the United States should do to salvage the best outcome it can from a war policy that has been riddled with errors and miscalculations? Or will we mostly discuss how politicians should position themselves on the war? Here's a bet on the triumph of spin. Politicians, especially Democrats, will be discouraged from saying what they really believe about Iraq for fear of offending "swing voters." Slogans about "victory" and "defeatism" will be thrown around promiscuously. The administration's defenders have enjoyed short-term political success by turning attention away from President Bush's Iraq policies and toward divisions in the Democratic Party on the subject. The Republicans particularly enjoy assailing Democrats who have called for the rapid withdrawal of American troops. The neat summary of the new Republican home-front offensive was the tag line on a Republican National Committee ad: "Our country is at war. Our soldiers are watching and our enemies are too. Message to Democrats: Retreat and Defeat is not an option." Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert helpfully explained: "The Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender." Attacks of this sort on Democrats are effective because Democrats help make them so. Democrats are so obsessed with not looking "weak" on defense that they end up making themselves look weak, period, by the way they respond to Republican attacks on their alleged weakness. Oh my gosh, many Democrats say, we can't associate ourselves with the likes of Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who recently called for a troop withdrawal within six months. Let's knife them before Karl Rove gets around to knifing us. Talk about a recipe for retreat and defeat. But the Democrats' problem is not just one of political tactics. It's also rooted in a simple reality: Democrats in both houses of Congress have been divided on this war from the very beginning. House Democrats are, on the whole, more dovish than Senate Democrats. And the party's rank and file are, on the whole, more dovish than its congressional wing. There is no magic solution to this problem, and Republicans will continue to exploit it. But if they do nothing else, Democrats have to stop being defensive in the face of Republican attacks. To suggest that the United States might be stronger if it found a way out from under an open-ended commitment in Iraq is neither weak nor unpatriotic. For a party to have differences over how to solve the seemingly intractable problems the Bush policy has created in Iraq is neither surprising nor feckless. And to question this administration's optimistic claims is simply good sense in light of what has happened in Iraq up to now. After all, it's the administration's wildly optimistic assumptions that led us to fight a war with too few troops, too little planning, and Rodney King-like expectations that the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds would all just get along. In any event, why shouldn't Democrats be divided on the war? So is the rest of the country. And so are Republicans. What's gone largely unnoticed is that while Democrats show their divisions on the war in Congress, Republicans are more divided at the grass roots. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, 76 percent of Democrats favored reducing our commitment to Iraq -- 40 percent were for pulling all the troops out, 36 percent for decreasing their numbers -- while 13 percent favored keeping current troop levels and 6 percent preferred increasing their ranks. Among Republicans, 16 percent favored increasing our troop levels, while 37 percent would keep them constant. On the other side, 41 percent supported decreasing our commitment, including the 10 percent who were for full withdrawal. These are remarkable numbers: 16 percent of Republicans are more hawkish than the president, 41 percent are more dovish. Even in the president's own party, a majority has doubts about our current course. The real patriots are not those who fall into line behind everything Bush says. They are the Republican and Democratic doubters who have pressured Bush into realizing that he has limited time in Iraq and an imperative to speak more realistically. In his speech yesterday, Bush actually admitted that "things did not always go as planned" in Iraq and that last January's elections "were not without flaws." From an administration that never admits mistakes, that's progress. Message to Democrats: Buck up. Message to Republican ad makers: Democracy is about improving government through the uninhibited exchange of ideas. And, yes, our soldiers and enemies are watching. washingtonpost.com

To: geode00 who wrote (52290)	12/13/2005 11:27:32 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361732

Two more Bushie stinkers, Pombo and Stevens, enemies of nature and the environment. 1. Arctic: Public Lands Belong in Public Hands The House-passed version of the federal budget reconciliation bill contains a backdoor maneuver by Congressman Richard Pombo to allow for the bargain basement sell-off of America's public lands to mining companies, developers and other special interests. This could affect millions of acres of public lands and would be a direct threat to all Americans who enjoy hiking, hunting and fishing in these special places. The Sierra Club recently teamed up with Izaak Walton League of America, ORION: The Hunter's Institute and other groups to run print ads in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming asking people to carry this message directly to their Senators. See the ads. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Politics: Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures From the Senator who brought you the now-infamous Bridges to Nowhere comes another scam of monumental proportions. Senator Ted Stevens is hawking the proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge based on wildly speculative revenue assumptions. Failing to get enough support on its merits, Stevens is making a last ditch effort by claiming Arctic drilling will bring billions into federal coffers -- doubling the projection to $10 billion. Not only is that number grossly inflated, it hides the fact that Stevens and the Alaska delegation have promised to fight -- even sue -- for the state to get 90 percent of drilling revenues. But Americans didn't want to buy his Bridges to Nowhere and they certainly don't want to give away the Arctic Refuge. Read more about Arctic and the budget (.pdf). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Take Action: Time to Stop Arctic Drilling and Mining Provisions in Their Tracks Could bad ideas like Arctic Refuge drilling and selling off public lands to mining companies and developers return this week? It is shaping up to be a crucial one for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the rest of America's public lands. The Senate and House are still trying to iron out differences between their two budget bills. The House-passed version includes controversial language to allow for the bargain basement sell-off of millions of acres of America's public lands to mining companies, developers and other special interests. The Senate-passed version includes a provision to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to destructive oil drilling. Both would have devastating impacts on America's most treasured wild places. There could be a vote on the final budget bill as early as this week. Now is the time to contact your Senators and Representatives and urge them to reject any budget that includes destructive mining provisions or language to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. Call them at the Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.