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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (4292)	4/21/2006 7:03:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 14758

Rove's New Mission: Survival ___________________________________________________________ By E. J. Dionne Jr. Columnist The Washington Post Friday, April 21, 2006 Here's the real meaning of the White House shake-up and the redefinition of Karl Rove's role in the Bush presidency: The administration's one and only domestic priority in 2006 is hanging on to control of Congress. That, in turn, means that all the spin about Rove's power being diminished is simply wrong. Yes, Rove is giving up some policy responsibilities to concentrate on politics, but guess what: The possibility of President Bush's winning enactment of any major new policy initiative this year is zero. Rove is simply moving to where all the action will, of necessity, be. As one outside adviser to the administration said, the danger of a Democratic takeover of at least one house of Congress looms large and would carry huge penalties for Bush. The administration fears "investigations of everything" by congressional committees, this adviser said, and the "possibility of a forced withdrawal from Iraq" through legislative action. "I don't think they see much chance of accomplishing anything this year," said this Republican strategist, who preferred not to be quoted by name. "The bulk of their agenda, let's say, has been put on hold." Rove never stopped being political, even when he had formal responsibility for policy. What's intriguing about the shift in the direction of Rove's energies is that it marks a turn from the high politics of a partisan realignment driven by ideas and policies to the more mundane politics of eking out votes, seat by seat and state by state. Most of Rove's grander dreams have died as the president's poll numbers have come crashing down. It's forgotten that the president's proposal to privatize part of Social Security was not primarily about creating solvency in the system, since the creation of private accounts would have aggravated deficits for a significant period. It was part of a larger effort to reorganize government and bring the New Deal era to a definitive close. The president's "ownership society" was a political project designed to increase Americans' reliance on private markets for their retirements and, over the longer run, on their own resources for health coverage. The idea was that broadening the "investor class," a totemic phrase among tax-cutting conservatives, would change the economic basis of politics -- and create more Republicans. The collapse of the Social Security initiative was thus more than a policy failure. It was a decisive political defeat that left Bush and Rove with no fallback ideas around which to organize domestic policy. And just as the growing unpopularity of the war in Vietnam after 1966 forced Lyndon Johnson to abandon his Great Society programs -- partly because of large GOP gains in Congress during that year's midterm elections

To: michael97123 who wrote (4292)	4/21/2006 11:24:15 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

Sadly, Tommy Franks have let down his country due to rightwing Texan partisanship. He first allowed Osama to get away at Tora Bora. He second endorsed Bush knowing full well the smears against Kerry were completely untrue. He third supports Rumsfield, the most obviously corrupt, inept and dishonest Secretary Of Defense we have had since the worst days of Vietnam. But firing Rumsfield won't really change anything. The real problem is cheney and then Bush himself. They need to go.

To: michael97123 who wrote (4292)	4/22/2006 7:55:23 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

Protesting the ProtestorsSweet Nectar »Clinton’s Generals Lately there has been a rash of retired generals lashing out against the secretary of defense, and the national command authority overall. Lots of hay is being made by the left about these three or four individuals–so much so that James Carville told Matt Lauer that the military is on the brink of a coup. Well, it’s pretty safe to say that Mr Carville is a bit off base on this one, and that perhaps there are some interesting reasons why the generals (GEN Zinni (ret) and MG Batiste (ret)) are up in arms right now. First let’s look at General Zinni, the former CENTCOM commander. He was the man responsible for the war plans and readiness in the Middle East prior to General Tommy Franks. Zinni claims that the war plans used in invading Iraq were flawed from the start, that there weren’t enough troops built into the plan, and that the post-invasion plans were not thought through. Here’s the rub. Zinni’s plan (according to General Franks) sucked. They were ten years old, worked with legacy doctrine, old assumptions, dated intelligence, and a force structure that was simply unavailable. In short, Zinni’s plans needed to be thrown out and redone from scratch. The next problem is that Zinni didn’t have much of a plan for a post-war Iraq either. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it. The military is just one tool in a strategic toolbox. The state department is another one. In short, General Zinni is pissed that General Franks and Donald Rumsfeld took one look at his assumptions, his plans, and his intent, and promptly chucked them out the window. Zinni got his feelings and his tremendous ego hurt. Now he is crying like a big baby. MG Batiste is pretty much claiming the same thing as Zinni. Lack of planning, lack of troops, etc. He relies on his experience in Bosnia and Kosovo to strengthen his credibility that he was involved in peace keeping and nation-building, and is therefore very qualified to wax eloquent on the subject. First, the Balkans is not Iraq and any comparison of the two is apples and oranges. Second, Batiste hasn’t ever offered up what he would consider a plan for success, or given any details on how we should fix the problems in Iraq. He makes claims that the invasion plans were flawed and that Rumsfeld is responsible for the mess on the ground. No details given, just non-specific generalizations (no pun intended). He has also made it clear that he never spoke up while in uniform, and just went with the flow–and now he is out and speaking up. He admits “saluting the flag” and doing what he was told, but now must speak his conscience. He probably should have raised his concerns to his superiors while in uniform if his conscience bothered him so, instead of sounding like a disgruntled former employee. Both of the guys were Clinton’s generals. Both of these guys were “legacy” thinkers and unable to break the old paradigms. Both were your standard cookie-cutter senior leaders that got their feathers ruffled when Don Rumsfeld stepped on their delicate egos. Too bad. Marcus Read more here, here and here. Update: Read this from Blackfive. Update #2: More here, here and here. justbarkingmad.com