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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25815)	8/3/2006 2:31:53 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542904

NYT Editorial Needed: A Three-Month Moratorium Published: August 3, 2006 A stormy election season is brewing in many parts of the country. Voters who happen to live in a hotly contested state or Congressional district will have to resign themselves to negative campaigning, angry charges and countercharges, and many, many TV advertisements showing candidates’ faces that morph into something unpleasant. Still, it would be nice to draw a few lines on behalf of civility. Our first suggestion comes courtesy of Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut. At a press breakfast, Mr. Shays began complaining about negative automated telephone calls that he said supporters of his Democratic opponent, Diane Farrell, were using against him. Mr. Shays has lots of experience in fighting for campaign finance reform and felt the groups sponsoring the ads were not playing by the rules, and misrepresenting his positions to boot. Unfortunately, rather than expounding on these useful points, the congressman announced that he did not intend to sit back and “have my opponent use surrogates the way Syria and Iran use surrogates.” Ms. Farrell said, reasonably, that she felt Mr. Shays was trying to link her to Hezbollah. That brings us to a modest proposal: Let’s try to go through the next three months without having any politician compare an opponent to terrorists. Mr. Shays says he agrees: “Point well taken.” It’s a start.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25815)	8/3/2006 6:44:36 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 542904

Baghdad appears to be in house fighting. the north and south of Iraq appear peaceful. Why is that? do we really have a turf war going on in Baghdad , to right old wrongs against sunni , etc. If this a civil war wouldn't the fighting be all over the country vs mostly isolated to Baghdad? It would appear Iraq if it ever gets strong enough will have to police or have military in Baghdad for generations, perhaps separating these groups. I doubt resentments from decades disappear in this decade.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25815)	8/3/2006 7:44:30 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542904

I see the grand design of the terrorists unfolding rapidly. While the Hezbollah keeps Israel engaged, claiming victory by sustaining the war with each ongoing day, the civil strife in Iraq continues to hit at the very heart of the Anglo-American strategy. While Bush persists in clinging to fantasy in Iraq, Blair is being forced to reality through political pressures in his country. And back in the US, there appears to be a divide developing between the Foggy Bottom and the neocons, primarily over the approach to world events, UN etc. Where have we seen this rift between Foggy Bottom and the neocons before. Gen. Powell must be watching all this and saying "Folks, I told you so."

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25815)	8/3/2006 10:04:02 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542904

Overall, says BBC correspondent Paul Wood, "it is a devastating official assessment of the prospects for a peaceful Iraq, and stands in stark contrast to the public rhetoric". I would assume there has always been a disjoint between public and private statements from foreign offices. But the Iraqi public/private statements seem particularly far apart, almost as if the two are about different countries or the same country at different time frames. I think of it as the product of the massive and energetic Bush admin attempt to manage the news. Any thoughts?