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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (305616)	10/8/2006 7:17:19 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573924

Listen to the Iraqis By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF With our Iraq policy floundering, it’s time to take advice from the experts — the Iraqis themselves. And Iraqis are crystal clear about what the U.S. should do: announce a timetable for withdrawal of our troops within one year. They’re right. Our failure to declare a timetable and, above all, our coveting long-term military bases in Iraq feed the insurgency and end up killing more young Americans. A terrifying new poll conducted last month found that 61 percent of Iraqis now approve of attacks on Americans. That figure, up from 47 percent in January, makes counter-insurgency efforts almost impossible, because ordinary people now cheer, shelter and protect those who lay down bombs to kill Americans. The big change is that while Iraqi Sunnis were always in favor of blowing up Americans, members of the Shiite majority are now 50 percent more likely to support violent attacks against Americans than they were in January. The poll, by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, also found that 78 percent of Iraqis now believe that the American military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” So ordinary Iraqis themselves — who have the most at stake — overwhelmingly think they will be better off if U.S. forces leave according to a timetable. Only 9 percent prefer President Bush’s policy of toughing it out, while 71 percent favor a withdrawal within one year. This midterm election season is an ideal time for a public debate on Iraq policy, and Senator John Warner, the longtime Republican leader on military issues, is right to raise the possibility of a “change of course.” The evidence suggests ever more clearly what we should do: Don’t rush for the exits, but renounce permanent bases and announce that we will withdraw our troops within one year. Renouncing bases should be a no-brainer, and it would be the simplest way to save American lives. Seventy-seven percent of Iraqis say the U.S. plans permanent bases in Iraq. (They’re right, although we hem and haw about it.) And as the poll discovered, “the belief that the United States plans to have permanent bases in Iraq is highly correlated with support for attacks on U.S.-led forces.” Iraqis who don’t think the U.S. wants bases are half as likely to favor attacks on Americans as those who do think the U.S. wants bases. And so if President Bush stands up and unequivocally renounces bases, that will reduce popular support for attacks — and save American lives. “There is also some evidence that if the United States were to make a commitment to withdraw according to a timetable, support for attacks would diminish,” the survey found. For example, half of those who approved of attacks said they would be less supportive if the U.S. did announce a timetable for withdrawal. The biggest mistake we Americans have made all over the world in the post-World War II era, from China and Vietnam to Latin America and Iraq, has been the failure to appreciate the appeal of nationalism. Ironically, it’s the same big mistake King George III made in the 1770’s. All our options are bad, and I worry that a timetable will encourage the insurgents to hang on until we leave. Or maybe Iraq will fall apart no matter what we do. But the evidence is pretty strong that our presence — because of suspicions that we plan to stay forever — is doing more harm than good. One poll conducted by our own State Department found that nearly three-quarters of Baghdad residents said they would feel safer if U.S. forces left Iraq, according to The Washington Post. The present policy is also nurturing a broader extremism. A letter seized by the U.S. military and reported by The Christian Science Monitor suggests that Al Qaeda itself is rooting for the U.S. to “stay the course” rather than withdraw. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” the Qaeda letter says, presumably as a tool for propaganda and recruitment. A U.N. report found that the Iraqi insurgency is inspiring the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. New designs for bombs are used in Afghanistan just a month after they make their appearance in Iraq. Likewise, Sudan’s president is able to defy calls for international peacekeepers in Darfur because he plays on Arab fears that the U.S. plans to do to Sudan what it has done to Iraq. All over the globe, American diplomacy is hobbled because of Iraq. So it’s time to face the grim reality and announce that all our troops will leave Iraq by October 2007. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

To: steve harris who wrote (305616)	10/8/2006 3:28:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

Eight million dollars in one day........wow! The GOP has money to burn. Not like those perennially poor Dems. BTW how much are your party dues? NRCC Spends Nearly $8 Million in One Day on Tight Races By Greg Giroux \| 8:16 PM; Oct. 06, 2006 \| The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) reported spending $7.8 million on Friday alone for an ongoing “independent expenditure” campaign that aims to boost the many vulnerable House Republican incumbents — mainly by attacking their Democratic challengers. The expenditures, which were disclosed in a filing to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), were spread out over 30 House districts, all but three presently held by Republicans. The outlays were mainly for television advertisements, but also included mail pieces and telephone calls to voters. The overwhelmingly majority (97.6 percent) of the $7.8 million was coded on the FEC report as spending in opposition of the Democratic candidates. Just $184,375 of the NRCC’s Friday outlays, or 2.4 percent of the total, were identified on the report as money spent in support of GOP candidates. Below is an itemized list of the $7.8 million the NRCC reported spending Friday. For districts that incumbents left open to retire or seek other office, the candidate of the defending party is listed first. • Arizona’s 5th District (Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth vs. Democratic state Sen. Harry Mitchell): $240,657 on issue ad placement. • California’s 11th (Republican Rep. Richard W. Pombo vs. Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind turbine company executive): $20,805 on mailings. • California’s 50th (Republican Rep. Brian P. Bilbray vs. Democratic educator Francine Busby, a rematch of a June 6 special election won by Bilbray): $18,630 on mailings. • Colorado’s 4th (Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave vs. Democratic state Rep. Angie Paccione): $19,500 on mailings. • Connecticut’s 2nd (Republican Rep. Rob Simmons vs. Democratic former state Rep. Joe Courtney): $340,080 on mailings and issue ad placement. • Connecticut’s 4th (Republican Rep. Christopher Shays vs. Democrat Diane Farrell, a former local official): $216,964 on phone banks, mailings and issue ad placement. • Connecticut’s 5th (Republican Rep. Nancy L. Johnson vs. Democratic state Sen. Chris Murphy): $321,833 on mailings and issue ad placement. • Florida’s 22nd (Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. vs. Democratic state Sen. Ron Klein): $440,028 on mailings and issue ad placement. • Georgia’s 8th (Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall vs. Republican former Rep. Mac Collins): $81,716 on issue ad placement. • Iowa’s 1st (Republican businessman Mike Whalen vs. Democratic lawyer Bruce Braley, for the seat Republican Rep. Jim Nussle left open to run for governor): $462,614 on issue ad placement. • Illinois’ 6th (Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam vs. Democrat Tammy Duckworth, an injured Iraq war veteran, for the seat Republican Rep. Henry J. Hyde left open to retire): $639,858 on issue ad placement and mailings. • Illinois’ 8th (Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean vs. Republican investment banker David McSweeney): $37,127 on issue ad placement and phone banks. • Indiana’s 9th (Republican Rep. Mike Sodrel vs. Democratic former Rep. Baron Hill, a rematch of the 2002 race won by Hill and the 2004 race won by Sodrel): $353,978 on issue ad placement and mailings. • Kentucky’s 4th (Republican Rep. Geoff Davis vs. Democratic former Rep. Ken Lucas, a rematch of a 2002 race won by then-incumbent Lucas): $353,707 on issue ad placement and phone banks. • Minnesota’s 6th (Republican state Sen. Michele Bachmann vs. Democrat Patty Wetterling, a child safety advocate, for the seat Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy left open to run for the Senate): $275,879 on issue ad placement. • North Carolina’s 11th (Republican Rep. Charles Taylor vs. Democratic businessman Heath Shuler, a former college football star): $183,436 on phone banks, issue ad placement and mailings. • New Mexico’s 1st (Republican Rep. Heather A. Wilson vs. Democratic state Attorney General Patricia Madrid): $258,431 on issue ad placement. • New York’s 24th (Republican state Sen. Ray Meier vs. Democratic county prosecutor Mike Arcuri for the seat left open by retiring Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert): $186,035 on issue ad placement. • Ohio’s 1st (Republican Rep. Steve Chabot vs. Democratic Cincinnati City Councilman John Cranley, a rematch of a 2000 race won by Chabot): $201,262 on issue ad placement and phone banks. • Ohio’s 15th (Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce vs. Democratic county commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy): $206,650 on issue ad placement. • Ohio’s 18th (Republican state Sen. Joy Padgett vs. Democratic municipal attorney Zack Space, for the seat left open by retiring Republican Rep. Bob Ney, who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges): $552,043 on issue ad placement, mailings and phone banks. • Pennsylvania’s 6th (Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach vs. Democratic lawyer Lois Murphy, in a rematch of a 2004 race that was one of the nation’s closest House contests): $662,124 on issue ad placement and phone banks. • Pennsylvania’s 7th (Republican Rep. Curt Weldon vs. Democrat Joe Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral): $542,575 on issue ad placement. • Pennsylvania’s 8th (Republican Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick vs. Democratic lawyer Patrick Murphy): $604,881 on issue ad placement and mailings. • Pennsylvania’s 10th (Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, who is trying to overcome a scandal involving his personal behavior, vs. Democrat Chris Carney, a political science professor): $165,717 on issue ad placement and phone banks. • Texas’ 22nd (Republican city councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who is staging a write-in campaign, vs. Democratic former Rep. Nick Lampson, for the seat vacated by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay): $99,465 on get-out-the-vote efforts. • Virginia’s 2nd (Republican Rep. Thelma Drake vs. Democratic city revenue commissioner Phil Kellam): $132,450 on issue ad placement and mailings. • Vermont’s At-Large (Democratic state Sen. Peter Welch vs. Republican Martha Rainville, a former state adjutant general, for the seat Independent Rep. Bernard Sanders left open to run for the Senate): $62,495 on issue ad placement. • Washington’s 8th (Republican Rep. Dave Reichert vs. Democrat Darcy Burner, a former Microsoft manager): $23,781 on mailings. • Wisconsin’s 8th (Republican state Rep. John Gard vs. Democratic physician Steve Kagen, for the seat Republican Rep. Mark Green left open to run for governor): $83,985 on issue ad placement. cqpolitics.com