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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (53591)	11/27/2006 6:08:07 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I find it interesting that the Post waited until after the election to extol the virtues of a program the criticism of which was an important element in the Dems' campaign. Now the Post tells us Power Line During this year's political campaign, Republicans accused the Democrats of having no ideas other than opposition to whatever President Bush is for. To counter that perception, Nancy Pelosi announced a legislative program the centerpieces of which were raising the minimium wage (how's that for an original idea?) and freeing the government to negotiate lower drug prices in connection with Medicare's new prescription-drug benefit. To say that this agenda was no "Contract with America" would be to understate its banality. Implementing these agenda items and the one or two others that went with it would take perhaps two weeks. But that was one of its virtues, since the Dems would then be free to move on to the happy business of issuing subpoenas and hauling administration officials to Capitol Hill for grilling. But it turns out that the Democrats face what the Washington Post calls a "challenge" when it comes to reforming President Bush's prescription drug benefit plan -- the plan is too successful as it is. According to the Post, the plan has enrolled 22.5 million seniors, more than 80 percent of whom are satisfied with it. This is true even though though many selected plans that contain a "doughnut hole" -- there is no coverage when a senior's drug costs are between $2,250 and $3,600 in a year. The Dems want to close that hole and they intend to pay for this by having the government use its buying power to force drug companies to offer lower prices. But the Post reports that the Bush program is already costing less than projected and that it's far from clear that the "negotiations" the Democrats contemplate ("price-control lite," it seems to me) would lead to lower prices. Moreover, there's a significant risk that, if they did, the result would be less medical innovation for the benefit of aging baby-boomers. I was no fan of the prescription drug benefit, and I have no idea whether it's the smashing success the Post depicts. But I find it interesting that the Post waited until after the election to extol the virtues of a program the criticism of which was an important element in the Dems' campaign. The Post blames the Republicans for not getting the message out. It quotes one Republican as saying "Black voters, poor voters -- people who generally vote Democrataic -- they got the biggest benefit in 40 years, and nobody told them that." But these voters wouldn't have believed Republicans. And why would the Post cover this issue when more pressing matters like "maccaca" and George Allen's Jewish grandfather demanded its attention? powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (53591)	11/28/2006 1:39:00 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Hmmmmmmm.... the election is over. Now the NY Slimes tells us. Uh huh. Like they didn't know about this before the election when they were telling us every day that Iraq is not part of the global war on terror. ** Hezbollah Training The Mahdi Militia? By Captain Ed on War on Terror Captain's Quarters For those who see the situations in Lebanon and Iraq as a continuum of the same Islamist efforts for regional control, it will come as no shock to learn that Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army receives training from Hassan Hasrallah's Hezbollah. It might come as more of a shock that the New York Times actually reports it, as well as the role Iran plays as a facilitator between the two: <<< A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr. The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said. Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria. >>> So what have the Hezbollah "trainers" taught the Mahdis? The usual: "weapons, bomb-making, intelligence, assassinations, the gambit of skill sets," all of the basics for creating the kind of stable, secure Iraq that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised Nouri al-Maliki on his trip to Teheran yesterday. Quite obviously, Iran and Syria (who also figures prominently in the Hezbollah-Mahdi arrangements) do not have any interest in moderation and democracy in the region. The Syrians want to control the Mediterranean side of Southwest Asia, and the Iranians want to promote radical Islamist fervor -- preferably of the Shi'ite flavor, rather than the Wahhabi al-Qaeda strain. Their every step indicates that they want to see the nascent democracy in Iraq undermined for the same reasons we want it to flourish: a successful democracy in Iraq will mortally destabilize their own regimes and their grip on power. That is why notions of engagement with these two notorious terrorist-supporting states should be a non-starter.** Nothing they have done indicates that they see the Middle East in terms other than completely hostile to our interests or the interests of liberty and self-determination, even where one might make an argument that the two diverge. The only items that Iran and Syria want to discuss with us regarding Iraqi democracy are the terms of our surrender and retreat. So-called "realists" want to endorse diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria but fail to acknowledge that reality in any manner, making them even more Utopian than the so-called neocons who want to work towards the ultimate goal of ending Iranian and Syrian hegemony through terrorism. At one time, we decided to fight the war on terrorists and their state sponsors in order to end the use of terrorism as a technique for extortion. Now many want to acquiesce to Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored terrorists in order to more quickly surrender. captainsquartersblog.com nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (53591)	11/28/2006 1:54:28 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Manage the Defeat" Power Line A stampede toward defeat is in progress in the mainsream media and much of the political class. It was on display last night, when CBS correspondent Lara Logan interviewed General John Abizaid on 60 Minutes. The whole interview was interesting; you can read about it at the link below. This was the climactic moment, when Ms. Logan suggested that the task in Iraq is "how to manage the defeat": <See Power Line's video of the exchange at the link below> Defeat: it's getting so close, they can almost taste it. powerlineblog.com cbsnews.com