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: JohnM who wrote (89385)	11/30/2006 12:07:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361075

Iraq panel's real agenda: damage control ______________________________________________________________ The Iraq Study Group's makeup gives away its true purpose. Editorial By Andrew J. Bacevich from the November 28, 2006 edition The Christian Science Monitor csmonitor.com BOSTON – Even as Washington waits with bated breath for the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to release its findings, the rest of us should see this gambit for what it is: an attempt to deflect attention from the larger questions raised by America's failure in Iraq and to shore up the authority of the foreign policy establishment that steered the United States into this quagmire. This ostentatiously bipartisan panel of Wise Men (and one woman) can't really be searching for truth. It is engaged in damage control. Their purpose is twofold: first, to minimize Iraq's impact on the prevailing foreign policy consensus with its vast ambitions and penchant for armed intervention abroad; and second, to quell any inclination of ordinary citizens to intrude into matters from which they have long been excluded. The ISG is antidemocratic. Its implicit message to Americans is this: We'll handle things - now go back to holiday shopping. The group's composition gives the game away. Chaired by James Baker, the famed political operative and former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, former congressman and fixture on various blue-ribbon commissions, it contains no one who could be even remotely described as entertaining unorthodox opinions or maverick tendencies. Instead, it consists of Beltway luminaries such as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and lobbyist Vernon Jordan. No member is now an elected official. Neither do its ranks include any Iraq war veterans, family members of soldiers killed in Iraq, or anyone identified with the antiwar movement. None possesses specialized knowledge of Islam or the Middle East. Charging this crowd with assessing the Iraq war is like convening a committee of Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the church's clergy sex-abuse scandal. Even without explicit instructions, the group's members know which questions not to ask and which remedies not to advance. Sadly, the average Catholic's traditional deference to the church hierarchy finds its counterpart in the average American's deference to "experts" when it comes to foreign policy. The ISG exemplifies the result: a befuddled, but essentially passive-electorate looks for guidance to a small group of unelected insiders reflecting a narrow range of views and operating largely behind closed doors. The guardians of the foreign policy status quo are counting on the panel to extricate the US from Iraq. More broadly, they are counting on it to avoid inquiring into the origins of our predicament. So don't think for a moment that the ISG will assess the implications of America's growing addiction to foreign oil. Don't expect it to question the wisdom of President Bush's doctrine of preventive war or the feasibility of his Freedom Agenda, which promises to implant democracy across the Islamic world. Far be it from the group to ask whether an open-ended "global war on terror" makes sense as a response to 9/11 or to ponder the flagrant manipulation and misuse of intelligence in the months leading up to the Iraq war. The ISG won't assess the egregious flaws in US military planning for the Iraq invasion or the manifest deficiencies in American generalship since the war began. On the role that Congress has played in enabling presidential fecklessness, you can be certain that Baker and Hamilton will remain silent. The ISG will provide cover for the Bush administration to shift course in Iraq. It will pave the way for the Democratic Congress to endorse that shift in a great show of bipartisanship. But it will hold no one responsible. Above all, it will leave intact the assumptions, arrangements, and institutions that gave rise to Iraq in the first place. In doing so, it will ensure that the formulation of foreign policy remains the preserve of political mahatmas like Baker and Hamilton, with the American people left to pick up the tab. In this way, the ISG will make possible - even likely - a repetition of some disaster akin to Iraq at a future date. • Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

To: JohnM who wrote (89385)	12/11/2006 5:58:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361075

Charlie Rose has some interesting guests on tonight... charlierose.com KEN AULETTA "The New Yorker" LOU DOBBS Host, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" / Author, "War on the Middle Class"

To: JohnM who wrote (89385)	11/20/2007 3:51:25 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361075

Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky’s Intellectual Progeny dissidentvoice.org

To: JohnM who wrote (89385)	10/28/2008 12:36:06 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361075

Obama, McCain Focus on Economy in Ohio, Pennsylvania (Update3) By Edwin Chen and Hans Nichols Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama began to deliver what he called his ``closing argument'' in Ohio and Pennsylvania today as John McCain also hit the two battleground states, warning that his rival's policies would imperil the economy. The candidates' schedules eight days before the Nov. 4 election demonstrate the importance both are placing on the two vote-rich industrial states. Most polls put Obama ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which together have 41 of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to claim the White House. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, began his speech in Canton, Ohio, today with a simple ``one week,'' a refrain he repeated to underscore what he said was a ``defining moment in history'' for the nation. ``The question in this election is not `Are you better off than you were four years ago?''' Obama said to a crowd of about 4,900 at the Canton Memorial Civic Center. ``We know the answer to that. The real question is, `Will this country be better off four years from now?''' McCain, speaking earlier and just sixty miles away, told supporters in Cleveland that Obama would stifle growth by raising taxes and spending. ``The difference between myself and Senator Obama is our plan will create new jobs; his plan to raise taxes on small businesses, to impose insurance mandates on families and small businesses will cut jobs,'' McCain said. Obama would ``radically increase spending and then raise taxes to pay for it,'' he said. State Strategy No Republican has won the presidency without also winning Ohio, which has 20 electoral votes. Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes, has gone to the Democratic candidate in the last four elections, though McCain has been campaigning heavily in the state to turn that trend around. Still, polls show McCain running behind in both places. A survey of likely voters in Pennsylvania by the Allentown Morning Call newspaper and Muhlenberg College conducted Oct. 22-26 showed Obama with 50 percent support in the state and McCain with 38 percent. An Ohio poll by the Politico news organization showed Obama leading there 52 percent to 42 percent. McCain needs Ohio and Pennsylvania to offset the inroads Obama has made in states that went to Republican George W. Bush in 2004. Those include New Mexico, Iowa and Colorado, where McCain has been campaigning since Oct. 24, and Virginia, which is getting a visit today from Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Obama's Lead Obama, 47, an Illinois senator, also holds an edge in Nevada, Missouri, North Carolina and Florida, all states carried by Bush in 2004. Obama has an average lead in national polls of 7 percentage points, according to data compiled by Realclearpolitics.com. McCain, an Arizona senator, energized but nursing a cold, started the day with a private meeting with some of his economic advisers, including Jack Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential candidate; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who contested McCain for the party's nomination earlier this year; Meg Whitman, former chief executive officer of EBay Inc.; and John Taylor, a Stanford economist and former Treasury undersecretary in the Bush administration. While drawing differences with Obama, McCain also sought to distance himself from Bush, whose approval rating is under 30 percent in most recent polls. Contrast With Bush ``We both disagree with President Bush on economic policy,'' McCain said in Cleveland. ``The difference is that he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high.'' McCain, 72, has been hammering away at Obama, portraying him and his Democratic allies in Congress as tax-and-spend liberals who would ``redistribute the wealth'' in society. It is a theme that McCain has been repeating since Obama's encounter with a Toledo-area plumber in which the Democratic candidate said, when talking about his tax policies, that ``when you spread around the wealth, it's good for everybody.'' At his second rally of the day, in Dayton, McCain cited a 2001 radio interview by Obama in which he talked about the courts and the Civil Rights movement and the idea of ``redistributive change.'' Portions of the interview are being circulated by McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee. ``That is what change means for the Obama campaign, the redistributor; It means taking your money and giving it to someone else,'' McCain told the crowd of about 3,000. Response Obama responded to McCain's accusation by saying government ``should ensure a shot at success not just for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who's willing to work.'' ``John McCain calls this socialism, I call this opportunity,'' Obama said. Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who participated in the public-radio discussion with Obama about the courts and civil rights, said the McCain campaign quoted Obama out of context. In the interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Obama is ``taking the position that it's better to organize and get stable social change through legislation'' than through litigation, Hutchinson said in an interview. Obama, an Illinois state senator and part-time law lecturer at the University of Chicago when the interview was conducted, defined ``redistribution'' as ``how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity.'' To contact the reporter on this story: Edwin Chen in Cleveland at echen32@bloomberg.net; Hans Nichols in Cleveland at hnichols2@bloomberg.net Last Updated: October 27, 2008 15:42 EDT

To: JohnM who wrote (89385)	7/9/2009 5:28:36 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361075

Franken plans to focus on overhauling health care news.postbulletin.com

To: JohnM who wrote (89385)	7/14/2009 2:03:59 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361075

McNamara: The Smartest Fool ______________________________________________________________ By Richard Reeves JULY 10, 2009 LOS ANGELES — In the military, after action or a mission, officers are required to file "Lessons Learned" reports, basically reviewing what worked and what did not. From 1961 to 1968, the most important of those reports were sent to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, possibly the smartest fool ever to serve at the highest level of government in the United States. What lessons are to be learned from the long life of McNamara, who died last week at the age of 93? 1. Smart doesn't always count. Judgment counts. Honesty counts, with yourself and others. 2. Outlive your enemies. History is easier to spin if there are fewer surviving witnesses to what actually happened. In McNamara's case, there were just too many witnesses and too many enemies. Me, among them. 3. Don't believe every number you hear. 4. Don't believe memos unsent or memos "to the file" or "for the record." 5. Deathbed confessions and conversions are, to say the least, the cheapest coin of character. To begin with numbers, and remembering that McNamara was the chief salesman of body counts as a measure of military success in Vietnam, even the Central Intelligence Agency, that paragon of honest numerics, tried to raise an alarm about Pentagon numbers. In a year-end National Intelligence Estimate, certainly read by President Kennedy, the CIA said this: "Various statistics indicate government progress against the Viet Cong during 1962, but these can be misleading. ... Viet Cong casualties during 1962 were reported at more than 30,000, including some 21,000 killed in action. Yet current Viet Cong strength is estimated at 22,000-24,000 regulars, as opposed to an estimated 17,600 last June. This suggests either that the casualty figures are exaggerated or that the Viet Cong have a remarkable replacement capability — or both." Or, the numbers were made up. It would have been interesting to see how McNamara explained such things to President Kennedy. On Dec. 21, 1963, the secretary of defense returned from a trip to Vietnam and wrote a "Memo for the Record" stating, among other things: "There is no organized government in South Vietnam at this time. ... It is abundantly clear that statistics received over the past year or more from the Government of Viet Nam officials and reported by the US mission on which we gauged the trend of the war were grossly in error. ... The Viet Cong control larger percentages of the population, greater amounts of territory, and have destroyed or occupied more strategic hamlets than expected. ... In my judgment, there are more reasons to doubt the future of the effort under present programs or moderate extensions to existing programs than there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of our cause in South Vietnam." Then McNamara went out and assured the American people we were winning — for four more years. It was 32 more years, in 1995, before, in a confessional interview with Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times: "Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed — there were killed — 3,200,000 Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing, the tonnage — it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do something that was militarily impossible — we were trying to break the will; I don't think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide." He still thought in numbers. "Where is your data?" he used to say. "Don't give me your poetry." He should have listened to the poetry. We should be listening to the poetry now, particularly in Afghanistan, where new generations of policy analysts, men not so different from McNamara — men who have not learned the lessons of Vietnam — are again trying to break the will of people who are very, very different from all of us. Men who have been there for thousands of years and will be there for thousands more. Rudyard Kipling wrote the outsider poetry of that hard part of the world: "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, "And the women come out to cut up what remains. "Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains. "And go to your Gawd like a soldier. A soldier of the Queen." _____________ *Richard Reeves is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate and is a visiting professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. He has also taught political writing at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weekly column has been distributed by Universal Press Syndicate since 1979 and appears in such newspapers as the Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and Dallas Morning News. He is a former chief political correspondent of The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines including The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine.