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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15128)	11/29/2006 2:26:59 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I'm so sick of the media biased, I'm boycotting all of their sponsors. NBC Ignores Pelosi Flub, Relays Retort to Bush on Qaeda in Iraq Asked by a reporter about how "President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda," incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how "the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how "incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House." On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as "confused" and Morton Kondrake suggested she was just "mixed up," Fred Barnes maintained that "she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.'" Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: "If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable." Neither ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite. [This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] The relevant portion of the story from David Gregory, who filed from Riga, Latvia, on the November 28 NBC Nightly News: David Gregory: "Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate the bewilder's meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Concluding his visit to Estonia earlier today, Mr. Bush blamed the violence not on civil war but on Sunni terrorists." President Bush at a press conference in Estonia: "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements." Gregory: "Back in Washington, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House." Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, but anchored by Jim Angle, led its panel segment with Pelosi's exchange with the reporter, identified on-screen as Thomas Ferraro: "President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al-Qaeda and denied the country is in the midst of a civil war." After Kondracke and Liasson tried to explain Pelosi as "confused" and "mixed up," Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, retorted: "She clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' This is not -- the question is what about al Qaeda back before 9/11 or before we invaded or was there a link. The question was clear. She gave an answer that was about something else. She doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is. According to her answer. Now, if some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable." Morton Kondracke: "Oh, please, oh that's nonsense." Barnes: "Look, Nancy Pelosi is now going to be the Speaker of the House. Her party won. She did a tough job leading them in the last two years and we shouldn't go around just excusing the things she says, when you don't know what really happened."

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15128)	11/29/2006 7:37:22 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 71588

Leaving Iraq, Honorably By Chuck Hagel Sunday, November 26, 2006; B07 washingtonpost.com There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend. The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose. We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government. It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication. What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East. We are a long way from a sustained peaceful resolution to the anarchy in Iraq. But this latest set of events is moving the Middle East in the only direction it can go with any hope of lasting progress and peace. The movement will be imperfect, stuttering and difficult. America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission. The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq. We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years. It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead. To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months. The writer is a Republican senator from Nebraska.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15128)	11/29/2006 7:44:44 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

That is funny. There is nothing funny about it. One of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have people living out of their cars and children going to bad hungry. They hardly find it funny. So because one person has more they should be required to pay your portion of taxes? They should pay their fair share of taxes instead of being let off the hook as Bush did with them. How about benefits are paid only to those who paid the tax? Why? You like people going hungry? That ain't very Christian of you. We could have all road be toll roads and have a special lane on the left for taxpayers? LOL - you'd be stuck in the slow lane. You don't really care about the country, do you? Its all about your wallet, ain't it? <Every American should be required to pay taxes. As the percentage of taxpayers falls the country edges closer to the precipice. Once that point is reached the country will quickly dissolve. Gobbley gook....what's your point? If you ever have children, it is highly unlikely that The United States of America will exist at the time of their death. You will probably never have the honor to admit that it was you and your kind that killed it, instead blaming it on the rich. You may even lack understanding and believe the lie. Oh now I get it......the fear factor. Stop it Peter. You're talking to someone who has an education and knows how to use his brain. The right's WMD......fear.....doesn't work with me. And if you were this worried about the gov't failing, you would have been on the horn calling your leaders and tell them to stop with the pork and the tax cuts. History will heap scorn on the class warriors that have caused today's turmoil. And that would be the Republicans.