SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (761091)4/9/2007 3:11:55 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769670
 
Fred Thompson's idea of ‘reform’

By George Will

jewishworldreview.com | A man walking along the edge of a cliff slips and plummets toward jagged rocks and crashing surf, barely saving himself by clinging to the cliff's face. But the cliff is too steep to climb, so he shouts, "Is anyone up there?" A voice fills the sky — G-d's voice — saying: "Have faith and pray. If you have sufficient faith and pray well, you can let go and land gently, unhurt, amid the rocks and surf." The man ponders this promise, then shouts: "Is there anyone else up there?"

This is the "Anyone else up there?" phase of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, which explains the political flavor du jour, Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee. Conservatives are dissatisfied with the array of candidates. Of course, people usually want what they do not see, a candidate who is a combination of John Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln — handsome, energetic and wise.

Handsome? Thompson, whose eight-year career in electoral politics, all in the Senate, ended more than four years ago, perhaps looks presidential, meaning grave. Energetic? He is said to be less than a martyr to the work ethic, but is this a criticism? Granted, Alexander Hamilton famously said that "energy in the executive" is a prerequisite for good government. But what kind of energy?

One litmus test of conservatism is: Whom would you have supported for president in 1912? The candidates were a former president, Theodore "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of powers in one man's hands" Roosevelt; the incumbent president, William Howard Taft, and the next president, Woodrow Wilson. Conservatism warns against overreaching, hence rejects the energetic Wilson, would-be fixer-upper of the whole wide world. And conservatism teaches distrust of hyperkinetic government, the engine of which is the modern presidency, of which TR was the pioneer. So: Steady, prudent Taft.

Thompson has never had to show consuming energy as a candidate, never having been in a closely contested race. He won his two elections with 60 percent of the Tennessee vote in 1994 (for the remaining two years of Al Gore's Senate term) and 61 percent in 1996. He did not seek reelection in 2002 — not a painful sacrifice for a man who disliked the Senate: "I'm not 30 years old. I don't want to spend the rest of my life up here. I don't like spending 14- and 16-hour days voting on 'sense of the Senate' resolutions on irrelevant matters."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Does Thompson have enough energy to raise the money he will need to be competitive — say, $50 million by the end of November? He would need to raise $1.5 million a week, starting immediately.

Is he wise? As a senator he insistently advocated increasing the government's regulation of politics. One of only four senators who supported John McCain's candidacy in 2000, Thompson argued for the McCain-Feingold legislation that regulates the content, timing and amount of political speech.

In 1996, Thompson worked successfully, unfortunately, to preserve the (currently collapsing) system of public financing of presidential campaigns. His arguments were replete with all the rhetoric standard among advocates of government regulation of political speech: Government regulation of politics is necessary to dispel "cynicism" about government (has that worked?), to create a "level playing field" and to prevent politics from being "awash with money" (Congressional Record, May 20, 1996).

In a news release that day he warned of money from "special interests" and asserted that the checkoff system "flat out worked" because in 1994, 24 million taxpayers checked the "yes" box on their Form 1040, thereby directing that $3 of their income tax bill go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. He asserted that "on average, 20 percent of Americans participate in the checkoff." Well.

In 1994, according to the IRS, the checkoff was used on 16.3 million, or 14 percent, of the 114.8 million individual tax returns, so a landslide of 86 percent of forms were filed by taxpayers who rejected participation. Today, use of the checkoff has sunk to just 9.6 percent. Its unpopularity is unsurprising, given that it has allowed a small minority to divert, in a bookkeeping dodge, $1.3 billion of federal revenue to fund the dissemination of political views that many taxpayers disapprove of as much as they disapprove of public funding of politics.

Back then, Thompson believed, implausibly, that voters are "deeply concerned" about campaign finance reform. Today, many likely voters in Republican primaries are deeply concerned about what Thompson and others have done to free speech in the name of "reform," as John McCain is unhappily learning.

jewishworldreview.com



To: jlallen who wrote (761091)4/9/2007 4:30:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Thousands of Iraqis march in Najaf to protest U.S. troop presence

By Edward Wong
Published: April 9, 2007
iht.com


Demonstrators in an anti-U.S. protest, marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. (Ali Abu Shish/Reuters)

BAGHDAD: Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the city of Najaf on Monday, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq.

Residents said the angry, boisterous demonstration, during which Iraqis burned American flags and chanted "Death to America," was the largest in Najaf, the heart of Shiite religious power, since the American-led invasion. It was a clear attempt by Sadr to show to the world the extent of his influence here in Iraq, even though he did not appear at the rally. Sadr went underground after the American military began a new Baghdad security plan on Feb. 14, and there are no reliable reports of his whereabouts.

Sadr used the protest to try to reassert his image as a nationalist rebel who appeals to anti-American Shiites and Sunni Arabs. That reputation has been tarnished in the last year, as Sunni Arabs have accused Sadr's militia, the Mahdi army, of torturing and killing Sunnis. During the protest, Sadr followers carried Iraqi flags to symbolize unity or wrapped it around their bodies, and there were even conservative Sunni Arabs who marched with the crowd.

The protest unfolded as heavy fighting continued in parts of Diwaniya, a southern city where American and Iraqi forces have been battling cells of the Mahdi army since Friday. Sadr issued a statement on Sunday calling for the Mahdi militiamen and the Iraqi forces there to stop fighting each other, but those words went unheeded. Gun battles broke out along Salim Street, and an American officer said at a news conference that at least one American soldier had been killed and one wounded in the four days of clashes.

That fighting and the protest in Najaf, as well as Sadr's mysterious absence, raise questions about how much control Sadr maintains over his militia. Sadr is obviously still able to order massive numbers of people into the streets, but there has been talk that branches of his militia have splintered and now operate independently.

In Baghdad, some Mahdi army cells have refrained in the last two months from attacking Americans and carrying out execution-style slayings of Sunni Arabs, supposedly on orders from Sadr, but bodies of Sunnis have begun reappearing in some neighborhoods in recent weeks.

The protest in Najaf remained peaceful throughout the day, as Sadr had requested. It was mostly young men who marched, many having driven down from the Sadr City slum of Baghdad the previous night. They gathered Monday morning in the town of Kufa, where Sadr has his main mosque, and walked a few kilometers to Sadrain Square in Najaf. Among them were many clerics with white or black turbans.

Protesters stomped on American flags and burned them. They chanted "No, no American, leave, leave occupier!" and "The terrorist Bush should leave!"

In the four years of war, the only other person who has been able to call for protests of this size has been Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq, who, like Sadr, has a home in Najaf.

At Sadrain Square, the protesters listened to a statement written by Sadr being read over loudspeakers.

"Oh Iraqi people, you are aware, as 48 months have passed, that we live in a state of oppression, unjust repression and occupation," the speaker said. "Forty-eight hard months - that makes 4 years - in which we have gotten nothing but more killing, destruction and degradation. Tens of people are being killed every day. Tens of are disabled every day."

He added: "America made efforts to stoke sectarian strife, and here I would like to tell you, the sons of the two rivers, that you have proved your ability to surpass difficulties and sacrifice yourselves, despite the conspiracies of the evil powers against you."

Iraqi policemen and soldiers lined the path taken by the protesters, and there were no reports of violence during the day. The American military handed security oversight of the city and province of Najaf to the Iraqi government last December. In March, when millions of Shiite pilgrims flocked to the holy cities of the south, Iraqi security forces failed to stop suicide bombers from killing scores.

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the American military, said American officers had helped officials in Najaf plan security for the event, but the Iraqis had taken the lead.

Asked about the anti-American message of the rally, he said: "We say that we're here to support democracy. We say that free speech and freedom of assembly are part of that. While we don't necessarily agree with the message, we agree with their right to say it."

New York Times employees in Najaf and Diwaniya contributed to this report

About 13,000 National Guard troops are receiving notice to prepare for possible deployment to Iraq, making it the second tour for several thousand of them, The Associated Press reported from Washington.

The orders had been anticipated, but the specific units were not announced until Monday.

The units would serve as replacement forces in the regular troop rotation for the war, and would not be connected to the recent military buildup for security operations in Baghdad, the Pentagon said.



To: jlallen who wrote (761091)4/9/2007 4:34:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
From hiding, Sadr rallies against the US

The radical Shiite cleric shows his strength with large anti-US rallies in the cities of Kufa and Najaf.

from the April 10, 2007 edition -
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
csmonitor.com


BAGHDAD

"Yes to Moqtada, yes to Iraq, yes to liberation," chanted tens of thousands of demonstrators as they poured into the revered Shiite cities of Kufa and Najaf Monday calling for US troops to leave Iraq.

The event – on the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall – was a clear message from Moqtada al-Sadr that the radical Shiite cleric remains a force to be reckoned with despite the fact he has been in hiding for months. His movement is under growing military pressure from US forces, including battles with Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the city of Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad, that have killed at least 11 Iraqis since Friday.

"It proves that he's the only man capable of amassing such a huge demonstration and shows the weakness of the government and its allies," says Wamidh Nadhmi, a political science professor at the University of Baghdad.

"He's also trying to prove to all that he's the moving spirit among Shiites and that he has not changed his mind about the presence of US forces."

The demonstration, in which only Iraqi flags were allowed, was also an opportunity for Sadr to mend fences with moderate Sunnis given that his militia has been implicated in the wave of sectarian killings that have engulfed the country, according to Mr. Nadhmi.

Monday's marchers included some Kurds in traditional dress as well as Sunni clerics, many of whom were bused by Sadr's movement from the city of Basra in the south. "Let's put out the fire of discord and chop off the snake's head," chanted some in reference to Iraq's ongoing sectarian strife.

Sadr issued a statement Sunday calling for an end of fighting in Diwaniyah between members of his militia and US and Iraqi forces. "The forces of darkness led by the occupiers [US forces] are planting discord among the sons of the same nation.... My brothers in the Mahdi Army and the security forces, stop fighting because otherwise you are promoting the agenda of your common enemy," said the statement.

"To the Iraqi Army and police: do not follow the orders of the occupier because he is your enemy."

The majority of the Iraqi police and Army are Shiites, and some of the demonstrators were wearing Army uniforms.

On Sunday, tens of thousands of Sadr's supporters crammed into the backs of trucks or into minibuses draped with giant Iraqi flags to make the 100-mile journey south to Najaf. Passengers waved flags from honking vehicles. On arrival, people slept in parks, on sidewalks, and even inside Najaf's famed Valley of Peace cemetery, which was the scene of vicious fighting between Sadr's partisans and US forces in 2004. Huge vats were wheeled out into the streets to cook for the crowds.

The demonstration kicked off early on Monday morning amid tight security, including a ban on vehicle circulation inside Najaf and Kufa. In addition to the Iraqi police and soldiers, dozens of armed members of Sadr's movement fanned out among the crowds.

Protestors waving Iraqi flags and carrying banners emerged in groups from Kufa's Grand Mosque, walking about six miles to the 1920 Revolution Square in Najaf. The square, named after the Shiite uprising against British colonial rule, is also known as the Sadrain Square, in homage to Sadr's father and great uncle, both slain under Saddam Hussein's regime.

"No, No America. Death to America," read some of the banners.

"I want the occupation to leave right away. Now, no timetable. We want to be ruled by Iraqis only," said Farhan Turki, one of the protestors.

State-owned television carried segments of the demonstration live but characterized it as a celebration of the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Four years ago, US soldiers toppled a 20-foot-high statue of Hussein in Baghdad's Firdous Square. A crowd of Iraqis swarmed over the statue and danced on it.

Still, the government's response to Monday's demonstration was confused. Initially, it put out a statement on Sunday saying Monday was a regular business day. But that was followed by another statement imposing a ban on vehicles traveling in Baghdad.

Many Baghdadis, especially in Shiite strongholds, put Iraqi flags on their roof-tops or outside their shops. "We respect Sadr's call. Some of his supporters are more active. They will fight and go down to Najaf. Our support is more passive," said Ali Shaker, a pastry shop owner.

Iraqi flags fluttered from many of the capital's hospitals and government buildings. Policemen, who are renowned for their support for Sadr, draped flags on the hoods of their vehicles.

Col. Steven Boylan, a US military spokesman in Baghdad, praised the peaceful nature of the demonstrations: "Iraqis could not have done this four years ago." He told the Associated Press that "this is the right to assemble, the right to free speech.... This is progress."

The US military also issued a statement on Sunday calling the operation in Diwaniyah, dubbed Black Eagle, a "great success" so far. It said it detained 39 militiamen and killed an unspecified number. It also has uncovered "many large caches of weapons," including factories that make explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), devices that Washington accuses Tehran of supplying to Sadr's militia.

A doctor in Diwaniyah, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said by telephone that a 24-hour curfew has been imposed on the city since Friday and that the hospital has so far received 11 bodies, including seven civilians, and 35 injured people.

Diwaniyah has been the scene of off-and-on violence over the past year, and the doctor said the fighting has been mainly a power struggle between the Sadrists and members of the local government, many of whom are beholden to a rival Shiite faction headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

"It is a turf battle between the [Shiite] parties," said Brig. Gen. Abdul Khaleq al-Badri, who was fired 20 days ago from his job as head of the Diwaniyah police force.

Mr. Hakim is a leading force in the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which also includes ministers loyal to Sadr.

A senior aide to Sadr says the battle in Diwaniyah as well as the targeting and arrest of Sadrists in Baghdad by US forces is all an effort to draw the Mahdi militia into a fight.

"They are trying to plunge us into a vortex of violence and sectarian fighting, but we are working hard to rise above it," says Sheikh Hassan al-Zargani, who is based in Beirut.

Sheikh Zargani says the movement is committed to "peaceful resistance against the occupation for now" whether by making its voice heard within the government or through street demonstrations.

He said he was not aware of any direct support to the Mahdi militia from Iran, or training from Lebanon's Hizbollah group, as charged by some US military officers.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links



To: jlallen who wrote (761091)4/10/2007 2:03:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I must have been asleep. When did you get the reins of PGWB? I think you will do a great job.



To: jlallen who wrote (761091)5/15/2007 1:00:55 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
The new strategy can work. But Washington has to give it time.

BY MAX BOOT
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

There is a serious and widening disconnect between the timetables that commanders are using to guide their actions in Iraq and those being demanded by politicians in Washington. Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior U.S. commanders in Iraq, are quite properly planning for the troop "surge" to extend well into next year. That's why the Pentagon has alerted 10 combat brigades with some 40,000 soldiers to get ready to deploy in August. They will be needed to replace troops rotating home.

Back home, however, politicians are demanding results in the next few months--or else. And not just Democrats. House Minority Leader John Boehner has said that if they don't see progress by the fall, even House Republicans will start demanding a Plan B for Iraq, which would presumably involve pulling troops out, not sending more. That message was reinforced by the group of 11 House Republicans who visited the White House last week.

Gen. Petraeus has promised to report back to Congress by September on what kind of progress he is making, but don't expect a definitive answer. He is unlikely to say "the surge has worked" or "the surge has failed." He will instead probably point to a variety of indicators, some of which will be positive, others negative. It will be left to the American people and their leaders to interpret these results as they see fit.

Inevitably, since suicide attacks will still be occurring in Iraq in September, many commentators and politicians will write off the surge as a failure. Many are already doing so, even though the Baghdad Security Plan is barely three months old and the fourth extra U.S. brigade has only recently arrived. The fifth and final one won't be in place until June. It will take many months after that to see whether security conditions are improving--and even if they are (perhaps especially if they are) it would be the height of folly to then start withdrawing U.S. troops, something that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has indicated might happen.

An article in USA Today reported on a Pentagon-funded study which confirms what military historians already know--an average insurgency can run for a decade, but most fail in the end. Translation: If we're going to be successful in Iraq, we're going to have to make a long-term commitment. That doesn't mean 170,000 U.S. combat troops stationed there for 10 years, but it does mean a substantial force--tens of thousands of soldiers--will be needed for many years to come. If we're planning to start withdrawing in September 2007--or even September 2008--we might as well run up the white flag now and let the great Iraqi civil war unfold in all its horror.

Most Americans seem resigned to that fate. In fact many think that the civil war has already begun, and we can't or shouldn't do anything about it. We hear all the time that "we have no business getting into the middle of someone else's civil war"--often from the very same people who in the 1990s were (rightly) urging that we get involved in the civil wars of the former Yugoslavia or who today (rightly) urge us to get involved in the civil war in Sudan.

The reality is that Iraq has been experiencing a fairly low-grade civil war until now--one that has been contained by the presence of U.S. troops. While the troop surge in Baghdad hasn't yet decreased the overall level of violence--suicide bombings, which are notoriously difficult to stop, remain undiminished--the presence of more Iraqi and American troops on the streets has managed to reduce sectarian murders by two-thirds since January. Sunni fanatics are still able to set off their car bombs, but Shiite fanatics are not able to respond in kind by torturing to death 100 Sunnis a night. In other words, the surge is containing the results of the suicide bombings, slowing the cycle of violence that last year was leading Iraq to the brink of the abyss.

If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that Iraqis would "get their act together" and take care of their problems themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war. Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would be seen as the winner. The perception of American weakness fed by a pullout would lead to increased terrorism against the U.S. and our allies, just as occurred following our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 and from Beirut in 1983.

In the ensuing chaos, it is quite possible that al Qaeda terrorists would succeed in turning western Iraq into a Taliban-style base for international terrorism. Although the momentum at the moment is running against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, the tribal forces who are now cooperating with the Iraqi government would be incapable of defeating al Qaeda on their own. If the U.S. were to pull out, the tribes would likely go back to cooperating with al Qaeda for the sake of self-preservation. And a handful of American Special Operations Forces operating from far-off bases would be helpless to stop the terrorists because they would lack the kind of human intelligence now generated by U.S. troops on the ground.

That is only one of many possible effects of an Iraqi civil war that we need to contemplate before making the fateful decision to give up the fight. Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, two serious Democratic analysts, issued a sobering study in January called "Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover From an Iraqi Civil War" that should be required reading for anyone calling for a pullout. Messrs. Byman and Pollack studied a number of civil wars stretching back to the 1970s in countries from Congo to Lebanon, and found that they are never confined within the borders drawn neatly on maps.

Civil wars export refugees, terrorists, militant ideologies and economic woes that destabilize neighboring states, and those states in turn usually intervene to try to limit the fallout or to expand their sphere of influence. "We found that 'spillover' is common in massive civil wars; that while its intensity can vary considerably, at its worst it can have truly catastrophic effects; and that Iraq has all the earmarks of creating quite severe spillover problems," they write. No surprise: After all, Iraq, with its oil wealth, has far more to fight over than Congo or Lebanon or Chechnya.

While a civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, it is not inevitable. Contrary to the common myth, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis have not been at daggers drawn since the dawn of time. Until fairly recently, they lived peaceably side by side; intermarriage was common and major tribes still have both Sunni and Shiite components. The slide toward civil war occurred because of an implosion of central authority and a breakdown of law and order that allowed demagogues on both sides--the likes of Moqtada al Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--to posture as the defenders of their sectarian groups. That dynamic, while strong, could still be reversed if the Iraqi government, with American support, were able to offer ordinary people what they most ardently desire--security.

With U.S. and Iraqi forces now on the offensive, there have been some encouraging signs of responsible leaders on both sides pulling back from the brink. Sunni tribal chiefs have organized themselves into the Anbar Salvation Council to try to work with the U.S. and the government of Iraq, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made some important gestures toward the Sunnis, such as his support for an equitable oil-revenue sharing law (which hasn't yet passed parliament).

Slow progress toward an acceptable modus vivendi may still be possible as long as the U.S. doesn't insist on artificial timetables to resolve complex and emotional issues. What incentive do Iraqi politicians have to make compromises if they think that American troops are heading out the door? If that's the case, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be well advised to avoid making any concessions that would strengthen their mortal enemies. Thus all the talk in Washington about troop withdrawals has the opposite effect from what is intended. Instead of spurring Iraqi politicians to compromise, it leads them to be more obdurate.

It's still possible to stave off catastrophic defeat in Iraq. But the only way to do it is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops more time--at least another year--to try to change the dynamics on the ground. The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today" (Gotham Books, 2006).

opinionjournal.com