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 (335986)	5/1/2007 1:30:01 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574081

The Waning of the GOP article.nationalreview.com By William F. Buckley Jr. The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war. Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established. It isn’t that Tenet now doubts the lethality of the terrorists. What he disputed was an organizational connection which argued for war against Iraq as if Iraq were a vassal state of al Qaeda. A measure of George Tenet’s respect for the reach and malevolence of the enemy is his statement that he is puzzled that Al Qaeda has not, since 2001, sent out “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half dozen American shopping malls on any given day.” By way of prophecy, he writes that there is one thing he feels in his gut, which is that “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.” But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous. When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it. General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

To: steve harris who wrote (335986)	5/1/2007 1:30:01 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574081

The Waning of the GOP article.nationalreview.com By William F. Buckley Jr. The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war. Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established. It isn’t that Tenet now doubts the lethality of the terrorists. What he disputed was an organizational connection which argued for war against Iraq as if Iraq were a vassal state of al Qaeda. A measure of George Tenet’s respect for the reach and malevolence of the enemy is his statement that he is puzzled that Al Qaeda has not, since 2001, sent out “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half dozen American shopping malls on any given day.” By way of prophecy, he writes that there is one thing he feels in his gut, which is that “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.” But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous. When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it. General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

To: steve harris who wrote (335986)	5/1/2007 1:32:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574081

Like I've said previously, the American economy is doing nothing......thank God for the rest of the world. And the difference is all in a bush. How many times did you vote for him? _____________________________________________________________ Earnings from Alaska Airlines By John Crawley WASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) - Alaska Air Group (ALK,Trade), parent of Alaska Airlines, narrowed its first-quarter loss on Thursday and vowed to "do what it takes" to fight rivals vying for business on its West Coast turf. The Seattle-based carrier also acknowledged near-term demand has weakened amid rising fuel costs, conditions that have affected other airlines heading into spring and summer travel, usually the industry's strongest period financially. Alaska reported a net loss of $10.3 million, or 26 cents per share, compared with a loss of $79.1 million, or $2.36 per share, in the first quarter a year ago. Excluding accounting adjustments for fuel hedge expenses and the impact of a 2006 after-tax charge of $81.9 million related to its transition from MD-80s to an all 737 fleet, the company would have reported a net loss of $15.8 million, or 39 cents per share, in the first quarter. That compares with operating income of 8 cents per share in the year-ago period before one-time items led to a net loss. Wall Street analysts had expected a loss of 30 cents per share for the first quarter of this year, excluding the special charges, according to Reuters Estimates. While all airlines are bracing for Delta Air Lines ((DALRQ.PK)) to emerge from bankruptcy this spring as a leaner and more potent competitor, Seattle-based Alaska faces a focused threat from Delta and other rivals in its U.S. West Coast and Mexico markets. Southwest Airlines (LUV,Trade) is reestablishing operations in San Francisco later this year in addition to service from Oakland, Los Angeles and other Southern California cities. Delta is beefing up West Coast service as well as flights to Mexico. Alaska also expects to soon contend with low-cost startups, including San Francisco-based Virgin America -- a carrier branded by British entrepreneur Richard Branson. Company officials blame general national economic conditions for the less than robust near-term travel outlook. Alaska said April load factor, a measure of paying customers per flight, will be slightly lower and advanced bookings for May and June appear flat. Despite the pressures, senior Alaska officials said they were determined to stay dominant in bread-and-butter markets. "We'll do whatever it takes to protect our franchise," Alaska Chief Executive Bill Ayer said in a conference call with analysts and reporters. Southwest and United Airlines ((UAUA.O)) are strong in California, while Alaska is entrenched in Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and Alaska. Alaska is counting on its familiar brand, lower operating costs, and a strong balance sheet to help fight challengers. Alaska is simplifying its fleet from old MD 80s to Boeing 737s and has nearly $1 billion in cash and equivalents on hand. For the first quarter, Alaska improved its operating efficiency but was hit by higher fuel prices. The company paid $164 million, or $1.95 per gallon, for fuel compared with $140 million, or $1.67 per gallon, in the year-ago period. Alaska shares rose nearly 3 percent earlier on Thursday but closed down 22 cents, or 0.61 percent lower, at $35.58 on the New York Stock Exchange.