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: TopCat who wrote (366987)	1/15/2008 12:48:36 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1584285

Another GOPer bites the dust......you guys sure you have enough people to fill all these vacant positions? Report: GOP Rep. Baker Resigning To Head Up Hedge Fund Lobbying Group By Eric Kleefeld - January 15, 2008, 9:46AM Yet another House Republican is apparently heading for the exit. Eleven-term Congressman Richard Baker (R-LA) will reportedly announce soon that he is resigning from Congress to head up the Managed Funds Association, the top lobbying group for the hedge fund industry. "It's expected to be official and announced this week," a source told Roll Call. The district is strongly Republican, giving 59% of its vote to President Bush in 2004, but Democrats think they may have a shot at it with the right candidate. The Dems have already united behind state Rep. Don Cazayoux.

To: TopCat who wrote (366987)	1/15/2008 1:06:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584285

Thanks. Iraqi Defense Minister: U.S. help needed until at least 2018 Posted January 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am Over the last couple of months, much of the political discussion regarding the U.S. policy in Iraq has been centered around the perception of progress. Civilian casualties are down. Military casualties are down. Political progress doesn’t seem quite as elusive. Iraq 2008 appears more like Iraq 2005 than Iraq 2006. No matter what the specifics of the question, conservative Republicans answer the same way: Bush’s policy is “working.” On the flip side, of course, is reality. Iraq is still unstable and unsafe. Political progress is practically non-existent. And for all the GOP talk about “victory” and “success,” we continue to get news like this. The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018. Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated. Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year. There are quite a few key parts of Qadir’s remarks, but the fact that he’s “less optimistic” may be the most striking. After all, the Kristol/McCain/Lieberman wing of the political spectrum is telling us, incessantly, about how encouraged we should all be, and chastising anyone who dares to question what they see as incontrovertible progress. And yet, here we have the Iraqi defense minister conceding that Iraq won’t even be able to control its own streets for another four years (eight Friedmans), or protect itself from foreign rivals for another 10 years (20 Friedmans). In fact, he went on to suggest it might not be until 2020 that the country can fully protect the integrity of Iraq’s borders. For that matter, “Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections”? Why not? Maybe because the Bush administration thinks Qadir is right and the U.S. commitment should last at least as long as he’s projecting? Matt Yglesias sees these target dates as having a political utility. This is, in my view, the key to breaking the political deadlock over Iraq in the United States. A large number of people agree with my preference for an expeditious withdrawal from Iraq. Unfortunately, though, it’s not a majority of people. But the number of people who favor the sort of decade-plus engagement that constitutes the actual alternative to expeditious withdrawal is incredibly small. What’s needed, however, are political leaders who are willing and able to re-enforce the point that’s been revealed again and again by American reporters — the alternative to leaving is staying for a very, very, very long time. Sounds right to me. How about some enterprising reporters start pushing the presidential candidates on their take?