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: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/24/2009 4:54:01 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

I agree...and Tom Friedman was right on Charlie Rose's show the other night -- he said we need to do "nation building" at home big time...focus on building a Green Economy on a much larger scale...Friedman said any escalation in Afghanistan was risky and unlikely to work -- and he favors reducing our footprint in that part of the world...and yes, this is the same Tom Friedman who originally was in favor of going into Iraq.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 12:47:33 AM
From: stockman_scott	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362624

Tonight this is the top rated post out on the very busy DailyKos website... dailykos.com You are losing me, Mr. President by Granny Doc Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 07:36:17 PM PST I found your rhetoric so inspiring. I found your ideas so encouraging. I also saw the problems you had to confront as overwhelming. I viewed your opposition as well educated, highly experienced but terminally stupid. I couldn't imagine how they could continue to run the government into the abyss once we had given you Congressional majorities, and a free hand to enact your policies. So, I have stood back and let you manage these mounting disasters, firm in the belief that you would change the way government conducts the people's business. But, it increasingly seems that you have decided that your "change" will be confined to eliminating the strangle hold that the Bush White House exercised over all branches of government. You have stood back and let the bought and paid for Senate devise legislation that effects no real change in the health care system except around the edges. You have allowed the financial industry to continue the very practices that drove the economy into chaos. You have filled your Cabinet with the very people who were instrumental in laying the ground work for the disaster, and given them free hand to prop up and protect the banks with no increase in regulation or protection for the system. You allow the struggling Harry Reid to try to whip the Joe Liberman's and Ben Nelson's into line without any public effort to back him up. Now, it looks as though you are going to accept the advice of General McCrystal, the man instrumental in the Pat Tillman cover up, to dictate Afghanistan policy. Nothing is changing except the Disaster of the Day. Yes, yes. I know that you have restored the image of America around the world. But really, Sir, was that going to be so hard after 8 years of Bush/Cheney? Just getting them out of office was going to spread a warm fuzzy feeling across the planet. Anyone could have done that. I know it's popular for those of us who supported you to list the many small changes you have shepherded. But in the big things, Sir, health care, climate change, using the stimulus package to improve infrastructure and generate jobs, forestall the foreclosure crisis, and address renewable energy, you have done little. Where are those fine rhetorical skills, now? Why are you not devoting a great deal more time to explaining to us what you are doing. Transparency has become the cash word, of late. But, little real transparency can occur without a careful and full disclosure of not only high sounding phrases of "hope" for the future, but of a discussion of the issues, led by you. I'm an old woman, Mr. President. And, after decades of disappointment, and frustration at the willful greed and blatant ignorance of the Beltway Bovines, I dared to think that you might actually offer leadership. Leadership by drafting the rough outlines of what you wanted in legislation rather than letting the high school clique that inhabits Capitol Hill play their mindless games while we, out here, fall over a cliff. Leadership in a little serious arm twisting to get the Democrats to fall in line. Leadership in bypassing the mindset of the military and getting us out of Iraq and Afganistan. Instead, Sir, I see the same old game, played in the same old way, with only the faces changing. Please step up and take control of your government. That is what we elected you to do. Your failure, so far, to exercise the leadership and decision making skill set that I felt you might possess has been a profound disappointment. You are losing me, Sir, along with many of those whom I encouraged to donate to your campaign, and to show up on election day.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 6:14:27 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

Thanks for the Memories ______________________________________________________________ By MAUREEN DOWD Op-Ed Columnist The New York Times November 25, 2009 At his Cabinet meeting Monday afternoon, President Obama took a moment to give thanks to his team. Sipping a glass of water, the president offered special gratitude to the woman on his right. “I advised this hard-working Cabinet to get a little bit of rest this week,” he said, looking at Hillary Clinton, “particularly the people who have been traveling around the globe day-in and day-out and don’t know what time zone they’re in.” The secretary of state, with a china cup and saucer in front of her, smiled. In the back of the room, back where they were parched, back where no water or coffee was served for the two-hour meeting, sat Greg Craig, the White House counsel who was a ghostly presence, given his death by a thousand leaks. Only a year after he had helped Barack Obama get elected by eviscerating his close friend, Clinton White House colleague and Yale Law School classmate, Hillary Clinton, Craig was himself eviscerated by the Obama inner circle. I remember meeting Craig at a book party during the campaign. He upbraided me for writing critical things about Obama. I didn’t like being chastised, but I admired his loyalty. It couldn’t have been easy for Craig, a special counsel in the Clinton White House who directed the response on impeachment, to break away from the Clintons and help the insurgent Obama shatter Hillary’s dream of shattering the Oval glass ceiling. As Todd Purdum wrote of Craig in The Times in 1998, “At Yale, he surrendered his $75-a-month apartment in New Haven to Mr. Clinton and his girlfriend, Hillary Rodham, who were a class behind him, and he remains especially close to Mrs. Clinton, friends say.” In a memo he sent to the press during the bitter 2008 Democratic primary, Craig made the case that Hillary had exaggerated her foreign policy experience and that she did not pass “the Commander-in-Chief test.” It was brutally effective, taking apart her claims of involvement, country by country, and noting: “As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue — not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.” I often wondered if Craig and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the other former Clinton official who helped undermine Hillary’s foreign policy record, would have done so if they had known that after turning on Hillary they would once more end up working beside her; if they had known that Obama can often be more interested in wooing opponents than tending to those who put themselves on the line for him. There were complaints that Craig was out of the loop, but couldn’t Obama have walked the single West Wing staircase up to his counsel’s office and looped him in? Craig was, after all, simply defending positions that Obama himself took during the campaign, from closing Gitmo to greater transparency. The way the Craig matter was handled sent a chill through some Obama supporters, reminding them of the icy manner in which the Clintons cut loose Kimba Wood and Lani Guinier. But then, Obama is surrounded by many old Clinton hands (and a Clinton). Writing in Politico, Elizabeth Drew called it “the shabbiest episode of his presidency,” saying that it had caused people who had helped Obama rise to question whether he would behave in as classy and non-Clintonian a fashion as they had hoped. It recalled Obama’s failure to lift a finger to help Caroline Kennedy — after she had lifted him at a crucial moment — when the loopy Gov. David Paterson was dragging her through mud and refusing to announce a decision on the appointment for the New York Senate seat. Paterson was being lobbied by a vengeful Bill Clinton. Bill was still upset at Caroline for bestowing the Camelot mantle, which he had tried to claim during his campaigns, on Obama. Yet no one from the Obama camp tried to counteract Bill and straighten out Paterson. Although a handful of donors were invited to the premiere state dinner Tuesday night — as well as erstwhile allies Craig and Hillary — many donors and passionate supporters are let down by Obama’s detachment, puzzled at his failure to make them feel invested when he’s certain to come back to tap their well soon enough. It is especially puzzling given that Obama faces tough midterms and a less-than-certain re-election — and given that we all now know someone on the unemployment line. (A new poll shows Obama and Sarah Palin neck and neck among independents, but then it is a Fox survey.) Bill Clinton may not have cared any more about contributors than Obama does, but he was such a talented politician that he made them feel as though they were in “a warm bath,” as one put it. Obama is more like a cold shower. Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 6:27:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

Obama Vows to Finish Job; Heroin Trade Thrives; Afghanistan, Inc.? juancole.com Wednesday, November 25, 2009 In the midst of the state visit to Washington of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Barack Obama at a brief news conference announced that he was going to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. He cautioned, however, that down the road, Afghanistan would have to provide for its own security. As for the strong divide in the US public over the Afghanistan War, Obama said, "I feel confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive." Rumors in Washington, broken by McClatchy on Monday, say that Obama with send 34,000 additional troops and will announce the move next Tuesday. Prime Minister Singh had the day before pressured Obama to stay the course in Afghanistan, warning that a Taliban victory had the potential for destabilizing Pakistan and India. Whether Obama can 'finish the job' in Afghanistan depends on what he defines the job as. If it is to build a 21st century Afghan state and crush the Taliban and other Muslim political movements in the Pashtun areas, then I am extremely skeptical. If it is to prop up a shaky but just all right Afghan government and military before pulling out, then his odds of success, while still bad, do rise. As for Obama's hope that the US public will rally around the flag, I wouldn't count on it over the medium to long term. His Democratic base is tired of war and of our quasi-martial-law state of siege. If he wants their support, he has to fight an extremely abbreviated war. So I think it is entirely possible that Obama will be 0 for 2 if he escalates in Afghanistan. And it is extremely dangerous for him to go on alienating his base, which wants peace and prosperity, with policies that make rightwing Republicans happy-- coddling bankers in a jobless recovery and an escalation of an eight-year-old, increasingly unpopular war. The rightwing Republicans will vote for these measures in Congress, but put the blame on Obama for them, and benefit from Democratic disillusionment in 2012. Gareth Porter reports that the real turn-over rate in the Afghanistan National Army is 25%, a datum obscured by the way the Pentagon changed its reporting criteria in midstream this year. Mandy Clark of CBS also reports on the challenges the US faces in training an Afghan national army. Twelve of President Hamid Karzai's cabinet ministers are under investigation for corruption. The Russian news service Itar-Tass reports on November 24 from Bishkek on a presentation by Mikhail Melikhov on Afghanistan at a conference on international terrorism and extremism. (The article appears to still be behind a firewall at the I-T site). Melikhov alleged that the drug trade in Afghanistan is now worth $4 billion annually. (The gross domestic product of Afghanistan in exchange-rate terms is only only about $12 bn. per annum, so drugs account for about 1/3). He said that during the past seven years, drug output in Afghanistan has grown 40 times over, now standing at 7,700 tons a year. Melikhov is quoted as saying, "Practically Afghanistan has become an international drug firm." He said the drug trade is largely in the hands of trans-national narco-terrorist cartels. He maintains that Muslim extremist organizations, including the 'Islamic Movement of Turkestan' and Hizb al-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), are the primary drug exporters. posted by Juan Cole @ 11/25/2009 12:43:00 AM

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 6:48:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

Was Obama elected to finish the job? notmytribe.com By Eric Verlo 11/25/2009 12:44AM MDT -- President Obama wants to “finish the job?” What job would that be? Are we talking about a job which Bush started? Because I am pretty sure Mr. Obama was elected NOT to do that. Holy crap. “Finish” Afghanistan? Where was Obama as Vietnam was being finished off? We don’t have to look further than Afghanistan to wonder what other jobs Barack Obama is ready to carry water for. America is in trouble - is Obama is bent on finishing the job on our civil liberties. Guantanamo is still open isn’t it. Justice is still being obstructed, the Patriot Act still holds, President Obama is doing George Bush’s job just fine. Whether Afghanistan was about an oil pipeline, striking at Islam, or containing America’s rivals to superpower, it’s also the venture to break the US economy. Is that the job Obama intends to finish?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 7:35:57 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

The Economic Crisis and What Must be Done richardccook.com

To: Rock_nj who wrote (180982)	11/25/2009 10:25:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362624

Obama's 'Finish the Job' Plan Set to Meet Sharp Resistance by John Nichols Published on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 by The Nation President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan. US Marines fire mortar rounds from their forward operating base in Mian Poshteh in Helmand Province. President Barack Obama, vowing to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, promised he would soon announce his decision on sending tens of thousands more US troops to battle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (AFP/Manpreet Romana)But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead "stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor. Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, [1] and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country. The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job" speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended commitment to the American people." Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" [2] -- but no exit strategy. Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said. But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer the country deeper into a quagmire. As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the troops home. In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699, [3] which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, HR 2404, [4] which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy. Tom Hayden, [5] the former California legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the country during the next six months." That's right. Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans. And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, described Afghan President Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment toprop up Karzai's regime. Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey, [6] the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement." Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war." Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable. Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it." The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey. But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting. And his warning is stark and necessary one. Copyright © 2009 The Nation