The "I" word and effects on equity markets

The Long Bomb

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Watching this Iraq story unfold, all I can say is this: If this were not about my own country, my own kids and my own planet, I'd pop some popcorn, pull up a chair and pay good money just to see how this drama unfolds. Because what you are about to see is the greatest shake of the dice any president has voluntarily engaged in since Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan. Vietnam was a huge risk, but it evolved incrementally. And threatening a nuclear war with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis was a huge shake of the dice by President John Kennedy, but it was a gamble that was imposed on him, not one he initiated.

A U.S. invasion to disarm Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein and rebuild a decent Iraqi state would be the mother of all presidential gambles. Anyone who thinks President Bush is doing this for political reasons is nuts. You could do this only if you really believed in it, because Mr. Bush is betting his whole presidency on this war of choice.

And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country wants to see Iraq dealt with without a war. But President Bush is a man on a mission. He has been convinced by a tiny group of advisers that throwing "The Long Bomb" — attempting to transform the most dangerous Arab state — is a geopolitical game-changer. It could help nudge the whole Arab-Muslim world onto a more progressive track, something that coaxing simply will not do anymore. It's something that can only be accomplished by building a different model in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. No, you don't see this every day. This is really bold.

And that leads to my dilemma. I have a mixed marriage. My wife opposes this war, but something in Mr. Bush's audacious shake of the dice appeals to me. He summed it up well in his speech last week: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction — to a free and peaceful Iraq."

My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support for his vision — support vital to seeing it through. He and his team are the only people who would ever have conceived this project, but they may be the worst people to implement it. The only place they've been bold is in their military preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin disarming).

What do I mean? I mean that if taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq had been my goal from the minute I took office (as it was for the Bush team), I would not have angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming treaty without offering an alternative. I would not have alienated the entire Russian national security elite by telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty and that they would just have to get used to it. (You're now seeing their revenge.) I would not have proposed one radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, costly nation-building marathon abroad.

I would, though, have rallied the nation for real energy conservation and initiated a Manhattan Project for alternative energies so I would not find myself with $2.25-per-gallon gasoline on the eve of this war — because OPEC capacity is nearly tapped out. I would have told the Palestinians that until they stop suicide bombing and get a more serious leadership, we're not dealing with them, but I would also have told the Israelis that every new or expanded settlement they built would cost them $100 million in U.S. aid. And I would have told the Arabs: "While we'll deal with the Iraqi threat, we have no imperial designs on your countries. We are not on a crusade — but we will not sit idle if you tolerate extremists in your midst who imperil our democracy."

No, had Mr. Bush done all these things it would not have changed everything with France, Russia and the Arabs — or my wife. But I am convinced that it would have helped generate more support to increase our staying power in Iraq and the odds that we could pull this off.

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table — a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html

 

Should have he been certified long time ago??

What drives a man to go against the wishes of his countryfolk and the entire world community - including the presidents of Russia, China, France and Germany?

How can a professed Christian continue to defy church leaders worldwide - including the Bishops of Britain and the Pope? How does he rationalize breaking the commandments of his God, which clearly prohibit coveting another's property, theft of their oil, and mass murder of defenseless populations?

How can he ignore his own generals when they complain, "We're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies." [Capitol Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]

To those who deem it unseemly to count the brick's on one man's load, let us recall that this unelected President is one brick short of killing what the UN fears could be up to a half-million people in Iraq. This massacre could easily see Pakistan's government – and its 30 to 40 nukes – falling to an al Qaeda/Taliban majority. Bush's announced plans to attack North Korea and Iran have already prompted both countries to hit the nuclear gas pedal, virtually assuring a "nuclear event". And his $5 trillion blowout has taken the American economy to a $2 trillion deficit in two short years. As ignored global warming triggers Extreme Weather Events, frightened Nobel price-winning economists warn that GW's proposed $600 billion tax cut is "fiscal madness" - "a very serious economic error" that will collapse the country in exactly the same way the ex-Soviet Empire went bust buying and deploying so many arms in so many places. Ditto Imperial Rome.

Are these the acts of a rational person?

Read on. If you dare

PATTERN RECOGNITION
"Is The 'President' Nuts?" asks Wolman, M.D. "Many people, inside and especially outside this country, believe that the American president is nuts, and is taking the world on a suicidal path." [Counterpunch Oct. 2, 2002]

A board-certified psychiatrist in practice for 30 years, Dr. Wolman feels compelled to understand the "psychopathology" of man "under tremendous pressure from both his family/junta, and from the world at large." Dr. Wolman wonders if GW is suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition:

"There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 7) lack of remorse by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others."

DRY DRUNK
GW Bush is highly regarded for "kicking" the twin demo

more: http://www.willthomas.net/isbushnuts.htm

GW, cut your losses sort, it's bad trade, take your stops and get out of this mess. Bring our people back. Turkey refused, take that 40-50 billion and help our bankrupt states. Obey the law!

THIS IS THE GREATEST NATION on the FACE OF THIS EARTH!--- do not destroy it any more--

 

Manipulation of the Public Builds Along With War Clouds
by Matthew Rothschild

Published on Monday, March 3, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times

As George W. Bush prepares to plunge the nation into war against Iraq, he is using rhetoric in a highly manipulative way. Though that may not be unusual for a wartime president, we as citizens should recognize when he is leading us around by the nose.

More than 30 times in the last seven months, Bush has used variations on a theme to describe the U.S. as vulnerable. For example, speaking to a conference of religious broadcasters in Nashville on Feb. 10, he said that before 9/11, "we thought oceans would protect us forever." The same day, at an informal press conference, Bush said: "The world changed on Sept. 11.... In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us -- at least we thought so." Meeting with small-business owners in Georgia on Feb. 20, he invoked the oceans again.

But since Pearl Harbor, the oceans have not served as a buffer. And the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union kept the U.S. in a bull's-eye for 40 years, notwithstanding our vaunted seas.

Why does Bush insist on such rhetoric? "This notion of unprecedented vulnerability is absolutely crucial to the Bush team's anti-constitutional program," says Mark Crispin Miller, author of "The Bush Dyslexicon." "What that statement really means is, 'We were safe, now we're in danger, and the danger is so severe that you must give me all possible power. What the oceans once did, now only I can do.' "

In another example, Bush called Iraq a "mounting threat" in his State of the Union speech. In Georgia, he called it a "growing danger." On Wednesday, he called it a "direct and growing threat." How can Iraq be a "mounting" or "growing" threat when British and American planes have intensified their bombing raids on Iraqi military facilities, when U.N. inspectors are now going anywhere they want anytime they want, and when U.S. spy satellites can survey every inch of Iraqi territory?

One final example: Twice in his State of the Union speech and again Wednesday, Bush used the words, "if war is forced upon us." No one is forcing war on the U.S. or on the administration. Quite the contrary: Bush has been forcing the war issue for months now. For him to claim otherwise is to shirk responsibility for the grave consequences his war may have.

Matthew Rothschild is editor of the Progressive magazine.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times


Shrub Mafia & Co just has to go. Put them thugs in jail

Give me back my country and what is used stand for stop the madness
Bring our our home, take all the Turkey $$$ and give back to bankrupt states

 

you say "THIS IS THE GREATEST NATION on the FACE OF THIS EARTH!--- do not destroy it any more"??

Bush has done more to HELP the US in 2 years, than Clinton did in 8 years.

I think you've been to one too many peace rallies. I suggest heavy voltage for you.

And you say "impeachment"????? Could you be any more out of touch? You don't deserve to live in the US under our great president Bush.

Go to France, please. You'll enjoy it.

And I got bad news for you, Bush is a heavy favorite to be re-elected. I'd bet up to $100,000 he gets re-elected.

So you don't like him?? Goto France, so you won't have to complain about him till 2008.

vinny "proud american" gigante

 

arba-vinny..... sorry to see you folding few nicks. Gonna miss you

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finaly Over'

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

hey don't attack the poster, if you have a different view write to the editor about the article posted----

 

Better get them bombs dropping

Meeting Assembled By Conyers Mulls Seeking Bush's Impeachment Over Iraq

Thu Mar 13 2003 10:30:03 ET

House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) assembled more than two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to mull over articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein. ROLL CALL is reporting on Thursday.

The two-hour session, which featured former attorney general-turned-activist Ramsey Clark, took place in the downtown office of a prominent Washington tort lawyer. Participants said Conyers, who hosted the meeting, was the only Member of Congress to attend. 'We had a pretty frank discussion about putting in a bill of impeachment against President Bush,' said Francis Boyle, an Illinois law professor who has been working on the impeachment language with Clark.

And while you are at it, I want to know why the investigation on the anthrax letters to senate was swept under the rag? Wake Up AMERICA!!!

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12779&perpage=6&pagenumber=7

 

The Bush Credibility Gap

A chronology of Bush saying one thing then doing another

Event: Children’s Hospitals
Bush touts the need to support children’s hospital at Egleston Children’s Hospital in Atlanta [3/1/01]

Bush Rhetoric
“This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality…There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.” – Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01

Reality
Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children’s hospitals.


the No Child Left Behind is sad.

more media snapshots recorded quotes and reality here:
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

I was going to place this particular post on the Jokes thread, but it's way too serious.

Plenty of $$$$ for the war and few inner Shrub and Co subsidiaries, and let the rest of my country go to he$$

Nice going

 

Does having a life of reading anything that is negative about the current administration bring you joy and comfort?

Are you getting your recommend daily allowance of all the "newsgroups?"

Too much bias in your reading diet is not good for your mental health.

Try looking at other points of view with an open mind. You might breathe easier.

 

Truth hurts
I kinda liked your ostrich head buried in sand logo Take your own suggestion --- keep an open mind--- or live in make believe bubble

You may see who the real enemies of our greatest nation are

 

From Hitler To Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden - Insider Connections and the Bush Family's Partnership with Killers of Americans

Brown Brothers, Harriman - BNL- and the Carlyle Group

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/carlyle.html


Time is getting closer!!! Lunch a full investigation. Open the truth to all. Give this nation back to its rightful owners the people