Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Lies:
Until recently, the word was avoided. Bush was guilty of, perhaps, misrepresentations, but lies could not be attributed to our "war leader". But now books on the NY Times best seller list include The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell (Al Franken), as well as others by Jim Hightower and Joe Conason that don't hesitate to utilize the word. And, more are being rolled out, such as The Lies of George W. Bush: The Politics of Deception (David Corn). So it's OK to say it. And the Democrats are increasingly bold.
So the trend is positive. There's still the problem of how to help more people respond, to help them not turn away and continue pretending that the integrity of the president and his coterie is intact. We're dealing with a powerful human tendency- the wish to believe, not to know, to be optimistic/positive. But, again, straight-talking is increasingly effective. And, conveying these positive trends further builds morale of the like-minded. Working with FITE, Fairness in Taxes for Everyone, confirms that people know basic truths-The wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes- but feel isolated and thus are hesitant to act until they're more aware of others with the same beliefs.
David Corn of The Nation did one of the many summaries of Bush lies (moveon.org's ad today is a highly visible take.) We're most familiar with the Iraq-wmd lies. So, here's his summary re education.
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems." A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949
Then, in Salon, Kerry Lauerman interviews CNN's Tucker Carlson who recounts a conversation that he had with Bush's communication director, Karen Hughes, following a campaign trail article that he wrote for Talk magazine: "The striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway."
FCC: Nice to have a victory, as Republicans- who are increasingly feisty in breaking with the usual Republican discipline- joined the Democrats in reject the FCC rule changes. Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org follows this closely, and aptly celebrates but cautions that this was but one ˜battle".
But then Senator McCain, who had opposed the FCC spoke, and my euphoria about what I knew began to melt. He explained the measure won't have the effect most of those voting for it believed it would have. He explained the FCC does not cover the cable industry and that is where concentration is most advanced as I noted yesterday by quoting a Wall Street Journal article about cable outlets dominated by a few companies like Viacom and General Electric. McCain warned that the House was unlikely to back the Senate measure and that a Presidential veto was still possible. He was advocating a new bill reported out of the Senate Commerce committee which doesn't just disapprove of the FCC action but mandates changes in media laws. He gave me pause. Could the resolution actually undermine structural reform while making us feel good? I don't know--but it was clear we all have to learn more about the deeper issues.
It is clear that yesterday's vote was a small victory in a continuing media war. The FCC rules are complex. The industry is even more devious than most people realize and has market power and lots of money. It too is divided among competing interests. Battling this beast requires a long-term strategy and persistence. Does the media reform movement fully understand what we are up against here?
Power Arrangements: The U.S. is paying the price for its brash unilateralism. Subtle changes include the western European countries banding together in a political-military alliance, previously noted here. Now, Gerhard Schroeder is forging deeper ties for Germany in the Asia-Pacific region, especially with India. Simultaneously, Schroeder is effecting somewhat of a rapprochement with the U.S., agreeing to a meeting with Bush next week. [The German chancellor is also meeting with Blair and Jacques Chirac, hoping to further repair the ties that were shaken over the invasion of Iraq. More on this in Business Day.http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1433181-6078-0,00.html]
What's Happening: Greater Iraq:
Syria: More B.S.
Judith Miller of the NY Times tries to rev up concern re Syria, this time writing about Syria's "ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." This is the same Judith Miller who propagandized about Iraq's WMD programs. While there has been no doubt that Syria possesses some chemical weapons (who doesn't?), even our CIA limited their assertions to "if they should decide to pursue (a nuclear weapons program) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/7)
Iraq as Lebanon: Newsweek (Rod Nordland) notes that Iraq under occupation is starting to look uncomfortably similar to Lebanon during its long civil war. The central government exists only in name, and neither police nor occupying troops are able to keep the peace, ...militias organized along ethnic and religious lines are taking up arms. Neighboring countries patronize friendly groups, or try to undermine rival ones. Arms smuggling over the borders is rife. Massive but anonymous car bombs assassinate opponents, terrorize civilians and intimidate foreigners. Even kidnapping has returned as a political tactic.
Casualties:
Our media made reference today (NPR) to this being a quieter few days. Translation: it's working!...meaning others are taking casualties--A report comes from Mosul, in northern Iraq of an Albanian soldier killed in a grenade attack. More to come, undoubtedly.
WMD, Ongoing:
CBS News carried a story on Powell' absurd contention that Iraq' use of chemical weapons in 1988 proves they had such weapons for use in 2003. Buried in the story 'Powell: '88 Attack Proves War Case' were assertions that U.N. inspectors had found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and that what the U.S. alleged were "unaccountable" stockpiles (weapons they couldn't account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/printable560449.shtml
Additionally, The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. From Hans Blix, the recently retired UN chief weapons inspector: "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth. [The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it." And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
Rummy, then Cheney change the tune
Chronic liar Cheney continued to spin the lie about 9/11 participant Mohamed Atta meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, a tale long discredited. Then this weekend, he admitted to 'misspeaking' as to the allegation, and added that "We never had evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon. " Rumsfeld now acknowledges that he hasn't seen evidence that ties al-Qaeda and Saddam. Is Bush next?
Kentucky: Good to keep watching this one, with the Democratic candidate for Governor, Ben Chandler attacking Bush in a most Republican state. It's too close to call, as of mid-September, 45-45%. Chandler is no progressive- in fact, far from it- but his attack mode should further empower Democrats to be more aggressive w/ Bush. Further help will come from General Clark's candidacy. More liberal, the imperfect Clark is cocksure-bold, undoubtedly offering a vivid contrast with Massachusetts' John Kerry. [He's been inconsistent with past positions, so his candidacy may not fly.]
John Gray of the London School of Economics "Americans see their country as embodying universal values. Other countries see the American way of life as one among many; they do not believe it ever will - or should - be universal ... They resist the division of the world into 'good' and 'evil' regimes ... in any realistic scenario, the US will have to learn to live with states that have no wish to share its values. After all, they include nearly all the states in the world. Strategically allied in the Cold War and - already less convincingly - during the post-Cold War period, Europe and America are reverting to being the alien civilizations they were before the First World War. In Asia, the claim that the US embodies the only sustainable model of human development is viewed with incredulity, if not contempt."
-R
Until recently, the word was avoided. Bush was guilty of, perhaps, misrepresentations, but lies could not be attributed to our "war leader". But now books on the NY Times best seller list include The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell (Al Franken), as well as others by Jim Hightower and Joe Conason that don't hesitate to utilize the word. And, more are being rolled out, such as The Lies of George W. Bush: The Politics of Deception (David Corn). So it's OK to say it. And the Democrats are increasingly bold.
So the trend is positive. There's still the problem of how to help more people respond, to help them not turn away and continue pretending that the integrity of the president and his coterie is intact. We're dealing with a powerful human tendency- the wish to believe, not to know, to be optimistic/positive. But, again, straight-talking is increasingly effective. And, conveying these positive trends further builds morale of the like-minded. Working with FITE, Fairness in Taxes for Everyone, confirms that people know basic truths-The wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes- but feel isolated and thus are hesitant to act until they're more aware of others with the same beliefs.
David Corn of The Nation did one of the many summaries of Bush lies (moveon.org's ad today is a highly visible take.) We're most familiar with the Iraq-wmd lies. So, here's his summary re education.
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems." A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949
Then, in Salon, Kerry Lauerman interviews CNN's Tucker Carlson who recounts a conversation that he had with Bush's communication director, Karen Hughes, following a campaign trail article that he wrote for Talk magazine: "The striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway."
FCC: Nice to have a victory, as Republicans- who are increasingly feisty in breaking with the usual Republican discipline- joined the Democrats in reject the FCC rule changes. Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org follows this closely, and aptly celebrates but cautions that this was but one ˜battle".
But then Senator McCain, who had opposed the FCC spoke, and my euphoria about what I knew began to melt. He explained the measure won't have the effect most of those voting for it believed it would have. He explained the FCC does not cover the cable industry and that is where concentration is most advanced as I noted yesterday by quoting a Wall Street Journal article about cable outlets dominated by a few companies like Viacom and General Electric. McCain warned that the House was unlikely to back the Senate measure and that a Presidential veto was still possible. He was advocating a new bill reported out of the Senate Commerce committee which doesn't just disapprove of the FCC action but mandates changes in media laws. He gave me pause. Could the resolution actually undermine structural reform while making us feel good? I don't know--but it was clear we all have to learn more about the deeper issues.
It is clear that yesterday's vote was a small victory in a continuing media war. The FCC rules are complex. The industry is even more devious than most people realize and has market power and lots of money. It too is divided among competing interests. Battling this beast requires a long-term strategy and persistence. Does the media reform movement fully understand what we are up against here?
Power Arrangements: The U.S. is paying the price for its brash unilateralism. Subtle changes include the western European countries banding together in a political-military alliance, previously noted here. Now, Gerhard Schroeder is forging deeper ties for Germany in the Asia-Pacific region, especially with India. Simultaneously, Schroeder is effecting somewhat of a rapprochement with the U.S., agreeing to a meeting with Bush next week. [The German chancellor is also meeting with Blair and Jacques Chirac, hoping to further repair the ties that were shaken over the invasion of Iraq. More on this in Business Day.http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1433181-6078-0,00.html]
What's Happening: Greater Iraq:
Syria: More B.S.
Judith Miller of the NY Times tries to rev up concern re Syria, this time writing about Syria's "ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." This is the same Judith Miller who propagandized about Iraq's WMD programs. While there has been no doubt that Syria possesses some chemical weapons (who doesn't?), even our CIA limited their assertions to "if they should decide to pursue (a nuclear weapons program) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/7)
Iraq as Lebanon: Newsweek (Rod Nordland) notes that Iraq under occupation is starting to look uncomfortably similar to Lebanon during its long civil war. The central government exists only in name, and neither police nor occupying troops are able to keep the peace, ...militias organized along ethnic and religious lines are taking up arms. Neighboring countries patronize friendly groups, or try to undermine rival ones. Arms smuggling over the borders is rife. Massive but anonymous car bombs assassinate opponents, terrorize civilians and intimidate foreigners. Even kidnapping has returned as a political tactic.
Casualties:
Our media made reference today (NPR) to this being a quieter few days. Translation: it's working!...meaning others are taking casualties--A report comes from Mosul, in northern Iraq of an Albanian soldier killed in a grenade attack. More to come, undoubtedly.
WMD, Ongoing:
CBS News carried a story on Powell' absurd contention that Iraq' use of chemical weapons in 1988 proves they had such weapons for use in 2003. Buried in the story 'Powell: '88 Attack Proves War Case' were assertions that U.N. inspectors had found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and that what the U.S. alleged were "unaccountable" stockpiles (weapons they couldn't account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/printable560449.shtml
Additionally, The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. From Hans Blix, the recently retired UN chief weapons inspector: "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth. [The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it." And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
Rummy, then Cheney change the tune
Chronic liar Cheney continued to spin the lie about 9/11 participant Mohamed Atta meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, a tale long discredited. Then this weekend, he admitted to 'misspeaking' as to the allegation, and added that "We never had evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon. " Rumsfeld now acknowledges that he hasn't seen evidence that ties al-Qaeda and Saddam. Is Bush next?
Kentucky: Good to keep watching this one, with the Democratic candidate for Governor, Ben Chandler attacking Bush in a most Republican state. It's too close to call, as of mid-September, 45-45%. Chandler is no progressive- in fact, far from it- but his attack mode should further empower Democrats to be more aggressive w/ Bush. Further help will come from General Clark's candidacy. More liberal, the imperfect Clark is cocksure-bold, undoubtedly offering a vivid contrast with Massachusetts' John Kerry. [He's been inconsistent with past positions, so his candidacy may not fly.]
John Gray of the London School of Economics "Americans see their country as embodying universal values. Other countries see the American way of life as one among many; they do not believe it ever will - or should - be universal ... They resist the division of the world into 'good' and 'evil' regimes ... in any realistic scenario, the US will have to learn to live with states that have no wish to share its values. After all, they include nearly all the states in the world. Strategically allied in the Cold War and - already less convincingly - during the post-Cold War period, Europe and America are reverting to being the alien civilizations they were before the First World War. In Asia, the claim that the US embodies the only sustainable model of human development is viewed with incredulity, if not contempt."
-R
