Friday, September 26, 2003
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been re-built- Condi Rice re the Saddam threat, April, 2001
So??? The above statement by Rice, coupled with the lead quote from Powell (2/01) in the last blog constituted the Administration’s record on Saddam and wmd pre 9/11. The comments were part of a consensus- in and out of the Administration- that Saddam was very much contained, that the sanctions were ‘working’. Thus far, only MSNBC and their 8PM program Wednesday (Keith Olbermann) have highlighted these statements, which were broadcast on a British t.v. program headed by John Pilger I couldn’t find any other coverage … aside from the blogging world.
More at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html.
Bush the Environmentalist: Good summary from the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert. Many centrist periodicals such as the New Yorker have moved ‘left,’ i.e. they’re printing more critical pieces.
Each year, the Detroit Edison plant in Monroe, Michigan, burns roughly eight million tons of coal. That is enough to generate electricity for three million homes and also to make the plant one of the nation’s most extravagant polluters. In 2001, the last year for which complete data are available, Monroe’s smokestacks emitted, among other things: more than a hundred thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (the principal pollutant in acid rain), nearly forty-six thousand tons of nitrous oxide (the chief ingredient of smog), and seventeen and a half million tons of carbon dioxide (the major culprit in global warming). Widely accepted statistical models project that the plant will cause some three hundred premature deaths annually, from ailments like lung disease and stroke. All of which makes President Bush’s visit to Monroe last week to tout his latest air-quality initiatives either horribly ill-advised or, if you prefer, perversely appropriate.
Even in the catalogue of depredations that is the Bush Administration’s environmental record—a list that includes the decision to reclassify various forms of mining waste as “fill” so that it can be dumped in valleys and streams; the attempt to open up millions of acres of public lands (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) for oil exploration; and the so-called Healthy Forests initiative, whose major beneficiary is the logging industry—the President’s assault on the Clean Air Act stands out. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/030929ta_talk_kolbert
Patriot Act: Legislative Actions we can Support!
Legislation exists to repeal portions of the Patriot Act.
(1) The Freedom to Read Protection Act, HR 1157, sponsored by Bernie Sanders -and C.L. Otter (R-Idaho). It prohibits using funds to access bookstore and library records under the Patriot Act.
(2) S1507 which was introduced by Senators Feingold and Jeffords, raises the threshold necessary to obtain a warrant under the Patriot Act for library and bookstore records by requiring the government to show that the records sought are those of a suspected terrorist or spy.
Call the toll-free Congressional switchboard, 800-839-5276, ask for your congressperson, and register your support or call the state offices of your legislators.
Dissent: ACLU Effort.
They may have rested in the California election issue, but they’re pushing on the Secret Service’s violation of the rights of protesters, the right to express views critical of government who are commonly being moved away from public officials at public demonstrations, while Bushites are allowed to be in closer proximity. (At other times, observers are allowed to be closer than demonstrators). The national lawsuit, filed in Philly, is on behalf of United for Peace and Justice, USAction, NOW, and ACORN.
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Governing Council Breaking with their Bosses
Bit by bit, the appointed group makes independent steps. Our former agent, Ahmed Chalabi, made statements last week that the U.S. should leave immediately. Jim Lobe of Asia Times reports that others on the Council are joining the call. Lobe notes that these voices
… reflect real fears by pro-US Iraqis that Washington's occupation of their country represents not only a serious liability to their own political futures in Iraq, but is also the focus of a mounting anger among ordinary Iraqi civilians that apparently is feeding resistance to the occupation
The council, which late last week called for US troops to withdraw from towns and cities to bases and turn over police duties to Iraqi militias and police, has clearly reached the conclusion that the occupation is turning into a disaster. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI25Ak02.html
WMD: The front page of the NY Times and foreign papers on Thursday summarized the fate of the disappearing Kay Report. A blunt account from Germany (Deutsche Welle):
A preliminary report from US and British arms inspectors tracking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, according to a U.S. official, will show that such weapons have not been found. The BBC quoted the unnamed US government source as saying the so-called Iraq Survey Group will report that not even "minute" amounts of biological or chemical weapons material have been discovered. Addressing the same issue, America's Central Intelligence Agency says that the interim report by former weapons inspector David Kay is unlikely to reach any final conclusions. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,4789_W_978704,00.html
Back to that UN Speech: Other countries were disappointed-but not surprised- that the Bush speech didn’t break with the past. They were also befuddled by some odd contents. Some made sense of it when they reasoned that the speech was meant for domestic consumption. Thus, a quick detour to pull at heartstrings by tossing in comments about the slave trade. More baffling was the diversion supplied by the speech’s call for a new anti-proliferation resolution intended to combat the spread of weapons (of mass destruction). It was out-of-the-blue for the attending diplomats, including our own. Witness the AP report (Dafna Linzer, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/23/international0232EDT0446.DTL) "U.S. and British diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they were surprised by Bush's call for a weapons resolution and that Tuesday was the first time they had heard about the idea."
Other Comments on the Speech: (via the Guardian)
Fred Kaplan, Slate
Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the general assembly as the one George W Bush gave this morning?
Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism-even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused critics of Bush's policies in Iraq of encouraging terrorists. In actuality, it is American aimlessness that offers succour to its enemies by creating the impression that for all its might, the superpower is a very confused beast. Countries like France and Germany do not want America to fail, but nor do they want to be part of a disaster that they rightly see as being perfectly preventable. Their involvement might come with a heavy political price tag, but their continuing estrangement will be even more expensive.
Amir Taheri, Gulf News
The only justification for involving the UN (in Iraq) may have to do with American domestic politics. Bush may want to be in a position to tell his electorate that the UN is now on board in Iraq.
And this is precisely why France, Germany and a few others, who do not wish to see Bush re-elected, are determined to push the price so high as to make it impossible for Washington to accept without losing control of the situation in Iraq. The message that Paris and Berlin wish to convey is this: Bush and his "neo-cons" created a mess, now we enter to save Iraq from destruction.
Daily Nation, Kenya
The appeal (for help on Iraq) is mainly financial and technical and, therefore, is aimed especially at Japan (and) the European Union, especially Germany and France.
But the last two were the very same states which Mr Bush treated with such arrogance when they disagreed with his methods. You would, therefore, expect the US leader to come to them like a chastened man.
But not Mr Bush. He is still demanding that the UN do it strictly under US terms. Yet the mess is America's own. If it wants the international community to mop it up for him, he should ask for it with at least some studied humbleness. Should he not, in fact, hand over everything to the UN?
Schwarzenegger’s Future:
The aforementioned New Yorker issue carries a profile of the actor-candidate. Hendrik Hertzberg reminds us moviegoers that in the movie “Demolition Man”, Sylvester Stallone’s character is projected into the future where he encounters the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library.
This was satire, not prognostication. Either way, though, it appears, at the moment, to be right on schedule. The big technicality, of course, is a clause in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution—the one that states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” On July 10th, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, quietly introduced what he hopes will become the twenty-eighth amendment:
A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.
As it happens, Arnold Schwarzenegger (who, according to the Deseret News, Hatch’s home-town paper, is both a “pal” and a “fund-raising helper” of the Senator’s) became a citizen of the United States precisely twenty years ago. Hatch is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where constitutional amendments originate. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030929fa_fact
-R
So??? The above statement by Rice, coupled with the lead quote from Powell (2/01) in the last blog constituted the Administration’s record on Saddam and wmd pre 9/11. The comments were part of a consensus- in and out of the Administration- that Saddam was very much contained, that the sanctions were ‘working’. Thus far, only MSNBC and their 8PM program Wednesday (Keith Olbermann) have highlighted these statements, which were broadcast on a British t.v. program headed by John Pilger I couldn’t find any other coverage … aside from the blogging world.
More at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html.
Bush the Environmentalist: Good summary from the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert. Many centrist periodicals such as the New Yorker have moved ‘left,’ i.e. they’re printing more critical pieces.
Each year, the Detroit Edison plant in Monroe, Michigan, burns roughly eight million tons of coal. That is enough to generate electricity for three million homes and also to make the plant one of the nation’s most extravagant polluters. In 2001, the last year for which complete data are available, Monroe’s smokestacks emitted, among other things: more than a hundred thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (the principal pollutant in acid rain), nearly forty-six thousand tons of nitrous oxide (the chief ingredient of smog), and seventeen and a half million tons of carbon dioxide (the major culprit in global warming). Widely accepted statistical models project that the plant will cause some three hundred premature deaths annually, from ailments like lung disease and stroke. All of which makes President Bush’s visit to Monroe last week to tout his latest air-quality initiatives either horribly ill-advised or, if you prefer, perversely appropriate.
Even in the catalogue of depredations that is the Bush Administration’s environmental record—a list that includes the decision to reclassify various forms of mining waste as “fill” so that it can be dumped in valleys and streams; the attempt to open up millions of acres of public lands (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) for oil exploration; and the so-called Healthy Forests initiative, whose major beneficiary is the logging industry—the President’s assault on the Clean Air Act stands out. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/030929ta_talk_kolbert
Patriot Act: Legislative Actions we can Support!
Legislation exists to repeal portions of the Patriot Act.
(1) The Freedom to Read Protection Act, HR 1157, sponsored by Bernie Sanders -and C.L. Otter (R-Idaho). It prohibits using funds to access bookstore and library records under the Patriot Act.
(2) S1507 which was introduced by Senators Feingold and Jeffords, raises the threshold necessary to obtain a warrant under the Patriot Act for library and bookstore records by requiring the government to show that the records sought are those of a suspected terrorist or spy.
Call the toll-free Congressional switchboard, 800-839-5276, ask for your congressperson, and register your support or call the state offices of your legislators.
Dissent: ACLU Effort.
They may have rested in the California election issue, but they’re pushing on the Secret Service’s violation of the rights of protesters, the right to express views critical of government who are commonly being moved away from public officials at public demonstrations, while Bushites are allowed to be in closer proximity. (At other times, observers are allowed to be closer than demonstrators). The national lawsuit, filed in Philly, is on behalf of United for Peace and Justice, USAction, NOW, and ACORN.
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Governing Council Breaking with their Bosses
Bit by bit, the appointed group makes independent steps. Our former agent, Ahmed Chalabi, made statements last week that the U.S. should leave immediately. Jim Lobe of Asia Times reports that others on the Council are joining the call. Lobe notes that these voices
… reflect real fears by pro-US Iraqis that Washington's occupation of their country represents not only a serious liability to their own political futures in Iraq, but is also the focus of a mounting anger among ordinary Iraqi civilians that apparently is feeding resistance to the occupation
The council, which late last week called for US troops to withdraw from towns and cities to bases and turn over police duties to Iraqi militias and police, has clearly reached the conclusion that the occupation is turning into a disaster. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI25Ak02.html
WMD: The front page of the NY Times and foreign papers on Thursday summarized the fate of the disappearing Kay Report. A blunt account from Germany (Deutsche Welle):
A preliminary report from US and British arms inspectors tracking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, according to a U.S. official, will show that such weapons have not been found. The BBC quoted the unnamed US government source as saying the so-called Iraq Survey Group will report that not even "minute" amounts of biological or chemical weapons material have been discovered. Addressing the same issue, America's Central Intelligence Agency says that the interim report by former weapons inspector David Kay is unlikely to reach any final conclusions. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,4789_W_978704,00.html
Back to that UN Speech: Other countries were disappointed-but not surprised- that the Bush speech didn’t break with the past. They were also befuddled by some odd contents. Some made sense of it when they reasoned that the speech was meant for domestic consumption. Thus, a quick detour to pull at heartstrings by tossing in comments about the slave trade. More baffling was the diversion supplied by the speech’s call for a new anti-proliferation resolution intended to combat the spread of weapons (of mass destruction). It was out-of-the-blue for the attending diplomats, including our own. Witness the AP report (Dafna Linzer, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/23/international0232EDT0446.DTL) "U.S. and British diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they were surprised by Bush's call for a weapons resolution and that Tuesday was the first time they had heard about the idea."
Other Comments on the Speech: (via the Guardian)
Fred Kaplan, Slate
Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the general assembly as the one George W Bush gave this morning?
Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism-even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused critics of Bush's policies in Iraq of encouraging terrorists. In actuality, it is American aimlessness that offers succour to its enemies by creating the impression that for all its might, the superpower is a very confused beast. Countries like France and Germany do not want America to fail, but nor do they want to be part of a disaster that they rightly see as being perfectly preventable. Their involvement might come with a heavy political price tag, but their continuing estrangement will be even more expensive.
Amir Taheri, Gulf News
The only justification for involving the UN (in Iraq) may have to do with American domestic politics. Bush may want to be in a position to tell his electorate that the UN is now on board in Iraq.
And this is precisely why France, Germany and a few others, who do not wish to see Bush re-elected, are determined to push the price so high as to make it impossible for Washington to accept without losing control of the situation in Iraq. The message that Paris and Berlin wish to convey is this: Bush and his "neo-cons" created a mess, now we enter to save Iraq from destruction.
Daily Nation, Kenya
The appeal (for help on Iraq) is mainly financial and technical and, therefore, is aimed especially at Japan (and) the European Union, especially Germany and France.
But the last two were the very same states which Mr Bush treated with such arrogance when they disagreed with his methods. You would, therefore, expect the US leader to come to them like a chastened man.
But not Mr Bush. He is still demanding that the UN do it strictly under US terms. Yet the mess is America's own. If it wants the international community to mop it up for him, he should ask for it with at least some studied humbleness. Should he not, in fact, hand over everything to the UN?
Schwarzenegger’s Future:
The aforementioned New Yorker issue carries a profile of the actor-candidate. Hendrik Hertzberg reminds us moviegoers that in the movie “Demolition Man”, Sylvester Stallone’s character is projected into the future where he encounters the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library.
This was satire, not prognostication. Either way, though, it appears, at the moment, to be right on schedule. The big technicality, of course, is a clause in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution—the one that states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” On July 10th, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, quietly introduced what he hopes will become the twenty-eighth amendment:
A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.
As it happens, Arnold Schwarzenegger (who, according to the Deseret News, Hatch’s home-town paper, is both a “pal” and a “fund-raising helper” of the Senator’s) became a citizen of the United States precisely twenty years ago. Hatch is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where constitutional amendments originate. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030929fa_fact
-R
