Sunday, December 21, 2003
"We know where [the WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rumsfeld – 3/30/03
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Free-fire Zone: The U.S. military and their appointees have declared their intention to shoot at demonstrators who chant Saddam’s name. A Reuters report noted that the “regional governor” in the Tikrit area announced that "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon. This is a fair warning." Demonstrations are now illegal in the province surrounding Tikrit; Demonstrators will be sentenced to a year or more in jail.
And, revenge is alive and well. A Washington Post report (Alan Sipress) talks of an escalation.
The massive settling of scores that some U.S. and Iraqi officials had predicted did not initially materialize after Hussein's government fell in April. Sporadic killings occurred during the following months, notably in the southern city of Basra. But only in recent weeks did the tempo of attacks accelerate as Iraqis, frustrated with the slow progress of the court system. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16407-2003Dec19?language=printer
Infiltration: Despite the focusing on Saddam’s capture, the former ruler’s Baath Party agents have apparently “extensively infiltrated” the Coalition military and the Iraqi police, that approximately 162,000 Iraqis work in security-related positions, and many have not been seriously vetted. U.S. authorities reportedly found a list of names in Saddam's brief case of major Baath spies inside the U.S. command center. http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=1394682003 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_infiltrators_031218.html
Our Buddy Saddam:
Plenty of reports still circulating as to the coddling of Saddam by Reagan-Rumsfeld et al. The Washington Post (Dana Priest) report reminded us of Rumsfeld’s 1984 visit when he was to convey “that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13558-2003Dec18.html. And the National Security Archive has extensive documents on the coddling, including how the Bechtel Corporation subverted 1988 Congressional sanctions on Iraq for their using wmd. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/index.htm
Credit for The Capture.
Many foreign sources (below) noting that the Kurds steered the GIs to Saddam, that it wasn’t the work of American intelligence. Not sure how much this matters... in the scheme of things…
Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.
… in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html http://www.sundayherald.com/38816
http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f8610bdc87544a239bb745e7b823d3d7&lat=1072036223&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecommondreams%2eorg%2fheadlines03%2f1221%2d02%2ehtm
WMD: As I noted in the last blog, David Kay gave it up. Add to that Bush’s note (the Diane Sawyer interview) re possessing wmd vs wanting to- ‘what’s the difference?’- and it seems evident that the Administration is burying the issue.
Scott Ritter agrees. “ I think David Kay is at the end of his tether and that if he thought there was a job to be done, he would stay and do it, think the CIA and the White House have concluded that there are no WMD to be found and that Kay's continued presence is itself a distraction”.
Ritter, no dope, rightfully posits that the Administration is seeking to use the Saddam capture "to divert attention from the WMD issue. The test will be whether Congress and the American people will stand for that”.
Joint Intelligence Center Is Urged; Cooperation Suggested! Shocking!
After two plus years of post 9/11 bluster, a Republican, Rep Frank Wolf (Va.), suggested that we should be sharing information with our allies- "it is critical for national law enforcement agencies to begin sharing law enforcement assets on a global basis, which does not currently exist. International cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement agencies is the next step in addressing terrorism."
…still another point the Democratic candidates could be making…http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17873-2003Dec20?language=printer
Condi Not Enthused Re going under oath for the Kean 9/11 commission.
Time Magazine (Timothy J. Burger) reports that Condi Rice is more than hesitant to take the oath or talk in public about what she knows.
Poised to convene its first hard-hitting hearings in January, the federal commission investigating the 9/11 attacks continues to be at odds with the White House over access to key information and witnesses. Two government sources tell TIME that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is arguing over ground rules for her appearance in part because she does not want to testify under oath or, according to one source, in public. While national security advisers are presidential staff and generally don’t have to appear before Congress, the commission argues that its jurisdiction is broader—and it's been requiring fact witnesses in its massive investigation to testify under oath. The exception: it may not seek to swear in President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bill Clinton or Al Gore…http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,565974,00.html
Germany’s Social Welfare State takes a Hit
Bears watching… Schroder has been pressured, has relented to an extent. A report from The Independent (Tony Patterson).
Employment protection laws will be eased to enable small companies to dismiss workers at short notice. Unemployment and social welfare benefits will be merged to reduce costs. Germany's long-term unemployed will also face penalties if they refuse to take jobs, even if they pay below union rates.
The programme also includes measures to raise tobacco tax, lower income tax and introduce an amnesty for taxpayers who declare hitherto undisclosed reserves of foreign capital.
But the Christian Democrats yesterday criticised the programme for failing to curb trade-union collective bargaining and across-the-board pay rates considered a deterrent to investors."We would have liked to have seen much more," said Angela Merkel, the conservative leader.
German business leaders have said that Mr Schröder's reforms will have little impact on the economy and have called for more draconian measures. Initial reaction from bankers was sceptical yesterday.
Mr Schröder's Social Democrats were hoping the reform package would help to rescue their party. The SPD's popularity has managed only 25 per cent of voter support this year, compared with 50 per cent for the opposition . http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=474858
Libya:
Usual unseemly stuff from the Administration. Qaddafi had sought to normalize relations for years, and this announcement came after long negotiations with our allies; it was not a result of Saddam’s capture, of the preemptive war policy. Tony Blair made this clear in his announcement. Typically, the White House noted that ‘the president will be making a statement shortly’… while they wrote it out for Bush. Foreign media were unanimous on this one. From Deutsche Welle (Germany).
The outcome in Libya signals another victory for European diplomacy in dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While the US has opted to take a heavy handed approach with Iraq, many governments in Europe, including Germany and France, have chosen to engage isolationist countries with a carrot and stick approach.
In October, foreign ministers from Europe’s big three – Great Britain, France and Germany – travelled to Iran and successfully convinced Iranian officials to agree to nuclear inspections. Libya’s decision may send a message to North Korea, which remains defiant despite mounting international pressure.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1065055_1_A,00.html
Bush Fundraising Letter: How they Think:
The current Bush fundraising letter brings up the spectre of the evil foreigners corrupting our elections, that Clark talks to “Europeans”! The Yahoo story (Randall Mikkelsen) …
The new letter said, "Democrats will do or say anything to defeat our president, wild accusations, reckless conspiracy theories and now raising money from foreign anti-American activists."
"Web sites for Wesley Clark and Howard Dean direct visitors from outside the United States to liberal fund-raising Web sites, where foreign donors can pledge money to fund left-wing efforts to defeat President Bush," it said. Foreign donations directly to campaigns are prohibited.
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel declined to comment, other than to say, "We certainly stand by our letter."
Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's spokesman on Friday criticized as "bizarre" a fund-raising pitch for President Bush that seemed to question a visit by Clark to Europe, where he testified against ex-Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
The e-mail letter, sent by Bush reelection campaign manager Ken Mehlman and dated on Thursday, accuses Democratic presidential candidates of "raising foreign cash to attack our president."
It goes on to say, "Wesley Clark, who was in Europe when Saddam Hussein was captured, criticized the president this week and said that rather than going after Saddam, he would have let the United Nations continue to seek the dictator's cooperation."
"We don't know why the Bush allies would question Gen. Clark's participation in a trial against a murderous despot," Clark spokesman Matt Bennett told Reuters. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20031219/pl_nm/politics_bush_clark_dc
Bush Administration plays with the Media From the Boston Globe (!) (Mark Jurkowitz)
News executives of most Boston television stations are decidedly unenthusiastic about a Bush administration plan to transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in an attempt to supplement media coverage from that war-torn country.
The satellite link, dubbed "C-SPAN Baghdad," is designed to put a more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts.
"I'm kind of appalled by it. I think it's very troubling," said Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. "I think the government has no business being in the news business."
"We have no interest in this," said WBZ-TV (Channel 4) news director Peter Brown. "The Fourth Estate is independent and should remain so. As news providers, we should go there and see for ourselves." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/19/iraq_newsfeed_draws_criticism/
Bush Administration and Expunging History
Seems that a now regular practice is to clean up old postings on governmental web sites that have since been proven to be untrue. The Washington Post (Dana Milbank, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9821-2003Dec17.html and others including the Daily Mislead http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/read.asp?fn=df12182003.html have been on this. An example cited: On April 23, former Bostonian Andrew Natsios, USAID Director, reassured as to the cost of the war to “American taxpayers”. But once the figure was far exceeded, no apology or clarification was forthcoming, just the removal of the citation.
Dean Not Far Off: Even the public agrees that we ain’t safer
Polls show that the American public was not swayed by The Capture to think that we’re safer. And, the Heartland editorializes (Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune)
We don't have a dog in the Democratic presidential fight, but we do know that front-runner Howard Dean, like him or not, is getting beaten up unfairly for telling an unpleasant truth: The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer. It was an excellent piece of work, it may make Iraqis safer, and it may help protect American forces in Iraq. But the capture does nothing directly to secure the United States from the danger posed by terrorism.
That's because the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam was an ogre who can legitimately be charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and assorted other nasty behaviors. But there's no evidence he was an international terrorist, and that's not likely to change no matter how many times the Bush administration says it knows he was.
Dean was merely saying in a different way what many have said before: The invasion of Iraq actually has been a serious distraction from the real war on terror. Resources and international goodwill that would have been useful in fighting Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations worldwide have been squandered in order to depose Saddam and remake Iraq. http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=4276000
Frank Rich: The always entertaining Mr. Rich notes the ongoing effort to marginalize Dean. Not a Dean partisan, he nevertheless finds the Dean candidacy to be historic… in a sense…
Rather than compare Dr. Dean to McGovern or Goldwater, it may make more sense to recall Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It was not until F.D.R.'s fireside chats on radio in 1933 that a medium in mass use for years became a political force. J.F.K. did the same for television, not only by vanquishing the camera-challenged Richard Nixon during the 1960 debates but by replacing the Eisenhower White House's prerecorded TV news conferences (which could be cleaned up with editing) with live broadcasts. Until Kennedy proved otherwise, most of Washington's wise men thought, as The New York Times columnist James Reston wrote in 1961, that a spontaneous televised press conference was "the goofiest idea since the Hula Hoop."
Such has been much of the reaction to the Dean campaign's breakthrough use of its chosen medium. In Washington, the Internet is still seen mainly as a high-velocity disseminator of gossip (Drudge) and rabidly partisan sharpshooting by self-publishing excoriators of the left and right. When used by campaigns, the Internet becomes a synonym for "the young," "geeks," "small contributors" and "upper middle class," as if it were an eccentric electronic cousin to direct-mail fund-raising run by the acne-prone members of a suburban high school's computer club. In other words, the political establishment has been blindsided by the Internet's growing sophistication as a political tool — and therefore blindsided by the Dean campaign — much as the music industry establishment was by file sharing and the major movie studios were by "The Blair Witch Project," the amateurish under-$100,000 movie that turned viral marketing on the Web into a financial mother lode.
The condescending reaction to the Dean insurgency by television's political correspondents can be reminiscent of that hilarious party scene in the movie "Singin' in the Rain," where Hollywood's silent-era elite greets the advent of talkies with dismissive bafflement…
Should Dr. Dean actually end up running against President Bush next year, an utterly asymmetrical battle will be joined. The Bush-Cheney machine is a centralized hierarchy reflecting its pre-digital C.E.O. ethos (and the political training of Karl Rove); it is accustomed to broadcasting to voters from on high rather than drawing most of its grass-roots power from what bubbles up from insurgents below.
For all sorts of real-world reasons, stretching from Baghdad to Wall Street, Mr. Bush could squish Dr. Dean like a bug next November. But just as anything can happen in politics, anything can happen on the Internet. The music industry thought tough talk, hard-knuckle litigation and lobbying Congress could stop the forces unleashed by Shawn Fanning, the teenager behind Napster. Today the record business is in meltdown, and more Americans use file-sharing software than voted for Mr. Bush in the last presidential election. The luckiest thing that could happen to the Dean campaign is that its opponents remain oblivious to recent digital history and keep focusing on analog analogies to McGovern and Goldwater instead. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/arts/21RICH.html
-R
What’s Happening, Iraq:
Free-fire Zone: The U.S. military and their appointees have declared their intention to shoot at demonstrators who chant Saddam’s name. A Reuters report noted that the “regional governor” in the Tikrit area announced that "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon. This is a fair warning." Demonstrations are now illegal in the province surrounding Tikrit; Demonstrators will be sentenced to a year or more in jail.
And, revenge is alive and well. A Washington Post report (Alan Sipress) talks of an escalation.
The massive settling of scores that some U.S. and Iraqi officials had predicted did not initially materialize after Hussein's government fell in April. Sporadic killings occurred during the following months, notably in the southern city of Basra. But only in recent weeks did the tempo of attacks accelerate as Iraqis, frustrated with the slow progress of the court system. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16407-2003Dec19?language=printer
Infiltration: Despite the focusing on Saddam’s capture, the former ruler’s Baath Party agents have apparently “extensively infiltrated” the Coalition military and the Iraqi police, that approximately 162,000 Iraqis work in security-related positions, and many have not been seriously vetted. U.S. authorities reportedly found a list of names in Saddam's brief case of major Baath spies inside the U.S. command center. http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=1394682003 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_infiltrators_031218.html
Our Buddy Saddam:
Plenty of reports still circulating as to the coddling of Saddam by Reagan-Rumsfeld et al. The Washington Post (Dana Priest) report reminded us of Rumsfeld’s 1984 visit when he was to convey “that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13558-2003Dec18.html. And the National Security Archive has extensive documents on the coddling, including how the Bechtel Corporation subverted 1988 Congressional sanctions on Iraq for their using wmd. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/index.htm
Credit for The Capture.
Many foreign sources (below) noting that the Kurds steered the GIs to Saddam, that it wasn’t the work of American intelligence. Not sure how much this matters... in the scheme of things…
Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.
… in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html http://www.sundayherald.com/38816
http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f8610bdc87544a239bb745e7b823d3d7&lat=1072036223&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecommondreams%2eorg%2fheadlines03%2f1221%2d02%2ehtm
WMD: As I noted in the last blog, David Kay gave it up. Add to that Bush’s note (the Diane Sawyer interview) re possessing wmd vs wanting to- ‘what’s the difference?’- and it seems evident that the Administration is burying the issue.
Scott Ritter agrees. “ I think David Kay is at the end of his tether and that if he thought there was a job to be done, he would stay and do it, think the CIA and the White House have concluded that there are no WMD to be found and that Kay's continued presence is itself a distraction”.
Ritter, no dope, rightfully posits that the Administration is seeking to use the Saddam capture "to divert attention from the WMD issue. The test will be whether Congress and the American people will stand for that”.
Joint Intelligence Center Is Urged; Cooperation Suggested! Shocking!
After two plus years of post 9/11 bluster, a Republican, Rep Frank Wolf (Va.), suggested that we should be sharing information with our allies- "it is critical for national law enforcement agencies to begin sharing law enforcement assets on a global basis, which does not currently exist. International cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement agencies is the next step in addressing terrorism."
…still another point the Democratic candidates could be making…http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17873-2003Dec20?language=printer
Condi Not Enthused Re going under oath for the Kean 9/11 commission.
Time Magazine (Timothy J. Burger) reports that Condi Rice is more than hesitant to take the oath or talk in public about what she knows.
Poised to convene its first hard-hitting hearings in January, the federal commission investigating the 9/11 attacks continues to be at odds with the White House over access to key information and witnesses. Two government sources tell TIME that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is arguing over ground rules for her appearance in part because she does not want to testify under oath or, according to one source, in public. While national security advisers are presidential staff and generally don’t have to appear before Congress, the commission argues that its jurisdiction is broader—and it's been requiring fact witnesses in its massive investigation to testify under oath. The exception: it may not seek to swear in President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bill Clinton or Al Gore…http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,565974,00.html
Germany’s Social Welfare State takes a Hit
Bears watching… Schroder has been pressured, has relented to an extent. A report from The Independent (Tony Patterson).
Employment protection laws will be eased to enable small companies to dismiss workers at short notice. Unemployment and social welfare benefits will be merged to reduce costs. Germany's long-term unemployed will also face penalties if they refuse to take jobs, even if they pay below union rates.
The programme also includes measures to raise tobacco tax, lower income tax and introduce an amnesty for taxpayers who declare hitherto undisclosed reserves of foreign capital.
But the Christian Democrats yesterday criticised the programme for failing to curb trade-union collective bargaining and across-the-board pay rates considered a deterrent to investors."We would have liked to have seen much more," said Angela Merkel, the conservative leader.
German business leaders have said that Mr Schröder's reforms will have little impact on the economy and have called for more draconian measures. Initial reaction from bankers was sceptical yesterday.
Mr Schröder's Social Democrats were hoping the reform package would help to rescue their party. The SPD's popularity has managed only 25 per cent of voter support this year, compared with 50 per cent for the opposition . http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=474858
Libya:
Usual unseemly stuff from the Administration. Qaddafi had sought to normalize relations for years, and this announcement came after long negotiations with our allies; it was not a result of Saddam’s capture, of the preemptive war policy. Tony Blair made this clear in his announcement. Typically, the White House noted that ‘the president will be making a statement shortly’… while they wrote it out for Bush. Foreign media were unanimous on this one. From Deutsche Welle (Germany).
The outcome in Libya signals another victory for European diplomacy in dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While the US has opted to take a heavy handed approach with Iraq, many governments in Europe, including Germany and France, have chosen to engage isolationist countries with a carrot and stick approach.
In October, foreign ministers from Europe’s big three – Great Britain, France and Germany – travelled to Iran and successfully convinced Iranian officials to agree to nuclear inspections. Libya’s decision may send a message to North Korea, which remains defiant despite mounting international pressure.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1065055_1_A,00.html
Bush Fundraising Letter: How they Think:
The current Bush fundraising letter brings up the spectre of the evil foreigners corrupting our elections, that Clark talks to “Europeans”! The Yahoo story (Randall Mikkelsen) …
The new letter said, "Democrats will do or say anything to defeat our president, wild accusations, reckless conspiracy theories and now raising money from foreign anti-American activists."
"Web sites for Wesley Clark and Howard Dean direct visitors from outside the United States to liberal fund-raising Web sites, where foreign donors can pledge money to fund left-wing efforts to defeat President Bush," it said. Foreign donations directly to campaigns are prohibited.
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel declined to comment, other than to say, "We certainly stand by our letter."
Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's spokesman on Friday criticized as "bizarre" a fund-raising pitch for President Bush that seemed to question a visit by Clark to Europe, where he testified against ex-Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
The e-mail letter, sent by Bush reelection campaign manager Ken Mehlman and dated on Thursday, accuses Democratic presidential candidates of "raising foreign cash to attack our president."
It goes on to say, "Wesley Clark, who was in Europe when Saddam Hussein was captured, criticized the president this week and said that rather than going after Saddam, he would have let the United Nations continue to seek the dictator's cooperation."
"We don't know why the Bush allies would question Gen. Clark's participation in a trial against a murderous despot," Clark spokesman Matt Bennett told Reuters. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20031219/pl_nm/politics_bush_clark_dc
Bush Administration plays with the Media From the Boston Globe (!) (Mark Jurkowitz)
News executives of most Boston television stations are decidedly unenthusiastic about a Bush administration plan to transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in an attempt to supplement media coverage from that war-torn country.
The satellite link, dubbed "C-SPAN Baghdad," is designed to put a more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts.
"I'm kind of appalled by it. I think it's very troubling," said Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. "I think the government has no business being in the news business."
"We have no interest in this," said WBZ-TV (Channel 4) news director Peter Brown. "The Fourth Estate is independent and should remain so. As news providers, we should go there and see for ourselves." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/19/iraq_newsfeed_draws_criticism/
Bush Administration and Expunging History
Seems that a now regular practice is to clean up old postings on governmental web sites that have since been proven to be untrue. The Washington Post (Dana Milbank, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9821-2003Dec17.html and others including the Daily Mislead http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/read.asp?fn=df12182003.html have been on this. An example cited: On April 23, former Bostonian Andrew Natsios, USAID Director, reassured as to the cost of the war to “American taxpayers”. But once the figure was far exceeded, no apology or clarification was forthcoming, just the removal of the citation.
Dean Not Far Off: Even the public agrees that we ain’t safer
Polls show that the American public was not swayed by The Capture to think that we’re safer. And, the Heartland editorializes (Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune)
We don't have a dog in the Democratic presidential fight, but we do know that front-runner Howard Dean, like him or not, is getting beaten up unfairly for telling an unpleasant truth: The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer. It was an excellent piece of work, it may make Iraqis safer, and it may help protect American forces in Iraq. But the capture does nothing directly to secure the United States from the danger posed by terrorism.
That's because the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam was an ogre who can legitimately be charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and assorted other nasty behaviors. But there's no evidence he was an international terrorist, and that's not likely to change no matter how many times the Bush administration says it knows he was.
Dean was merely saying in a different way what many have said before: The invasion of Iraq actually has been a serious distraction from the real war on terror. Resources and international goodwill that would have been useful in fighting Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations worldwide have been squandered in order to depose Saddam and remake Iraq. http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=4276000
Frank Rich: The always entertaining Mr. Rich notes the ongoing effort to marginalize Dean. Not a Dean partisan, he nevertheless finds the Dean candidacy to be historic… in a sense…
Rather than compare Dr. Dean to McGovern or Goldwater, it may make more sense to recall Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It was not until F.D.R.'s fireside chats on radio in 1933 that a medium in mass use for years became a political force. J.F.K. did the same for television, not only by vanquishing the camera-challenged Richard Nixon during the 1960 debates but by replacing the Eisenhower White House's prerecorded TV news conferences (which could be cleaned up with editing) with live broadcasts. Until Kennedy proved otherwise, most of Washington's wise men thought, as The New York Times columnist James Reston wrote in 1961, that a spontaneous televised press conference was "the goofiest idea since the Hula Hoop."
Such has been much of the reaction to the Dean campaign's breakthrough use of its chosen medium. In Washington, the Internet is still seen mainly as a high-velocity disseminator of gossip (Drudge) and rabidly partisan sharpshooting by self-publishing excoriators of the left and right. When used by campaigns, the Internet becomes a synonym for "the young," "geeks," "small contributors" and "upper middle class," as if it were an eccentric electronic cousin to direct-mail fund-raising run by the acne-prone members of a suburban high school's computer club. In other words, the political establishment has been blindsided by the Internet's growing sophistication as a political tool — and therefore blindsided by the Dean campaign — much as the music industry establishment was by file sharing and the major movie studios were by "The Blair Witch Project," the amateurish under-$100,000 movie that turned viral marketing on the Web into a financial mother lode.
The condescending reaction to the Dean insurgency by television's political correspondents can be reminiscent of that hilarious party scene in the movie "Singin' in the Rain," where Hollywood's silent-era elite greets the advent of talkies with dismissive bafflement…
Should Dr. Dean actually end up running against President Bush next year, an utterly asymmetrical battle will be joined. The Bush-Cheney machine is a centralized hierarchy reflecting its pre-digital C.E.O. ethos (and the political training of Karl Rove); it is accustomed to broadcasting to voters from on high rather than drawing most of its grass-roots power from what bubbles up from insurgents below.
For all sorts of real-world reasons, stretching from Baghdad to Wall Street, Mr. Bush could squish Dr. Dean like a bug next November. But just as anything can happen in politics, anything can happen on the Internet. The music industry thought tough talk, hard-knuckle litigation and lobbying Congress could stop the forces unleashed by Shawn Fanning, the teenager behind Napster. Today the record business is in meltdown, and more Americans use file-sharing software than voted for Mr. Bush in the last presidential election. The luckiest thing that could happen to the Dean campaign is that its opponents remain oblivious to recent digital history and keep focusing on analog analogies to McGovern and Goldwater instead. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/arts/21RICH.html
-R
