Friday, July 25, 2003
9/11 Who's to Blame?
7/25
There is a long history of imperial powers, gloating over victories, becoming over-extended and overconfident, as their citizens begin to get uneasy because their day-to-day fundamental needs are being sacrificed for military glory while their young are sent to die in wars. The uneasiness grows and grows, and the citizenry gather in resistance in larger and larger numbers, and become too much to control, and one day the top-heavy empire falls over .- Howard Zinn, ZNet
9/11 Report: What Did it Say?
Different reporters, different emphases. Hardly surprising. So, it’s a battle of the framing. Major media and Republicans seemed to push the failures of the FBI-CIA coordination. The opposition either asked ‘What about the Saudis?, as the major excising was about the Saudi connection, or cited the fact that the report acknowledged that there was and is no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. Seems like the Saudi omission is the potentially bigger payoff, and it’s what interests sleuth Michael Moore as well. BTW: Hardly anyone focused on the obvious: that the FBI/CIA may not have coordinated well, but there was plenty of information out there, beginning with the often-referenced statement by Sandy Berger to Condi as he exited with the Clinton Administration: ‘You will be spending more time on terrorism than any other issue.’ But, actually doing so was not in the Right’s game plan...
Speaking of Condi, U.S. News and World Report (Paul Bedard) is speaking to scuttlebutt of "insiders"- that Condi will be next to take "responsibility" and submit her resignation. A bit hard to believe, based on her status in the Administration and rumored future (candidate for Governor or replacement for Colin Powell as Secretary of State).
Coverage Snapshot: A couple of sources let me know of a coverage ‘moment’ today. When the 9/11 Report broke, NPR and the cable news stations all were on it. But, when Rummy and Bremer opened a news conference on whether to release the pictures of the dead Hussein brothers, the cable networks shifted, never to return. NPR stayed with the 9/11 story. Nice example of how the major attention shifted from tracking the elusive bin Laden and al-Qaida to the unnecessary war. This time, at least, NPR got it right.
What’s Happening: Iraq: Three more American soldiers died, five in two days. [At its height, 16 or 17 Americans were dying each day in Vietnam.] There is an almost desperate quality to the political-military figures predicting that this is a blip, that casualties will be fading shortly, in part due to the killing of the Sons. But, the desperation seeps through, including the scouting around- mostly futilely- for foreign troops to share the losses and cover our lack of available soldiers. The attacks have escalated to the area of Mosul, beyond where they had previously been confined, to Baghdad, Fallujah and Tikrit. And, there were many quotes over the last few days from Iraqis that speak to the "broad" base of the insurgency, that it is not confined to "Saddam’s cronies" and thus will have staying power.
The Kristols: Eric Alterman’s Altercation at msnbc.com had a striking observation. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard blasted Gephardt for focusing on the "16 words". His key sentences
There are plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy. But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush's foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush's Democratic critics, they know no such thing.
This is a familiar right-wing attack, but those of us over a certain age or keyed into history will cringe when Alterman digs out the sentences that Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, used in his Commentary magazine in 1952, at the height of the McCarthy period: "For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing."
Alterman goes on to say:
This is truly amazing. It explicitly links the Neocons’ exploitation of the threat of terrorism to that no-good drunken bum, Joe McCarthy, and his use of the charge of "Commie" to ruin lives on a whim through a deliberately stoked mass hysteria. I think there is a great deal of this going on right now, but even I would have been reluctant to go so far. But there it is. The charge worked for McCarthy — at least for a while — and Kristol now seems certain it will work for his team as well. Just one question: Have they no shame? At long last, have they no sense of decency left? Well done.
Environment: Flashback to 1976? The tried and true method for burying an issue is to "study" it. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Bush Administration announced today "the final details of a 10 year plan to study global climate change to determine whether greenhouse gases and other human generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of Earth’s atmosphere."[Washington Post, Guy Gugliotta] Philip Clapp, the president of the National Environmental Trust offered the expectable- "More research is always welcome, but the goal here is just to delay doing anything about the problem."
FCC: "Led" by the unlikely populist William Safire of the Times, the bi-partisan movement has slowed the rush to media gigantism. Viacom, Disney, Murdoch and G.E. have been stalled in their devouring of each and every independent station. The House of Representatives action, countering FCC thrusts and raising the possibility of Michael Powell’s resignation, may prompt a Bush veto, which is threatened.
Gallup Poll: Study; Then, we’ll discuss... [And, I'm afraid, struggle. Sorry for the lay-out; beyond my control]
REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS IN
CURRENT ABILITY TO DEAL WITH SELECTED ISSUES
2003 Jul 18-20
(sorted by Republican "advantage")
Republicans
Democrats
Repub-
lican
Advantage
%
%
%
Terrorism
55
29
+26
The situation with Iraq
51
36
+15
Foreign affairs
46
41
+5
Education
37
49
-12
The federal budget deficit
37
50
-13
The economy
36
53
-17
Unemployment
35
54
-19
Prescription drugs for older Americans
31
53
-22
+
Advantage indicates Republican lead
Advantage indicates Democratic lead
(One) Answer: What matters is that since January, there has been some shifting, with the Democrats gaining in several areas, the largest being the economy. What remains rather perturbing is that despite the complications and incompetence demonstrated in Iraq... but that too is changing.
-R
There is a long history of imperial powers, gloating over victories, becoming over-extended and overconfident, as their citizens begin to get uneasy because their day-to-day fundamental needs are being sacrificed for military glory while their young are sent to die in wars. The uneasiness grows and grows, and the citizenry gather in resistance in larger and larger numbers, and become too much to control, and one day the top-heavy empire falls over .- Howard Zinn, ZNet
9/11 Report: What Did it Say?
Different reporters, different emphases. Hardly surprising. So, it’s a battle of the framing. Major media and Republicans seemed to push the failures of the FBI-CIA coordination. The opposition either asked ‘What about the Saudis?, as the major excising was about the Saudi connection, or cited the fact that the report acknowledged that there was and is no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. Seems like the Saudi omission is the potentially bigger payoff, and it’s what interests sleuth Michael Moore as well. BTW: Hardly anyone focused on the obvious: that the FBI/CIA may not have coordinated well, but there was plenty of information out there, beginning with the often-referenced statement by Sandy Berger to Condi as he exited with the Clinton Administration: ‘You will be spending more time on terrorism than any other issue.’ But, actually doing so was not in the Right’s game plan...
Speaking of Condi, U.S. News and World Report (Paul Bedard) is speaking to scuttlebutt of "insiders"- that Condi will be next to take "responsibility" and submit her resignation. A bit hard to believe, based on her status in the Administration and rumored future (candidate for Governor or replacement for Colin Powell as Secretary of State).
Coverage Snapshot: A couple of sources let me know of a coverage ‘moment’ today. When the 9/11 Report broke, NPR and the cable news stations all were on it. But, when Rummy and Bremer opened a news conference on whether to release the pictures of the dead Hussein brothers, the cable networks shifted, never to return. NPR stayed with the 9/11 story. Nice example of how the major attention shifted from tracking the elusive bin Laden and al-Qaida to the unnecessary war. This time, at least, NPR got it right.
What’s Happening: Iraq: Three more American soldiers died, five in two days. [At its height, 16 or 17 Americans were dying each day in Vietnam.] There is an almost desperate quality to the political-military figures predicting that this is a blip, that casualties will be fading shortly, in part due to the killing of the Sons. But, the desperation seeps through, including the scouting around- mostly futilely- for foreign troops to share the losses and cover our lack of available soldiers. The attacks have escalated to the area of Mosul, beyond where they had previously been confined, to Baghdad, Fallujah and Tikrit. And, there were many quotes over the last few days from Iraqis that speak to the "broad" base of the insurgency, that it is not confined to "Saddam’s cronies" and thus will have staying power.
The Kristols: Eric Alterman’s Altercation at msnbc.com had a striking observation. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard blasted Gephardt for focusing on the "16 words". His key sentences
There are plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy. But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush's foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush's Democratic critics, they know no such thing.
This is a familiar right-wing attack, but those of us over a certain age or keyed into history will cringe when Alterman digs out the sentences that Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, used in his Commentary magazine in 1952, at the height of the McCarthy period: "For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing."
Alterman goes on to say:
This is truly amazing. It explicitly links the Neocons’ exploitation of the threat of terrorism to that no-good drunken bum, Joe McCarthy, and his use of the charge of "Commie" to ruin lives on a whim through a deliberately stoked mass hysteria. I think there is a great deal of this going on right now, but even I would have been reluctant to go so far. But there it is. The charge worked for McCarthy — at least for a while — and Kristol now seems certain it will work for his team as well. Just one question: Have they no shame? At long last, have they no sense of decency left? Well done.
Environment: Flashback to 1976? The tried and true method for burying an issue is to "study" it. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Bush Administration announced today "the final details of a 10 year plan to study global climate change to determine whether greenhouse gases and other human generated pollutants have contributed to an unnatural warming of Earth’s atmosphere."[Washington Post, Guy Gugliotta] Philip Clapp, the president of the National Environmental Trust offered the expectable- "More research is always welcome, but the goal here is just to delay doing anything about the problem."
FCC: "Led" by the unlikely populist William Safire of the Times, the bi-partisan movement has slowed the rush to media gigantism. Viacom, Disney, Murdoch and G.E. have been stalled in their devouring of each and every independent station. The House of Representatives action, countering FCC thrusts and raising the possibility of Michael Powell’s resignation, may prompt a Bush veto, which is threatened.
Gallup Poll: Study; Then, we’ll discuss... [And, I'm afraid, struggle. Sorry for the lay-out; beyond my control]
REPUBLICANS VS. DEMOCRATS IN
CURRENT ABILITY TO DEAL WITH SELECTED ISSUES
2003 Jul 18-20
(sorted by Republican "advantage")
Republicans
Democrats
Repub-
lican
Advantage
%
%
%
Terrorism
55
29
+26
The situation with Iraq
51
36
+15
Foreign affairs
46
41
+5
Education
37
49
-12
The federal budget deficit
37
50
-13
The economy
36
53
-17
Unemployment
35
54
-19
Prescription drugs for older Americans
31
53
-22
+
Advantage indicates Republican lead
Advantage indicates Democratic lead
(One) Answer: What matters is that since January, there has been some shifting, with the Democrats gaining in several areas, the largest being the economy. What remains rather perturbing is that despite the complications and incompetence demonstrated in Iraq... but that too is changing.
-R
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
The Buck Doesn't Stop Here
7/23
The question is not just if the president tells the truth but if the truth- finally- will be told about him. - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
What’s Happening: Iraq:
Yes, But What About…? On occasion I’m asked why I’ve ignored this or that issue. The short answer: I fear ‘overburdening’, so I have intentionally skipped or given short shrift to some important threads. A current case in point- Penny TA asked about the Administration’s ‘outing’ of Joseph Wilson’s wife as a CIA ‘asset.’ Good point. Important issue. It’s pretty easy to lay out why this could be viewed as a criminal act. It’s quite a commentary that this is a ‘secondary’ issue, with minimal media interest. As many of us often note, there are so many outrages to witness/counter/reverse…
Irony is Dead; Long Live Irony: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."- Paul Wolfowitz, visiting Iraq
Casualties: An awkward subject to address with any consistency. But, they are, if anything, escalating. Today the report of 2 deaths and 9 wounded. A couple of web sites have been tracking this, reminding us of the many casualties beyond the official, publicized count. While our media report only 35 to have died, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count notes that 87 have died since May 2, following Bush’s comments off the San Diego coast. [278 US/UK soldiers have died since the invasion’s outset.] That’s a striking number of so-called "non-hostile action" casualties. (lunaville.org). Editor and Publisher notes that the casualty rate has been on the upswing.
The Sons. Saddam’s sons were killed when they and two others fought an allegedly 6 hour gun battle with 350 GIs, helicopters, etc. Why do so many of these reports sound implausible? There certainly was no intention of capturing them. Why not? Although there is no sense that they have been orchestrating the attacks, the media, beginning with the front page of today’s NY Times, is optimistic that their deaths will dramatically lower the frequency of assaults on our troops.
The Incompetence: USA Today- really!- has a comprehensive article on the Administration’s failures in Iraq. You can view Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz’s article at http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030722/5342838s.htm.
Rocket Science: An IAEA official explained to Newsweek how they deciphered that the Niger documents were forgeries. "Within two hours [we] figured out [the Niger yellowcake documents] were forgeries," one IAEA official told Newsweek. How did they do it? "google," said the official. The IAEA ran the name of the Niger foreign minister through the Internet search engine and discovered that he was not in office at the time the document was signed.
So who’s responsible for the words coming out of Bush’s mouth? After 9/11, Bush was actually described as articulate and inspirational. Now, they’re not his words. Stephen Hadley, the newest ‘buck stops here’ fella, reports to Condi, so she’s certainly responsible. She reports to Cheney, so he’s responsible. Cheney reports to…uh, Bush reports to … Well, officially, Cheney reports to Bush. So… But, accountability and responsibility are non-existent for this bunch, who then blame the critics or those that warned them of the problems in their manipulative missions.
And how does Condi get away with this June statement:
'We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery She had known since October, the 5th and 6th, to be precise. Perhaps it’ll just be a matter of her previous statements being labeled ‘inoperative.’
Meanwhile, it looks like the FBI will be assigned the blame for 9/11, according to advance word about the 2001 Commission report, which will be released tomorrow.
RNC Warns DNC/media: The Democratic National Committee sponsored a TV ad that blasts the rush to war. They have announced that the test showing of it will be in Madison, WI, thought to be a "safe" i.e. liberal, location to test its appeal. The Republican National Committee has launched a counterattack in advance: "This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement." That’s right; you can’t even attack these guys. Only they can attack and smear…
Tenet: One cleaver dude! He was seen as taking the hit, but since he’s shown himself far more talented at nuance and self-protection. In the closed-door hearings he’s let out more incriminating information, yet seems immune to attack, as he’s already ‘taken responsibility.’ Furthermore, the CIA has counterattacked effectively enough so as to force the Hadley admission.
Press: As I noted in the last blog, they’re doing better. But they still struggle with ‘calling a spade a spade.’ The case in point is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Credit Milbank with being the first to raise the issue of Bush truthfulness. His oft-cited article in October, while benignly phrased, at least opened the door. Yet, still, 9 months later, when Bush makes his statement about Saddam having not let the inspectors into Iraq, Milbank, like others, refuses to label the statement as "strikingly out-of-touch, or "weird" or simply "blatantly false." Instead, we’re told, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure." Eh? Other times we’re told that Bush ‘isn’t a fact-checker’… As Eric Alterman notes/writes, "what liberal media?"
Of course, if we compare the experiences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations-- In the former we had regular press conferences, an ever-vigilant press, a wing of which was constantly threatening and ultimately impeaching the president for lying about a sexual relationship. Now, we have an occasional scripted press conference, an Administration that regularly threatens and intimidates the press and opponents, and a president who is not impeached despite deceiving us into a war and occupation. Gads. So, let me limit my praise of our awakening press.
USA Patriot Act Good news; a win! The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to roll back a controversial provision, allowing the government to conduct "sneak and peak" searches of private property. The vote was 309-118. It’s the first change to the infamous "anti-terrorism" law.
What’s Happening: Afghanistan: The Telegraph (UK, Ahmed Rashid) provides the latest on the resurgence of the Taliban, a revival that is not at all denied by the American command. The U.S. media still have some catching up to do. Having crossed from Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban "are claiming large swathes of the country, the American commander of coalition force in Kabul said yesterday." Meanwhile, the new Afghan National Army (ANA), numbering 5000 is entering the fray. That’s ANA, not ARVN…
Liberia: Over a month ago Bush demanded that Charles Taylor leave Liberia. He’s still there, as the carnage continues. We’ve apparently backed off flirtations with an outright, full-scale intervention and instead are looking to peace keepers from West Africa to precede us. As reported at allafrica.com, Kofi Annan joined leaders from West African countries in urging a significant American role in the needed intervention.
AmeriCorps: The House and the Bushies are blocking a needed infusion of cash to rescue AmeriCorps, which has warned of drastic cuts to such popular initiatives as Teach for America, City Year and Save the Children if $100 million isn’t appropriated in the next few weeks.
Bush Support Slipping
Zogby [www.zogby.com] reports that Bush has lost his once big lead amongst Arab-Americans. In 2000, Arab Americans voted for Bush 58.5 to 22.5%. Currently, he would lose to ‘a Democrat’ by 52 to 10%. While the Arab vote is not particularly large, it has particular import in Michigan, where it is considered a "swing constituency". Michigan is widely considered to be a toss-up state.
Yahoo (Ron Fournier) had a piece that focused on republicans who were alarmed bout Bush’s falling popularity. Some are nervous about his re-election chances. Note that a CNN-Time poll finds that 47% view Bush as a leader they can trust, which is down from 56% in March. Getting there…
Zogby also noted Gephardt to be leading in Iowa with 32%, followed by Dean, then Kerry.
The California Field Research Institute poll shows Dean to have made dramatic gains, while Liberman and Gephardt have faded. Kerry remained ‘stable’, basically tied with Dean.
Kerry’s steadiness in the polls may have significance for next year: He may be more resilient than stagnant. It’s been fascinating watching Kerry try to be more angry, as the feisty Dean moves up. Many see this change and much of his candidacy as calculating and "political." Here in Massachusetts, most of us know Kerry better than the other candidates and, like many in Vermont, are most critical of our seemingly waffling candidate. Of course, the oddity is that Kerry may have been "correct" in so carefully crafting his position. He actually reflects a broad segment of the populace that supported the invasion, but now harbors doubts about the justifications, evidence and credibility of the Administration. In other words, he’s well positioned and may well survive the ups and downs of the campaign.
Meanwhile, General (Wesley) Clark’s web site is reported to be the second most trafficked of the candidates or almost-candidates.
-R
The question is not just if the president tells the truth but if the truth- finally- will be told about him. - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
What’s Happening: Iraq:
Yes, But What About…? On occasion I’m asked why I’ve ignored this or that issue. The short answer: I fear ‘overburdening’, so I have intentionally skipped or given short shrift to some important threads. A current case in point- Penny TA asked about the Administration’s ‘outing’ of Joseph Wilson’s wife as a CIA ‘asset.’ Good point. Important issue. It’s pretty easy to lay out why this could be viewed as a criminal act. It’s quite a commentary that this is a ‘secondary’ issue, with minimal media interest. As many of us often note, there are so many outrages to witness/counter/reverse…
Irony is Dead; Long Live Irony: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."- Paul Wolfowitz, visiting Iraq
Casualties: An awkward subject to address with any consistency. But, they are, if anything, escalating. Today the report of 2 deaths and 9 wounded. A couple of web sites have been tracking this, reminding us of the many casualties beyond the official, publicized count. While our media report only 35 to have died, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count notes that 87 have died since May 2, following Bush’s comments off the San Diego coast. [278 US/UK soldiers have died since the invasion’s outset.] That’s a striking number of so-called "non-hostile action" casualties. (lunaville.org). Editor and Publisher notes that the casualty rate has been on the upswing.
The Sons. Saddam’s sons were killed when they and two others fought an allegedly 6 hour gun battle with 350 GIs, helicopters, etc. Why do so many of these reports sound implausible? There certainly was no intention of capturing them. Why not? Although there is no sense that they have been orchestrating the attacks, the media, beginning with the front page of today’s NY Times, is optimistic that their deaths will dramatically lower the frequency of assaults on our troops.
The Incompetence: USA Today- really!- has a comprehensive article on the Administration’s failures in Iraq. You can view Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz’s article at http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030722/5342838s.htm.
Rocket Science: An IAEA official explained to Newsweek how they deciphered that the Niger documents were forgeries. "Within two hours [we] figured out [the Niger yellowcake documents] were forgeries," one IAEA official told Newsweek. How did they do it? "google," said the official. The IAEA ran the name of the Niger foreign minister through the Internet search engine and discovered that he was not in office at the time the document was signed.
So who’s responsible for the words coming out of Bush’s mouth? After 9/11, Bush was actually described as articulate and inspirational. Now, they’re not his words. Stephen Hadley, the newest ‘buck stops here’ fella, reports to Condi, so she’s certainly responsible. She reports to Cheney, so he’s responsible. Cheney reports to…uh, Bush reports to … Well, officially, Cheney reports to Bush. So… But, accountability and responsibility are non-existent for this bunch, who then blame the critics or those that warned them of the problems in their manipulative missions.
And how does Condi get away with this June statement:
'We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery She had known since October, the 5th and 6th, to be precise. Perhaps it’ll just be a matter of her previous statements being labeled ‘inoperative.’
Meanwhile, it looks like the FBI will be assigned the blame for 9/11, according to advance word about the 2001 Commission report, which will be released tomorrow.
RNC Warns DNC/media: The Democratic National Committee sponsored a TV ad that blasts the rush to war. They have announced that the test showing of it will be in Madison, WI, thought to be a "safe" i.e. liberal, location to test its appeal. The Republican National Committee has launched a counterattack in advance: "This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement." That’s right; you can’t even attack these guys. Only they can attack and smear…
Tenet: One cleaver dude! He was seen as taking the hit, but since he’s shown himself far more talented at nuance and self-protection. In the closed-door hearings he’s let out more incriminating information, yet seems immune to attack, as he’s already ‘taken responsibility.’ Furthermore, the CIA has counterattacked effectively enough so as to force the Hadley admission.
Press: As I noted in the last blog, they’re doing better. But they still struggle with ‘calling a spade a spade.’ The case in point is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Credit Milbank with being the first to raise the issue of Bush truthfulness. His oft-cited article in October, while benignly phrased, at least opened the door. Yet, still, 9 months later, when Bush makes his statement about Saddam having not let the inspectors into Iraq, Milbank, like others, refuses to label the statement as "strikingly out-of-touch, or "weird" or simply "blatantly false." Instead, we’re told, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure." Eh? Other times we’re told that Bush ‘isn’t a fact-checker’… As Eric Alterman notes/writes, "what liberal media?"
Of course, if we compare the experiences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations-- In the former we had regular press conferences, an ever-vigilant press, a wing of which was constantly threatening and ultimately impeaching the president for lying about a sexual relationship. Now, we have an occasional scripted press conference, an Administration that regularly threatens and intimidates the press and opponents, and a president who is not impeached despite deceiving us into a war and occupation. Gads. So, let me limit my praise of our awakening press.
USA Patriot Act Good news; a win! The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to roll back a controversial provision, allowing the government to conduct "sneak and peak" searches of private property. The vote was 309-118. It’s the first change to the infamous "anti-terrorism" law.
What’s Happening: Afghanistan: The Telegraph (UK, Ahmed Rashid) provides the latest on the resurgence of the Taliban, a revival that is not at all denied by the American command. The U.S. media still have some catching up to do. Having crossed from Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban "are claiming large swathes of the country, the American commander of coalition force in Kabul said yesterday." Meanwhile, the new Afghan National Army (ANA), numbering 5000 is entering the fray. That’s ANA, not ARVN…
Liberia: Over a month ago Bush demanded that Charles Taylor leave Liberia. He’s still there, as the carnage continues. We’ve apparently backed off flirtations with an outright, full-scale intervention and instead are looking to peace keepers from West Africa to precede us. As reported at allafrica.com, Kofi Annan joined leaders from West African countries in urging a significant American role in the needed intervention.
AmeriCorps: The House and the Bushies are blocking a needed infusion of cash to rescue AmeriCorps, which has warned of drastic cuts to such popular initiatives as Teach for America, City Year and Save the Children if $100 million isn’t appropriated in the next few weeks.
Bush Support Slipping
Zogby [www.zogby.com] reports that Bush has lost his once big lead amongst Arab-Americans. In 2000, Arab Americans voted for Bush 58.5 to 22.5%. Currently, he would lose to ‘a Democrat’ by 52 to 10%. While the Arab vote is not particularly large, it has particular import in Michigan, where it is considered a "swing constituency". Michigan is widely considered to be a toss-up state.
Yahoo (Ron Fournier) had a piece that focused on republicans who were alarmed bout Bush’s falling popularity. Some are nervous about his re-election chances. Note that a CNN-Time poll finds that 47% view Bush as a leader they can trust, which is down from 56% in March. Getting there…
Zogby also noted Gephardt to be leading in Iowa with 32%, followed by Dean, then Kerry.
The California Field Research Institute poll shows Dean to have made dramatic gains, while Liberman and Gephardt have faded. Kerry remained ‘stable’, basically tied with Dean.
Kerry’s steadiness in the polls may have significance for next year: He may be more resilient than stagnant. It’s been fascinating watching Kerry try to be more angry, as the feisty Dean moves up. Many see this change and much of his candidacy as calculating and "political." Here in Massachusetts, most of us know Kerry better than the other candidates and, like many in Vermont, are most critical of our seemingly waffling candidate. Of course, the oddity is that Kerry may have been "correct" in so carefully crafting his position. He actually reflects a broad segment of the populace that supported the invasion, but now harbors doubts about the justifications, evidence and credibility of the Administration. In other words, he’s well positioned and may well survive the ups and downs of the campaign.
Meanwhile, General (Wesley) Clark’s web site is reported to be the second most trafficked of the candidates or almost-candidates.
-R
Monday, July 21, 2003
The Press Awakens; Hope for Democracy?
This isn't a jobless recovery -- it's a jobloss recovery.
- Barry Bluestone, American Prospect
Follow-Up: The Press Awakens; Hope for Democracy?
While I’ve been noting the gradual return of journalism, Sunday’s major papers did what they and press conferences have habitually failed to do, followed up on statements or actions of the Administration that cried out for elaboration. So, perhaps this vital function of democracy is being re-instituted. Witness the following:
(1) Suicides: Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post reported on an investigation by the military, seeking to learn more about 7 reported suicides, which I had noted were cited by a GI who was interviewed on ABC News. While the marines have confirmed one death by suicide and are investigating another, military officials emphasized that the suicide rate is lower in the military than in the civilian population, and that "as yet there is no evidence indicating that the cases represent a spike in the rate of military suicides or any kind of pattern that can be linked to the battlefield environment or poor morale in Iraq."
(2) Today’s NY Times on recapping the bombing that preceded the war. In the six months that preceded the invasion of Iraq, I repeatedly cited reports from foreign sources that detailed our regular and escalating bombing of Iraq’s strategic defenses. The Pentagon and the Administration would claim these attacks were in response to Iraqis "illegally" locking on to the attacking planes with their radar. No Democrat uttered a word of complaint; no major U.S. media cited the reports. Now, the NY Times had a front page story on Sunday that a "comprehensive plan to disrupt Iraq’s military command and control system before the Iraq war" had been indeed carried out. The article by Michael Gordon noted that "the strikes, which were conducted from mid 2002 into the first few months of 2003, were justified publicly at the time as a reaction to Iraqi violations of a no-flight zone that the United States and Britain established in southern Iraq. But Lt. Gen. T. Michae! l Moseley, the chief allied war commander, said the attacks also laid the foundations for the military campaign against the Baghdad government.
(3) Schorr on Tariq Aziz and other reports of no wmd. The "capture" of key Iraqi leaders, all pegged to a deck of cards, was supposed to reveal key information- about Saddam’s whereabouts and WMD. Yet, nothing has been revealed about their contributions, and, finally, obvious questions are being raised. Daniel Schorr commented on NPR Sunday about the Friday Wall Street Journal piece (David Cloud) that noted the Iraqis had scrapped their attempt at bio-chemical warfare via ricin back in 1991, and cited the Washington Post article by David Ignatius that noted how the science advisor to Saddam and former Foreign Minister and familiar visage on American t.v., Tariq Aziz, had voluntarily given themselves up back in April, The latter was especially quoted as saying he was willing to talk about ‘whatever.’ The lack of information makes us- and Schorr and Ignatius- wonder: Do they have anything to contribute? Do they in fact confirm the lack of a WMD program? Igna! tius observes What's bothersome about these cases is that they reinforce the impression that the Bush administration has something to hide. Why not disclose the testimony of people the coalition worked so hard to catch? The only convincing explanation, argues a former CIA official, is that their accounts would "directly refute the Bush administration's insistence that WMD still exist somewhere -- an assertion that we all know is growing more questionable every day."
Molly Moore, in Sunday’s Post adds that the Iraqi military was, as many predicted, a weak, poorly coordinated outfit. "So, Saddam's generals lied for money, could not coordinate operations and are still supposed to have access to WMD? It is increasingly likely that much WMD development which took place after 1998 was fictional given the routine nature of lying common in the Iraqi military."
Finally, Roger Ward reports at informationclearinghouse.com that it was well known that in 2001, Iraq had no WMD. A conference of top-level military analysts was told Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- a message that later fell on deaf ears in the American capital, analysts say.
Former Canadian military officer-turned-analyst, Sunil Ram remembers the January 2001 conference Understanding the Lessons of Nuclear Inspections and Monitoring in Iraq: A Ten-Year Review.
What he heard at the meeting he has repeated for months, he says, getting little attention from the mainstream media: that U.S. President George W. Bush had no grounds to base the invasion of Iraq on the disarmament issue.
Syria: These are skeletal reports, but noteworthy!
(1) A UPI report (Richard Sale) that appeared in the Washington Times now portrays that raid as a full scale military operation, one that went more than 25 miles into Syria. The article quoted "several serving and former administration officials". Do you think the rest of the world took notice the border penetration, capture of Syrians, etc.?
(2) The CIA has stepped in and stopped the attempt to portray Syria has possessing a WMD program. Douglas Jehl had reported in the NY Times that "the CIA and other agencies" had strongly objected to expected congressional testimony of John Bolton, under Secretary of State, which was to involve another warning to Syria. The hearing was postponed.
Spurred by the blaming the uranium story on George Tenet, the intelligence community has mobilized against the scapegoating by the Administration.
(3) Seymour Hersh reports in the July 28 New Yorker that the attack on the convey near the Syrian border has not only alienated the local populace; It also all but destroyed the productive connection the Administration had with the Syrian government, which had been an overt ally in finding al-Qaeda. More incompetence.
The Response:
(1) Counterattack on Wilson and Canadian: The vicious crew have now waged a campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson whose trip to Niger had confirmed that the Niger connection was at least highly doubtful. [See the article by Mathew Cooper et al in Time] And, stirred by the ABC report on troop morale, Administration personnel fed Matt Drudge the line that the ABC reporter, Jeffrey Kofman, was not only gay, he was also Canadian! Drudge did his thing and sent it out.
Real classy.
(2) Spin: It’s going great! General Sanchez was all over the media this weekend, trumpeting, "We’re ahead of schedule!" Well, what can he say...
Afghanistan: Contrary Reports: U.S. media have reported ongoing trouble, but are noticeably contrasting with the graphic accounts in the foreign press. The oft-cited Asian Times regularly comments on both disastrous interventions, labeling them failures. The Pakistani Daily Times (dailytimes.com.pk) reports that sixteen US troops and several Afghan militiamen were killed in two separate encounters near Spin Buldak and Urzagan on Friday night. Reports reaching from across the border said, Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami fighters in a joint operation in Urzagan area ambushed a US convoy and killed 12 US troops and four Afghan soldiers. A Taliban commander was also injured seriously. The Taliban also killed four US soldiers in Spin Boldak during another ambush, reports said. The attackers managed to escape.
Who’s to know?
Environment: Ozone Treaty Threatened: They may be preoccupied with the Iraqi aftermath, the Afghan messiness, but they still have energy to do damage elsewhere. Geoffrey Lean of the Independent (UK- independent.co.uk) reports on the threatened destruction of another environmental effort. President George Bush is targeting the international treaty to save the ozone layer which protects all life on earth from deadly radiation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
New US demands - tabled at a little-noticed meeting in Montreal earlier this month - threaten to unravel one of the greatest environmental success stories of the past few decades, causing millions of deaths from cancer.
The news comes at a particularly embarrassing time for the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who pressed the President in their talks in Washington last week to stop his attempts to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol which sets out to control global warming: one of the few international issues on which they differ.
Now, instead of heeding Mr Blair, Mr Bush is undermining the ozone treaty as well, by seeking to perpetuate the use of the most ozone-destructive chemical still employed in developed countries, otherwise soon to be phased out. Ironically, it was sustained pressure from the Reagan administration, in which Mr Bush's father served as vice-president, that ensured the treaty was adopted in the first place. It has proved such a success that environmentalists have long regarded it as inviolable.
-R
- Barry Bluestone, American Prospect
Follow-Up: The Press Awakens; Hope for Democracy?
While I’ve been noting the gradual return of journalism, Sunday’s major papers did what they and press conferences have habitually failed to do, followed up on statements or actions of the Administration that cried out for elaboration. So, perhaps this vital function of democracy is being re-instituted. Witness the following:
(1) Suicides: Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post reported on an investigation by the military, seeking to learn more about 7 reported suicides, which I had noted were cited by a GI who was interviewed on ABC News. While the marines have confirmed one death by suicide and are investigating another, military officials emphasized that the suicide rate is lower in the military than in the civilian population, and that "as yet there is no evidence indicating that the cases represent a spike in the rate of military suicides or any kind of pattern that can be linked to the battlefield environment or poor morale in Iraq."
(2) Today’s NY Times on recapping the bombing that preceded the war. In the six months that preceded the invasion of Iraq, I repeatedly cited reports from foreign sources that detailed our regular and escalating bombing of Iraq’s strategic defenses. The Pentagon and the Administration would claim these attacks were in response to Iraqis "illegally" locking on to the attacking planes with their radar. No Democrat uttered a word of complaint; no major U.S. media cited the reports. Now, the NY Times had a front page story on Sunday that a "comprehensive plan to disrupt Iraq’s military command and control system before the Iraq war" had been indeed carried out. The article by Michael Gordon noted that "the strikes, which were conducted from mid 2002 into the first few months of 2003, were justified publicly at the time as a reaction to Iraqi violations of a no-flight zone that the United States and Britain established in southern Iraq. But Lt. Gen. T. Michae! l Moseley, the chief allied war commander, said the attacks also laid the foundations for the military campaign against the Baghdad government.
(3) Schorr on Tariq Aziz and other reports of no wmd. The "capture" of key Iraqi leaders, all pegged to a deck of cards, was supposed to reveal key information- about Saddam’s whereabouts and WMD. Yet, nothing has been revealed about their contributions, and, finally, obvious questions are being raised. Daniel Schorr commented on NPR Sunday about the Friday Wall Street Journal piece (David Cloud) that noted the Iraqis had scrapped their attempt at bio-chemical warfare via ricin back in 1991, and cited the Washington Post article by David Ignatius that noted how the science advisor to Saddam and former Foreign Minister and familiar visage on American t.v., Tariq Aziz, had voluntarily given themselves up back in April, The latter was especially quoted as saying he was willing to talk about ‘whatever.’ The lack of information makes us- and Schorr and Ignatius- wonder: Do they have anything to contribute? Do they in fact confirm the lack of a WMD program? Igna! tius observes What's bothersome about these cases is that they reinforce the impression that the Bush administration has something to hide. Why not disclose the testimony of people the coalition worked so hard to catch? The only convincing explanation, argues a former CIA official, is that their accounts would "directly refute the Bush administration's insistence that WMD still exist somewhere -- an assertion that we all know is growing more questionable every day."
Molly Moore, in Sunday’s Post adds that the Iraqi military was, as many predicted, a weak, poorly coordinated outfit. "So, Saddam's generals lied for money, could not coordinate operations and are still supposed to have access to WMD? It is increasingly likely that much WMD development which took place after 1998 was fictional given the routine nature of lying common in the Iraqi military."
Finally, Roger Ward reports at informationclearinghouse.com that it was well known that in 2001, Iraq had no WMD. A conference of top-level military analysts was told Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- a message that later fell on deaf ears in the American capital, analysts say.
Former Canadian military officer-turned-analyst, Sunil Ram remembers the January 2001 conference Understanding the Lessons of Nuclear Inspections and Monitoring in Iraq: A Ten-Year Review.
What he heard at the meeting he has repeated for months, he says, getting little attention from the mainstream media: that U.S. President George W. Bush had no grounds to base the invasion of Iraq on the disarmament issue.
Syria: These are skeletal reports, but noteworthy!
(1) A UPI report (Richard Sale) that appeared in the Washington Times now portrays that raid as a full scale military operation, one that went more than 25 miles into Syria. The article quoted "several serving and former administration officials". Do you think the rest of the world took notice the border penetration, capture of Syrians, etc.?
(2) The CIA has stepped in and stopped the attempt to portray Syria has possessing a WMD program. Douglas Jehl had reported in the NY Times that "the CIA and other agencies" had strongly objected to expected congressional testimony of John Bolton, under Secretary of State, which was to involve another warning to Syria. The hearing was postponed.
Spurred by the blaming the uranium story on George Tenet, the intelligence community has mobilized against the scapegoating by the Administration.
(3) Seymour Hersh reports in the July 28 New Yorker that the attack on the convey near the Syrian border has not only alienated the local populace; It also all but destroyed the productive connection the Administration had with the Syrian government, which had been an overt ally in finding al-Qaeda. More incompetence.
The Response:
(1) Counterattack on Wilson and Canadian: The vicious crew have now waged a campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson whose trip to Niger had confirmed that the Niger connection was at least highly doubtful. [See the article by Mathew Cooper et al in Time] And, stirred by the ABC report on troop morale, Administration personnel fed Matt Drudge the line that the ABC reporter, Jeffrey Kofman, was not only gay, he was also Canadian! Drudge did his thing and sent it out.
Real classy.
(2) Spin: It’s going great! General Sanchez was all over the media this weekend, trumpeting, "We’re ahead of schedule!" Well, what can he say...
Afghanistan: Contrary Reports: U.S. media have reported ongoing trouble, but are noticeably contrasting with the graphic accounts in the foreign press. The oft-cited Asian Times regularly comments on both disastrous interventions, labeling them failures. The Pakistani Daily Times (dailytimes.com.pk) reports that sixteen US troops and several Afghan militiamen were killed in two separate encounters near Spin Buldak and Urzagan on Friday night. Reports reaching from across the border said, Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami fighters in a joint operation in Urzagan area ambushed a US convoy and killed 12 US troops and four Afghan soldiers. A Taliban commander was also injured seriously. The Taliban also killed four US soldiers in Spin Boldak during another ambush, reports said. The attackers managed to escape.
Who’s to know?
Environment: Ozone Treaty Threatened: They may be preoccupied with the Iraqi aftermath, the Afghan messiness, but they still have energy to do damage elsewhere. Geoffrey Lean of the Independent (UK- independent.co.uk) reports on the threatened destruction of another environmental effort. President George Bush is targeting the international treaty to save the ozone layer which protects all life on earth from deadly radiation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
New US demands - tabled at a little-noticed meeting in Montreal earlier this month - threaten to unravel one of the greatest environmental success stories of the past few decades, causing millions of deaths from cancer.
The news comes at a particularly embarrassing time for the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who pressed the President in their talks in Washington last week to stop his attempts to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol which sets out to control global warming: one of the few international issues on which they differ.
Now, instead of heeding Mr Blair, Mr Bush is undermining the ozone treaty as well, by seeking to perpetuate the use of the most ozone-destructive chemical still employed in developed countries, otherwise soon to be phased out. Ironically, it was sustained pressure from the Reagan administration, in which Mr Bush's father served as vice-president, that ensured the treaty was adopted in the first place. It has proved such a success that environmentalists have long regarded it as inviolable.
-R
