Thursday, September 18, 2003
The House Line Keeps Changing: Saddam didn’t do 9/11!
While the NY Times buried it, the Boston Globe, LA Times and many others have headlined Bush’s ‘clarification’ that Saddam had no involvement with the 9/11 attack. Since Cheney spun more conflating, misleading statements last Sunday, Rumsfeld, Cheney and now Bush have admitted Saddam’s non-involvement, and his not being close to attain nuclear weapons. [On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link- factually correct, yes.] It seems that the media’s waking up on this issue has forced these clarifications. Bush continues to note that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."
Wesley Clark Enters:
The NY Times take was to see Clark as the creature of the Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Council. His goal: to wipe out Dean. Others speculate that he’s there to lose, to set up Hillary for her ’08 run. Richard Cohen in the Washington Post uses the occasion to trash Dean:
The only candidate who has so far generated any excitement is Howard Dean. But if the Bush team could digitally create the perfect patsy candidate it would be Dean. He's gaffe-prone, defensive when criticized and, fairly or not (mostly not), will be characterized as an elitist liberal. Besides, he is the governor of a virtual quilt -- a state (Vermont) with 114 covered bridges and fewer minorities than the DAR .
And, on Clark …the personal qualities that bothered his critics would be intolerable in a president. We like our presidents as we like our morning TV hosts -- comfy.
No shortage of negative press on Clark, including the following from the Progressive Review, which quotes Politicus (www.politicus.com)
As recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office- as a Republican. Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day. Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark.
Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list – his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.
Greater Iraq:
Germany is now willing to join in the training of a new Iraqi police force, joining the French in this endeavor (despite Tom Friedman’s NY Times column blaming the French for our Iraq troubles). French President Chirac seemed to speak for both countries in again asserting that he advocates a speedy transfer of power to the UN and Iraq "in a matter of months, not years."
The Dalai Lama Speaks Out: Unsure Re Iraq War: The NY Times (Laurie Goodstein) noted that the Dalai Lama, who has won a Nobel Peace Prize (as did Henry Kissinger), said that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence, and that it was "too early to say" whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. "I feel only history will tell," he said. "Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures."
No Comment.
Casualties: Multiple, overlapping, conflicting reports. As a result, it's unusually difficult to know what’s happened. The BBC report from early Thursday said that at least 3 soldiers died in an incident in Khaldiyah, west of Baghdad; The Guardian claimed that "up to eight" had died. (more below) Three soldiers were admittedly killed in Tikrit, another in a so-called "non-hostile gunshot" incident and still another killed by a power line. There are also several reports of soldiers being wounded.
The Guardian’s disturbing report:
An Associated Press reporter at the scene said two US tanks and helicopters were guarding a smouldering transport truck, which had apparently been destroyed by rebels.:
The reporter was unable to get close enough to verify the casualty reports and was fired on by one of the tanks with three rounds from its 50-calibre machine gun. It appeared the troops, who were taking fire from unknown positions, were trying to protect themselves until reinforcements arrived.
Earlier, a 14-year-old Iraqi boy was reportedly killed when a US patrol opened fire on wedding guests who were firing celebratory shots into the air.
Residents in the town of Falluja, 32 miles northwest of Baghdad, said the boy was killed and six other people were injured when passing US troops mistook the wedding gunfire for a guerrilla attack
Saudi Arabia: Seeking Nukes! The Guardian ( Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor) noted that Saudi Arabia "has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons."
A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options:
· To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent;
· To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection;
· To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East.
Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.
-R
While the NY Times buried it, the Boston Globe, LA Times and many others have headlined Bush’s ‘clarification’ that Saddam had no involvement with the 9/11 attack. Since Cheney spun more conflating, misleading statements last Sunday, Rumsfeld, Cheney and now Bush have admitted Saddam’s non-involvement, and his not being close to attain nuclear weapons. [On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link- factually correct, yes.] It seems that the media’s waking up on this issue has forced these clarifications. Bush continues to note that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."
Wesley Clark Enters:
The NY Times take was to see Clark as the creature of the Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Council. His goal: to wipe out Dean. Others speculate that he’s there to lose, to set up Hillary for her ’08 run. Richard Cohen in the Washington Post uses the occasion to trash Dean:
The only candidate who has so far generated any excitement is Howard Dean. But if the Bush team could digitally create the perfect patsy candidate it would be Dean. He's gaffe-prone, defensive when criticized and, fairly or not (mostly not), will be characterized as an elitist liberal. Besides, he is the governor of a virtual quilt -- a state (Vermont) with 114 covered bridges and fewer minorities than the DAR .
And, on Clark …the personal qualities that bothered his critics would be intolerable in a president. We like our presidents as we like our morning TV hosts -- comfy.
No shortage of negative press on Clark, including the following from the Progressive Review, which quotes Politicus (www.politicus.com)
As recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office- as a Republican. Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day. Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark.
Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list – his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.
Greater Iraq:
Germany is now willing to join in the training of a new Iraqi police force, joining the French in this endeavor (despite Tom Friedman’s NY Times column blaming the French for our Iraq troubles). French President Chirac seemed to speak for both countries in again asserting that he advocates a speedy transfer of power to the UN and Iraq "in a matter of months, not years."
The Dalai Lama Speaks Out: Unsure Re Iraq War: The NY Times (Laurie Goodstein) noted that the Dalai Lama, who has won a Nobel Peace Prize (as did Henry Kissinger), said that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence, and that it was "too early to say" whether the war in Iraq was a mistake. "I feel only history will tell," he said. "Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures."
No Comment.
Casualties: Multiple, overlapping, conflicting reports. As a result, it's unusually difficult to know what’s happened. The BBC report from early Thursday said that at least 3 soldiers died in an incident in Khaldiyah, west of Baghdad; The Guardian claimed that "up to eight" had died. (more below) Three soldiers were admittedly killed in Tikrit, another in a so-called "non-hostile gunshot" incident and still another killed by a power line. There are also several reports of soldiers being wounded.
The Guardian’s disturbing report:
An Associated Press reporter at the scene said two US tanks and helicopters were guarding a smouldering transport truck, which had apparently been destroyed by rebels.:
The reporter was unable to get close enough to verify the casualty reports and was fired on by one of the tanks with three rounds from its 50-calibre machine gun. It appeared the troops, who were taking fire from unknown positions, were trying to protect themselves until reinforcements arrived.
Earlier, a 14-year-old Iraqi boy was reportedly killed when a US patrol opened fire on wedding guests who were firing celebratory shots into the air.
Residents in the town of Falluja, 32 miles northwest of Baghdad, said the boy was killed and six other people were injured when passing US troops mistook the wedding gunfire for a guerrilla attack
Saudi Arabia: Seeking Nukes! The Guardian ( Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor) noted that Saudi Arabia "has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons."
A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options:
· To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent;
· To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection;
· To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East.
Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.
-R
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Lies:
Until recently, the word was avoided. Bush was guilty of, perhaps, misrepresentations, but lies could not be attributed to our "war leader". But now books on the NY Times best seller list include The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell (Al Franken), as well as others by Jim Hightower and Joe Conason that don't hesitate to utilize the word. And, more are being rolled out, such as The Lies of George W. Bush: The Politics of Deception (David Corn). So it's OK to say it. And the Democrats are increasingly bold.
So the trend is positive. There's still the problem of how to help more people respond, to help them not turn away and continue pretending that the integrity of the president and his coterie is intact. We're dealing with a powerful human tendency- the wish to believe, not to know, to be optimistic/positive. But, again, straight-talking is increasingly effective. And, conveying these positive trends further builds morale of the like-minded. Working with FITE, Fairness in Taxes for Everyone, confirms that people know basic truths-The wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes- but feel isolated and thus are hesitant to act until they're more aware of others with the same beliefs.
David Corn of The Nation did one of the many summaries of Bush lies (moveon.org's ad today is a highly visible take.) We're most familiar with the Iraq-wmd lies. So, here's his summary re education.
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems." A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949
Then, in Salon, Kerry Lauerman interviews CNN's Tucker Carlson who recounts a conversation that he had with Bush's communication director, Karen Hughes, following a campaign trail article that he wrote for Talk magazine: "The striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway."
FCC: Nice to have a victory, as Republicans- who are increasingly feisty in breaking with the usual Republican discipline- joined the Democrats in reject the FCC rule changes. Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org follows this closely, and aptly celebrates but cautions that this was but one ˜battle".
But then Senator McCain, who had opposed the FCC spoke, and my euphoria about what I knew began to melt. He explained the measure won't have the effect most of those voting for it believed it would have. He explained the FCC does not cover the cable industry and that is where concentration is most advanced as I noted yesterday by quoting a Wall Street Journal article about cable outlets dominated by a few companies like Viacom and General Electric. McCain warned that the House was unlikely to back the Senate measure and that a Presidential veto was still possible. He was advocating a new bill reported out of the Senate Commerce committee which doesn't just disapprove of the FCC action but mandates changes in media laws. He gave me pause. Could the resolution actually undermine structural reform while making us feel good? I don't know--but it was clear we all have to learn more about the deeper issues.
It is clear that yesterday's vote was a small victory in a continuing media war. The FCC rules are complex. The industry is even more devious than most people realize and has market power and lots of money. It too is divided among competing interests. Battling this beast requires a long-term strategy and persistence. Does the media reform movement fully understand what we are up against here?
Power Arrangements: The U.S. is paying the price for its brash unilateralism. Subtle changes include the western European countries banding together in a political-military alliance, previously noted here. Now, Gerhard Schroeder is forging deeper ties for Germany in the Asia-Pacific region, especially with India. Simultaneously, Schroeder is effecting somewhat of a rapprochement with the U.S., agreeing to a meeting with Bush next week. [The German chancellor is also meeting with Blair and Jacques Chirac, hoping to further repair the ties that were shaken over the invasion of Iraq. More on this in Business Day.http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1433181-6078-0,00.html]
What's Happening: Greater Iraq:
Syria: More B.S.
Judith Miller of the NY Times tries to rev up concern re Syria, this time writing about Syria's "ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." This is the same Judith Miller who propagandized about Iraq's WMD programs. While there has been no doubt that Syria possesses some chemical weapons (who doesn't?), even our CIA limited their assertions to "if they should decide to pursue (a nuclear weapons program) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/7)
Iraq as Lebanon: Newsweek (Rod Nordland) notes that Iraq under occupation is starting to look uncomfortably similar to Lebanon during its long civil war. The central government exists only in name, and neither police nor occupying troops are able to keep the peace, ...militias organized along ethnic and religious lines are taking up arms. Neighboring countries patronize friendly groups, or try to undermine rival ones. Arms smuggling over the borders is rife. Massive but anonymous car bombs assassinate opponents, terrorize civilians and intimidate foreigners. Even kidnapping has returned as a political tactic.
Casualties:
Our media made reference today (NPR) to this being a quieter few days. Translation: it's working!...meaning others are taking casualties--A report comes from Mosul, in northern Iraq of an Albanian soldier killed in a grenade attack. More to come, undoubtedly.
WMD, Ongoing:
CBS News carried a story on Powell' absurd contention that Iraq' use of chemical weapons in 1988 proves they had such weapons for use in 2003. Buried in the story 'Powell: '88 Attack Proves War Case' were assertions that U.N. inspectors had found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and that what the U.S. alleged were "unaccountable" stockpiles (weapons they couldn't account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/printable560449.shtml
Additionally, The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. From Hans Blix, the recently retired UN chief weapons inspector: "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth. [The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it." And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
Rummy, then Cheney change the tune
Chronic liar Cheney continued to spin the lie about 9/11 participant Mohamed Atta meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, a tale long discredited. Then this weekend, he admitted to 'misspeaking' as to the allegation, and added that "We never had evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon. " Rumsfeld now acknowledges that he hasn't seen evidence that ties al-Qaeda and Saddam. Is Bush next?
Kentucky: Good to keep watching this one, with the Democratic candidate for Governor, Ben Chandler attacking Bush in a most Republican state. It's too close to call, as of mid-September, 45-45%. Chandler is no progressive- in fact, far from it- but his attack mode should further empower Democrats to be more aggressive w/ Bush. Further help will come from General Clark's candidacy. More liberal, the imperfect Clark is cocksure-bold, undoubtedly offering a vivid contrast with Massachusetts' John Kerry. [He's been inconsistent with past positions, so his candidacy may not fly.]
John Gray of the London School of Economics "Americans see their country as embodying universal values. Other countries see the American way of life as one among many; they do not believe it ever will - or should - be universal ... They resist the division of the world into 'good' and 'evil' regimes ... in any realistic scenario, the US will have to learn to live with states that have no wish to share its values. After all, they include nearly all the states in the world. Strategically allied in the Cold War and - already less convincingly - during the post-Cold War period, Europe and America are reverting to being the alien civilizations they were before the First World War. In Asia, the claim that the US embodies the only sustainable model of human development is viewed with incredulity, if not contempt."
-R
Until recently, the word was avoided. Bush was guilty of, perhaps, misrepresentations, but lies could not be attributed to our "war leader". But now books on the NY Times best seller list include The Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell (Al Franken), as well as others by Jim Hightower and Joe Conason that don't hesitate to utilize the word. And, more are being rolled out, such as The Lies of George W. Bush: The Politics of Deception (David Corn). So it's OK to say it. And the Democrats are increasingly bold.
So the trend is positive. There's still the problem of how to help more people respond, to help them not turn away and continue pretending that the integrity of the president and his coterie is intact. We're dealing with a powerful human tendency- the wish to believe, not to know, to be optimistic/positive. But, again, straight-talking is increasingly effective. And, conveying these positive trends further builds morale of the like-minded. Working with FITE, Fairness in Taxes for Everyone, confirms that people know basic truths-The wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes- but feel isolated and thus are hesitant to act until they're more aware of others with the same beliefs.
David Corn of The Nation did one of the many summaries of Bush lies (moveon.org's ad today is a highly visible take.) We're most familiar with the Iraq-wmd lies. So, here's his summary re education.
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems." A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949
Then, in Salon, Kerry Lauerman interviews CNN's Tucker Carlson who recounts a conversation that he had with Bush's communication director, Karen Hughes, following a campaign trail article that he wrote for Talk magazine: "The striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway."
FCC: Nice to have a victory, as Republicans- who are increasingly feisty in breaking with the usual Republican discipline- joined the Democrats in reject the FCC rule changes. Danny Schechter at mediachannel.org follows this closely, and aptly celebrates but cautions that this was but one ˜battle".
But then Senator McCain, who had opposed the FCC spoke, and my euphoria about what I knew began to melt. He explained the measure won't have the effect most of those voting for it believed it would have. He explained the FCC does not cover the cable industry and that is where concentration is most advanced as I noted yesterday by quoting a Wall Street Journal article about cable outlets dominated by a few companies like Viacom and General Electric. McCain warned that the House was unlikely to back the Senate measure and that a Presidential veto was still possible. He was advocating a new bill reported out of the Senate Commerce committee which doesn't just disapprove of the FCC action but mandates changes in media laws. He gave me pause. Could the resolution actually undermine structural reform while making us feel good? I don't know--but it was clear we all have to learn more about the deeper issues.
It is clear that yesterday's vote was a small victory in a continuing media war. The FCC rules are complex. The industry is even more devious than most people realize and has market power and lots of money. It too is divided among competing interests. Battling this beast requires a long-term strategy and persistence. Does the media reform movement fully understand what we are up against here?
Power Arrangements: The U.S. is paying the price for its brash unilateralism. Subtle changes include the western European countries banding together in a political-military alliance, previously noted here. Now, Gerhard Schroeder is forging deeper ties for Germany in the Asia-Pacific region, especially with India. Simultaneously, Schroeder is effecting somewhat of a rapprochement with the U.S., agreeing to a meeting with Bush next week. [The German chancellor is also meeting with Blair and Jacques Chirac, hoping to further repair the ties that were shaken over the invasion of Iraq. More on this in Business Day.http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1433181-6078-0,00.html]
What's Happening: Greater Iraq:
Syria: More B.S.
Judith Miller of the NY Times tries to rev up concern re Syria, this time writing about Syria's "ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." This is the same Judith Miller who propagandized about Iraq's WMD programs. While there has been no doubt that Syria possesses some chemical weapons (who doesn't?), even our CIA limited their assertions to "if they should decide to pursue (a nuclear weapons program) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/7)
Iraq as Lebanon: Newsweek (Rod Nordland) notes that Iraq under occupation is starting to look uncomfortably similar to Lebanon during its long civil war. The central government exists only in name, and neither police nor occupying troops are able to keep the peace, ...militias organized along ethnic and religious lines are taking up arms. Neighboring countries patronize friendly groups, or try to undermine rival ones. Arms smuggling over the borders is rife. Massive but anonymous car bombs assassinate opponents, terrorize civilians and intimidate foreigners. Even kidnapping has returned as a political tactic.
Casualties:
Our media made reference today (NPR) to this being a quieter few days. Translation: it's working!...meaning others are taking casualties--A report comes from Mosul, in northern Iraq of an Albanian soldier killed in a grenade attack. More to come, undoubtedly.
WMD, Ongoing:
CBS News carried a story on Powell' absurd contention that Iraq' use of chemical weapons in 1988 proves they had such weapons for use in 2003. Buried in the story 'Powell: '88 Attack Proves War Case' were assertions that U.N. inspectors had found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and that what the U.S. alleged were "unaccountable" stockpiles (weapons they couldn't account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/printable560449.shtml
Additionally, The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. From Hans Blix, the recently retired UN chief weapons inspector: "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth. [The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it." And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
Rummy, then Cheney change the tune
Chronic liar Cheney continued to spin the lie about 9/11 participant Mohamed Atta meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, a tale long discredited. Then this weekend, he admitted to 'misspeaking' as to the allegation, and added that "We never had evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon. " Rumsfeld now acknowledges that he hasn't seen evidence that ties al-Qaeda and Saddam. Is Bush next?
Kentucky: Good to keep watching this one, with the Democratic candidate for Governor, Ben Chandler attacking Bush in a most Republican state. It's too close to call, as of mid-September, 45-45%. Chandler is no progressive- in fact, far from it- but his attack mode should further empower Democrats to be more aggressive w/ Bush. Further help will come from General Clark's candidacy. More liberal, the imperfect Clark is cocksure-bold, undoubtedly offering a vivid contrast with Massachusetts' John Kerry. [He's been inconsistent with past positions, so his candidacy may not fly.]
John Gray of the London School of Economics "Americans see their country as embodying universal values. Other countries see the American way of life as one among many; they do not believe it ever will - or should - be universal ... They resist the division of the world into 'good' and 'evil' regimes ... in any realistic scenario, the US will have to learn to live with states that have no wish to share its values. After all, they include nearly all the states in the world. Strategically allied in the Cold War and - already less convincingly - during the post-Cold War period, Europe and America are reverting to being the alien civilizations they were before the First World War. In Asia, the claim that the US embodies the only sustainable model of human development is viewed with incredulity, if not contempt."
-R
Monday, September 15, 2003
WTO Talks End / Collapse
So, no soap. The Globe and Mail (Toronto, Steven Chase) summarized that “poor countries refused to sign a deal that offered only timid cuts to the subsidies that rich countries pay their farmers.
The failure of talks is the second major defeat for the eight-year-old WTO, which tries to regulate and open up world trade. In December, 1999, similar negotiations collapsed amid rioting in Seattle.
‘It's Seattle without the tear gas,’ said Council of Canadians chairwoman Maude Barlow of the broken-down talks. She, like many other anti-globalization activists, loudly cheered the turn of events.
The talks ran out of steam because, for the first time in WTO history, developing countries refused to let the United States and Europe steer negotiations to suit their interests, said Ottawa trade consultant Peter Clark.”
Read More Here >
Meanwhile, Sweden voted to slow European consolidation by saying ‘no’ to adopting the Euro.
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Bush Administration continues to seek help, but the major countries- France, Russia, India- balk. The carrots dangled include loans to the cash-strapped (Turkey) and, as usual, sophisticated military hardware for anyone who wants.
Administration spokespersons did their usual blanketing of the airwaves on Sunday, talking up the “successes” in Iraq.
Depleted Uranium: This issue has lurked out there for a while. The Christian Science Monitor’s Catherine Stapp reported that concerns are growing about the presence of depleted uranium (DU) and other toxins in Iraq following a rash of illnesses among U.S. troops and the discovery by a reporter that radiation levels in parts of Baghdad are extremely elevated. She reported that more than 6,000 soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq for medical reasons since the start of the war. Since there have been 1,400 injured in combat or non-combat incidents, such as vehicle accidents, the majority were evacuated for various other physical or psychological illnesses.
British media had independently noted during Labor Day weekend that “dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad, in fact levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used.
We might recall that some veterans of the first Gulf War believed that DU exposure had played a role in leaving more than 5,000 of them chronically ill and almost 600 dead.
The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, described the U.S.'s failure to confirm how much or where they used DU rounds as an "appalling situation.”
Jason Burke and Paul Harris in the Sunday Observer (London)similarly announced that the American casualties were 6,000, noting that “the figures will shock many Americans, who believe that casualties in the war in Iraq have been relatively light.” They added, “It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However, vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured.”
WMD Update:
I wrote twice over the past month of the anticipated Kay Report that was to either claim that they had found evidence of an Iraqi wmd program, or hope that people would draw conclusions from a mound of paperwork that didn’t actually conclude that there was an active wmd program, let alone an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and allies.
Now, the mid-September release has been cancelled. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that its evidence was lacking. Then the Sunday Times of London reported that "Britain and America have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction after inspectors found no evidence that any such weapons exist." Sify.com (India) re-produced the Times report, but it hasn’t been a subject in our press, as of yet.
Exit Strategy? The most conservative Weekly Standard (Reuel Marc Gerecht, 9/22) posits that there is an exit strategy: Though far from fine-tuned, the Bush administration has finally developed an exit strategy for Iraq. The strategy has two prongs. Through the State Department, the administration will seek to "internationalize" the forces of occupation by obtaining a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would "authorize" Turks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Indians, and even the French to send their troops. Concurrently through the Defense Department, it will strive to create larger all-Iraqi police and military forces that can work together with--and ideally replace--American soldiers who battle former Baathists, militant Sunni fundamentalists, and foreign jihadists. The approaches are complementary and separable: No matter what happens in the Security Council, the Pentagon will increasingly hand off internal security to the natives, sooner rather than later.
Venezuela: Not yet!
The “recall” effort to oust President Hugo Chavez failed, as election authorities threw out an opposition petition for a referendum on ending his rule.
The National Elections Council ruled Friday that opponents violated Venezuela's Constitution by conducting the petition drive before the midpoint of Chavez's six-year term Aug. 19. Organizers collected more than 3 million signatures.
So, as was true in regards to Chile and Allende in 1970, Washington will work on other schemes to displace Chavez.
Perspective, via Jeffrey Sachs (Earth Institute, Columbia U.):
He’s been on NPR and in Saturday’s Globe. He calls for us to leave Iraq in multi-national hands. For those in missed- [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/13/a_better_use_for_our_87b?mode=PF]
This year Bush asked for only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, a sum equal to 1.5 days of spending on the US occupying forces in Iraq. The US annual contributions to fight malaria are less than the costs of one day’s occupation, and as a result, 3 million Africans will die needlessly from that preventable and treatable disease. But who is talking about $87 billion for the 30 million Africans dying from the effects of HIV/AIDS, or the children dying of malaria, or the 15 million AIDS orphans, or the dispossessed of Liberia and Sierra Leone, or the impoverished children of America without medical insurance?
-R
So, no soap. The Globe and Mail (Toronto, Steven Chase) summarized that “poor countries refused to sign a deal that offered only timid cuts to the subsidies that rich countries pay their farmers.
The failure of talks is the second major defeat for the eight-year-old WTO, which tries to regulate and open up world trade. In December, 1999, similar negotiations collapsed amid rioting in Seattle.
‘It's Seattle without the tear gas,’ said Council of Canadians chairwoman Maude Barlow of the broken-down talks. She, like many other anti-globalization activists, loudly cheered the turn of events.
The talks ran out of steam because, for the first time in WTO history, developing countries refused to let the United States and Europe steer negotiations to suit their interests, said Ottawa trade consultant Peter Clark.”
Read More Here >
Meanwhile, Sweden voted to slow European consolidation by saying ‘no’ to adopting the Euro.
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Bush Administration continues to seek help, but the major countries- France, Russia, India- balk. The carrots dangled include loans to the cash-strapped (Turkey) and, as usual, sophisticated military hardware for anyone who wants.
Administration spokespersons did their usual blanketing of the airwaves on Sunday, talking up the “successes” in Iraq.
Depleted Uranium: This issue has lurked out there for a while. The Christian Science Monitor’s Catherine Stapp reported that concerns are growing about the presence of depleted uranium (DU) and other toxins in Iraq following a rash of illnesses among U.S. troops and the discovery by a reporter that radiation levels in parts of Baghdad are extremely elevated. She reported that more than 6,000 soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq for medical reasons since the start of the war. Since there have been 1,400 injured in combat or non-combat incidents, such as vehicle accidents, the majority were evacuated for various other physical or psychological illnesses.
British media had independently noted during Labor Day weekend that “dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad, in fact levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used.
We might recall that some veterans of the first Gulf War believed that DU exposure had played a role in leaving more than 5,000 of them chronically ill and almost 600 dead.
The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, described the U.S.'s failure to confirm how much or where they used DU rounds as an "appalling situation.”
Jason Burke and Paul Harris in the Sunday Observer (London)similarly announced that the American casualties were 6,000, noting that “the figures will shock many Americans, who believe that casualties in the war in Iraq have been relatively light.” They added, “It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However, vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured.”
WMD Update:
I wrote twice over the past month of the anticipated Kay Report that was to either claim that they had found evidence of an Iraqi wmd program, or hope that people would draw conclusions from a mound of paperwork that didn’t actually conclude that there was an active wmd program, let alone an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and allies.
Now, the mid-September release has been cancelled. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that its evidence was lacking. Then the Sunday Times of London reported that "Britain and America have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction after inspectors found no evidence that any such weapons exist." Sify.com (India) re-produced the Times report, but it hasn’t been a subject in our press, as of yet.
Exit Strategy? The most conservative Weekly Standard (Reuel Marc Gerecht, 9/22) posits that there is an exit strategy: Though far from fine-tuned, the Bush administration has finally developed an exit strategy for Iraq. The strategy has two prongs. Through the State Department, the administration will seek to "internationalize" the forces of occupation by obtaining a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would "authorize" Turks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Indians, and even the French to send their troops. Concurrently through the Defense Department, it will strive to create larger all-Iraqi police and military forces that can work together with--and ideally replace--American soldiers who battle former Baathists, militant Sunni fundamentalists, and foreign jihadists. The approaches are complementary and separable: No matter what happens in the Security Council, the Pentagon will increasingly hand off internal security to the natives, sooner rather than later.
Venezuela: Not yet!
The “recall” effort to oust President Hugo Chavez failed, as election authorities threw out an opposition petition for a referendum on ending his rule.
The National Elections Council ruled Friday that opponents violated Venezuela's Constitution by conducting the petition drive before the midpoint of Chavez's six-year term Aug. 19. Organizers collected more than 3 million signatures.
So, as was true in regards to Chile and Allende in 1970, Washington will work on other schemes to displace Chavez.
Perspective, via Jeffrey Sachs (Earth Institute, Columbia U.):
He’s been on NPR and in Saturday’s Globe. He calls for us to leave Iraq in multi-national hands. For those in missed- [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/13/a_better_use_for_our_87b?mode=PF]
This year Bush asked for only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, a sum equal to 1.5 days of spending on the US occupying forces in Iraq. The US annual contributions to fight malaria are less than the costs of one day’s occupation, and as a result, 3 million Africans will die needlessly from that preventable and treatable disease. But who is talking about $87 billion for the 30 million Africans dying from the effects of HIV/AIDS, or the children dying of malaria, or the 15 million AIDS orphans, or the dispossessed of Liberia and Sierra Leone, or the impoverished children of America without medical insurance?
-R
