Tuesday, January 06, 2004
What’s Happening, Iraq: General Sanchez says attacks are down- from 40 to approximately half that since Saddam’s capture. [This is the first admission of attacks being at that high a rate.] As the p.r. gets thicker, it’s hard to know what’s believable.
For instance, reports from local Iraqis or media of wounded and/or killed troops being picked up by helicopters clash with official statements which downplay or deny the incidents. One incident brought forth these comments as to “the usual conflict” between those “who witnessed the scene during the US cleanup and medical evacuations, and the figures given by CENTCOM and Combined Joint Task Force 7.”
The US military in Iraq has been under constant scrutiny for under-reporting US casualty figures from attacks throughout Iraq. The effect of this is to give the impression to both the media and people of Iraq, as well as people in the US that the degree of loss of life by US military personnel in Iraq is lower than it may actually be.
Thus, the sense of urgency the US military is faced with in Iraq isn't being conveyed to the public. For example, I just moments ago returned from a CIPIC press conference by General Kimmit where he stated there are 25 attacks per day on coalition forces. http://electroniciraq.net/news/1306.shtml
Incompetence:
Keep in mind that there was endless congressional testimony as to the likely conditions of postwar Iraq, the products of think tanks of all political persuasions. All of these reports agreed that an occupation / reconstruction would be protracted and expensive, and that goodwill toward the U.S. would be transient. So it was good to have James Fallows guest on NPR’s “On Point” and term the Occupation a fiasco comparable to the Bay of Pigs invasion. http://www.onpointradio.org/
Brainwashing:
That was the term that the Massachusetts’ governor’s father made in 1968 after he visited Vietnam. George Romney was convinced of the rightness of the Cause and, then had the common sense, but political foolhardiness, to confess that he realized to his having been “brainwashed”. We wish congressional visitors to Iraq would have such a reflective capacity!
From the Christian Science Monitor (Gail Russell Chaddock)
Unlike during Vietnam, when congressional visits often fueled lawmakers' opposition to the war, these tours of Iraq are tending, if anything, to blunt antiwar sentiment. In many cases, they are solidifying support in Congress for the military effort…
But so far, no members of Congress are coming back saying that the US should pull out of Iraq. Many going in with doubts return to vote with the White House. After a two-day visit in October, a delegation of GOP moderates voted to support the president on a key vote to send $20 billion to Iraq as a grant, rather than a loan. "One [US] general told us that money is ammunition. US troops will be a lot more secure when Iraqis have jobs," said Rep. Amo Houghton (R ) of New York, one of six House Republicans to vote in 2002 against the use of force in Iraq.
But critics say these highly restricted trips reflect a pattern of inadequate congressional oversight since the 2002 vote to authorize use of force in Iraq. "Members of Congress [in Iraq] are being led and briefed by the very people they are investigating, then they are whisked home. That's not oversight. It just underscores the total absence of critical thought," says Ivo Daalder, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and former Clinton administration official.http://www.csmonitortreeless.com?dmc=E35W191
9/11- A Reminder:
William Rivers Pitt, at truthout.org:
George W. Bush is going to run in 2004 on the idea that his administration is the only one capable of protecting us from another attack like the ones which took place on September 11. Yet the record to date is clear. Not only did they fail in spectacular fashion to deal with those first threats, not only has their reaction caused us to be less safe, not only have they failed to sufficiently bolster our defenses, but they used the aftermath of the attacks to ram through policies they couldn't have dreamed of achieving on September 10. It is one of the most remarkable turnabouts in American political history: Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect.
Never mind the final insult: They received all these warnings and went on vacation for a month down in Texas. The August 6 briefing might as well have happened in a vacuum. September 11 could have and should have been prevented. Why? Because Bush knew. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml
Campaign, 2004 and the Media:
I was able to catch snippets of an Iowa debate and was more than mildly annoyed to read this description in the NY Times (David M. Halbfinger)
For sheer comedic appeal, the Democratic presidential debate on Sunday was short a Sharpton, though it had its moments. As when Howard Dean offhandedly promised to balance the budget "in the sixth or seventh year of my administration."
Someone howled, and the audience, noticeably short of Dean partisans, broke up at the presumptuousness. Dr. Dean seemed not to realize that he was the butt of the joke, and even his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, later said he thought the crowd was laughing with him.http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/politics/campaigns/05IOWA.html
Gads. This is one heck of an opinionated take on what occurred. Dean was commenting as to how long it would take to re-balance the budget after the Bush profligacy. He didn’t handle it well by not clarifying the comment, perhaps stubbornly clinging to how it indeed made sense. But, there was no ‘butt of a joke”, there was no “sheer comedy.” Recalling 2000, no journalist commented as to the stumbling performances of Bush, no one opined in his column that Bush had his customary deer-in-the-headlights glazed look, etc.
The media will hopefully change when there is A Democratic candidate and A Republican candidate. Of course, our raising our voices makes that more possible.
Meanwhile, harkening back to my November 23rd blog, I commented on the NY Times editorial which recommend that
The Democrats need to find ways to attack Mr. Bush's stewardship without attacking his character; most Americans remember the president's firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23SUN1.html?ex=1073365200&en=44f4b5575973adc4&ei=5070
Really! Mustn’t challenge those distortions! Hopefully Dean (or whomever) will do so in a systematic, direct, albeit ‘gentle’ manner.
Dean Vulnerability:
He’s backed himself into a temporary corner with his comments on taxes. The Annenberg Public Policy Center analyzed Dean’s proposal repeal of the Bush tax cuts and concluded that more conservative critics are right, that Dean’s stand will play badly with the middle class.
An anti-tax group started running an attack ad Thursday Dec. 4 in Iowa and New Hampshire saying "Howard Dean says he'll raise taxes on the average family by more than nineteen hundred dollars a year," and suggesting he's in the mold of Democratic presidential losers including George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.
Dean says he's responding with an ad of his own saying the conservative, anti-tax Club for Growth "falsely" attacks him.
But independent, nonpartisan calculations show that Dean's call to repeal the Bush tax cuts really would mean big tax increases, often exceeding $1,000 even for middle-income families. The increases would be especially severe for those with children under age 17.http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=113m
Clark: Moving up?; Tax Plan
Clark has caught Kerry in New Hampshire. It could make him the clear #2, the Dean Alternative. He has also put out his tax plan which, at first glance, is a good start. While revenue neutral, it is headed in a reasonable direction, as it begins to target the very wealthy. It eliminates federal income tax for all families with incomes under $50,000, reduces taxes for all families with incomes under $100,000, and increases the tax rate on income over $1 million per year by 5 percentage points. http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
Bush the Moderate
Here comes the predictable ‘moving to the center’. Notice that the tone has quieted, the gentle words for Libya. We’re about to see the emergence of Bush as exemplifying “peace through strength,” or, as the Guardian (Suzanne Goldenberg Simon Tisdall and Nicholas Watt) terms him, the “President for Peace.”
The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president for peace…Analysts in Washington say the Bush administration has little choice if it is to fulfill a highly ambitious election year agenda that seeks to disarm "rogue states" such as North Korea while advancing towards a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, encouraging conflict resolution in Sudan, and achieving credible transformations in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1115313,00.html
Voting Machine Concern:
The fear has been that touch-screen voting will become the rule, and such machines are both easily tampered with and leave no paper trail and are thus impossible to check in case of irregularities and/or breakdown. From the Washington Times (Jim McElhatton)
A request that Maryland's new touch-screen voting network include printouts might have come too late because state officials already have signed a $55.6 million contract that includes no such backup system.
"That was not part of the contract price we negotiated with Maryland," said Mark Radke, director of marketing for Diebold Election Systems Inc., a Diebold subsidiary. "The voter verification [paper trail] was not discussed." http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040104-105438-5443r.htm
New Books:
Exemplary Conservative Kevin Phillips is the author of American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. A sample:
“Few have looked at the facts of the family's rise, but just as important, commentators have neglected the thread -- not the mere occasion -- of special interests, biases, scandals (especially those related to arms dealing), and blatant business cronyism. The evidence that accumulates over four generations [of the Bush family dynasty] is really quite damning.
Three generations of immersion in the culture of secrecy...deceit and disinformation have become Bush political hallmarks."
Eric Alterman, Mark Green: The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. Sounds very thoughtful , a less populist, more scholarly work than the Moore and Franken books (due out in February).
-R
For instance, reports from local Iraqis or media of wounded and/or killed troops being picked up by helicopters clash with official statements which downplay or deny the incidents. One incident brought forth these comments as to “the usual conflict” between those “who witnessed the scene during the US cleanup and medical evacuations, and the figures given by CENTCOM and Combined Joint Task Force 7.”
The US military in Iraq has been under constant scrutiny for under-reporting US casualty figures from attacks throughout Iraq. The effect of this is to give the impression to both the media and people of Iraq, as well as people in the US that the degree of loss of life by US military personnel in Iraq is lower than it may actually be.
Thus, the sense of urgency the US military is faced with in Iraq isn't being conveyed to the public. For example, I just moments ago returned from a CIPIC press conference by General Kimmit where he stated there are 25 attacks per day on coalition forces. http://electroniciraq.net/news/1306.shtml
Incompetence:
Keep in mind that there was endless congressional testimony as to the likely conditions of postwar Iraq, the products of think tanks of all political persuasions. All of these reports agreed that an occupation / reconstruction would be protracted and expensive, and that goodwill toward the U.S. would be transient. So it was good to have James Fallows guest on NPR’s “On Point” and term the Occupation a fiasco comparable to the Bay of Pigs invasion. http://www.onpointradio.org/
Brainwashing:
That was the term that the Massachusetts’ governor’s father made in 1968 after he visited Vietnam. George Romney was convinced of the rightness of the Cause and, then had the common sense, but political foolhardiness, to confess that he realized to his having been “brainwashed”. We wish congressional visitors to Iraq would have such a reflective capacity!
From the Christian Science Monitor (Gail Russell Chaddock)
Unlike during Vietnam, when congressional visits often fueled lawmakers' opposition to the war, these tours of Iraq are tending, if anything, to blunt antiwar sentiment. In many cases, they are solidifying support in Congress for the military effort…
But so far, no members of Congress are coming back saying that the US should pull out of Iraq. Many going in with doubts return to vote with the White House. After a two-day visit in October, a delegation of GOP moderates voted to support the president on a key vote to send $20 billion to Iraq as a grant, rather than a loan. "One [US] general told us that money is ammunition. US troops will be a lot more secure when Iraqis have jobs," said Rep. Amo Houghton (R ) of New York, one of six House Republicans to vote in 2002 against the use of force in Iraq.
But critics say these highly restricted trips reflect a pattern of inadequate congressional oversight since the 2002 vote to authorize use of force in Iraq. "Members of Congress [in Iraq] are being led and briefed by the very people they are investigating, then they are whisked home. That's not oversight. It just underscores the total absence of critical thought," says Ivo Daalder, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and former Clinton administration official.http://www.csmonitortreeless.com?dmc=E35W191
9/11- A Reminder:
William Rivers Pitt, at truthout.org:
George W. Bush is going to run in 2004 on the idea that his administration is the only one capable of protecting us from another attack like the ones which took place on September 11. Yet the record to date is clear. Not only did they fail in spectacular fashion to deal with those first threats, not only has their reaction caused us to be less safe, not only have they failed to sufficiently bolster our defenses, but they used the aftermath of the attacks to ram through policies they couldn't have dreamed of achieving on September 10. It is one of the most remarkable turnabouts in American political history: Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect.
Never mind the final insult: They received all these warnings and went on vacation for a month down in Texas. The August 6 briefing might as well have happened in a vacuum. September 11 could have and should have been prevented. Why? Because Bush knew. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml
Campaign, 2004 and the Media:
I was able to catch snippets of an Iowa debate and was more than mildly annoyed to read this description in the NY Times (David M. Halbfinger)
For sheer comedic appeal, the Democratic presidential debate on Sunday was short a Sharpton, though it had its moments. As when Howard Dean offhandedly promised to balance the budget "in the sixth or seventh year of my administration."
Someone howled, and the audience, noticeably short of Dean partisans, broke up at the presumptuousness. Dr. Dean seemed not to realize that he was the butt of the joke, and even his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, later said he thought the crowd was laughing with him.http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/politics/campaigns/05IOWA.html
Gads. This is one heck of an opinionated take on what occurred. Dean was commenting as to how long it would take to re-balance the budget after the Bush profligacy. He didn’t handle it well by not clarifying the comment, perhaps stubbornly clinging to how it indeed made sense. But, there was no ‘butt of a joke”, there was no “sheer comedy.” Recalling 2000, no journalist commented as to the stumbling performances of Bush, no one opined in his column that Bush had his customary deer-in-the-headlights glazed look, etc.
The media will hopefully change when there is A Democratic candidate and A Republican candidate. Of course, our raising our voices makes that more possible.
Meanwhile, harkening back to my November 23rd blog, I commented on the NY Times editorial which recommend that
The Democrats need to find ways to attack Mr. Bush's stewardship without attacking his character; most Americans remember the president's firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23SUN1.html?ex=1073365200&en=44f4b5575973adc4&ei=5070
Really! Mustn’t challenge those distortions! Hopefully Dean (or whomever) will do so in a systematic, direct, albeit ‘gentle’ manner.
Dean Vulnerability:
He’s backed himself into a temporary corner with his comments on taxes. The Annenberg Public Policy Center analyzed Dean’s proposal repeal of the Bush tax cuts and concluded that more conservative critics are right, that Dean’s stand will play badly with the middle class.
An anti-tax group started running an attack ad Thursday Dec. 4 in Iowa and New Hampshire saying "Howard Dean says he'll raise taxes on the average family by more than nineteen hundred dollars a year," and suggesting he's in the mold of Democratic presidential losers including George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.
Dean says he's responding with an ad of his own saying the conservative, anti-tax Club for Growth "falsely" attacks him.
But independent, nonpartisan calculations show that Dean's call to repeal the Bush tax cuts really would mean big tax increases, often exceeding $1,000 even for middle-income families. The increases would be especially severe for those with children under age 17.http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=113m
Clark: Moving up?; Tax Plan
Clark has caught Kerry in New Hampshire. It could make him the clear #2, the Dean Alternative. He has also put out his tax plan which, at first glance, is a good start. While revenue neutral, it is headed in a reasonable direction, as it begins to target the very wealthy. It eliminates federal income tax for all families with incomes under $50,000, reduces taxes for all families with incomes under $100,000, and increases the tax rate on income over $1 million per year by 5 percentage points. http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
Bush the Moderate
Here comes the predictable ‘moving to the center’. Notice that the tone has quieted, the gentle words for Libya. We’re about to see the emergence of Bush as exemplifying “peace through strength,” or, as the Guardian (Suzanne Goldenberg Simon Tisdall and Nicholas Watt) terms him, the “President for Peace.”
The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president for peace…Analysts in Washington say the Bush administration has little choice if it is to fulfill a highly ambitious election year agenda that seeks to disarm "rogue states" such as North Korea while advancing towards a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, encouraging conflict resolution in Sudan, and achieving credible transformations in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1115313,00.html
Voting Machine Concern:
The fear has been that touch-screen voting will become the rule, and such machines are both easily tampered with and leave no paper trail and are thus impossible to check in case of irregularities and/or breakdown. From the Washington Times (Jim McElhatton)
A request that Maryland's new touch-screen voting network include printouts might have come too late because state officials already have signed a $55.6 million contract that includes no such backup system.
"That was not part of the contract price we negotiated with Maryland," said Mark Radke, director of marketing for Diebold Election Systems Inc., a Diebold subsidiary. "The voter verification [paper trail] was not discussed." http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040104-105438-5443r.htm
New Books:
Exemplary Conservative Kevin Phillips is the author of American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. A sample:
“Few have looked at the facts of the family's rise, but just as important, commentators have neglected the thread -- not the mere occasion -- of special interests, biases, scandals (especially those related to arms dealing), and blatant business cronyism. The evidence that accumulates over four generations [of the Bush family dynasty] is really quite damning.
Three generations of immersion in the culture of secrecy...deceit and disinformation have become Bush political hallmarks."
Eric Alterman, Mark Green: The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. Sounds very thoughtful , a less populist, more scholarly work than the Moore and Franken books (due out in February).
-R
