Friday, May 14, 2004
Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?
Jon Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?
Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
-The Daily Show
The American military--not as bad as al Qaeda!
Many die-hards have been unearthed by the beheading, asserting that ‘war is hell; let’s get it done’. Or, as the Administration put out
The Bush administration said those who beheaded Berg would be hunted down and brought to justice. The White House condemned the killing, which it said reinforced its insistence that US abuses of prisoners paled in comparison with the crimes of its enemies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1215103,00.html
Krugman on Oil The columnist returns to our problematic future
…the last time oil prices were this high, on the eve of the 1991 gulf war, there was a lot of spare capacity in the world, so there was room to cope with a major supply disruption if it happened. This time there isn't…
Still, if there is a major supply disruption, the world will have to get by with less oil, and the only way that can happen in the short run is if there is a world economic slowdown. An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched.
It is, all in all, an awkward time to be pursuing a foreign policy that promises a radical transformation of the Middle East — let alone to be botching the job so completely. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?hp
Economy: When the election is over matters could become really dicey. Aside from indebtedness and personal bankruptcies being at all-time highs, the deficits- trade, as well as the ballooned domestic budget- ongoing tax cuts, vulnerability of housing market, etc. are very worrisome. Some of the issues:
Corporate Tax Relief: Just what was needed.
Helen Dewar of the Washington Post reports
The Senate yesterday broke a two-month deadlock and approved a major corporate tax bill that would end a trade dispute with Europe and shower U.S. corporations with billions in new tax breaks.
The bill, approved 92 to 5, would provide $170 billion in corporate tax cuts over the next decade to replace export subsidies previously granted to U.S. firms by Congress that prompted $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs by the European Union.
A different House version of the legislation has been stalled for months by disagreements among Republicans. But key senators said they believe Senate passage would help break the House logjam in time for enactment of the legislation later this year, and several House aides said they agreed with this assessment…
The corporate tax measure was prompted when the World Trade Organization outlawed about $5 billion in U.S. export subsidies and the European Union imposed retaliatory tariffs on an array of American-made products. The duties, imposed in March at 5 percent, are now 7 percent and would rise monthly until they reach 17 percent next March.
Passage was important to demonstrate that the United States abides by its trade agreements, to end the punitive European tariffs, to encourage domestic manufacturing and to close some "very abused corporate tax loopholes," said Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chief sponsor of the bill...
A proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip out the energy provisions was defeated, 85 to 13, after senators of both parties argued that the energy tax breaks would help increase domestic production and create jobs.
McCain said the tax breaks amounted to a "shameless scam" that would help profitable industries and protect dubious technologies. The bill "has grown into a $170 billion Christmas tree of goodies for every conceivable special interest," McCain said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18980-2004May11?language=printer
Record US trade deficit, as viewed by the BBC
The US trade gap has surged during December to a record $44.2bn, as Americans choose to buy foreign goods rather than stimulate their own economy.
The figures - called the "grand canyon of trade deficits" by one analyst - came as separate data hinted at the possible return of inflation, which has been hovering close to zero.
The gloomy data - compounded by continuing worries about a possible war in Iraq - depressed hopes of an early economic recovery.
They also weighed heavily on stock prices, with the Dow Jones industrial average dropping 86 points, or 1.1%, to close at 7,915.
Record deficits
Tim Anderson, a senior trader at Salomon Smith Barney in New York said: "People aren't terribly convinced about the economic recovery or the extent to which the Bush economic stimulus plan will be passed, on top of dealing with a lot of uncertainty about Iraq." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2785857.stm
Kuttner on Greenspan and Economic Mismanagement:
But like Bush, Greenspan uses the immense deficits as a rationale to keep cutting social outlays.
The deficits are now projected at $400 billion this year and at comparably destructive levels for the indefinite future. The tax cuts are responsible for more than $3 trillion in long-term revenue losses over 10 years. And Greenspan hasn't even spoken out against the president's campaign to make the cuts permanent.
Just imagine the outcry from Greenspan, Wall Street, and the Republican Party if these deficits had been the result of social spending rather than tax cuts for America's wealthiest. For half of the cost of the projected deficits -- $200 billion a year -- we could have universal, high-quality child care and health insurance for all Americans. Think of that…
What gets lost is the fact that taxing and spending involve political choices. One path involves slightly higher tax rates on America's most privileged in order to pay for decent public services. The other path allows the deserving rich, such as the children of the wealthiest 2 percent of families, to forgo taxation at the expense of needed social outlay. This is the real national choice that is cynically obscured by the running up of endless deficits. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/12/what_greenspan_wont_admit_about_deficit?mode=PF
What’s Happening, Middle East: Many more deaths in Israel and Gaza. It deserves “our” attention.
What’s Happening, Iraq: Reports are proliferating that the professional class is abandoning the country. In response to a growing number of kidnappings of professionals and their children, many have finally concluded that life is too tenuous in chaotic Iraq.
Meanwhile, some fighting, more deaths. The Bushies push on, ignoring Reality.
Abuse: Under wraps since January
(1) Powell says Bush was 'informed' of Red Cross concerns
Officials advised president 'in general terms' about reports of abuse, he says
BALTIMORE SUN (MARK MATTHEWS)
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
Powell's statement suggests Bush may have known earlier than the White House has acknowledged about complaints raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups regarding abuse of detainees in Iraq. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.powell12may12,0,2804533.story?coll=bal-news-nation
(2) Seymour Hersh:
Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib. “They always want to delay the release of bad news—in the hope that something good will break,” he said. The habit of procrastination in the face of bad news led to disconnects between Rumsfeld and the Army staff officers who were assigned to planning for troop requirements in Iraq. A year ago, the Pentagon official told me, when it became clear that the Army would have to call up more reserve units to deal with the insurgency, “we had call-up orders that languished for thirty or forty days in the office of the Secretary of Defense.” Rumsfeld’s staff always seemed to be waiting for something to turn up—for the problem to take care of itself, without any additional troops. The official explained, “They were hoping that they wouldn’t have to make a decision.” The delay meant that soldiers in some units about to be deployed had only a few days to prepare wills and deal with other family and financial issues.
The same deliberate indifference to bad news was evident in the past year, the Pentagon official said, when the Army conducted a series of elaborate war games. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040517fa_fact2
Interesting Old Post: Still more evidence of the transfer of energy and resources from “terrorism” to Iraq: The Administration yielded their chances to zap terrorists since it would hurt their chances to justify attacking Saddam.
MSNBC’s Jim Miklaszewski (March 2):
…long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council…
People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Feisty Congress: Now they’re raising more questions, speaking out… A sample from Teddy, who refused to be hushed. Friday’s NY Times:
The hearing veered early toward a major partisan clash when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, objected to an effort by the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, to limit the scope of questions to the $25 billion reserve fund.
"I've been on this committee for 24 years, I've been in the Senate 42 years, and I have never been denied the opportunity to question any person that's come before a committee, on what I wanted to ask for it," Mr. Kennedy said, his voice booming. "I resent it and reject it on a matter of national importance. And we're talking about prison abuses."
Mr. Warner backed down, noting that Mr. Wolfowitz's opening statement had opened the door to a broader line of questioning. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/14MILI.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Chomsky on Getting Out, and then…
Reconstruction should be in the hands of Iraqis, not delayed as a means of controlling them, as Washington has indicated.
Reparations - not just aid - should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions, and - together with other criminal states - for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214967,00.html
Tom Friedman Gives It Up
Sign of the Times. Middle-roaders and conservatives are steadily deserting the slowly sinking ship. The NY Times op ed columnist who has cheered the Invasion has surrendered. He notes: "It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?" Declaring that the Administration cares much less about Iraq than about its own election, he regretfully announces that the Iraq policy necessitates change at the Top.
I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so…
Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.
And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.")
Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinion/13FRIE.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
and CNN conservative Tucker Carlson:
“I think it’s a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually." http://www.observer.com/pages/nytv.asp
VP Rumors:
This is pure speculation, based on several quasi-sources. Despite speculation re Mr. Integrity, John McCain- regardless of his many non-progressive positions- the more likely candidates are Gephardt (sigh), Wesley Clark, John Edwards, (Gov.) John Vilsack (Iowa), and last, apparently, Bill Richardson. If Kerry’s camp is creative, they should select his friend McCain for Defense, especially if announced at the Convention.
-R
