Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Saudi Instability Raising Fears of oil crisis
This ‘instability is of vital import. The Guardian states it more strongly than American and Saudi media. Nick Mathiason and Mark Townsend
Oil prices are set to surge after al-Qaeda gunmen killed at least 16 people, including a Briton, and seized 50 hostages yesterday during an indiscriminate rampage through the Saudi Arabian city of Khobar.
In a day that left the oil city, in the east of the country, littered with bodies and bullet-riddled buildings and cars, the terrorists attacked four compounds housing foreign workers, seized American and Italian hostages and fought running battles through the streets.
The US embassy advised all Americans to leave the increasingly troubled country, and the Foreign Office repeated its warning for Britons to avoid all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia.
Oil analysts in London and Washington warned of severe repercussions. Economists called the attack their worst nightmare come true.
It could send oil prices above $42 a barrel, pushing the average price of petrol in Britain beyond the £4-a-gallon barrier. The rise would renew fears of a world energy crisis not seen since the early Seventies. Prices have already risen amid fears Saudi Arabia would be unable to defend its oil industry from terrorists.
Repeated attacks could push oil prices above the economically devastating $50 a barrel, City experts warn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4935769-110491,00.html
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Tuesday headlines are that U.S. troops are to pulled back from military engagements and instead to provide “assistance” to the new “government.” But, elsewhere is the reality that truces are coming undone and 5 Americans died in ongoing fighting.
Meanwhile, the confusion / incompetence goes on. The Administration’s assertion that the CIA’s man Ayad Allawi has “broad support” from Iraqis was beyond laughable. Mike Allen and Robin Wright’s report:
The Bush administration appeared to be caught off guard and somewhat confused yesterday after the Iraqi Governing Council nominated a physician with longtime CIA ties as the post-occupation prime minister. Officials in Washington scrambled to respond after the Iraqis took the public lead in a process that was supposed to be run by a U.N. envoy.
In a telephone conversation at 2:30 p.m., a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy sounded uncertain about whether Ayad Allawi would head Iraq's interim government after the United States transfers limited authority on June 30.
"We may or may not have heard the last word on the prime minister," the official said. "You have to put a lot of pieces together first."
A senior administration official in Baghdad said that L. Paul Bremer, the civilian U.S. administrator, and Robert D. Blackwill, the U.S. presidential envoy to Iraq, knew about the impending selection on Thursday. But officials in Baghdad feared a leak and told few officials in Washington. Some members of President Bush's war cabinet knew where the process was heading but were surprised by the timing of the council's decision. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64453-2004May28?language=printer
Media: Action: Write in!CNN reporter Kelli Arena wasn’t the only one guilty of such in the last days. But this one is a grabber.
[Kelli] ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
Maybe advertisements that note Al Qaeda’s support of Kerry’ are next.
If you want to say something, you can call CNN, or say hi to Ms Arena via:
Atlanta:
404-827-1500
Washington:
202-898-7900
kelli.arena@turner.com
Media: Air America: Despite some well-publicized notes that it’s having (predictable) financial difficulties, apparently they’re doing better than one would think. A preliminary analysis of radio ratings shows Air America's "The O'Franken Factor" attracting more listeners than Rush Limbaugh in New York City.
Election Ads: Record Lies from the Bushies:
Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei’s article in Monday’s Washington Post notes the “unprecedented negativity” of the Republican effort.
It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."
On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3222-2004May30?language=printer
Anti Islamic sentiment in Britain
Fro the Guardian (Jamie Doward and Gaby Hinsliff)
Hostility towards Islam permeates every part of British society and will spark race riots unless urgent action is taken to integrate Muslim youths into society, according to a devastating report.
The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (CBMI), which is chaired by a key government adviser to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, warns that more and more Muslims feel excluded from society and simmering tensions, especially in northern English towns, are in danger of boiling over. http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1227977,00.html
Abuse: November ’03 Warnings
Douglas Jehl and Kate Zernike’s article sees November as when the Army was first being alerted as to the mass jailing of many on scant evidence.
Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were held in Abu Ghraib prison for prolonged periods despite a lack of evidence that they posed a security threat to American forces, according to an Army report completed last fall.
The unpublished report, by Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, reflects what other senior Army officers have described as a deep concern among some American officers and officials in Iraq over the refusal of top American commanders in Baghdad to authorize the release of so-called security prisoners. Some of those prisoners were held for interrogation at Abu Ghraib in the cellblock that became the site of the worst abuses at the prison.
General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/international/middleeast/30ABUS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Richard A. Serrano’s LA Times article pinpoints November as when the Red Cross was stating its concerns:
Nov. 6 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross gave the Army a detailed catalog of sexual and physical abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and said the military had promised to correct the problems.
The report provides details of what Army officials were told about the abuses early on and raises further questions about the adequacy of the military's response. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-prison29may29,1,3957769.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Next Bush Budget: Unsurprising Bad News:
The tax cuts for the comfortable and very wealthy continue, the cuts for those in need continue. Jonathan Weisman’s Washington Post article gave the details.
The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.
The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.
Also slated for cuts are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, the Social Security Administration, the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58762-2004May26?language=printer
Paul Krugman conveys his outrage
But unless taxes are increased again, the answer will have to be severe program cuts, which will fall mainly on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — because that's where the bulk of the money is.
For most families, the losses from these cuts will far outweigh any gain from lower taxes. My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that 80 percent of all families will end up worse off; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities will soon come out with a more careful, detailed analysis that arrives at a similar conclusion. And the only really big beneficiaries will be the wealthiest few percent of the population. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01KRUG.html
Kerry Moves Further Right; Yields on Democracy
Glenn Kessler’s piece in the Washington Post describes Kerry’s making national security numero uno.
Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A689-2004May29.html
D.C. Chaos: Known to All
The Wall Street Journal (Robert Block, Gary Fields) summarizes the problems between Homeland Security and Justice.
This week's government warning of a possible terrorist attack in the U.S. has exposed and aggravated simmering tensions between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security over which should act as the nation's main terrorism warning bell.
Homeland Security, charged by law with analyzing intelligence to assess threats, is the lead designated agency for issuing threat advisories. But officials there say they had little advance notice before Attorney General John Ashcroft issued his broad warning on Wednesday. Moreover, Homeland Security officials believed the information being used by Justice, much of which had been known for some time, was not new or specific enough to merit an announcement or other action.
Consequently, hours before Mr. Ashcroft said "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicated that al Qaeda is planning an attack in the U.S. in the next few months, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on television that the information didn't warrant raising the color-coded alert level to orange from yellow. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108569612893123401,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
-R
This ‘instability is of vital import. The Guardian states it more strongly than American and Saudi media. Nick Mathiason and Mark Townsend
Oil prices are set to surge after al-Qaeda gunmen killed at least 16 people, including a Briton, and seized 50 hostages yesterday during an indiscriminate rampage through the Saudi Arabian city of Khobar.
In a day that left the oil city, in the east of the country, littered with bodies and bullet-riddled buildings and cars, the terrorists attacked four compounds housing foreign workers, seized American and Italian hostages and fought running battles through the streets.
The US embassy advised all Americans to leave the increasingly troubled country, and the Foreign Office repeated its warning for Britons to avoid all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia.
Oil analysts in London and Washington warned of severe repercussions. Economists called the attack their worst nightmare come true.
It could send oil prices above $42 a barrel, pushing the average price of petrol in Britain beyond the £4-a-gallon barrier. The rise would renew fears of a world energy crisis not seen since the early Seventies. Prices have already risen amid fears Saudi Arabia would be unable to defend its oil industry from terrorists.
Repeated attacks could push oil prices above the economically devastating $50 a barrel, City experts warn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4935769-110491,00.html
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Tuesday headlines are that U.S. troops are to pulled back from military engagements and instead to provide “assistance” to the new “government.” But, elsewhere is the reality that truces are coming undone and 5 Americans died in ongoing fighting.
Meanwhile, the confusion / incompetence goes on. The Administration’s assertion that the CIA’s man Ayad Allawi has “broad support” from Iraqis was beyond laughable. Mike Allen and Robin Wright’s report:
The Bush administration appeared to be caught off guard and somewhat confused yesterday after the Iraqi Governing Council nominated a physician with longtime CIA ties as the post-occupation prime minister. Officials in Washington scrambled to respond after the Iraqis took the public lead in a process that was supposed to be run by a U.N. envoy.
In a telephone conversation at 2:30 p.m., a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy sounded uncertain about whether Ayad Allawi would head Iraq's interim government after the United States transfers limited authority on June 30.
"We may or may not have heard the last word on the prime minister," the official said. "You have to put a lot of pieces together first."
A senior administration official in Baghdad said that L. Paul Bremer, the civilian U.S. administrator, and Robert D. Blackwill, the U.S. presidential envoy to Iraq, knew about the impending selection on Thursday. But officials in Baghdad feared a leak and told few officials in Washington. Some members of President Bush's war cabinet knew where the process was heading but were surprised by the timing of the council's decision. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64453-2004May28?language=printer
Media: Action: Write in!CNN reporter Kelli Arena wasn’t the only one guilty of such in the last days. But this one is a grabber.
[Kelli] ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
Maybe advertisements that note Al Qaeda’s support of Kerry’ are next.
If you want to say something, you can call CNN, or say hi to Ms Arena via:
Atlanta:
404-827-1500
Washington:
202-898-7900
kelli.arena@turner.com
Media: Air America: Despite some well-publicized notes that it’s having (predictable) financial difficulties, apparently they’re doing better than one would think. A preliminary analysis of radio ratings shows Air America's "The O'Franken Factor" attracting more listeners than Rush Limbaugh in New York City.
Election Ads: Record Lies from the Bushies:
Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei’s article in Monday’s Washington Post notes the “unprecedented negativity” of the Republican effort.
It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."
On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3222-2004May30?language=printer
Anti Islamic sentiment in Britain
Fro the Guardian (Jamie Doward and Gaby Hinsliff)
Hostility towards Islam permeates every part of British society and will spark race riots unless urgent action is taken to integrate Muslim youths into society, according to a devastating report.
The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (CBMI), which is chaired by a key government adviser to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, warns that more and more Muslims feel excluded from society and simmering tensions, especially in northern English towns, are in danger of boiling over. http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1227977,00.html
Abuse: November ’03 Warnings
Douglas Jehl and Kate Zernike’s article sees November as when the Army was first being alerted as to the mass jailing of many on scant evidence.
Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were held in Abu Ghraib prison for prolonged periods despite a lack of evidence that they posed a security threat to American forces, according to an Army report completed last fall.
The unpublished report, by Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, reflects what other senior Army officers have described as a deep concern among some American officers and officials in Iraq over the refusal of top American commanders in Baghdad to authorize the release of so-called security prisoners. Some of those prisoners were held for interrogation at Abu Ghraib in the cellblock that became the site of the worst abuses at the prison.
General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/international/middleeast/30ABUS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Richard A. Serrano’s LA Times article pinpoints November as when the Red Cross was stating its concerns:
Nov. 6 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross gave the Army a detailed catalog of sexual and physical abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and said the military had promised to correct the problems.
The report provides details of what Army officials were told about the abuses early on and raises further questions about the adequacy of the military's response. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-prison29may29,1,3957769.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Next Bush Budget: Unsurprising Bad News:
The tax cuts for the comfortable and very wealthy continue, the cuts for those in need continue. Jonathan Weisman’s Washington Post article gave the details.
The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.
The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.
Also slated for cuts are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, the Social Security Administration, the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58762-2004May26?language=printer
Paul Krugman conveys his outrage
But unless taxes are increased again, the answer will have to be severe program cuts, which will fall mainly on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — because that's where the bulk of the money is.
For most families, the losses from these cuts will far outweigh any gain from lower taxes. My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that 80 percent of all families will end up worse off; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities will soon come out with a more careful, detailed analysis that arrives at a similar conclusion. And the only really big beneficiaries will be the wealthiest few percent of the population. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01KRUG.html
Kerry Moves Further Right; Yields on Democracy
Glenn Kessler’s piece in the Washington Post describes Kerry’s making national security numero uno.
Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A689-2004May29.html
D.C. Chaos: Known to All
The Wall Street Journal (Robert Block, Gary Fields) summarizes the problems between Homeland Security and Justice.
This week's government warning of a possible terrorist attack in the U.S. has exposed and aggravated simmering tensions between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security over which should act as the nation's main terrorism warning bell.
Homeland Security, charged by law with analyzing intelligence to assess threats, is the lead designated agency for issuing threat advisories. But officials there say they had little advance notice before Attorney General John Ashcroft issued his broad warning on Wednesday. Moreover, Homeland Security officials believed the information being used by Justice, much of which had been known for some time, was not new or specific enough to merit an announcement or other action.
Consequently, hours before Mr. Ashcroft said "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicated that al Qaeda is planning an attack in the U.S. in the next few months, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on television that the information didn't warrant raising the color-coded alert level to orange from yellow. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108569612893123401,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
-R
