Friday, July 02, 2004
Administration’s (Typical) Reply re Fahrenheit 9/11:
“We don’t do movie reviews.” - Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
---consistent with:
“I don’t do quagmires. “- Donald Rumsfeld.
“We don’t do body counts.” - former war commander Tommy Franks
Krugman on Fahrenheit 9/11
Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives…
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Florida ‘Felons List’ in Public DomainIt’s out there, via CNN vs Florida Department of State, allowing for invaluable checking.
What’s Happening, Iraq: Violence unabated
Saddam Holds Court
He’s ‘holding up.’ The Iraqi public is split over this detention / trial. Dexter Filkins in Friday’s NY Times:
The images of a once-omnipotent dictator charged with mass murder seemed to open up a conversation on every street and in every home.
Some Iraqis celebrated what they hoped would be Mr. Hussein's impending punishment, even his death. Others said they felt humiliated that Mr. Hussein's arraignment in a courtroom here had been brought about by the Americans. While some Iraqis cheered Mr. Hussein's public humiliation, others seemed uncomfortable watching their former president being treated like a common criminal. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/international/middleeast/02REAX.html
Juan Cole on the ‘mixed feelings’:
Saddam Hussein was legally surrendered to the Iraqis by the Americans. Since the US is no longer in international law the Occupying power, it has little right to continue to hold Saddam. Since the Americans do not, however, trust the Iraqis to guard him properly, their surrender of Saddam is just as much a sham as their surrender of sovereignty. A new opinion poll in Iraq suggested that over forty percent of Iraqis want him executed, while a similar proportion want him just to be let go. This sign of the extreme polarization of the Iraqi public over this issue is a very bad omen. www.juancole.com
End of the Occupation, Limited Sovereignty, Sorry Condition
From Emad Mekay, Asia Times.
A barrage of binding decrees passed during the United States occupation of Iraq, combined with a lack of resources, heavy debt and the continuing presence of a massive US force, provide clear evidence that the recent handover of authority to Iraqis does not equal real control over the economy…
In May 2003, Bremer declared Iraq "open for business" and for the past 14 months the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) promoted major changes to the country's regulatory and legal frameworks, entered into long-term contracts and appointed oversight committees with multi-year terms. As a result, the country's economy looks set on a path that Iraqis will find hard - if not impossible - to alter.
A report by the Institute of Policy Studies estimated that Bremer had passed nearly 100 orders that, among other things, give US corporations "virtual free rein over the Iraqi economy while largely excluding Iraqis from a reconstruction effort which has failed to provide for their basic needs".
Meanwhile, a recent report by the Open Society Institute's (OSI) program to monitor Iraq's reconstruction said that the US-controlled CPA was engaged in a last-minute spending spree, committing billions of dollars to "ill-conceived projects just before it dissolves", in an apparent attempt to pre-impose those deals on any future Iraqi government. The US-controlled Program Review Board, the body in charge of managing Iraq's finances, approved the expenditure of nearly US$2 billion in Iraqi funds for reconstruction projects in just a single meeting…
Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan, sees limited sovereignty for the Iraqis from another perspective. He says the new US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will maintain control over some $18.3 billion in US aid to Iraq.
"The caretaker government is hedged around by American power," Cole wrote on his online blog Wednesday. "Negroponte will control $18 billion in US aid to Iraq. [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld will go on controlling the US and coalition military. There isn't much space left for real Iraqi sovereignty in all that. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG02Ak01.html
Employment: “Robust” job growth slows
We’re still down about a million during Bush’s term- actually, well over 7 million, if you remember (please do!) that 150,000 must be added each month to keep up with population growth.
The pace of U.S. hiring slumped sharply in June after several months of robust gains, the government reported on Friday as employers added fewer than half the number of payroll jobs forecast and hours of work shrunk.
The Labor Department said only 112,000 jobs were created last month, far fewer than the 250,000 that Wall Street analysts had anticipated. April and May new-job totals were revised down, to 324,000 and 235,000 respectively, from 346,000 and 248.000.
The unemployment rate was unchanged, as expected, at 5.6 percent.
June still represented a 10th straight month of job growth that has added about 1.5 million workers to payrolls, but the unexpectedly steep slowdown last month may make it harder for President Bush to campaign for re-election in November on a claim of accelerating economic momentum.
In a sign of broader weakness, the average workweek eased to 33.6 hours in June from 33.8 in May , the shortest since a matching 33.6 hours in December. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-economy-employment.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Health Insurance:
In September we’ll have the figures for 2003, which undoubtedly will show that the numbers have risen above 44 million. This piece addresses those who’ve been chronically without. Its message: in a year when the economy grew by 4%, 2.6 million more were without insurance for more than a year, now totaling 24.5 million. The major issue: Jobs are less and less likely to guarantee access to health insurance.
"As we lose jobs in the manufacturing sector to jobs in the service economy and small businesses, we're losing the stability of big employers and replacing it with a much more fragile system," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insure1jul01,1,344117.story
Polls:Whoops. He’s losing his “integrity” issue.
New surveys by The New York Times and the Washington Post reveal a perilous plunge in the commander-in-chief's credibility. The Times found that 79 percent of the public thinks Bush either is hiding something about Iraq, or worse, is "mostly lying" about it. The Post asked whether Bush or Kerry is "honest and trustworthy," and the president was judged to be honest by 39 percent. Kerry came in at 52 percent.
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc013874764jul01,0,7049200.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
Others:
Colorado “in play” (Bush up 5), Florida still even.
Why Bush is in Trouble: One take: [Barry Ritholtz]
Two recent polls/anecdotal surveys reveal disturbing realities about what should be near automatic support for the President amongst GOP voters in the upcoming election. They are not good news for the incumbent.
The first is a 1H 2004 CNBC poll of 30 professional money managers. This group manages over $320 Billion dollars -- a third of a trillion bucks. They were questioned about the market, the economy and the upcoming election. While 92% of these pros thought the stock market would do better under Bush than Kerry, a surprising 37% of them were supporting Kerry anyway.
For the incumbent, this amounts to a very large vein of discontent running through what should be a heavily GOP stronghold. Republican presidents do not typically get re-elected when they are only polling a 63% support on Wall Street.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/06/bush_slipping_a.html
Bush’s Military RecordHere’s a thorough record, compiled by Paul Lukasiak. Some basic facts are laid out as to his non-performance. As per the Moore movie, mainstream journalists can access the same material. Will they?
When you compare the Bush records to the United States Statutes, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies of the early 1970s, only one conclusion can be reached: that 30 years ago, George W. Bush shirked his sworn duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces to the national security of the United States of America.
However, Bush’s desertion from the Armed Forces thirty years ago is not terribly relevant. Lots of people make mistakes in their early twenties, and those mistakes do not necessarily reflect on the character of individuals when they are in their fifties.
What is relevant is Bush’s continued lies about his service, and his insistence upon presenting his service in the US Military as “honorable”. It was not. Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family.
There is no other explanation for Bush’s records. None.http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm#rehab
Ashcroft: The Supeme Court is giving rights to terrorists
Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court gave more rights to terrorists in three recent decisions, and Justice Department lawyers are poring over the rulings to determine their consequences.
The orders issued Monday on Guantanamo detainees and enemy combatants Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi indicate "that certain terrorists have more rights," Ashcroft said after a meeting with a regional anti-terrorism advisory council.
"The Supreme Court accorded to terrorists, in a variety of cases this week, a number of additional rights," he said. "We're digesting those opinions in terms of making sure that we adjust or modify what we do, so that we accommodate the requirements as expressed by the Supreme Court." http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20040701&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=407010402&SectionCat=&Template=printart
S.C. decisions a boon for Bush! Elaine Cassel:
Forget what the media’s talking heads have told you about these three Supreme Court decisions that tested the power of George W. Bush. The President won far more than he lost, so administration “officials” who pronounce themselves victors are more on target than the press who tell you that the decisions represent a defeat for the Administration, or rein in its power. Taken together, the decisions are more important for what they did not do. Their significance for the future, particularly if Bush is reelected, cannot be underestimated.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
To begin with, the Court dodged the most important case—the case of Jose Padilla. Padilla, recently vilified by a highly-placed Department of Justice attorney, is the American citizen arrested on a material witness warrant in Chicago two years ago. The government’s story then was that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb. Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference and announced the incarceration of Padilla and told us what a dangerous man he was. Of course, if they had evidence that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb, they would have charged him with a host of crimes, and tried him. But they never charged him with anything. What does that tell you? A couple of weeks ago, Ashcroft sent out one of his top deputies to change the story on Padilla. That story may have influenced the Court’s decision, though we will never know this. Though the official denied that the press conference—at which he announced that Padilla had “confessed” to plotting to blow up high-rise apartment buildings—may have been held when it was to punctuate the government’s belief that Padilla was a very, very dangerous man. So if he is so dangerous, why is he not being charged. Of, you have to love this reason: because the government denied him his rights and repeatedly interrogated him without an attorney (and, maybe even tortured him, for all we know) his confession is no good! Can’t be used in court. So since we denied him his rights, we cannot try him, but we can hold him without charging him forever. Because we say he is dangerous.
And what did the Supreme Court have to say about that? In a 5-4 decision, it said...nothing. It ruled that Padilla’s court’ appointed attorney, Donna Newman, filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus (challenging the detention of her client without charge, without access to her) in the wrong federal court. She sued Rumsfeld, on whose order Padilla was named an “enemy combatant” in the Southern District of New York, where he was brought and incarcerated and where she was appointed. But after she got into the case, and without notice to her, the government moved him to a brig in South Carolina. So the government argued that the warden of the brig is the party to be sued, not Rumsfeld. As if that warden does not answer to Rumsfeld, at least if she is holding an enemy combatant—so-called. So with Rehnquist writing for the majority, the court threw out his petition. Altogether. Padilla has to start all over again, suing the warden wherever he or she is. Ah, but keep in mind, that once his attorneys file a another petition, the government just has to move him again. And again. And again. To avoid answering for his detention.
So the most important of the three cases was not decided. In not deciding, the Court fully sanctioned the continued detention of Padilla, without a charge, without a lawyer (Newman is now out of the case, since the suit was dismissed), for years to come.
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/intro
July 4: The State of the Nation.
Bob Herbert in the NY Times wishes us a happy July 4 celebration.
There is no exit strategy for American troops in Iraq. There is no plan in our insane tax-cut environment for paying for the war. The situation in Afghanistan, which is part of the real war against terror, has deteriorated. The U.S. military is stretched dangerously thin, lacking sufficient troops to meet its obligations around the world. Homeland security is deeply underfunded. And with the terror networks energized, the feeling among intelligence experts with regard to a strike in the U.S. is not if, but when.
Thanks, Bob.
-R
“We don’t do movie reviews.” - Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
---consistent with:
“I don’t do quagmires. “- Donald Rumsfeld.
“We don’t do body counts.” - former war commander Tommy Franks
Krugman on Fahrenheit 9/11
Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives…
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Florida ‘Felons List’ in Public DomainIt’s out there, via CNN vs Florida Department of State, allowing for invaluable checking.
What’s Happening, Iraq: Violence unabated
Saddam Holds Court
He’s ‘holding up.’ The Iraqi public is split over this detention / trial. Dexter Filkins in Friday’s NY Times:
The images of a once-omnipotent dictator charged with mass murder seemed to open up a conversation on every street and in every home.
Some Iraqis celebrated what they hoped would be Mr. Hussein's impending punishment, even his death. Others said they felt humiliated that Mr. Hussein's arraignment in a courtroom here had been brought about by the Americans. While some Iraqis cheered Mr. Hussein's public humiliation, others seemed uncomfortable watching their former president being treated like a common criminal. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/international/middleeast/02REAX.html
Juan Cole on the ‘mixed feelings’:
Saddam Hussein was legally surrendered to the Iraqis by the Americans. Since the US is no longer in international law the Occupying power, it has little right to continue to hold Saddam. Since the Americans do not, however, trust the Iraqis to guard him properly, their surrender of Saddam is just as much a sham as their surrender of sovereignty. A new opinion poll in Iraq suggested that over forty percent of Iraqis want him executed, while a similar proportion want him just to be let go. This sign of the extreme polarization of the Iraqi public over this issue is a very bad omen. www.juancole.com
End of the Occupation, Limited Sovereignty, Sorry Condition
From Emad Mekay, Asia Times.
A barrage of binding decrees passed during the United States occupation of Iraq, combined with a lack of resources, heavy debt and the continuing presence of a massive US force, provide clear evidence that the recent handover of authority to Iraqis does not equal real control over the economy…
In May 2003, Bremer declared Iraq "open for business" and for the past 14 months the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) promoted major changes to the country's regulatory and legal frameworks, entered into long-term contracts and appointed oversight committees with multi-year terms. As a result, the country's economy looks set on a path that Iraqis will find hard - if not impossible - to alter.
A report by the Institute of Policy Studies estimated that Bremer had passed nearly 100 orders that, among other things, give US corporations "virtual free rein over the Iraqi economy while largely excluding Iraqis from a reconstruction effort which has failed to provide for their basic needs".
Meanwhile, a recent report by the Open Society Institute's (OSI) program to monitor Iraq's reconstruction said that the US-controlled CPA was engaged in a last-minute spending spree, committing billions of dollars to "ill-conceived projects just before it dissolves", in an apparent attempt to pre-impose those deals on any future Iraqi government. The US-controlled Program Review Board, the body in charge of managing Iraq's finances, approved the expenditure of nearly US$2 billion in Iraqi funds for reconstruction projects in just a single meeting…
Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan, sees limited sovereignty for the Iraqis from another perspective. He says the new US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will maintain control over some $18.3 billion in US aid to Iraq.
"The caretaker government is hedged around by American power," Cole wrote on his online blog Wednesday. "Negroponte will control $18 billion in US aid to Iraq. [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld will go on controlling the US and coalition military. There isn't much space left for real Iraqi sovereignty in all that. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG02Ak01.html
Employment: “Robust” job growth slows
We’re still down about a million during Bush’s term- actually, well over 7 million, if you remember (please do!) that 150,000 must be added each month to keep up with population growth.
The pace of U.S. hiring slumped sharply in June after several months of robust gains, the government reported on Friday as employers added fewer than half the number of payroll jobs forecast and hours of work shrunk.
The Labor Department said only 112,000 jobs were created last month, far fewer than the 250,000 that Wall Street analysts had anticipated. April and May new-job totals were revised down, to 324,000 and 235,000 respectively, from 346,000 and 248.000.
The unemployment rate was unchanged, as expected, at 5.6 percent.
June still represented a 10th straight month of job growth that has added about 1.5 million workers to payrolls, but the unexpectedly steep slowdown last month may make it harder for President Bush to campaign for re-election in November on a claim of accelerating economic momentum.
In a sign of broader weakness, the average workweek eased to 33.6 hours in June from 33.8 in May , the shortest since a matching 33.6 hours in December. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-economy-employment.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Health Insurance:
In September we’ll have the figures for 2003, which undoubtedly will show that the numbers have risen above 44 million. This piece addresses those who’ve been chronically without. Its message: in a year when the economy grew by 4%, 2.6 million more were without insurance for more than a year, now totaling 24.5 million. The major issue: Jobs are less and less likely to guarantee access to health insurance.
"As we lose jobs in the manufacturing sector to jobs in the service economy and small businesses, we're losing the stability of big employers and replacing it with a much more fragile system," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insure1jul01,1,344117.story
Polls:Whoops. He’s losing his “integrity” issue.
New surveys by The New York Times and the Washington Post reveal a perilous plunge in the commander-in-chief's credibility. The Times found that 79 percent of the public thinks Bush either is hiding something about Iraq, or worse, is "mostly lying" about it. The Post asked whether Bush or Kerry is "honest and trustworthy," and the president was judged to be honest by 39 percent. Kerry came in at 52 percent.
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc013874764jul01,0,7049200.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
Others:
Colorado “in play” (Bush up 5), Florida still even.
Why Bush is in Trouble: One take: [Barry Ritholtz]
Two recent polls/anecdotal surveys reveal disturbing realities about what should be near automatic support for the President amongst GOP voters in the upcoming election. They are not good news for the incumbent.
The first is a 1H 2004 CNBC poll of 30 professional money managers. This group manages over $320 Billion dollars -- a third of a trillion bucks. They were questioned about the market, the economy and the upcoming election. While 92% of these pros thought the stock market would do better under Bush than Kerry, a surprising 37% of them were supporting Kerry anyway.
For the incumbent, this amounts to a very large vein of discontent running through what should be a heavily GOP stronghold. Republican presidents do not typically get re-elected when they are only polling a 63% support on Wall Street.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/06/bush_slipping_a.html
Bush’s Military RecordHere’s a thorough record, compiled by Paul Lukasiak. Some basic facts are laid out as to his non-performance. As per the Moore movie, mainstream journalists can access the same material. Will they?
When you compare the Bush records to the United States Statutes, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies of the early 1970s, only one conclusion can be reached: that 30 years ago, George W. Bush shirked his sworn duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces to the national security of the United States of America.
However, Bush’s desertion from the Armed Forces thirty years ago is not terribly relevant. Lots of people make mistakes in their early twenties, and those mistakes do not necessarily reflect on the character of individuals when they are in their fifties.
What is relevant is Bush’s continued lies about his service, and his insistence upon presenting his service in the US Military as “honorable”. It was not. Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family.
There is no other explanation for Bush’s records. None.http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm#rehab
Ashcroft: The Supeme Court is giving rights to terrorists
Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court gave more rights to terrorists in three recent decisions, and Justice Department lawyers are poring over the rulings to determine their consequences.
The orders issued Monday on Guantanamo detainees and enemy combatants Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi indicate "that certain terrorists have more rights," Ashcroft said after a meeting with a regional anti-terrorism advisory council.
"The Supreme Court accorded to terrorists, in a variety of cases this week, a number of additional rights," he said. "We're digesting those opinions in terms of making sure that we adjust or modify what we do, so that we accommodate the requirements as expressed by the Supreme Court." http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20040701&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=407010402&SectionCat=&Template=printart
S.C. decisions a boon for Bush! Elaine Cassel:
Forget what the media’s talking heads have told you about these three Supreme Court decisions that tested the power of George W. Bush. The President won far more than he lost, so administration “officials” who pronounce themselves victors are more on target than the press who tell you that the decisions represent a defeat for the Administration, or rein in its power. Taken together, the decisions are more important for what they did not do. Their significance for the future, particularly if Bush is reelected, cannot be underestimated.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
To begin with, the Court dodged the most important case—the case of Jose Padilla. Padilla, recently vilified by a highly-placed Department of Justice attorney, is the American citizen arrested on a material witness warrant in Chicago two years ago. The government’s story then was that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb. Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference and announced the incarceration of Padilla and told us what a dangerous man he was. Of course, if they had evidence that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb, they would have charged him with a host of crimes, and tried him. But they never charged him with anything. What does that tell you? A couple of weeks ago, Ashcroft sent out one of his top deputies to change the story on Padilla. That story may have influenced the Court’s decision, though we will never know this. Though the official denied that the press conference—at which he announced that Padilla had “confessed” to plotting to blow up high-rise apartment buildings—may have been held when it was to punctuate the government’s belief that Padilla was a very, very dangerous man. So if he is so dangerous, why is he not being charged. Of, you have to love this reason: because the government denied him his rights and repeatedly interrogated him without an attorney (and, maybe even tortured him, for all we know) his confession is no good! Can’t be used in court. So since we denied him his rights, we cannot try him, but we can hold him without charging him forever. Because we say he is dangerous.
And what did the Supreme Court have to say about that? In a 5-4 decision, it said...nothing. It ruled that Padilla’s court’ appointed attorney, Donna Newman, filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus (challenging the detention of her client without charge, without access to her) in the wrong federal court. She sued Rumsfeld, on whose order Padilla was named an “enemy combatant” in the Southern District of New York, where he was brought and incarcerated and where she was appointed. But after she got into the case, and without notice to her, the government moved him to a brig in South Carolina. So the government argued that the warden of the brig is the party to be sued, not Rumsfeld. As if that warden does not answer to Rumsfeld, at least if she is holding an enemy combatant—so-called. So with Rehnquist writing for the majority, the court threw out his petition. Altogether. Padilla has to start all over again, suing the warden wherever he or she is. Ah, but keep in mind, that once his attorneys file a another petition, the government just has to move him again. And again. And again. To avoid answering for his detention.
So the most important of the three cases was not decided. In not deciding, the Court fully sanctioned the continued detention of Padilla, without a charge, without a lawyer (Newman is now out of the case, since the suit was dismissed), for years to come.
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/intro
July 4: The State of the Nation.
Bob Herbert in the NY Times wishes us a happy July 4 celebration.
There is no exit strategy for American troops in Iraq. There is no plan in our insane tax-cut environment for paying for the war. The situation in Afghanistan, which is part of the real war against terror, has deteriorated. The U.S. military is stretched dangerously thin, lacking sufficient troops to meet its obligations around the world. Homeland security is deeply underfunded. And with the terror networks energized, the feeling among intelligence experts with regard to a strike in the U.S. is not if, but when.
Thanks, Bob.
-R
