Sunday, August 22, 2004
The Americans are weak. They fight for money and status and squeal like pigs when they die.”– 12 year old Mahdi militia fighter in Najaf [Independent]
Swift Boat Saga: It’s THE focus, unfortunately; Can’t we focus on the theft of Edvard Munch’s The Scream? Arrrghh!
Globe editorial: The Bush Lies
Nice title; some good points. Still, I take exception:
1) They refer to Clinton as a ‘draft dodger’. Has Cheney been similarly referenced? (No)
2) More importantly, why do they insist on seeing the two parties as equally culpable of whatever? As to the ‘big lie’,
Both parties do it, but Republicans are developing a shocking expertise.
Developing? Willie Horton was 16 years ago. Both parties character assassinate? What’s the Democrat equivalent of the Horton ad, or the accusations that McCain had an illegitimate (black) child and sold out his fellow POWs? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/22/big_lies_for_bush?mode=PF
The Right’s control of the media means that we will have incessant moments of ‘balance’, equating the Right’s positions with the Democrats, moveon ads with swift boat liars.
The only solution is an ongoing, aggressive effort to take back the media.
As to the Kerry ad, Kerry is finally responding, and at least partially attacking Bush for the pattern. One waits for one of these Democrats to attack Bush directly- that he hides behind vicious character assassination ads and always pretends to know nothing of the efforts and are, as Junior was w/ McCain, speechless when confronted.
And, can’t we spend a few moments interviewing Ben Barnes, the Texas Speaker of the House in 1968? He was the one who got Junior to the top of the Air National Guard list.
You know, balance, fairness.
What’s Happening, Iraq: Casualties: Up more than 50% since “sovereignty” was passed on at the end of June.
What Europe Thinks: European media remain ‘clear’ as to Iraq, that it’s a failed policy that’s part of a larger mis-direction in U.S. policy. They see Bush as a disaster, and voice disbelief when told that Bush might win re-election.
Meanwhile, a view from Israel, the Jerusalem Post (Eli Valley):
Bad for American security, bad for the Jews
Among a minority of lifelong Jewish Democrats, it comes out like a shameful confession: "I disagree with practically all of George W. Bush's policies, but because he's good for Israel and strong in the war on terror, I might actually vote for him."
Never mind that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has a perfect 20-year voting record on Israel. The "Bush impulse" is at its core an emotional urge. In the aftermath of 9/11, the ongoing Palestinian violence, and the War in Iraq, a minority of Jewish Democrats are convinced that President Bush has kept us, and has helped to keep Israel, out of harm's way.
The Bush impulse would be understandable were it based on the president's solid terror-fighting credentials. Close inspection, however, reveals that Bush has not only failed to protect us but has in fact jeopardized the national security of the United States and of Israel.
After September 11, American national security priorities were clear: In the immediate future, we needed to rout the Taliban, destroy al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rebuild civil society in Afghanistan, and protect American cities, ports, and chemical and nuclear facilities against future attacks. Given our limited resources, the objectives would require preternatural focus and commitment.
Unfortunately, Bush has fought to accomplish only the first objective. Each of the remaining priorities has been abandoned in the president's misplaced obsession with Iraq. Indeed, according to a report by the Army War College, the US Army's most distinguished academic institution, the War in Iraq "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al-Qaida." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092280011185&p=1006953079865
Of course, Kerry disagrees with this, which leaves him- and many of us- no where.
Australian Intelligence: We said it would be a disaster!
The Federal Government was warned repeatedly by intelligence analysts before the Iraq war that the conflict would harm the war on terrorism by fanning Islamic extremism and spurring terrorist recruiting.
An investigation by the Herald, which has included interviews with several serving and retired intelligence figures, has uncovered that John Howard and his senior colleagues were briefed on the dangers, verbally and in written reports.
Yet the Prime Minister told Australians on the eve of the conflict that the war would lessen the terrorist threat, contradicting his intelligence advice. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113058224.html
Hey, why didn’t they tell the CIA and Bush??
Howard’s up for re-election.
What’s Happening, Guantanamo:
The first military tribunal system since the end of World War II to try terrorism suspects begins Tuesday in “Cuba”. Worldwide media and human rights groups will witness the proceedings; are we aware?
Buchanan Knocks Bush…in print.
He’s not on the ballot, but addresses some of the disquiet among conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative commentator whose Republican primary challenge and divisive convention speech weakened the first President Bush's campaign for re-election in 1992, is publishing a book excoriating the second President Bush over the invasion of Iraq, just in time to grab a share of the limelight at another Republican convention.
The arguments in the book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," which was released late last week, may be familiar, at least to readers of his magazine, The American Conservative, which was founded as a forum for opposition from the right to the invasion of Iraq. Calling the invasion "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years," Mr. Buchanan writes, "If prudence is the mark of a conservative, Mr. Bush has ceased to be a conservative." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/politics/22buchanan.html?ex=1094130243&ei=1&en=22f3aaa029eeda0b
Harris Poll: Some people are waking up
A new Harris poll finds a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who believe they were misled by the U.S. government's statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
Sixty percent of Americans now believe that they were misled by the government on matters surrounding Iraq, up from 51% in June. Just over a third of respondents said they believe that what the public was told was generally accurate, but this is down from 44% in June. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109294542737896373,00.html?mod=special%5Fpage%5Firaq%5F2
Bush Olympics Ad:
Several new feel-good ads from the Rove machine. This one turned off some not-so-usual suspects.
President Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television ad that mentions the Olympics by name, despite objections from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a spokesman said Friday.
"We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement," said Scott Stanzel.
USOC officials had protested that federal law gives them the exclusive rights to the name.
The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120," an announcer says. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."
Bush campaign aides contend that the law in question gives the committee exclusive rights only to use the Olympics name to sell goods or services or to promote athletic competition. The campaign avoided using the symbol of five rings in the ad, the aides said.
Stanzel said the ad will continue to run for the last two weeks of August.
Some of the players on the Iraqi Olympic soccer team have complained about the ads. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1864173&type=story
One awful rumor has Bush flying to the Olympics to watch the Iraqi soccer team, sort of a reprise of the plastic turkey “serving” that he did last Thanksgiving, which did give him a 5 point bump in the polls.
Oil: Alternating Confidence and Worry For those who’ve been skipping the postings on oil…
An increasing percentage of articles wax concern that we’re heading into unchartered territory; others find cause for reassurance. Regardless, too few focus on the dwindling supply (vs demand) of oil and natural gas (or global warming)
While the current oil crunch is less acute than in the 1970s, it could prove to be more chronic due to rising global demand and a thin cushion of extra supply. World consumption has risen an estimated 2.5% from a year ago.
As oil prices near $50 a barrel, a fundamental difference between this oil crunch and prior ones is becoming clear: This one is less acute, but it may prove to be more chronic.
So far, the current oil-price surge still trails the big blows of the past. In inflation-adjusted dollars, oil peaked in 1981 at $73 a barrel, 55% above where it's trading now. Back then, moreover, the oil crisis sparked a full-blown recession. Today, despite some signs of a slowing, the economy continues to grow -- and, with it, oil demand.
It's precisely the steadily rising demand, however, that is worrying the market. Unlike in the 1970s, the problem this time isn't primarily a supply shock in which the world's biggest oil spigots have been shut off. It's that, even though they're wide open, the world is consuming pretty much everything that comes out of the ground. The resulting fear is that isolated supply disruptions -- a change in government in Venezuela, say, or a terrorist attack in the Middle East -- could push prices even higher. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109294862157996439,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus
Last week, however, a third market flashed red on the economy: oil. And according to Stephen S. Roach, economist at Morgan Stanley, oil shocks, like the one that may be developing, have an awfully perfect - and perfectly awful - track record. They are always followed by recession.
Last Friday, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil hit $48.95 a barrel, then settled back to $47.86 at the close of trading. That is up from around $33 a barrel at the beginning of the year.
A throng of strategists on Wall Street argue that rising crude prices do not hurt as much as they have in the past because the economy is not as energy dependent as it once was. The amount of energy needed to generate $1 in gross domestic product has fallen by roughly 50 percent in the past three decades, according to Morgan Stanley.
But as Mr. Roach pointed out, a price spike like the one that has occurred this year can have consequences. And if the past is any guide, they are not pretty. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/business/yourmoney/22watch.html?pagewanted=print&position=
-R
Swift Boat Saga: It’s THE focus, unfortunately; Can’t we focus on the theft of Edvard Munch’s The Scream? Arrrghh!
Globe editorial: The Bush Lies
Nice title; some good points. Still, I take exception:
1) They refer to Clinton as a ‘draft dodger’. Has Cheney been similarly referenced? (No)
2) More importantly, why do they insist on seeing the two parties as equally culpable of whatever? As to the ‘big lie’,
Both parties do it, but Republicans are developing a shocking expertise.
Developing? Willie Horton was 16 years ago. Both parties character assassinate? What’s the Democrat equivalent of the Horton ad, or the accusations that McCain had an illegitimate (black) child and sold out his fellow POWs? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/22/big_lies_for_bush?mode=PF
The Right’s control of the media means that we will have incessant moments of ‘balance’, equating the Right’s positions with the Democrats, moveon ads with swift boat liars.
The only solution is an ongoing, aggressive effort to take back the media.
As to the Kerry ad, Kerry is finally responding, and at least partially attacking Bush for the pattern. One waits for one of these Democrats to attack Bush directly- that he hides behind vicious character assassination ads and always pretends to know nothing of the efforts and are, as Junior was w/ McCain, speechless when confronted.
And, can’t we spend a few moments interviewing Ben Barnes, the Texas Speaker of the House in 1968? He was the one who got Junior to the top of the Air National Guard list.
You know, balance, fairness.
What’s Happening, Iraq: Casualties: Up more than 50% since “sovereignty” was passed on at the end of June.
What Europe Thinks: European media remain ‘clear’ as to Iraq, that it’s a failed policy that’s part of a larger mis-direction in U.S. policy. They see Bush as a disaster, and voice disbelief when told that Bush might win re-election.
Meanwhile, a view from Israel, the Jerusalem Post (Eli Valley):
Bad for American security, bad for the Jews
Among a minority of lifelong Jewish Democrats, it comes out like a shameful confession: "I disagree with practically all of George W. Bush's policies, but because he's good for Israel and strong in the war on terror, I might actually vote for him."
Never mind that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has a perfect 20-year voting record on Israel. The "Bush impulse" is at its core an emotional urge. In the aftermath of 9/11, the ongoing Palestinian violence, and the War in Iraq, a minority of Jewish Democrats are convinced that President Bush has kept us, and has helped to keep Israel, out of harm's way.
The Bush impulse would be understandable were it based on the president's solid terror-fighting credentials. Close inspection, however, reveals that Bush has not only failed to protect us but has in fact jeopardized the national security of the United States and of Israel.
After September 11, American national security priorities were clear: In the immediate future, we needed to rout the Taliban, destroy al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rebuild civil society in Afghanistan, and protect American cities, ports, and chemical and nuclear facilities against future attacks. Given our limited resources, the objectives would require preternatural focus and commitment.
Unfortunately, Bush has fought to accomplish only the first objective. Each of the remaining priorities has been abandoned in the president's misplaced obsession with Iraq. Indeed, according to a report by the Army War College, the US Army's most distinguished academic institution, the War in Iraq "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al-Qaida." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092280011185&p=1006953079865
Of course, Kerry disagrees with this, which leaves him- and many of us- no where.
Australian Intelligence: We said it would be a disaster!
The Federal Government was warned repeatedly by intelligence analysts before the Iraq war that the conflict would harm the war on terrorism by fanning Islamic extremism and spurring terrorist recruiting.
An investigation by the Herald, which has included interviews with several serving and retired intelligence figures, has uncovered that John Howard and his senior colleagues were briefed on the dangers, verbally and in written reports.
Yet the Prime Minister told Australians on the eve of the conflict that the war would lessen the terrorist threat, contradicting his intelligence advice. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113058224.html
Hey, why didn’t they tell the CIA and Bush??
Howard’s up for re-election.
What’s Happening, Guantanamo:
The first military tribunal system since the end of World War II to try terrorism suspects begins Tuesday in “Cuba”. Worldwide media and human rights groups will witness the proceedings; are we aware?
Buchanan Knocks Bush…in print.
He’s not on the ballot, but addresses some of the disquiet among conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative commentator whose Republican primary challenge and divisive convention speech weakened the first President Bush's campaign for re-election in 1992, is publishing a book excoriating the second President Bush over the invasion of Iraq, just in time to grab a share of the limelight at another Republican convention.
The arguments in the book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," which was released late last week, may be familiar, at least to readers of his magazine, The American Conservative, which was founded as a forum for opposition from the right to the invasion of Iraq. Calling the invasion "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years," Mr. Buchanan writes, "If prudence is the mark of a conservative, Mr. Bush has ceased to be a conservative." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/politics/22buchanan.html?ex=1094130243&ei=1&en=22f3aaa029eeda0b
Harris Poll: Some people are waking up
A new Harris poll finds a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who believe they were misled by the U.S. government's statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
Sixty percent of Americans now believe that they were misled by the government on matters surrounding Iraq, up from 51% in June. Just over a third of respondents said they believe that what the public was told was generally accurate, but this is down from 44% in June. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109294542737896373,00.html?mod=special%5Fpage%5Firaq%5F2
Bush Olympics Ad:
Several new feel-good ads from the Rove machine. This one turned off some not-so-usual suspects.
President Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television ad that mentions the Olympics by name, despite objections from the U.S. Olympic Committee, a spokesman said Friday.
"We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement," said Scott Stanzel.
USOC officials had protested that federal law gives them the exclusive rights to the name.
The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120," an announcer says. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."
Bush campaign aides contend that the law in question gives the committee exclusive rights only to use the Olympics name to sell goods or services or to promote athletic competition. The campaign avoided using the symbol of five rings in the ad, the aides said.
Stanzel said the ad will continue to run for the last two weeks of August.
Some of the players on the Iraqi Olympic soccer team have complained about the ads. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1864173&type=story
One awful rumor has Bush flying to the Olympics to watch the Iraqi soccer team, sort of a reprise of the plastic turkey “serving” that he did last Thanksgiving, which did give him a 5 point bump in the polls.
Oil: Alternating Confidence and Worry For those who’ve been skipping the postings on oil…
An increasing percentage of articles wax concern that we’re heading into unchartered territory; others find cause for reassurance. Regardless, too few focus on the dwindling supply (vs demand) of oil and natural gas (or global warming)
While the current oil crunch is less acute than in the 1970s, it could prove to be more chronic due to rising global demand and a thin cushion of extra supply. World consumption has risen an estimated 2.5% from a year ago.
As oil prices near $50 a barrel, a fundamental difference between this oil crunch and prior ones is becoming clear: This one is less acute, but it may prove to be more chronic.
So far, the current oil-price surge still trails the big blows of the past. In inflation-adjusted dollars, oil peaked in 1981 at $73 a barrel, 55% above where it's trading now. Back then, moreover, the oil crisis sparked a full-blown recession. Today, despite some signs of a slowing, the economy continues to grow -- and, with it, oil demand.
It's precisely the steadily rising demand, however, that is worrying the market. Unlike in the 1970s, the problem this time isn't primarily a supply shock in which the world's biggest oil spigots have been shut off. It's that, even though they're wide open, the world is consuming pretty much everything that comes out of the ground. The resulting fear is that isolated supply disruptions -- a change in government in Venezuela, say, or a terrorist attack in the Middle East -- could push prices even higher. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109294862157996439,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus
Last week, however, a third market flashed red on the economy: oil. And according to Stephen S. Roach, economist at Morgan Stanley, oil shocks, like the one that may be developing, have an awfully perfect - and perfectly awful - track record. They are always followed by recession.
Last Friday, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil hit $48.95 a barrel, then settled back to $47.86 at the close of trading. That is up from around $33 a barrel at the beginning of the year.
A throng of strategists on Wall Street argue that rising crude prices do not hurt as much as they have in the past because the economy is not as energy dependent as it once was. The amount of energy needed to generate $1 in gross domestic product has fallen by roughly 50 percent in the past three decades, according to Morgan Stanley.
But as Mr. Roach pointed out, a price spike like the one that has occurred this year can have consequences. And if the past is any guide, they are not pretty. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/business/yourmoney/22watch.html?pagewanted=print&position=
-R
