Sunday, August 01, 2004
Post Convention
Most editorial pages were positive. Not the Washington Post:
In the end, Mr. Kerry will be judged not in a vacuum but against the record compiled by Mr. Bush. But he will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs. http://65.54.186.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=4b1f6ba8cd82e926a90c1ec54a0eae3e&lat=1091192737&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fletters%2ewashingtonpost%2ecom%2fW6RH0459C244AEBA439543F84CD8D0
CNN Convention Banter: The Fox Effect. An example of their ‘impartiality’
Wolf Blitzer: One of the biggest problems that John Kerry has had is this Republican criticism that he flip-flops, that he votes one way, the next day, he votes another way. That is a serious criticism.
[Judy] Woodruff: Another argument the Republicans make, the Bush Bush/Cheney campaign John Kerry has voted to cut defense. They have produced reams of documents to back up votes that he made in the United States Senate that they say show compare to practically not only the Republicans, but compared to many other Democrats. He has not voted to support the kind of military spending that would create a strong America.
[Jeff] Greenfield: How hard do you think it will be to talk to the men and women now in the military about John Kerry's record, given the fact that he even acknowledges when he came back from Vietnam and participated in the anti-war movement, he used language that he called over the top. He talked about war crimes. He described in graphic details events that he now says might not have happened. Does this not create at least a barrier to winning support for men and women in the military?
----
[Aaron] Brown: More now with how the convention is being covered and how it's being seen. We're joined from the Fleet Center in Boston tonight by Jonah Goldberg, who's the editor at large or an editor at large for National Review online, which is a terrific read and a contributing editor of National Review.
Note that Brown never identifies Goldberg as a conservative
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000781.asp
Ron Reagan: Our Reagan, in Esquire:
The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on. http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2004%2F040729_mfe_reagan.html&x=50&y=14
Obama as seen by Asia Times’ Pepe Escobar
He started very low key, unfolding his extraordinary family story - father from Kenya, mother from Kansas, the meeting of immigrant and Middle America - to include it in the master theme of union and hope, in a delicate but relentless crescendo. He evoked "the audacity of hope". The tone and the deliverance were resolute and at the same time extremely uplifting - almost like a pop-song version of a psalm. No wonder the end of the speech swiftly connected to a pop version of a psalm, the ultra-cool "Keep on Pushing" by the legendary Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions ("Maybe someday/ I'll reach that higher goal/ I know I can make it/ with just a little bit of soul"). One AmericaObama's mix of Clintonian third way, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King all rolled into an all-inclusive package cannot but be radioactive material. In Obama, the Democratic Party may finally have found its own bridge to a multi-ethnic, socially just 21st-century America. The Kerry campaign would just need to release Obama on the campaign trail to have both the black votes and the white suburban votes pouring in. Republicans relentlessly play the race card to scare white Southern men in the US - who keep voting Republican against their best economic interests.
Obama shattered this racist fallacy. And once again reflecting how race - as well as class - is indeed a taboo theme in US society, even instant converts to Obamania seemed to be relieved that he does not speak with the intonation, the rhythm and the phrasing of black American preachers. This implies that as his race is not obvious from the perspective of his speech pattern, there's no limit for his achievements as a politician. Barring the hate bullet that stopped John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King, Barack ("Blessed") Obama will live maybe one day to confront his blessed destiny: to become America's first black president. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG30Aa03.html
For the text of Obama's speech: http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG30Aa01.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: That Islamic Force
I briefly noted this U.S. idea of speeding our troop withdrawal by developing a Muslim force to help police Iraq.
Two takes: The Washington Post piece (Robin Wright) highlights the difficulties; the Scotsman posits that there may be an ‘October Surprise’ where Bush announces troop withdrawals and a ‘date certain’ that we’d be out, bolstering his chances… or that it boomerangs on him. Time will tell…if it happens…
A Saudi initiative to send an Islamic force to help stabilize Iraq and reduce the need for the U.S.-led military force would probably take three months or longer to deploy and might not get off the ground at all, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The proposal is already mired in complex military issues and political sensitivities. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30967-2004Jul31.html?nav=headlines
He has survived two recent assassination attempts and been roundly condemned within his own country for the American-led war on Iraq. Pakistan’s strong-man president, Pervez Musharraf, could be forgiven for at least once wanting to lie low on the international stage. But the heat is on Musharraf again this weekend to play a crucial role in political events way outside Pakistan’s borders. Musharraf is the key figure in dragging together an international Muslim force to move into Iraq and take the burden off the beleaguered US armed services. If Pakistan commits, other Muslim nations, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia and Egypt, will be more likely to fall into line. If the move succeeds, President George W Bush will be able to go into the US presidential elections in just 100 days’ time promising that American troops will soon be on their way home. Failure to bring the Muslim force together will mean that Bush’s chances of beating off his Democrat rival for the White House, Senator John Kerry, will take another hammering. http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=881302004
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: Still another report of increased fighting and more U.S. statements of ‘This proves we’re winning.’
Fighting has intensified, particularly in the east along the rugged, 1,500-mile border with Pakistan and in the south near Kandahar. Twenty-three American troops have died from ambushes, land mines and other hostile fire this year, compared with 12 combat deaths in all of 2003, according to military statistics. An increasingly popular weapon may have been inspired by insurgents in Iraq: remote-controlled bombs.
The Taliban have stepped up recruiting in the south and intensified strikes against newly trained Afghan soldiers and police officers, as well as foreign-aid workers. This week, the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders said it was withdrawing from Afghanistan after 24 years, in part because of the deteriorating security there. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/international/asia/01AFGH.html
Humor: Offspring Recommendations: They have good taste.
My son recommends Bill Maher’s show: It features Michael Moore and host pleading with Ralph Nader not to run, and Rep. David Drier (R-Ca) humiliating himself in a discussion re Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s on HBO Monday at 8PM and Wednesday 12AM and 11:30PM. http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/
My daughter recommends Will Farrell doing Bush at www.whitehousewest.com (sound required)
American Military Re-deploys: A trickle of stories over the last weeks as our troops are pulled from Korea and elsewhere and find their way to new strategic outposts, most of which are in oil country. This is the latest, via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Michael Mainville)
As he supervised a crew of mechanics working on a C-130 Hercules supply plane, U.S. Air Force Capt. Dale Linafelter marveled at finding himself at a dusty, long-abandoned bomber base in what was once the Soviet Union.
"I'd never even heard of Kyrgyzstan," Linafelter said.
The captain has got a lot company.
Manas Air Field near the capital of Kyrgyzstan now hosts more than 1,150 U.S. servicemen, the largest American military presence in Central Asia outside Afghanistan.
Yet "some of them still don't know where they are," joked Lt. Col. Stan Giles, the base chaplain. "You know, there's an old saying: 'War is God's way of teaching geography to Americans.' "
More geography lessons are on the way.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon is planning the greatest shake-up in America's overseas military deployments since the end of the second World War.
Gone are the days of massive bases in places like Germany, Japan and South Korea that look like small U.S. towns. Replacing them will be a global network of what Pentagon planners call "lily pads" -- small forward bases in remote, dangerous corners of the world that can act as jumping-off points when crises arise.
Bases like the one at Manas Air Field, Kyrgyzstan.
"This marks a new epoch in American force posturing," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a Washington clearinghouse for strategic intelligence. "It's one of only a half-dozen similar reposturings since the American Revolution. It's a very significant change."
On July 13, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, Andy Hoehn, said in Washington that defense officials will present their redeployment proposals to President Bush within several weeks. Hoehn said he expects the changes to start taking effect in late 2005 or early 2006. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040726-us-bases.htm
“The real reasons Bush went to war” John Chapman of the Guardian notes that worry about oil and the dollar’s future, not wmd drove the invasion/occupation.
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club. I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war. ..
By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double 2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the Opec oil-pricing cartel.
Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well…"
Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects…
Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen? Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead?
If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a basket of national currencies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4980254-103677,00.html
The American Economy, as viewed from G.B.: The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott frets that Kerry or Bush will have a tough road ahead, suggesting “it would be better for Kerry if he lost.”
The candidate has been anointed and he has accepted the challenge. America is now supposed to have an idea of what makes John Kerry tick and, in November, we shall see whether he has what it takes to do what Bill Clinton did and defeat an incumbent Bush.
If defining Kerry has dominated events in Boston this week, a more interesting question is whether this is an election worth winning. For those who believe any price is worth paying to get rid of Bush, the answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Yet one look at the state of the world's biggest economy suggests that this may be a good election for the Democrats to lose. The next four years could be tough for the US - very tough indeed - and it would be fitting if Bush were left to clear up the almighty mess he has created.
A trade deficit of 5% of GDP is evidence that the US has been living beyond its means. A similar budget deficit shows that the govern ment, too, has been failing to match what it spends with its tax revenues. In any country south the Rio Grande, such a combination would mean that the IMF would be on the scene before you could say "structural adjustment".
The dollar's role as a global reserve currency means that Washington can paper over the cracks for a while by selling government bonds to its creditors. But if the laws of economics can be bent, they cannot be broken. The only long-term solution to the twin deficits is a dose of the medicine swallowed by Britain after Black Wednesday. Cutting the trade gap means exports go up and and imports come down. A cheaper dollar would help exports, but it would make imports dearer and threaten higher inflation. Higher taxes or lower spending are needed to curb consumer spending and close the budget deficit.
This combination worked in the UK, but was mightily unpopular. Unless Bush or Kerry have a brilliant plan for a perpetual bubble economy, one of them is going to have to face reality. At the moment, the Democrats have only one thought: winning. But if they lose they will at least have the consolation of seeing Bush cleaning up his own vomit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4982251-112564,00.html
Sandy Berger’s pilfering: No Big Deal, but no Media Exculpation: Seems that Berger’s not in such trouble. Part of the story from the Wall Street Journal’s Scot Paltrow. Where is the rest of the media?
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109114313710778456,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs
Bush Campaigns:
Ridiculous lines from Junior; you would think the Democrats would have no trouble with, "But intentions don't always translate into results. After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."
Really. How about if Kerry compares his achievements for the last 19 or 29 or 35 years with our Head Frat Boy?
Yet it’s still close.
Polls: Expectations as key. Clearly, if so few of the public haven’t made up their mind, there will be much less “bounce” from each convention. So, Fox News says that anything less than a double digit bounce for Kerry means it was a “failed” convention. Newsweek and a few others showed a 2 to 4 point increase for Kerry. Outliers were one Newsweek poll that showed Kerry up 54-41%, while Gallup/USA/CNN showed no gain, even a slight loss of support, “the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at this convention.”(sic)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040731/nysa010a_1.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm
9/11, Fear, and the Election: We know and fear that a terror attack close to the election will shift significant support to Bush. A study pushes the issue:
President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.
"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon…
"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."
When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.
"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/30/vote.psych.reut/index.html
Postscript(?): If the elections were cancelled:
Previously, we didn’t go into details, but if the desperate Bushies tried it, it would likely amount to a coup d’etat. That silly color code would be at the highest level- “code red” which sets up a panoply of emergency measures. The following is from of the web site “From the Wilderness.”
In other words, the possibility of an impending attack on America by this "outside enemy" has been accepted by the American public; this tacit acceptance has set the stage for the adoption of "the highest threat level": code red alert.
What the US public is not aware of, is that a code red alert suspends civilian government; it triggers a whole series of emergency procedures; it is tantamount to a coup d'etat -- although in many regards the coup d'etat has already taken place under the post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation and the rigging of the 2000 elections which brought George W. Bush into the White House.
Preparing for Code RedHomeland Security (DHS) has in fact been contemplating a code red alert "scenario" -- using Al Qaeda as a pretext -- for more than a year. In May 2003, the DHS conducted a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter was described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States." The exercise was based on code red assumptions involving a simulated terrorist attack.See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html. A code red alert, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would create conditions for the ("temporary" we are told) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, implying the cancellation or postponement of federal and State elections.
According to FEMA, code red would:
Increase or redirect personnel to address critical emergency needs; Assign emergency response personnel and pre-position and mobilize specially trained teams or resources; monitor, redirect, or constrain transportation systems; and close public and government facilities not critical for continuity of essential operations, especially public safety.(FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf )
Northern Command would take over. Several functions of civilian administration would be suspended; others could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.
A secret "Shadow Government" under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan" was installed on September 11, 2001.(See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A205842002Feb28?language=printer ). Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret shadow government would become functional in the case of a code red alert, redeploying key staff to secret locations.
Code red alert would, according to FEMA, also preclude and repress any form of public gathering or citizens' protest which questions the legitimacy of the emergency procedures and the installation of a police state. The emergency authorities would also exert tight censorship over the media and would no doubt paralyze the alternative news media on the internet. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072904_coup_detat_america.shtml
Whoosh.
-R
Most editorial pages were positive. Not the Washington Post:
In the end, Mr. Kerry will be judged not in a vacuum but against the record compiled by Mr. Bush. But he will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs. http://65.54.186.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=4b1f6ba8cd82e926a90c1ec54a0eae3e&lat=1091192737&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fletters%2ewashingtonpost%2ecom%2fW6RH0459C244AEBA439543F84CD8D0
CNN Convention Banter: The Fox Effect. An example of their ‘impartiality’
Wolf Blitzer: One of the biggest problems that John Kerry has had is this Republican criticism that he flip-flops, that he votes one way, the next day, he votes another way. That is a serious criticism.
[Judy] Woodruff: Another argument the Republicans make, the Bush Bush/Cheney campaign John Kerry has voted to cut defense. They have produced reams of documents to back up votes that he made in the United States Senate that they say show compare to practically not only the Republicans, but compared to many other Democrats. He has not voted to support the kind of military spending that would create a strong America.
[Jeff] Greenfield: How hard do you think it will be to talk to the men and women now in the military about John Kerry's record, given the fact that he even acknowledges when he came back from Vietnam and participated in the anti-war movement, he used language that he called over the top. He talked about war crimes. He described in graphic details events that he now says might not have happened. Does this not create at least a barrier to winning support for men and women in the military?
----
[Aaron] Brown: More now with how the convention is being covered and how it's being seen. We're joined from the Fleet Center in Boston tonight by Jonah Goldberg, who's the editor at large or an editor at large for National Review online, which is a terrific read and a contributing editor of National Review.
Note that Brown never identifies Goldberg as a conservative
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000781.asp
Ron Reagan: Our Reagan, in Esquire:
The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on. http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2004%2F040729_mfe_reagan.html&x=50&y=14
Obama as seen by Asia Times’ Pepe Escobar
He started very low key, unfolding his extraordinary family story - father from Kenya, mother from Kansas, the meeting of immigrant and Middle America - to include it in the master theme of union and hope, in a delicate but relentless crescendo. He evoked "the audacity of hope". The tone and the deliverance were resolute and at the same time extremely uplifting - almost like a pop-song version of a psalm. No wonder the end of the speech swiftly connected to a pop version of a psalm, the ultra-cool "Keep on Pushing" by the legendary Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions ("Maybe someday/ I'll reach that higher goal/ I know I can make it/ with just a little bit of soul"). One AmericaObama's mix of Clintonian third way, Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King all rolled into an all-inclusive package cannot but be radioactive material. In Obama, the Democratic Party may finally have found its own bridge to a multi-ethnic, socially just 21st-century America. The Kerry campaign would just need to release Obama on the campaign trail to have both the black votes and the white suburban votes pouring in. Republicans relentlessly play the race card to scare white Southern men in the US - who keep voting Republican against their best economic interests.
Obama shattered this racist fallacy. And once again reflecting how race - as well as class - is indeed a taboo theme in US society, even instant converts to Obamania seemed to be relieved that he does not speak with the intonation, the rhythm and the phrasing of black American preachers. This implies that as his race is not obvious from the perspective of his speech pattern, there's no limit for his achievements as a politician. Barring the hate bullet that stopped John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King, Barack ("Blessed") Obama will live maybe one day to confront his blessed destiny: to become America's first black president. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG30Aa03.html
For the text of Obama's speech: http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG30Aa01.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: That Islamic Force
I briefly noted this U.S. idea of speeding our troop withdrawal by developing a Muslim force to help police Iraq.
Two takes: The Washington Post piece (Robin Wright) highlights the difficulties; the Scotsman posits that there may be an ‘October Surprise’ where Bush announces troop withdrawals and a ‘date certain’ that we’d be out, bolstering his chances… or that it boomerangs on him. Time will tell…if it happens…
A Saudi initiative to send an Islamic force to help stabilize Iraq and reduce the need for the U.S.-led military force would probably take three months or longer to deploy and might not get off the ground at all, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The proposal is already mired in complex military issues and political sensitivities. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30967-2004Jul31.html?nav=headlines
He has survived two recent assassination attempts and been roundly condemned within his own country for the American-led war on Iraq. Pakistan’s strong-man president, Pervez Musharraf, could be forgiven for at least once wanting to lie low on the international stage. But the heat is on Musharraf again this weekend to play a crucial role in political events way outside Pakistan’s borders. Musharraf is the key figure in dragging together an international Muslim force to move into Iraq and take the burden off the beleaguered US armed services. If Pakistan commits, other Muslim nations, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia and Egypt, will be more likely to fall into line. If the move succeeds, President George W Bush will be able to go into the US presidential elections in just 100 days’ time promising that American troops will soon be on their way home. Failure to bring the Muslim force together will mean that Bush’s chances of beating off his Democrat rival for the White House, Senator John Kerry, will take another hammering. http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=881302004
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: Still another report of increased fighting and more U.S. statements of ‘This proves we’re winning.’
Fighting has intensified, particularly in the east along the rugged, 1,500-mile border with Pakistan and in the south near Kandahar. Twenty-three American troops have died from ambushes, land mines and other hostile fire this year, compared with 12 combat deaths in all of 2003, according to military statistics. An increasingly popular weapon may have been inspired by insurgents in Iraq: remote-controlled bombs.
The Taliban have stepped up recruiting in the south and intensified strikes against newly trained Afghan soldiers and police officers, as well as foreign-aid workers. This week, the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders said it was withdrawing from Afghanistan after 24 years, in part because of the deteriorating security there. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/international/asia/01AFGH.html
Humor: Offspring Recommendations: They have good taste.
My son recommends Bill Maher’s show: It features Michael Moore and host pleading with Ralph Nader not to run, and Rep. David Drier (R-Ca) humiliating himself in a discussion re Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s on HBO Monday at 8PM and Wednesday 12AM and 11:30PM. http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/
My daughter recommends Will Farrell doing Bush at www.whitehousewest.com (sound required)
American Military Re-deploys: A trickle of stories over the last weeks as our troops are pulled from Korea and elsewhere and find their way to new strategic outposts, most of which are in oil country. This is the latest, via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Michael Mainville)
As he supervised a crew of mechanics working on a C-130 Hercules supply plane, U.S. Air Force Capt. Dale Linafelter marveled at finding himself at a dusty, long-abandoned bomber base in what was once the Soviet Union.
"I'd never even heard of Kyrgyzstan," Linafelter said.
The captain has got a lot company.
Manas Air Field near the capital of Kyrgyzstan now hosts more than 1,150 U.S. servicemen, the largest American military presence in Central Asia outside Afghanistan.
Yet "some of them still don't know where they are," joked Lt. Col. Stan Giles, the base chaplain. "You know, there's an old saying: 'War is God's way of teaching geography to Americans.' "
More geography lessons are on the way.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon is planning the greatest shake-up in America's overseas military deployments since the end of the second World War.
Gone are the days of massive bases in places like Germany, Japan and South Korea that look like small U.S. towns. Replacing them will be a global network of what Pentagon planners call "lily pads" -- small forward bases in remote, dangerous corners of the world that can act as jumping-off points when crises arise.
Bases like the one at Manas Air Field, Kyrgyzstan.
"This marks a new epoch in American force posturing," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a Washington clearinghouse for strategic intelligence. "It's one of only a half-dozen similar reposturings since the American Revolution. It's a very significant change."
On July 13, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, Andy Hoehn, said in Washington that defense officials will present their redeployment proposals to President Bush within several weeks. Hoehn said he expects the changes to start taking effect in late 2005 or early 2006. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040726-us-bases.htm
“The real reasons Bush went to war” John Chapman of the Guardian notes that worry about oil and the dollar’s future, not wmd drove the invasion/occupation.
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club. I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war. ..
By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double 2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the Opec oil-pricing cartel.
Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well…"
Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects…
Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen? Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead?
If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a basket of national currencies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4980254-103677,00.html
The American Economy, as viewed from G.B.: The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott frets that Kerry or Bush will have a tough road ahead, suggesting “it would be better for Kerry if he lost.”
The candidate has been anointed and he has accepted the challenge. America is now supposed to have an idea of what makes John Kerry tick and, in November, we shall see whether he has what it takes to do what Bill Clinton did and defeat an incumbent Bush.
If defining Kerry has dominated events in Boston this week, a more interesting question is whether this is an election worth winning. For those who believe any price is worth paying to get rid of Bush, the answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Yet one look at the state of the world's biggest economy suggests that this may be a good election for the Democrats to lose. The next four years could be tough for the US - very tough indeed - and it would be fitting if Bush were left to clear up the almighty mess he has created.
A trade deficit of 5% of GDP is evidence that the US has been living beyond its means. A similar budget deficit shows that the govern ment, too, has been failing to match what it spends with its tax revenues. In any country south the Rio Grande, such a combination would mean that the IMF would be on the scene before you could say "structural adjustment".
The dollar's role as a global reserve currency means that Washington can paper over the cracks for a while by selling government bonds to its creditors. But if the laws of economics can be bent, they cannot be broken. The only long-term solution to the twin deficits is a dose of the medicine swallowed by Britain after Black Wednesday. Cutting the trade gap means exports go up and and imports come down. A cheaper dollar would help exports, but it would make imports dearer and threaten higher inflation. Higher taxes or lower spending are needed to curb consumer spending and close the budget deficit.
This combination worked in the UK, but was mightily unpopular. Unless Bush or Kerry have a brilliant plan for a perpetual bubble economy, one of them is going to have to face reality. At the moment, the Democrats have only one thought: winning. But if they lose they will at least have the consolation of seeing Bush cleaning up his own vomit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4982251-112564,00.html
Sandy Berger’s pilfering: No Big Deal, but no Media Exculpation: Seems that Berger’s not in such trouble. Part of the story from the Wall Street Journal’s Scot Paltrow. Where is the rest of the media?
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109114313710778456,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs
Bush Campaigns:
Ridiculous lines from Junior; you would think the Democrats would have no trouble with, "But intentions don't always translate into results. After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."
Really. How about if Kerry compares his achievements for the last 19 or 29 or 35 years with our Head Frat Boy?
Yet it’s still close.
Polls: Expectations as key. Clearly, if so few of the public haven’t made up their mind, there will be much less “bounce” from each convention. So, Fox News says that anything less than a double digit bounce for Kerry means it was a “failed” convention. Newsweek and a few others showed a 2 to 4 point increase for Kerry. Outliers were one Newsweek poll that showed Kerry up 54-41%, while Gallup/USA/CNN showed no gain, even a slight loss of support, “the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at this convention.”(sic)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040731/nysa010a_1.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm
9/11, Fear, and the Election: We know and fear that a terror attack close to the election will shift significant support to Bush. A study pushes the issue:
President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.
"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon…
"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."
When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.
"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/30/vote.psych.reut/index.html
Postscript(?): If the elections were cancelled:
Previously, we didn’t go into details, but if the desperate Bushies tried it, it would likely amount to a coup d’etat. That silly color code would be at the highest level- “code red” which sets up a panoply of emergency measures. The following is from of the web site “From the Wilderness.”
In other words, the possibility of an impending attack on America by this "outside enemy" has been accepted by the American public; this tacit acceptance has set the stage for the adoption of "the highest threat level": code red alert.
What the US public is not aware of, is that a code red alert suspends civilian government; it triggers a whole series of emergency procedures; it is tantamount to a coup d'etat -- although in many regards the coup d'etat has already taken place under the post-9/11 anti-terrorist legislation and the rigging of the 2000 elections which brought George W. Bush into the White House.
Preparing for Code RedHomeland Security (DHS) has in fact been contemplating a code red alert "scenario" -- using Al Qaeda as a pretext -- for more than a year. In May 2003, the DHS conducted a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter was described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States." The exercise was based on code red assumptions involving a simulated terrorist attack.See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html. A code red alert, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would create conditions for the ("temporary" we are told) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, implying the cancellation or postponement of federal and State elections.
According to FEMA, code red would:
Increase or redirect personnel to address critical emergency needs; Assign emergency response personnel and pre-position and mobilize specially trained teams or resources; monitor, redirect, or constrain transportation systems; and close public and government facilities not critical for continuity of essential operations, especially public safety.(FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf )
Northern Command would take over. Several functions of civilian administration would be suspended; others could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.
A secret "Shadow Government" under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan" was installed on September 11, 2001.(See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A205842002Feb28?language=printer ). Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret shadow government would become functional in the case of a code red alert, redeploying key staff to secret locations.
Code red alert would, according to FEMA, also preclude and repress any form of public gathering or citizens' protest which questions the legitimacy of the emergency procedures and the installation of a police state. The emergency authorities would also exert tight censorship over the media and would no doubt paralyze the alternative news media on the internet. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072904_coup_detat_america.shtml
Whoosh.
-R
