Friday, May 28, 2004
Oil and Blood /War on Terror:
Taking the gloves off, Mike Davis focuses on oil in “an age of diminishing supply and soaring prices.”
If the curve of global oil production is indeed near the point of descent, as these experts believe, it has epochal implications for the world economy. More expensive oil will undercut China's energy-intensive boom, return OECD countries to the bad old days of stagflation, and accelerate the environmentally destructive exploitation of low-grade oil tars and shales.
Most of all, it will devastate the economies of oil-importing third-world countries. Poor farmers will be unable to purchase petroleum-based artificial fertilizers just as poor urban-dwellers will be unable to afford bus fares. (Already, rising oil prices have brought chronic blackouts to cities throughout the globe's southern hemisphere.)
The only certain beneficiaries of this coming economic chaos will be the big five oil corporations and their corrupt partners: the Nigerian generals, Saudi princes, Russian kleptocrats, and their ilk. Crude oil truly will become black gold.
The rising value of an increasingly scarce resource is a form of monopoly rent, and a future permanent crude-oil regime of $50 per barrel (or higher) would transfer at least $1 trillion per decade from consumers to oil producers. In plain English, this would be the greatest robbery by a rentier elite in world history. Someday, Enron may seem like the equivalent of a liquor store hold-up by comparison.
The oilmen in the White House, of course, have the best view of the lush terrain on the far side of Hubbert's peak. No wonder, then, that a map of the 'war against terrorism' corresponds with such uncanny accuracy to the geography of oil fields and proposed pipelines. From Kazakhstan to Ecuador, American combat boots are sticky with oil.
To cite two recent, almost random examples: First, the Malaysian foreign minister warned in late May that Washington was exaggerating the threat of terrorist piracy in the Straits of Malacca in order to justify the deployment of forces there -- right at the chokepoint of East Asia's oil supply.
Second, T. Christian Miller, reporting in the Los Angeles Times, revealed that U.S. Special Forces, as well as the CIA and private American security contractors, are integrally involved in an ongoing reign of terror in Columbia's Arauca province. The aim of "Operation Red Moon" is to annihilate the leftwing ELN guerrillas threatening the oilfields and pipelines operated by LA-based Occidental Petroleum. The result, Miller reports, has been a slow-motion massacre. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1458
What’s Happening, Iraq: Human Rights, Civilian Casualties:
Comments from Human Rights Watch; They’re concerned.
At least 13 and perhaps as many as 40 non-Iraqis have been abducted over the past week. Most if not all of those seized were civilians working for foreign firms and media. The abductors of 4 Italians and 3 Japanese threatened to kill their hostages unless those governments withdraw their forces from Iraq. On Wednesday, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of the Italian captives, was executed. The 3 Japanese were released on Thursday.
“Taking and holding hostages violates the core of international humanitarian law,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division. “The killers of Fabrizio Quattrochi should be brought to justice and all those holding individuals for purposes of political extortion should free them immediately and unconditionally.”
Human Rights Watch also expressed grave concern at reports of heavy civilian casualties as a result of U.S. military operations in Falluja, a city of 200,000 west of Baghdad. U.S. Marines entered the city on April 6, in part to apprehend those responsible for the ambush, murder, and mutilation of four U.S. private security firm employees on March 31. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/16/iraq8446.htm
Richard Cohen op ed in the Washington Post:
…it's hard to feel confident that the Bush administration is prepared for the challenge ahead. It has been unforgivably incompetent so far, going to war for one reason, staying for another and layering contradictory facts with Sunday-school rhetoric. Fallujah, a compromised compromise, becomes a sterling success in the president's mouth. A systemic failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions becomes the kinky work of a few. The war over WMDs becomes one over terror. And Ahmed Chalabi, the erstwhile George Washington of Iraq, becomes Benedict Arnold virtually overnight. One moment he's Laura Bush's guest at the State of the Union speech; the next he's ranting anti-American screeds in Baghdad. http://65.54.186.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=9b2438195cd67eea4bb41c737734caa1&lat=1085670821&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fletters%2ewashingtonpost%2ecom%2fW4RH05B9F322EEBA439543FD223B30
International Institute for Strategic Studies: Al Qaeda doing fineThe
US and British occupation of Iraq has accelerated recruitment to the ranks of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and made the world a less safe place, according to a leading London-based think-tank.
The assessment, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), states that the occupation has become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qa'ida, which now has more than 18,000 militants ready to strike Western targets. http://www.iiss.org/news.php?selectID=804
Abuse: A Thorough Inquiry? Bradley Graham’s Washington Post article thinks so.
In response to mounting evidence that detainees in U.S. military custody were badly abused in Iraq and elsewhere, the Pentagon has launched an array of investigations, assessments and reviews aimed, officials have insisted, at exposing those responsible for the misdeeds and preventing recurrences.
But a close look at what is being investigated, and who is doing the investigating, reveals gaps in the web of probes as well as limitations on the scope, with none of the inquiries designed to yield a complete picture of what went wrong or address suspicions of a possible top-secret intelligence-gathering operation that may have helped set the stage for the misconduct.
"I can't tell if all the inquiries represent attempts to patch new holes opening in the boat every day, or if they're part of some carefully designed strategy to have lots of activity going on around the center of this thing without probing the center itself," said John Hamre, who served as deputy secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and now heads the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58765-2004May26?language=printer
Gore:Why don’t the Democrats nominate people like this?
He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.
Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.
How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.
To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President. http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/
Kerry I: Feeling the Squeeze on Iraq Policy
From the LA Times (Ronald Brownstein)
While Bush moves ever closer to his challenger's ideas, more Democrats are calling for a pullout.
Sen. John F. Kerry faces a stark new challenge in the campaign skirmishing over Iraq: As President Bush has moved toward his position, the Democratic Party is moving away from it.
From one side, Kerry confronts calls from growing numbers of Democrats to establish a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. That idea will receive a major boost today when Win Without War, a coalition of 42 liberal groups, launches a campaign urging the U.S. to set a date for ending its military presence in Iraq.
From the other direction, Bush has come much closer to Kerry's view that the U.S. should rely more on the United Nations to oversee the transition from occupation to a sovereign Iraqi government, thus blurring the contrast between the two men.
In the long run, these shifts in Democratic attitudes and Bush's strategy may pressure Kerry to break more sharply from the administration on Iraq, a step he has firmly resisted.
More immediately, the squeeze is encouraging Kerry to subtly shift his critique of Bush on the war. In his response to Bush's speech on Iraq on Monday night, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee focused less on criticizing the president's policies than on questioning whether he could provide the international leadership to implement them. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryiraq27may27,1,731544,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Kerry II: in the NY Times:
His foreign policy speech Thursday was substantive, but was heavily criticized for its soporific delivery; tough to have followed the energetic, blunt Gore. And, Wednesday was a deadly day for Kerry in the Times.
Nicolas Kristof underscored Kerry’s foolhardy echoing of Bush’s support of Sharon- they compete to support a myopic policy that is unjust, that damages our credibility around the world and that severely undermines our efforts in Iraq; http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof
William Safire addressed “The non-debate about Iraq” between Kerry and Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire
And, a news item- Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson’s article on Candidates’ Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/campaign/26POLI.html
New York Times Comes Clean: We messed up pre-war
Finally, an apology…of sorts. They didn’t put it on page 1, they didn’t name Judith Miller, their correspondent, as the conduit of Chalabi’s inventions that led to the unnecessary invasion. Then again, no one, thus far, is apparently responsible for the deaths of the 800 Americans and 11,000+ Iraqis.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.
Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc
Democracy Now was characteristically blunt:
The Times said it had reached a low point in its 152-year history. I agreed. But not because of the Jayson Blair affair. It was TheTimes coverage of the Bush-Blair affair.
”When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, The Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondent and best-selling author Judith Miller was filling The Times' front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller's lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives…. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/1610213
The Minneapolis Star Tribune : Bush's Speech Simply more of the same
Let's be clear at the outset: President Bush's much-anticipated speech Monday night at the Army War College in Pennsylvania wasn't about Iraq. It was about the general election on Nov. 2 and Bush's frantic desire to stop his inexorable slide in public opinion polls, the latest of which has his approval rating at a dismal 41 percent. A Bush aide said as much Sunday, telling the New York Times that the Monday night speech was designed to dispel "this idea that we don't know what we're doing" in Iraq.
Did Bush succeed? Not by a long shot. It's arrogant of a president to believe speeches can dispel the skepticism borne of three years of lies and incompetence on the ground. Lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Incompetence in sizing the American troop strength that would be required to pacify Iraq following the inevitably quick opening combat. Incompetence in failing to plan well for dealing with an occupied Iraq. Incompetence in ceding control of American foreign policy to a small cabal of self-delusional neoconservatives who threw traditional American pragmatism -- conservative pragmatism -- overboard in favor of grandiose plans for remaking the Middle East into a peaceful, democratic region in one fell swoop. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4793841.html
Compare that with the Washington Post- "A Speech Meant to Rally Public Support Doesn't Answer Key Questions." And the NY Times’ uncritical "Bush Lays Out Goals for Iraq: Self-Rule and Stability"
Media: Doing Better?Paul Krugman charts the progress in his Friday column:
Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")
It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.
But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?hp
That Liberal Media: NPR Taps Republicans more than Democrats Peter Goodman of Newsday:
Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog.
"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.
Citing comments dating to the Nixon administration in the 1970s, the report said, "That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR."
The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003.
Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration.
"Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio." http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr3818138may25,0,5744514,print.story
Terror Alert Not much mystery here. Not only was it needed to change the subject from Iraq, it also followed the embarrassment of the erroneous jailing of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon lawyer held in connection with the Madrid bombings. Many weeks ago the Spanish were questioning the validity of Mayfield’s alleged fingerprint, but the FBI jailed him anyway for almost 3 weeks.
Kuttner on Bob Woodward
Kuttner corrects the misimpression that Woodward skewered Bush. He reminds us that Woodward’s citing his 75 sources is NOT reassuring, that they were almost entirely Administration folk who were happy to share. Indeed, the book is trumpeted on Re-elect Bush web sites as a “recommended” read.
For the White House, however, the real significance is not the mild embarrassment to lesser officials. One high official in particular comes across looking just terrific. And that is George W. Bush.
Woodward gives away the game plan when he recounts a strategy meeting between Bush and Rove, at which Rove, in a PowerPoint presentation, identifies the key attributes for Bush to project in his presidency and re-election campaign: Strong Leader. Bold Action. Big Ideas. Peace in the World. More Compassionate America. Cares About People Like Me. Leads a Strong Team.
By some funny coincidence, this is exactly the Bush persona projected in Woodward's book.
As in his first hagiography, Bush at War, Woodward chooses to paint this president as a resolute and decisive leader, one who listens carefully to differing views among his cabinet and then makes astute choices. A more skeptical reporter could have taken the same raw material and emphasized that Bush doesn't read, has little curiosity about the complexities of foreign affairs, is easily manipulated, looks for "facts" that fit his preconceptions; not surprisingly, his policy turns out to be a disastrous blunder. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7730
-R
Taking the gloves off, Mike Davis focuses on oil in “an age of diminishing supply and soaring prices.”
If the curve of global oil production is indeed near the point of descent, as these experts believe, it has epochal implications for the world economy. More expensive oil will undercut China's energy-intensive boom, return OECD countries to the bad old days of stagflation, and accelerate the environmentally destructive exploitation of low-grade oil tars and shales.
Most of all, it will devastate the economies of oil-importing third-world countries. Poor farmers will be unable to purchase petroleum-based artificial fertilizers just as poor urban-dwellers will be unable to afford bus fares. (Already, rising oil prices have brought chronic blackouts to cities throughout the globe's southern hemisphere.)
The only certain beneficiaries of this coming economic chaos will be the big five oil corporations and their corrupt partners: the Nigerian generals, Saudi princes, Russian kleptocrats, and their ilk. Crude oil truly will become black gold.
The rising value of an increasingly scarce resource is a form of monopoly rent, and a future permanent crude-oil regime of $50 per barrel (or higher) would transfer at least $1 trillion per decade from consumers to oil producers. In plain English, this would be the greatest robbery by a rentier elite in world history. Someday, Enron may seem like the equivalent of a liquor store hold-up by comparison.
The oilmen in the White House, of course, have the best view of the lush terrain on the far side of Hubbert's peak. No wonder, then, that a map of the 'war against terrorism' corresponds with such uncanny accuracy to the geography of oil fields and proposed pipelines. From Kazakhstan to Ecuador, American combat boots are sticky with oil.
To cite two recent, almost random examples: First, the Malaysian foreign minister warned in late May that Washington was exaggerating the threat of terrorist piracy in the Straits of Malacca in order to justify the deployment of forces there -- right at the chokepoint of East Asia's oil supply.
Second, T. Christian Miller, reporting in the Los Angeles Times, revealed that U.S. Special Forces, as well as the CIA and private American security contractors, are integrally involved in an ongoing reign of terror in Columbia's Arauca province. The aim of "Operation Red Moon" is to annihilate the leftwing ELN guerrillas threatening the oilfields and pipelines operated by LA-based Occidental Petroleum. The result, Miller reports, has been a slow-motion massacre. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1458
What’s Happening, Iraq: Human Rights, Civilian Casualties:
Comments from Human Rights Watch; They’re concerned.
At least 13 and perhaps as many as 40 non-Iraqis have been abducted over the past week. Most if not all of those seized were civilians working for foreign firms and media. The abductors of 4 Italians and 3 Japanese threatened to kill their hostages unless those governments withdraw their forces from Iraq. On Wednesday, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of the Italian captives, was executed. The 3 Japanese were released on Thursday.
“Taking and holding hostages violates the core of international humanitarian law,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division. “The killers of Fabrizio Quattrochi should be brought to justice and all those holding individuals for purposes of political extortion should free them immediately and unconditionally.”
Human Rights Watch also expressed grave concern at reports of heavy civilian casualties as a result of U.S. military operations in Falluja, a city of 200,000 west of Baghdad. U.S. Marines entered the city on April 6, in part to apprehend those responsible for the ambush, murder, and mutilation of four U.S. private security firm employees on March 31. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/16/iraq8446.htm
Richard Cohen op ed in the Washington Post:
…it's hard to feel confident that the Bush administration is prepared for the challenge ahead. It has been unforgivably incompetent so far, going to war for one reason, staying for another and layering contradictory facts with Sunday-school rhetoric. Fallujah, a compromised compromise, becomes a sterling success in the president's mouth. A systemic failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions becomes the kinky work of a few. The war over WMDs becomes one over terror. And Ahmed Chalabi, the erstwhile George Washington of Iraq, becomes Benedict Arnold virtually overnight. One moment he's Laura Bush's guest at the State of the Union speech; the next he's ranting anti-American screeds in Baghdad. http://65.54.186.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=9b2438195cd67eea4bb41c737734caa1&lat=1085670821&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fletters%2ewashingtonpost%2ecom%2fW4RH05B9F322EEBA439543FD223B30
International Institute for Strategic Studies: Al Qaeda doing fineThe
US and British occupation of Iraq has accelerated recruitment to the ranks of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and made the world a less safe place, according to a leading London-based think-tank.
The assessment, by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), states that the occupation has become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for al-Qa'ida, which now has more than 18,000 militants ready to strike Western targets. http://www.iiss.org/news.php?selectID=804
Abuse: A Thorough Inquiry? Bradley Graham’s Washington Post article thinks so.
In response to mounting evidence that detainees in U.S. military custody were badly abused in Iraq and elsewhere, the Pentagon has launched an array of investigations, assessments and reviews aimed, officials have insisted, at exposing those responsible for the misdeeds and preventing recurrences.
But a close look at what is being investigated, and who is doing the investigating, reveals gaps in the web of probes as well as limitations on the scope, with none of the inquiries designed to yield a complete picture of what went wrong or address suspicions of a possible top-secret intelligence-gathering operation that may have helped set the stage for the misconduct.
"I can't tell if all the inquiries represent attempts to patch new holes opening in the boat every day, or if they're part of some carefully designed strategy to have lots of activity going on around the center of this thing without probing the center itself," said John Hamre, who served as deputy secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and now heads the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58765-2004May26?language=printer
Gore:Why don’t the Democrats nominate people like this?
He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.
Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.
How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.
To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President. http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/
Kerry I: Feeling the Squeeze on Iraq Policy
From the LA Times (Ronald Brownstein)
While Bush moves ever closer to his challenger's ideas, more Democrats are calling for a pullout.
Sen. John F. Kerry faces a stark new challenge in the campaign skirmishing over Iraq: As President Bush has moved toward his position, the Democratic Party is moving away from it.
From one side, Kerry confronts calls from growing numbers of Democrats to establish a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. That idea will receive a major boost today when Win Without War, a coalition of 42 liberal groups, launches a campaign urging the U.S. to set a date for ending its military presence in Iraq.
From the other direction, Bush has come much closer to Kerry's view that the U.S. should rely more on the United Nations to oversee the transition from occupation to a sovereign Iraqi government, thus blurring the contrast between the two men.
In the long run, these shifts in Democratic attitudes and Bush's strategy may pressure Kerry to break more sharply from the administration on Iraq, a step he has firmly resisted.
More immediately, the squeeze is encouraging Kerry to subtly shift his critique of Bush on the war. In his response to Bush's speech on Iraq on Monday night, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee focused less on criticizing the president's policies than on questioning whether he could provide the international leadership to implement them. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryiraq27may27,1,731544,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Kerry II: in the NY Times:
His foreign policy speech Thursday was substantive, but was heavily criticized for its soporific delivery; tough to have followed the energetic, blunt Gore. And, Wednesday was a deadly day for Kerry in the Times.
Nicolas Kristof underscored Kerry’s foolhardy echoing of Bush’s support of Sharon- they compete to support a myopic policy that is unjust, that damages our credibility around the world and that severely undermines our efforts in Iraq; http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof
William Safire addressed “The non-debate about Iraq” between Kerry and Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire
And, a news item- Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson’s article on Candidates’ Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/campaign/26POLI.html
New York Times Comes Clean: We messed up pre-war
Finally, an apology…of sorts. They didn’t put it on page 1, they didn’t name Judith Miller, their correspondent, as the conduit of Chalabi’s inventions that led to the unnecessary invasion. Then again, no one, thus far, is apparently responsible for the deaths of the 800 Americans and 11,000+ Iraqis.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.
Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc
Democracy Now was characteristically blunt:
The Times said it had reached a low point in its 152-year history. I agreed. But not because of the Jayson Blair affair. It was TheTimes coverage of the Bush-Blair affair.
”When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, The Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondent and best-selling author Judith Miller was filling The Times' front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller's lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives…. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/1610213
The Minneapolis Star Tribune : Bush's Speech Simply more of the same
Let's be clear at the outset: President Bush's much-anticipated speech Monday night at the Army War College in Pennsylvania wasn't about Iraq. It was about the general election on Nov. 2 and Bush's frantic desire to stop his inexorable slide in public opinion polls, the latest of which has his approval rating at a dismal 41 percent. A Bush aide said as much Sunday, telling the New York Times that the Monday night speech was designed to dispel "this idea that we don't know what we're doing" in Iraq.
Did Bush succeed? Not by a long shot. It's arrogant of a president to believe speeches can dispel the skepticism borne of three years of lies and incompetence on the ground. Lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Incompetence in sizing the American troop strength that would be required to pacify Iraq following the inevitably quick opening combat. Incompetence in failing to plan well for dealing with an occupied Iraq. Incompetence in ceding control of American foreign policy to a small cabal of self-delusional neoconservatives who threw traditional American pragmatism -- conservative pragmatism -- overboard in favor of grandiose plans for remaking the Middle East into a peaceful, democratic region in one fell swoop. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4793841.html
Compare that with the Washington Post- "A Speech Meant to Rally Public Support Doesn't Answer Key Questions." And the NY Times’ uncritical "Bush Lays Out Goals for Iraq: Self-Rule and Stability"
Media: Doing Better?Paul Krugman charts the progress in his Friday column:
Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")
It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.
But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?hp
That Liberal Media: NPR Taps Republicans more than Democrats Peter Goodman of Newsday:
Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog.
"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.
Citing comments dating to the Nixon administration in the 1970s, the report said, "That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR."
The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003.
Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration.
"Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio." http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr3818138may25,0,5744514,print.story
Terror Alert Not much mystery here. Not only was it needed to change the subject from Iraq, it also followed the embarrassment of the erroneous jailing of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon lawyer held in connection with the Madrid bombings. Many weeks ago the Spanish were questioning the validity of Mayfield’s alleged fingerprint, but the FBI jailed him anyway for almost 3 weeks.
Kuttner on Bob Woodward
Kuttner corrects the misimpression that Woodward skewered Bush. He reminds us that Woodward’s citing his 75 sources is NOT reassuring, that they were almost entirely Administration folk who were happy to share. Indeed, the book is trumpeted on Re-elect Bush web sites as a “recommended” read.
For the White House, however, the real significance is not the mild embarrassment to lesser officials. One high official in particular comes across looking just terrific. And that is George W. Bush.
Woodward gives away the game plan when he recounts a strategy meeting between Bush and Rove, at which Rove, in a PowerPoint presentation, identifies the key attributes for Bush to project in his presidency and re-election campaign: Strong Leader. Bold Action. Big Ideas. Peace in the World. More Compassionate America. Cares About People Like Me. Leads a Strong Team.
By some funny coincidence, this is exactly the Bush persona projected in Woodward's book.
As in his first hagiography, Bush at War, Woodward chooses to paint this president as a resolute and decisive leader, one who listens carefully to differing views among his cabinet and then makes astute choices. A more skeptical reporter could have taken the same raw material and emphasized that Bush doesn't read, has little curiosity about the complexities of foreign affairs, is easily manipulated, looks for "facts" that fit his preconceptions; not surprisingly, his policy turns out to be a disastrous blunder. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7730
-R
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Jobs: The Media Begin to Catch UpThe jobs issue has been a spectacular example of the media’s tendency to reassure and mislead us. They suggest by omission /imply that the creation of no jobs in a given year is not a net loss, when actually at least 1,500,000 jobs need to be created each year just to keep up with the growing population. I commented on this twice in February:
Economists agree that the economy must produce between 125,000 and 150,000 jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. Thus, the Bush 4 years needed to create 6 to 7.2 million jobs in that period. Yet, we’re down over 2 million thus far. So, the net loss is about 8 million. You’re not going to see that figure in the media, as it’s too discomforting a frame.
But, finally, we’ve begun to see reality acknowledged. It begins with Paul Krugman. His math takes into account that job creation has finally occurred in the past months.
Here's one way to look at it. The job forecast in the 2002 Economic Report of the President assumed that by 2004 the economy would have fully recovered from the 2001 recession. That recovery, according to the official projection, would lead to average payroll employment of 138 million this year — 7 million more than the actual number. So we have a gap of 7 million jobs to make up.
And employment is chasing a moving target: it must rise by about 140,000 a month just to keep up with a growing population. In April, the economy added 288,000 jobs. If you do the math, you discover that President Bush needs about four years of job growth at last month's rate to reach what his own economists consider full employment. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?hp
Bush Speech:
It t’was a disaster. Meant for the domestic audience, it fell flat. Folks were harsh, including talk radio commentators such as Jay Severin (96.9 in Boston). It again demonstrated the basic disconnect between White House rhetoric and Reality. The Washington Post (Robin Wright, Mike Allen) was amongst the many critics:
But Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasingly macabre violence in recent weeks -- from the assassination of the president of Iraq's Governing Council and controversy over dozens killed by U.S. warplanes at a purported wedding party to the grisly beheading of an American civilian.
Nor did Bush try to answer some of the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety at home and abroad about the final U.S. costs, the final length of stay for U.S. troops, or what the terms will be for a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps," the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five-step plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53141-2004May24?language=printer
What’s Happening: Abuse!,,,in Afghanistan and Iraq:
The Pentagon folk now must investigate numerous deaths of detainees. So, despite Rush Limbaugh’s cries- “They’re just blowing off steam!”- even many a conservative now views this as serious, in every way. John Hendren in the LA Times:
Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison22may22,1,3407078.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It was the Same Military Intelligence UnitThey relocated from Afghanistan to Iraq in early 2003.
T
wo men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram detention center said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they had been tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers. They said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. "The 10 days that we had was a very bad time," said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times during his imprisonment. "We are very lucky." http://www.iht.com/articles/521473.html
Still another “Scandal”
One or more per week, seems about right. This one involves the infamous Chalabi and how he came to possess classified materials. Newsday (Knut Royce) reports, having already made it to TIME and NEWSWEEK:
But the big story is contained in this sentence: "An intelligence source confirmed to Newsday reports in Time and Newsweek that the FBI had launched an investigation into who in the administration had passed the classified material to his Iraqi National Congress."
Perhaps we'll find out that Chalabi got his classified info from some obscure analyst at DIA or a Colonel in the field. But both of those possibilities seem highly unlikely.
Chalabi's interlocutors in the US government were a fairly small and well-known group, stacked heavily toward the top of the totem pole and very much on the appointive, civilian side -- start with the acronyms OSD and OVP. For those who know the nature of the relationship it would, quite frankly, be hard to imagine that they weren't sharing highly sensitive information with him. "http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal243817001may24,0,2511169.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
And another: Iran Got Us to Invade Iraq?
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html
Lies, Big and Small
Since they lie as they breathe, they tell small ones as well as the large, deadly ones. So, when Bush fell off his mountain bike this weekend, the spokesperson put out that “It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose. You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
However, according to the Crawford, Texas records, they had .03 inches of rain 8 days prior to his fall, and none since. So, once again, lies that absolve Junior of any responsibility… http://www.dailykos.com/main/2
Limited Sovereignty: An example
Seems that the Iraqis won’t be able to sue “Coalition” troops over possible war crimes, as the military has received immunity. The Guardian (Kamal Ahmed):
British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.
The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.
'The legal situation in Iraq will be very difficult after 30 June, with some confusion over where jurisdiction lies,' said one Whitehall official. 'We wanted to ensure that British troops maintained the immunity they already have under Order 17.' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html
Environment:
Couldn’t pass up another fine essay by Bill McKibben:
But it must be said that criticizing Bush's policies on the environment is depressingly easy to do. For more than three years now, day after day and week after week, a small circle of political appointees at the EPA, the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and the Department of Agriculture have proceeded methodically to wreck the system of environmental oversight that dates back to the Nixon administration. Apart from their silence on global warming, they have overturned rule after regulation, largely ceased enforcement actions concerning pollution of the atmosphere and water, and reined in inspectors. Their work is not inspired by a grand ideological vision—it's not like Bush's foreign policy, say, with its idea of America dominating the world. Instead it's institutionalized corruption: a steady payback to the logging, mining, corporate farming, fossil fuel, and other industries that contributed heavily to put Bush in power.
The scale of this assault on the environment is so large as to be numbing. With a hundred battles occurring simultaneously and without a majority in either chamber of Congress to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, the environmental movement has been almost paralyzed. In Congress and the administration, loss has followed loss in such steady succession that even the most conventional environmentalists, usually bipartisan to a fault and reluctant to jump into electoral politics, now find themselves with a single goal: defeating Bush in November. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17179
Not Accepting the Nomination in Boston?
Thoughts? Mine are that it’s great that the Kerry Campaign is trying to win, not just fight the good fight. Why should they have a disadvantage through their holding their convention 5 weeks before the Bushies, and thus be forced to tap the limited (by law) funds prematurely.
This makes me think back to 2000 when aside from the miserable campaign the Gore folks conducted, they also had a severe financial disadvantage. Aside from their miserable effort and lack of fight in Florida, they were outspent by almost $200 million. Of course that wasn’t mentioned in the media or on Democratic web sites / letters.
Nader: He’s clearly articulated an Out Now position and has again called for Bush’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He has a good point, regardless of the non-viability of it. And he made a notable foray into this over-played “war on terrorism.” A very rare foray…
Mr. Nader also accused President Bush of exaggerating the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest," he said. But he said it was time to raise "the impertinent question" about whether the threat had been "exaggerated for a purpose."
Mr. Nader said he believed such a deception had taken place, and had been intended in part to draw popular support for more militaristic policies and to generate military contracts for companies with close ties to the Bush administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25nade.html
Nader and Election Strategy:
Those who have been effectively propagandized over the last 3 ½ years to demonize Nader as the principal reason for Bush’s 2000 election should not forget what a common sense position could be for 2004.
As Bush will get in the vicinity of 35% in Massachusetts, one can safely vote for their progressive positions by casting one for Nader while working in swing states for Bush’s ouster. That would accomplish progressive objectives- ousting Bush, pressuring Kerry to not move TOO far to the Right while educating the country that there are progressives and progressive positions. Such a stance would help prevent a replay of 1992 when so many focused on electing Clinton and not pressuring him during 1992 and after, allowing Clinton to move Rightward. Folks in NY and California are similarly safe to employ this line of thinking.
Gore Speech:
His latest outspoken effort scheduled for Wednesday. According to moveon.org, he is scheduled to focus on “a link between the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Bush’s policies. He will call for the resignation of the dirty seven top officials in Bush’s cabinet responsible for the mess--no doubt leaving Bush off the list for us to decide in November”.
Polls: Will his reading of speeches help? The emerging consensus is that it’s too late. He’s down to 48% in the Fox poll, 47 in ABC’s, 41 in the CBS poll, down mucho since January, regardless of the source.
(1) Zogby tends to be the most negative for Bush; bearing that in mind, Zogby has Kerry ahead in 12 of 16 states that are “battleground”, or thought to be contested. Locally, Zogby has Kerry ahead by 9.6% in New Hampshire. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html
(2) ABC: While it reassuringly shows Bush to have dropped, the details of the poll (there are more than 2 dozen questions involved) indicates that the dumbing down continues. Case in point: STILL, after all we’ve heard, a majority of Americans believe that Bush generally tells the truth. Plus the following:
Yet while concerns are high, the bottom has not fallen out for Bush on Iraq. The public's division on whether the war was or was not worth fighting has been essentially even since February. Fifty-eight percent say U.S. forces should remain until civil order is restored even if that means sustaining further casualties. And — despite skepticism about the current situation — most are maintaining a positive outlook: Fifty-five percent say they're optimistic about the situation in Iraq over the next 12 months, not much different than it was in January.
Also better for Bush, approval of his handling of terrorism — while at a new low — remains much higher than his other ratings; 58 percent approve. (But it's the first time this has inched below six in 10.) And Kerry has drawn only modest benefit from the president's troubles. Bush still leads in most personal attributes and in trust to handle Iraq and terrorism, and, as noted, the contest between them is a dead heat. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Polls/bush_iraq_poll_040524.html
Again, it’s only May.
Ingenuity, again, to secure more troops:
The latest:
As part of an aggressive recruiting effort, Army and National Guard officials have warned inactive reservists that they could face being sent back to Iraq unless they re-enlist in the active reserves or join their local Guard units, according to a published report.
MariAnn Curta told the Chicago Tribune in a story published Sunday that a recruiter called her last weekend, saying her 22-year-old son Bill — who recently completed a nine-month tour of duty in Iraq — could be headed back there unless he enlisted in the Illinois National Guard.
“It’s devious, it’s deceptive, it’s dishonest, it’s valueless.,” she said. “I can’t believe they’d pull this kind of fast trick on kids who have already served.”http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/print.php?f=1-213101-2944867.php
-R
Economists agree that the economy must produce between 125,000 and 150,000 jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. Thus, the Bush 4 years needed to create 6 to 7.2 million jobs in that period. Yet, we’re down over 2 million thus far. So, the net loss is about 8 million. You’re not going to see that figure in the media, as it’s too discomforting a frame.
But, finally, we’ve begun to see reality acknowledged. It begins with Paul Krugman. His math takes into account that job creation has finally occurred in the past months.
Here's one way to look at it. The job forecast in the 2002 Economic Report of the President assumed that by 2004 the economy would have fully recovered from the 2001 recession. That recovery, according to the official projection, would lead to average payroll employment of 138 million this year — 7 million more than the actual number. So we have a gap of 7 million jobs to make up.
And employment is chasing a moving target: it must rise by about 140,000 a month just to keep up with a growing population. In April, the economy added 288,000 jobs. If you do the math, you discover that President Bush needs about four years of job growth at last month's rate to reach what his own economists consider full employment. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?hp
Bush Speech:
It t’was a disaster. Meant for the domestic audience, it fell flat. Folks were harsh, including talk radio commentators such as Jay Severin (96.9 in Boston). It again demonstrated the basic disconnect between White House rhetoric and Reality. The Washington Post (Robin Wright, Mike Allen) was amongst the many critics:
But Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasingly macabre violence in recent weeks -- from the assassination of the president of Iraq's Governing Council and controversy over dozens killed by U.S. warplanes at a purported wedding party to the grisly beheading of an American civilian.
Nor did Bush try to answer some of the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety at home and abroad about the final U.S. costs, the final length of stay for U.S. troops, or what the terms will be for a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps," the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five-step plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53141-2004May24?language=printer
What’s Happening: Abuse!,,,in Afghanistan and Iraq:
The Pentagon folk now must investigate numerous deaths of detainees. So, despite Rush Limbaugh’s cries- “They’re just blowing off steam!”- even many a conservative now views this as serious, in every way. John Hendren in the LA Times:
Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison22may22,1,3407078.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It was the Same Military Intelligence UnitThey relocated from Afghanistan to Iraq in early 2003.
T
wo men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram detention center said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they had been tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers. They said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. "The 10 days that we had was a very bad time," said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times during his imprisonment. "We are very lucky." http://www.iht.com/articles/521473.html
Still another “Scandal”
One or more per week, seems about right. This one involves the infamous Chalabi and how he came to possess classified materials. Newsday (Knut Royce) reports, having already made it to TIME and NEWSWEEK:
But the big story is contained in this sentence: "An intelligence source confirmed to Newsday reports in Time and Newsweek that the FBI had launched an investigation into who in the administration had passed the classified material to his Iraqi National Congress."
Perhaps we'll find out that Chalabi got his classified info from some obscure analyst at DIA or a Colonel in the field. But both of those possibilities seem highly unlikely.
Chalabi's interlocutors in the US government were a fairly small and well-known group, stacked heavily toward the top of the totem pole and very much on the appointive, civilian side -- start with the acronyms OSD and OVP. For those who know the nature of the relationship it would, quite frankly, be hard to imagine that they weren't sharing highly sensitive information with him. "http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal243817001may24,0,2511169.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
And another: Iran Got Us to Invade Iraq?
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html
Lies, Big and Small
Since they lie as they breathe, they tell small ones as well as the large, deadly ones. So, when Bush fell off his mountain bike this weekend, the spokesperson put out that “It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose. You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
However, according to the Crawford, Texas records, they had .03 inches of rain 8 days prior to his fall, and none since. So, once again, lies that absolve Junior of any responsibility… http://www.dailykos.com/main/2
Limited Sovereignty: An example
Seems that the Iraqis won’t be able to sue “Coalition” troops over possible war crimes, as the military has received immunity. The Guardian (Kamal Ahmed):
British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.
The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.
'The legal situation in Iraq will be very difficult after 30 June, with some confusion over where jurisdiction lies,' said one Whitehall official. 'We wanted to ensure that British troops maintained the immunity they already have under Order 17.' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html
Environment:
Couldn’t pass up another fine essay by Bill McKibben:
But it must be said that criticizing Bush's policies on the environment is depressingly easy to do. For more than three years now, day after day and week after week, a small circle of political appointees at the EPA, the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and the Department of Agriculture have proceeded methodically to wreck the system of environmental oversight that dates back to the Nixon administration. Apart from their silence on global warming, they have overturned rule after regulation, largely ceased enforcement actions concerning pollution of the atmosphere and water, and reined in inspectors. Their work is not inspired by a grand ideological vision—it's not like Bush's foreign policy, say, with its idea of America dominating the world. Instead it's institutionalized corruption: a steady payback to the logging, mining, corporate farming, fossil fuel, and other industries that contributed heavily to put Bush in power.
The scale of this assault on the environment is so large as to be numbing. With a hundred battles occurring simultaneously and without a majority in either chamber of Congress to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, the environmental movement has been almost paralyzed. In Congress and the administration, loss has followed loss in such steady succession that even the most conventional environmentalists, usually bipartisan to a fault and reluctant to jump into electoral politics, now find themselves with a single goal: defeating Bush in November. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17179
Not Accepting the Nomination in Boston?
Thoughts? Mine are that it’s great that the Kerry Campaign is trying to win, not just fight the good fight. Why should they have a disadvantage through their holding their convention 5 weeks before the Bushies, and thus be forced to tap the limited (by law) funds prematurely.
This makes me think back to 2000 when aside from the miserable campaign the Gore folks conducted, they also had a severe financial disadvantage. Aside from their miserable effort and lack of fight in Florida, they were outspent by almost $200 million. Of course that wasn’t mentioned in the media or on Democratic web sites / letters.
Nader: He’s clearly articulated an Out Now position and has again called for Bush’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He has a good point, regardless of the non-viability of it. And he made a notable foray into this over-played “war on terrorism.” A very rare foray…
Mr. Nader also accused President Bush of exaggerating the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest," he said. But he said it was time to raise "the impertinent question" about whether the threat had been "exaggerated for a purpose."
Mr. Nader said he believed such a deception had taken place, and had been intended in part to draw popular support for more militaristic policies and to generate military contracts for companies with close ties to the Bush administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25nade.html
Nader and Election Strategy:
Those who have been effectively propagandized over the last 3 ½ years to demonize Nader as the principal reason for Bush’s 2000 election should not forget what a common sense position could be for 2004.
As Bush will get in the vicinity of 35% in Massachusetts, one can safely vote for their progressive positions by casting one for Nader while working in swing states for Bush’s ouster. That would accomplish progressive objectives- ousting Bush, pressuring Kerry to not move TOO far to the Right while educating the country that there are progressives and progressive positions. Such a stance would help prevent a replay of 1992 when so many focused on electing Clinton and not pressuring him during 1992 and after, allowing Clinton to move Rightward. Folks in NY and California are similarly safe to employ this line of thinking.
Gore Speech:
His latest outspoken effort scheduled for Wednesday. According to moveon.org, he is scheduled to focus on “a link between the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Bush’s policies. He will call for the resignation of the dirty seven top officials in Bush’s cabinet responsible for the mess--no doubt leaving Bush off the list for us to decide in November”.
Polls: Will his reading of speeches help? The emerging consensus is that it’s too late. He’s down to 48% in the Fox poll, 47 in ABC’s, 41 in the CBS poll, down mucho since January, regardless of the source.
(1) Zogby tends to be the most negative for Bush; bearing that in mind, Zogby has Kerry ahead in 12 of 16 states that are “battleground”, or thought to be contested. Locally, Zogby has Kerry ahead by 9.6% in New Hampshire. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html
(2) ABC: While it reassuringly shows Bush to have dropped, the details of the poll (there are more than 2 dozen questions involved) indicates that the dumbing down continues. Case in point: STILL, after all we’ve heard, a majority of Americans believe that Bush generally tells the truth. Plus the following:
Yet while concerns are high, the bottom has not fallen out for Bush on Iraq. The public's division on whether the war was or was not worth fighting has been essentially even since February. Fifty-eight percent say U.S. forces should remain until civil order is restored even if that means sustaining further casualties. And — despite skepticism about the current situation — most are maintaining a positive outlook: Fifty-five percent say they're optimistic about the situation in Iraq over the next 12 months, not much different than it was in January.
Also better for Bush, approval of his handling of terrorism — while at a new low — remains much higher than his other ratings; 58 percent approve. (But it's the first time this has inched below six in 10.) And Kerry has drawn only modest benefit from the president's troubles. Bush still leads in most personal attributes and in trust to handle Iraq and terrorism, and, as noted, the contest between them is a dead heat. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Polls/bush_iraq_poll_040524.html
Again, it’s only May.
Ingenuity, again, to secure more troops:
The latest:
As part of an aggressive recruiting effort, Army and National Guard officials have warned inactive reservists that they could face being sent back to Iraq unless they re-enlist in the active reserves or join their local Guard units, according to a published report.
MariAnn Curta told the Chicago Tribune in a story published Sunday that a recruiter called her last weekend, saying her 22-year-old son Bill — who recently completed a nine-month tour of duty in Iraq — could be headed back there unless he enlisted in the Illinois National Guard.
“It’s devious, it’s deceptive, it’s dishonest, it’s valueless.,” she said. “I can’t believe they’d pull this kind of fast trick on kids who have already served.”http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/print.php?f=1-213101-2944867.php
-R
Sunday, May 23, 2004
What’s Happening, Iraq:
P.R. Offensive: Spin is what they are about, though we term it lies, distortions, misrepresentations.
So, it’s not surprising that since they can’t make the Occupation a success, they will try to make it sound like one. Robin Wright in the Washington Post:
President Bush will launch an ambitious campaign tomorrow night to shift attention from recent setbacks that have eroded domestic and international support for U.S. policy in Iraq, particularly the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the escalating violence, and focus instead on the future of post-occupation Iraq.
The president will open a tightly orchestrated public relations effort in a speech at the Army War College outlining U.S. plans for the critical five weeks before the transfer of political power June 30. ..
In the first of at least six presidential speeches on Iraq before June 30, Bush will particularly try to counter growing criticism that Washington has lowered the goal posts for its year-long occupation, U.S. officials said. Critics and Iraq experts have charged that the administration has backed down from its original pledge to create a strong new democracy that would be a catalyst for a broad political transformation in the Middle East and is instead settling on an exit strategy that will leave a fragile government unable to protect itself.
"He will talk about the importance of not lowering our sights and sticking to our goals of a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq, of adhering to our commitment to the June 30 transfer of sovereignty, and of an election in a January time frame," said a White House official who insisted on anonymity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48487-2004May22?language=printer
Bush Reads the Speeches, while The Others…
Nothing new here, that he reads the speeches and the Group- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al push the policy. It makes one recall an excerpt from James Fallows’ piece in the Jan-Feb. Atlantic magazine:
This is the place to note that in several months of interviews I never once heard someone say "We took this step because the President indicated ..." or "The President really wanted ..." Instead I heard "Rumsfeld wanted," "Powell thought," "The Vice President pushed," "Bremer asked," and so on. One need only compare this with any discussion of foreign policy in Reagan's or Clinton's Administration—or Nixon's, or Kennedy's, or Johnson's, or most others—to sense how unusual is the absence of the President as prime mover....It is possible that the President's confidants are so discreet that they have kept all his decisions and instructions secret. But that would run counter to the fundamental nature of bureaucratic Washington, where people cite a President's authority whenever they possibly can ("The President feels strongly about this, so ..."). http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm
India funds Bush's campaign
They’re pulling in big bucks from anywhere they can. Yet, they lie about this one as well. In response to reports about these overseas efforts, the GOP put out its characteristic denial:
Today John Kerry supporters began circulating a false story from the Internet, claiming that the RNC outsourced fundraising calls to an Indian telemarketing firm.
“This story is an untrue urban legend which has been traversing the nether regions of cyber space for the better part of a year. It’s unfortunate that John Kerry’s supporters have so little regard for the truth that they would spread Internet stories with no basis in fact,” said RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke. http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4220
Yet, several sources suggested otherwise. From The Asia Times Online (Siddharth Srivastava)
There is more than one reason US President George W Bush should thank Indians, whether in the United States or India, as the buildup to elections in the US slated for November gathers steam. Indians are contributing handsomely to Bush's campaign funds while, until recently, there was a band of more than 100 dedicated call-center executives who were handling Bush's fundraising and vote-seeking campaign for the Republican Party from the outsourcing hubs of Noida and Gurgaon, which adjoin the national capital Delhi. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE19Df04.html
Call to Conscience: Roger Morris, senior staff on the National Security Council under Johnson and Nixon has appealed to Americans in the Foreign Service to resign from the “worst regime by far in the history of the republic.”
Dear Trustees:
I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important.
You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmental disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
You know well what a willfully uninformed and heedless president you serve in Bush, how chilling are the tales of his ignorance and sectarian fervor, lethal opposites of the erudition and open-mindedness you embody in the arts of diplomacy and intelligence. Some of you know how woefully his national security advisor fails her vital duty to manage some order among Washington's thrashing interests, and so to protect her president, and the country, from calamity. You know specifics. Many of you are aware, for instance, that the torture at Abu Ghraib was an issue up and down not only the Pentagon but also State, the CIA and the National Security Council staff for nearly a year before the scandalous photos finally leaked.
As you have seen in years of service, every presidency has its arrogance, infighting and blunders in foreign relations. As most of you recognize, too, the Bush administration is like no other. You serve the worst foreign policy regime by far in the history of the republic. The havoc you feel inside government has inflicted unprecedented damage on national interests and security. As never before since the United States stepped onto the world stage, we have flouted treaties and alliances, alienated friends, multiplied enemies, lost respect and credibility on every continent. You see this every day. And again, whatever your politics, those of you who have served other presidents know this is an unparalleled bipartisan disaster. In its militant hubris and folly, the Bush administration has undone the statesmanship of every government before it, and broken faith with every presidency, Democratic and Republican (even that of Bush I), over the past half century. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/21/resign/print.html
Like the Rats on a Sinking Ship?:
The NY Times is now criticizing the Administration for having been hoodwinked by Chalabi and the intelligence he provided. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/opinion/21FRI1.html Yet, they fail to mention that they supported the assertions of their reporter, Judith Miller, who cited Chalabi’s claims as the basis for her belief that Iraq’s WMD presented a dire threat to the U.S. Miller, it will be recalled, admitted on May 1, 2003 that "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper. ... He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."
The NeoCon Propaganda: We’re not surprised are we?
Eric Alterman’s Nation article addresses what we knew about this bunch.
These are the men not just the neocons but self-described progressives and human-rights advocates believed capable of carrying out the delicate and difficult mission of bringing democracy and modernism to the Arab world, while safeguarding the security and good name of the United States. Excuse me, but just what was so hard to understand about this bunch? We knew they were dishonest. We knew they were fanatical. We knew they were purposely ignorant and bragged about not reading newspapers. We knew they were vindictive. We knew they were lawless. We knew they were obsessively secretive. We knew they had no time or patience for those who raised difficult questions. We knew they were driven by fantasies of religious warfare, personal vengeance and ideological triumph. We knew they had no respect for civil liberties. And we knew they took no responsibility for the consequences of their incompetence. Just what is surprising about the manner in which they've conducted the war?
And how pathetic is it that the only cable network really grappling with the media's failure is Comedy Central? Let's give the last word to the Daily Show's incomparable Stephen Colbert: "The journalists I know love America, but now all anybody wants to talk about is the bad journalists--the journalists that hurt America.... Who didn't uncover the flaws in our prewar intelligence? Who gave a free pass on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection? Who dropped Afghanistan from the headlines at the first whiff of this Iraqi snipe hunt? The United States press corps, that's who." http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040607&s=alterman
How to Recruit Opposition: Bomb a Wedding party!The military is holding out, claiming that it targeted insurgents, smugglers, bad guys. They have no explanation for the bodies of women and children, the majority of victims from this week’s air strike, or why there were so many musicians hanging with these nogoodniks.
An LA Times (Alissa J. Rubin) account:
With the smell of roasted lamb still in the air, Bassem Hameed Dulaimi left the tent where wedding guests were sleeping after three days of revelry and walked to a far field to wash up. Then, the musician said, he saw a flash in the desert sky, and another. He described blast after blast as rockets rained down on the tiny hamlet in the early-morning hours.
"They fired more than 40 rockets — I counted," the 26-year-old organ player recounted Thursday at a funeral in Baghdad for two of the seven fellow musicians he said were killed in the attack by U.S. forces.
U.S. military officials continued to doubt Thursday that the "men of fighting age" they say died in the desert early Wednesday had gathered for a wedding. They say three large buildings in the hamlet were safe houses along a trail used by smugglers to move arms and insurgents into Iraq. They say troops found passports, weapons and the equivalent of $1,000 in Iraqi dinars at the site.
The Iraqis and the U.S. military agree on some details of the attack. But on the crucial question they disagree: Was this an innocent gathering of revelers fast asleep at the time, or a band of gunmen who fired on the Americans?
About 40 people were killed in the remote village just 15 miles from the Syrian border, said the U.S. military and Iraqis on the scene. A doctor in the hospital in the nearby town of Qaim put the number of dead at about 45. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-bombing21may21,1,7405961,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Abuse Scandal: General Sanchez Implicated
Local media are beginning to report this. From the original report from the Guardian:
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, issued an order last October giving military intelligence control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu Ghraib with the explicit aim of manipulating the detainees' "emotions and weaknesses", it was reported yesterday.
The October 12 memorandum, reported in the Washington Post, is a potential "smoking gun" linking prisoner abuse to the US high command. It represents hard evidence that the maltreatment was not simply the fault of rogue military police guards. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1222348,00.html
Still Another Scandal within the (Abuse) Scandal within …
John McCain was in a tizzy about this at the end of the week, but the media ignored it till TIME did a posting. It’s about some missing pages. Yet the headline was about the Senate being on CIA Director Tenet’s case.
Another big stack of pages is causing concern over at the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is investigating abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Committee aides discovered belatedly that their copy of the 6,000-page report on prison abuses produced by Major General Antonio M. Taguba might not be complete. The copy they got after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony on May 7 was a thick document with 106 annexes, and it was quickly arranged into separate binders. Only later did the committee stack up all the pages, compare them with a ream of 6,000 blank pages and decide that at least 2,000 pages were missing. "We'd certainly like to know why they're missing," said Republican Senator John McCain. Pentagon spokesman Larry Dirita insisted, "If there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was an oversight." Committee staff members haven't actually counted the pages. Chairman John Warner will investigate this week to see what is missing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641078,00.html
Frank Rich on Fahrenheit 9/11
Rich’s take on Michael Moore’s movie- which received, according to attendees, the longest ovation of any prize winner EVER! Not to be concerned- The post below doesn’t include Plot.
We already know that politicians in denial will dismiss the abuse sequence in Mr. Moore's film as mere partisanship. Someone will surely echo Senator James Inhofe's Abu Ghraib complaint that "humanitarian do-gooders" looking for human rights violations are maligning "our troops, our heroes" as they continue to fight and die. But Senator Inhofe and his colleagues might ask how much they are honoring soldiers who are overextended, undermanned and bereft of a coherent plan in Iraq. Last weekend The Los Angeles Times reported that for the first time three Army divisions, more than a third of its combat troops, are so depleted of equipment and skills that they are classified "unfit to fight." In contrast to Washington's neglect, much of "Fahrenheit 9/11" turns out to be a patriotic celebration of the heroic American troops who have been fighting and dying under these and other deplorable conditions since President Bush's declaration of war.http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/arts/23RICH.html?ex=1086307690&ei=1&en=9478737ff2721eb7
The Occupation Toll:
An AP survey of morgues in Baghdad and the provinces of Karbala, Kirkuk and Tikrit found 5,558 violent deaths recorded from May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, to April 30. The toll from both criminal and political violence ran dramatically higher than violent deaths before the war, according to statistics from morgues. http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBHU6WELUD.html
Food News: “What is Organic?” Fuzziness ahead…
Over the course of 10 days in mid-April, the USDA issued three "guidances" and one directive -- all legally binding interpretations of law -- that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word "organic" and discredit the department's National Organic Program. And the changes -- which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows, synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more -- were made with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board, the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002. One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows, and a guidance [PDF] issued on April 14 will allow just that on organic dairy farms, a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. Under the new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but with numerous other drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold…
Previously, organic farmers were only allowed to use natural, nontoxic pesticides on their crops, which effectively prohibited use of pesticides with hidden ingredients (pesticide manufacturers often don't list certain ingredients, claiming the information is proprietary).
According to the new guidelines, however, organic farmers and certifiers are only required to make a "reasonable effort" to find out what is in the pesticides being applied to crops. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/21/anti_organic/index.html
Voter Registration:
How to reach people? Some original notions are out there. One blog reader (MR) notes that a friend simply sets up in shopping centers in African-American areas and has registered hundreds of new voters by himself.
Another novel idea reported in Salon (Xiao Zhang)”
Strip club owners are putting a little bada-bing in the presidential campaign by asking patrons to turn their eyes away from the stage for a moment to fill out a voter registration form -- and then vote against President Bush.
"It's not to say our industry loves John Kerry or anything like that," said Dave Manack, associate publisher of E.D. Publications, which publishes Exotic Dancer magazine. "But George Bush, if he's re-elected, it could be very damaging to our industry." http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/20/stip_clib/index.html
-R
P.R. Offensive: Spin is what they are about, though we term it lies, distortions, misrepresentations.
So, it’s not surprising that since they can’t make the Occupation a success, they will try to make it sound like one. Robin Wright in the Washington Post:
President Bush will launch an ambitious campaign tomorrow night to shift attention from recent setbacks that have eroded domestic and international support for U.S. policy in Iraq, particularly the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the escalating violence, and focus instead on the future of post-occupation Iraq.
The president will open a tightly orchestrated public relations effort in a speech at the Army War College outlining U.S. plans for the critical five weeks before the transfer of political power June 30. ..
In the first of at least six presidential speeches on Iraq before June 30, Bush will particularly try to counter growing criticism that Washington has lowered the goal posts for its year-long occupation, U.S. officials said. Critics and Iraq experts have charged that the administration has backed down from its original pledge to create a strong new democracy that would be a catalyst for a broad political transformation in the Middle East and is instead settling on an exit strategy that will leave a fragile government unable to protect itself.
"He will talk about the importance of not lowering our sights and sticking to our goals of a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq, of adhering to our commitment to the June 30 transfer of sovereignty, and of an election in a January time frame," said a White House official who insisted on anonymity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48487-2004May22?language=printer
Bush Reads the Speeches, while The Others…
Nothing new here, that he reads the speeches and the Group- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al push the policy. It makes one recall an excerpt from James Fallows’ piece in the Jan-Feb. Atlantic magazine:
This is the place to note that in several months of interviews I never once heard someone say "We took this step because the President indicated ..." or "The President really wanted ..." Instead I heard "Rumsfeld wanted," "Powell thought," "The Vice President pushed," "Bremer asked," and so on. One need only compare this with any discussion of foreign policy in Reagan's or Clinton's Administration—or Nixon's, or Kennedy's, or Johnson's, or most others—to sense how unusual is the absence of the President as prime mover....It is possible that the President's confidants are so discreet that they have kept all his decisions and instructions secret. But that would run counter to the fundamental nature of bureaucratic Washington, where people cite a President's authority whenever they possibly can ("The President feels strongly about this, so ..."). http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm
India funds Bush's campaign
They’re pulling in big bucks from anywhere they can. Yet, they lie about this one as well. In response to reports about these overseas efforts, the GOP put out its characteristic denial:
Today John Kerry supporters began circulating a false story from the Internet, claiming that the RNC outsourced fundraising calls to an Indian telemarketing firm.
“This story is an untrue urban legend which has been traversing the nether regions of cyber space for the better part of a year. It’s unfortunate that John Kerry’s supporters have so little regard for the truth that they would spread Internet stories with no basis in fact,” said RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke. http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4220
Yet, several sources suggested otherwise. From The Asia Times Online (Siddharth Srivastava)
There is more than one reason US President George W Bush should thank Indians, whether in the United States or India, as the buildup to elections in the US slated for November gathers steam. Indians are contributing handsomely to Bush's campaign funds while, until recently, there was a band of more than 100 dedicated call-center executives who were handling Bush's fundraising and vote-seeking campaign for the Republican Party from the outsourcing hubs of Noida and Gurgaon, which adjoin the national capital Delhi. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE19Df04.html
Call to Conscience: Roger Morris, senior staff on the National Security Council under Johnson and Nixon has appealed to Americans in the Foreign Service to resign from the “worst regime by far in the history of the republic.”
Dear Trustees:
I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important.
You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmental disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
You know well what a willfully uninformed and heedless president you serve in Bush, how chilling are the tales of his ignorance and sectarian fervor, lethal opposites of the erudition and open-mindedness you embody in the arts of diplomacy and intelligence. Some of you know how woefully his national security advisor fails her vital duty to manage some order among Washington's thrashing interests, and so to protect her president, and the country, from calamity. You know specifics. Many of you are aware, for instance, that the torture at Abu Ghraib was an issue up and down not only the Pentagon but also State, the CIA and the National Security Council staff for nearly a year before the scandalous photos finally leaked.
As you have seen in years of service, every presidency has its arrogance, infighting and blunders in foreign relations. As most of you recognize, too, the Bush administration is like no other. You serve the worst foreign policy regime by far in the history of the republic. The havoc you feel inside government has inflicted unprecedented damage on national interests and security. As never before since the United States stepped onto the world stage, we have flouted treaties and alliances, alienated friends, multiplied enemies, lost respect and credibility on every continent. You see this every day. And again, whatever your politics, those of you who have served other presidents know this is an unparalleled bipartisan disaster. In its militant hubris and folly, the Bush administration has undone the statesmanship of every government before it, and broken faith with every presidency, Democratic and Republican (even that of Bush I), over the past half century. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/21/resign/print.html
Like the Rats on a Sinking Ship?:
The NY Times is now criticizing the Administration for having been hoodwinked by Chalabi and the intelligence he provided. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/opinion/21FRI1.html Yet, they fail to mention that they supported the assertions of their reporter, Judith Miller, who cited Chalabi’s claims as the basis for her belief that Iraq’s WMD presented a dire threat to the U.S. Miller, it will be recalled, admitted on May 1, 2003 that "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper. ... He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."
The NeoCon Propaganda: We’re not surprised are we?
Eric Alterman’s Nation article addresses what we knew about this bunch.
These are the men not just the neocons but self-described progressives and human-rights advocates believed capable of carrying out the delicate and difficult mission of bringing democracy and modernism to the Arab world, while safeguarding the security and good name of the United States. Excuse me, but just what was so hard to understand about this bunch? We knew they were dishonest. We knew they were fanatical. We knew they were purposely ignorant and bragged about not reading newspapers. We knew they were vindictive. We knew they were lawless. We knew they were obsessively secretive. We knew they had no time or patience for those who raised difficult questions. We knew they were driven by fantasies of religious warfare, personal vengeance and ideological triumph. We knew they had no respect for civil liberties. And we knew they took no responsibility for the consequences of their incompetence. Just what is surprising about the manner in which they've conducted the war?
And how pathetic is it that the only cable network really grappling with the media's failure is Comedy Central? Let's give the last word to the Daily Show's incomparable Stephen Colbert: "The journalists I know love America, but now all anybody wants to talk about is the bad journalists--the journalists that hurt America.... Who didn't uncover the flaws in our prewar intelligence? Who gave a free pass on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection? Who dropped Afghanistan from the headlines at the first whiff of this Iraqi snipe hunt? The United States press corps, that's who." http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040607&s=alterman
How to Recruit Opposition: Bomb a Wedding party!The military is holding out, claiming that it targeted insurgents, smugglers, bad guys. They have no explanation for the bodies of women and children, the majority of victims from this week’s air strike, or why there were so many musicians hanging with these nogoodniks.
An LA Times (Alissa J. Rubin) account:
With the smell of roasted lamb still in the air, Bassem Hameed Dulaimi left the tent where wedding guests were sleeping after three days of revelry and walked to a far field to wash up. Then, the musician said, he saw a flash in the desert sky, and another. He described blast after blast as rockets rained down on the tiny hamlet in the early-morning hours.
"They fired more than 40 rockets — I counted," the 26-year-old organ player recounted Thursday at a funeral in Baghdad for two of the seven fellow musicians he said were killed in the attack by U.S. forces.
U.S. military officials continued to doubt Thursday that the "men of fighting age" they say died in the desert early Wednesday had gathered for a wedding. They say three large buildings in the hamlet were safe houses along a trail used by smugglers to move arms and insurgents into Iraq. They say troops found passports, weapons and the equivalent of $1,000 in Iraqi dinars at the site.
The Iraqis and the U.S. military agree on some details of the attack. But on the crucial question they disagree: Was this an innocent gathering of revelers fast asleep at the time, or a band of gunmen who fired on the Americans?
About 40 people were killed in the remote village just 15 miles from the Syrian border, said the U.S. military and Iraqis on the scene. A doctor in the hospital in the nearby town of Qaim put the number of dead at about 45. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-bombing21may21,1,7405961,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Abuse Scandal: General Sanchez Implicated
Local media are beginning to report this. From the original report from the Guardian:
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, issued an order last October giving military intelligence control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu Ghraib with the explicit aim of manipulating the detainees' "emotions and weaknesses", it was reported yesterday.
The October 12 memorandum, reported in the Washington Post, is a potential "smoking gun" linking prisoner abuse to the US high command. It represents hard evidence that the maltreatment was not simply the fault of rogue military police guards. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1222348,00.html
Still Another Scandal within the (Abuse) Scandal within …
John McCain was in a tizzy about this at the end of the week, but the media ignored it till TIME did a posting. It’s about some missing pages. Yet the headline was about the Senate being on CIA Director Tenet’s case.
Another big stack of pages is causing concern over at the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is investigating abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Committee aides discovered belatedly that their copy of the 6,000-page report on prison abuses produced by Major General Antonio M. Taguba might not be complete. The copy they got after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony on May 7 was a thick document with 106 annexes, and it was quickly arranged into separate binders. Only later did the committee stack up all the pages, compare them with a ream of 6,000 blank pages and decide that at least 2,000 pages were missing. "We'd certainly like to know why they're missing," said Republican Senator John McCain. Pentagon spokesman Larry Dirita insisted, "If there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was an oversight." Committee staff members haven't actually counted the pages. Chairman John Warner will investigate this week to see what is missing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641078,00.html
Frank Rich on Fahrenheit 9/11
Rich’s take on Michael Moore’s movie- which received, according to attendees, the longest ovation of any prize winner EVER! Not to be concerned- The post below doesn’t include Plot.
We already know that politicians in denial will dismiss the abuse sequence in Mr. Moore's film as mere partisanship. Someone will surely echo Senator James Inhofe's Abu Ghraib complaint that "humanitarian do-gooders" looking for human rights violations are maligning "our troops, our heroes" as they continue to fight and die. But Senator Inhofe and his colleagues might ask how much they are honoring soldiers who are overextended, undermanned and bereft of a coherent plan in Iraq. Last weekend The Los Angeles Times reported that for the first time three Army divisions, more than a third of its combat troops, are so depleted of equipment and skills that they are classified "unfit to fight." In contrast to Washington's neglect, much of "Fahrenheit 9/11" turns out to be a patriotic celebration of the heroic American troops who have been fighting and dying under these and other deplorable conditions since President Bush's declaration of war.http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/arts/23RICH.html?ex=1086307690&ei=1&en=9478737ff2721eb7
The Occupation Toll:
An AP survey of morgues in Baghdad and the provinces of Karbala, Kirkuk and Tikrit found 5,558 violent deaths recorded from May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, to April 30. The toll from both criminal and political violence ran dramatically higher than violent deaths before the war, according to statistics from morgues. http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBHU6WELUD.html
Food News: “What is Organic?” Fuzziness ahead…
Over the course of 10 days in mid-April, the USDA issued three "guidances" and one directive -- all legally binding interpretations of law -- that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word "organic" and discredit the department's National Organic Program. And the changes -- which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows, synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more -- were made with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board, the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002. One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows, and a guidance [PDF] issued on April 14 will allow just that on organic dairy farms, a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. Under the new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but with numerous other drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold…
Previously, organic farmers were only allowed to use natural, nontoxic pesticides on their crops, which effectively prohibited use of pesticides with hidden ingredients (pesticide manufacturers often don't list certain ingredients, claiming the information is proprietary).
According to the new guidelines, however, organic farmers and certifiers are only required to make a "reasonable effort" to find out what is in the pesticides being applied to crops. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/21/anti_organic/index.html
Voter Registration:
How to reach people? Some original notions are out there. One blog reader (MR) notes that a friend simply sets up in shopping centers in African-American areas and has registered hundreds of new voters by himself.
Another novel idea reported in Salon (Xiao Zhang)”
Strip club owners are putting a little bada-bing in the presidential campaign by asking patrons to turn their eyes away from the stage for a moment to fill out a voter registration form -- and then vote against President Bush.
"It's not to say our industry loves John Kerry or anything like that," said Dave Manack, associate publisher of E.D. Publications, which publishes Exotic Dancer magazine. "But George Bush, if he's re-elected, it could be very damaging to our industry." http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/20/stip_clib/index.html
-R
