|
THURSDAY
03.18.04 / 5:21
AM / LINK
Doing al Qaeda a big favor
In today's column (NY
Times) Thomas Friedman worries
about appeasement. He's concerned about the new Spanish government's
stated intent to remove it's troops from Iraq in the aftermath
of the recent train bombing by (most likely) al Qaeda. This is
a legitimate concern.
The problem is that, regarding its relationship to terrorists,
the Bush administration has been guilty of --if not appeasement
then-- ignorant facilitation, at least.
Paul Krugman says it this
way, "It's now clear that by shifting his focus to Iraq,
Mr. Bush did Al Qaeda a huge favor. The terrorists and their
Taliban allies were given time to regroup; the resurgent Taliban
once again control almost a third of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda
has regained the ability to carry out large-scale atrocities."
Friedman (with
whom I agree about half the time) starts his argument by laying
out what and who we're facing. He says, "We are up against
a terrible nihilistic enemy."
He says this nihilism does not want democracy to take root in
Iraq. It wants Iraq to collapse into civil war. I have no problem
with any of these statements. I think they're true on their face.
But I don't agree with Friedman's position that the Iraq war
was either justified or prudent. And I don't think this administration
has a leg to stand on in this, or in 90% (non-scientific survey)
of its policies. But Friedman shares my view to a certain extent.
He says, " ...why aren't we doing better? It has to do with
the pigheadedness of the Bush team and ... regarding the Bush
team, let me say yet again: We do not have enough troops in Iraq,
and we never did. From the outset, the Bush Pentagon has treated
Iraq as a lab test to prove that it can win a war with a small,
mobile high-tech Army. Well, maybe you can defeat Saddam that
way, but you can't build a new Iraq — and control its borders
to prevent foreign terrorists from coming in — with so few
troops, especially when you disband the Iraqi Army on top of
it."
... the pigheadedness part is where we agree most.
03.18.04 / 5:21 AM / LINK
Making a faith-based free-market tax-cut
point
Maybe if George Bush
had really been fighting the war on terror rather than pursuing
it in Afghanistan then pulling out --ala Onan--
to spill his seed in the deserts of Iraq, Spain would not have
lost 200 or so innocent people in a bombing.
The spinners in the Bush establishment have portrayed the president
with his nose to the grindstone in a single-minded endeavor to
root out terrorists. But as Paul Krugman says (NY
Times 3/18/04), "...this reputation is based on image,
not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke
9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance
to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or
their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan."
Somehow, though all evidence points to the fact, the word "incompetence"
has not been applied by the mainstream press to this president's
handling of the mess he created in splitting his forces to chase
Saddam Hussien while at the same time depleting the national
treasury to the benefit of the wealthiest among us. Actually
I can think of stronger words than incompetent.
But George Bush confidently (?) presses on. Well if he's so confident,
"Why," asks Krugman, "...has his inner circle
tried so hard to prevent a serious investigation of what happened
on 9/11? There has been much speculation about whether officials
ignored specific intelligence warnings, but what we know for
sure is that the administration disregarded urgent pleas by departing
Clinton officials to focus on the threat from Al Qaeda."
Krugman brings up a host of questions about the peculiarities
of the Bush administration's so-called war on terror.
For instance, why allofasudden have we intensified the hunt for
Osam Bin Laden in recent weeks when it should have been done
earlier? Because we've been distracted in Iraq, says Krugman.
And an election's coming up, adds this guy.
And why has the Bush conspiracy "...run interference for
Saudi Arabia — the home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and
the main financier of Islamic extremism — and Pakistan,
which created the Taliban and has actively engaged in nuclear
proliferation?"
And heaping strangeness on peculiarity, "...what,"
Krugman asks, "are we to make of the post-9/11 Saudi airlift?
Just days after the attack, at a time when private air travel
was banned, the administration gave special clearance to flights
that gathered up Saudi nationals, including a number of members
of the bin Laden family, who were in the U.S. at the time. These
Saudis were then allowed to leave the country, after at best
cursory interviews with the F.B.I."
Bush strong against terror? Hmmmm....
Krugman's parting shot: "...remember this: the administration's
actual record is one of indulgence toward regimes that are strongly
implicated in terrorism, and of focusing on actual terrorist
threats only when forced to by events.
One gets the impression this administration is gonna run this
jumbo jet right into the ground just to prove a faith-based free-market
tax-cut point.
Related:
Left
Needs Solid Anti-Terrorist Doctrine
03.18.04
/ 5:21 AM / LINK
Spain, at least, understands democracy
Contrast delineates reality.
The juxtaposition of polar opposites spells out truth. There's
a global drama being played out in our time, to our terror. And
it's being framed in terms of black and white. The trouble is
the world doesn't unfold in terms of black and white. But it
is a simple way to deal with it.
No wonder we support a simple anti-empathic like George Bush
to take care of security. You don't want compassion in the man
you're hoping will ice the enemy before he gets to your door.
Fear is a major player here.
Many have been willing to sell out the nation's soul for security;
but that may be too high a price to pay. And besides, security
is not the same thing as safety. We may be secure in our borders;
but we're not safe when the president of the United States and
his right-wing think-tank swat team have discovered they may
use every state-of-the-art method and technology to undermine
the rule of law. All with the help of corporate media and columnist
David Brooks!
David Brooks thinks Spain should have postponed its election
in the wake of the terrorist attack on it's commuters. Is he
then suggesting that if George Bush's "anti-terrorist"
policies result in a pre-election, large-scale-blowing-up somewhere
here in the U.S.A. we should postpone ours as well? Would this
be the kind of election postponement that sometimes leads to
a permanent usurpation of power? What's Brooks up to, is he laying
the groundwork for a conservative coup?
Whatever else is true about David Brooks, if he's not a neoconservative,
he's a fellow traveler.
What Brooks argues is, we can't let terrorists undermine our
democratic system by creating a catastrophe in the United States
that would lead to a skewed election. But we already have this
in the right wing Republican Party. Why should we worry about
ruthless foreign terrorists?
What Brooks frothed on about was the left turn made by the Spanish
electorate in the wake of the deceit of the their government
in the aftermath of their train bomb tragedy. Did al Qaeda terrorist
murderers lead to the ousting of Aznar, or was it liars in government?
Whatever; together they make a mighty team.
What bent Brooks was that this week we saw the effects of a vibrant
young democracy in Spain. We witnessed the anger of people who
demand a spade be called a spade. Citizens who damn deceit in
government. We saw a democracy with muscle -- one like we used
to have.
By contrast, our's now seems effete, afraid, and feeble. Following
9/11, under the impetus of the astronomically well- financed
anti-American wing of the Republican party, we've come to see
ourselves as victims. Naive and malleable. Willing to believe
anything that'll keep the bogey man at bay. Willing to be used.
It's hard to have any national self-respect these days.
Immediately after the deadly train bombing in Madrid the population
of Espanol hit the streets. "They thronged ... holding
signs reading 'Paz,' and carried banners reading 'Your War, Our
Corpses,'" according to commentator
William Pitt.
They were referring to the war of Jose Maria Aznar, Spain's prime
minister who backed George Bush's war. But Aznar backed the Bush
conspiracy against the wishes of about 80% of the Spanish population.
After all, why should a government listen to 80% of it's population?
... it's, it's, it's ...anti-free-market and unpatriotic (the
double-barreled, bottom-line, catch-all rationale of the current
ruling elite).
Another disaster ... another diversion was in order; so a large
portion of Spain's mainstream press, in a move to emulate Rush
Limbuagh and Fox News, tried to portray protesters as being under
the sway of anti-war activists . Fortunately, the Sunday vote
which turned Aznar out, suggested something different. It indicated
that that 80% of the Spanish population was finally being heard.
But Pitt says, "There are a number of lessons to be taken
from the incredible turn of events over the last 100 hours, few
of which are comforting."
Learn Pitt's lessons here.
03.15.04
/ 6:25 AM / LINK
Riding the Free Market wave to serfdom
Listening
to the dogma of Free Market gurus, you'd think there really was
such a thing --a free market, that is. And if there actually
were, it would be a good thing.
But as writer Thomas Hartmann points out here, there's another perspective
and set of historical facts.
"In actual fact, there is no such thing as a 'free market.'
Markets are the creation of government.
"Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible.
They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce
the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated
workforces through public education, and those workers show up
at their places of business after traveling on public roads,
rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use
the "free market" are protected by police and fire
departments provided by government, and send their communications
- from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public
rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.
"And, most important, the rules of the game of business
are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football,
baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess.
Similarly, business without rules won't work."
Careful there Hartmann, it may not be long before that kind of
heresy will get you a long stay in sunny Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
TOP
|
|
