|
POEM: UTOPIA- .................. ABOUT NOUTOPIA ......................ARCHIVES
Friday
- 03/21/03
New Rome:
Lest we become
too self-assured, we have to remember, even the Pax
Romana
finally lead to a sacking
 If we think this war is just about regime
change in Iraq, we're being more naive than Forrest Gump. The
question is, will we be as lucky?
As writer Leif Wellington
Haase points out in The
American Prospect, "The truth is that invading
Iraq will commit the United States to the path of empire -- though
most Americans have likely not considered the gravity of this
commitment. In the long run, this war will normalize the use
of force as the chief means of carrying out U.S foreign-policy
objectives. Such a policy is bound to increase insecurity at
home while failing to achieve stability abroad. And, in the end,
it could make America into a very different country indeed."
This excursion into Iraq is no small event. Up until now we've
been able to tell ourselves that we're not just another Rome
-- an invader and an occupier. But, as Haase states, "...(in
knocking over) a relatively weak state in order to send a message
to stronger ones that might someday challenge our global dominance.
The bombs that fall on Baghdad will be aimed at least in part
at leaders in Teheran, Riyadh, Damascus, Beijing and Pyongyang.
"This is pure imperialist doctrine, without any real pretense
of self-defense," he concludes.
Rome had it's day, but there's a downside in a turn toward aggressive
hegemony. Security is by no means assured. As Wellington Haase
says, "There is, for instance, good reason to believe that
the Bush security strategy of ruling the world by fear will backfire.
Rather than disarming or being cowed by a display of American
power, odious regimes, such as North Korea's leaders, are instead
rushing to try to acquire nuclear weapons. Plus, the war in Iraq
is likely to help -- rather than hinder -- al-Qaeda's recruiting."
Think of the little countries that bucked this powerful nation
on the road to war. But, who knows, Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney may
not be through with them yet ...buck with Ceasar and you get
the horn.
The long-term repercussions of this threat are likely to lead
to a society much more repressive than the one we've come to
cherish. If you don't believe this just think John Ashcroft.
We may be cursed by our children yet.
^
TOP
Maybe Republicans think all politicians
should wear big, bushy moustaches.
To those of you who feel
that criticizing the president is bad form now that he's actually
started his war... who do you think he is Saddam Hussein?
Columnist E.J. Dionne thinks it's not bad form at all. He thinks
it's a responsibility wherever it's needed. He says today
that, "the more a president's supporters use the term "commander
in chief" to enhance his authority, the more important it
is to remember his role as the political leader of a free republic
who is not endowed with infallibility, unlimited power or immunity
from criticism. That, after all, is the essential difference
between our country and Iraq. Our foe in this war is a brutal
despot who responds to opponents not with nasty sound bites or
30-second attack ads but with torture and murder. To proclaim
the right to dissent is to declare why the United States is a
country worth fighting for."
Republicans hopped on Tom Daschle this week for being critical
of the president's handling of the lead-up to war. House Speaker,
Dennis Hastert, for one, said, "Those (Daschle's) comments
may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and
they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty
close." But Daschle has a right and a responsibility to
be critical when criticism is called for.
But such Republicans are nothing if not hypocrites. Dionne points
out that, "...almost all of (President Bill) Clinton's military
decisions came under withering Republican criticism. That's especially
true of those he took in the middle of his sex scandal. Note,
for example, this Republican reaction to Clinton's missile strikes
in Sudan and Afghanistan against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
"I just hope and pray that the decision that was made was
made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons,
and not made because it was necessary to save the president's
job," said Dan Coats, then a senator from Indiana and now
President Bush's ambassador to Germany. "Why now? Bin Laden
has been known to be a terrorist for a long time. Why did this
happen?"
If every thoughtful dissenting
politician is to give George Bush a free ride they may as well
all grow big bushy moustaches, wear black berets and military
uniforms, and make damn sure they laugh at all of Dubya's jokes
at meetings around large White House conference tables.
Aside: funny thing, "Dubya" just came up on my spell-checker
as "dubious". God really does work in mysterious ways.
Interesting
related news report:
Man faces charges of threat
against Daschle.
^
TOP
Okay, now that we've got that
started what about the economy, stupid?
Paul
Krugman, NY Times columnist likes to lay it on the line (thank
god). In his commentary today he says, "The Bush
tax cuts,
...are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so
bleak."
Krugman says that commentators are afraid they'll sound too shrill
in blaming the president for the sad state of the economy. Surprise,
surprise! The pack of suck-up columnists running around today
with laptops, corporate news credentials, and orthodontically
constructed smiles, are afraid of everything, especially the
truth.
"...many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush
for that grim outlook," Krugman says, "preferring instead
to say something like this: 'Sure, you can criticize those tax
cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social
Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party
to reform those programs,' " But, he continues, "There's
only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position:
it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement
programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly
looks so bleak."
Of course George Bush is not responsible for anything... bad.
George Bush has skated his whole life and still skates (he's
either the luckiest man alive, or his real name is Faust). But
the Princeton economist disagrees with his brown-nosing colleages.
He says the president is responsible: "On almost
every front the outlook for the United States now seems far bleaker
than it did two years ago. Has everything gone wrong because
of evildoers and external forces? In the case of the budget —
and the economy and, yes, foreign policy — the answer is
no. The world has turned out to be a tougher place than we thought
a few years ago, but things didn't have to be nearly this bad.
The fault lies
not in our stars, but in our leadership."
If that sounds shrill then all news correspondents should be
compelled to take shrill lessons before having their teeth capped
and their dos done (apropos of nothing... wouldn't it be
somehow reassuring if at least half of all TV news anchors and
correspondents were ugly?).
^
TOP
Thursday
- 3/20/03
In real estate it's location, location,location.
In politics it's timing, timing, timing.
William Safire adds Part
II to his series on the French contribution to Saddam's military
arsenal in today's NY Times. "What will the world discover,
after the war is over, about which countries secretly helped
Saddam obtain components for terror weapons?" he asks.
Jacques Chirac denies they've done what Safire's article documents,
but he's probably lying. Safire hasn't been around as long as
he has by being incredible. But can we keep a level head here?
Can we remember which nation it was that sided with Iraq during
the Iraq-Iran war? Can we keep in mind which nation supplied
Saddam with weapons at that time - some of which he may fire
back very soon?
You can read about the U.S. once playing the role currently performed
by France in this report
in the Washington Post by Michael Dobbs (12/30/02) he writes,
"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications
for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical
weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with
international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge
is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was
seen in Washington as a valued ally."
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years
before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale
intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean
front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical
and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside
of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck
with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked,
and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle
that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." But often
the enemy of my enemy is a real SOB.
Governments do things they determine to be in their best interest,
whenever. Sometimes governments will be on this or that guy's
side, sometimes that same guy is all-of-a-sudden a brutal dictator
it's ok to start a preemptive war with. Things change. To castigate
the French for being duplicitous is, well... duplicitous.
But Safire makes some revealing
statements about French policy and you should read this.
If only to help you acknowledge and keep it in front of your
mind that governments do some bad things. All of them.
More
If you want to learn more along these lines go to this
article in which Senator Roberts Byrd make some revealing
statements. Among them is this:
"Between 1985 and 1988, the nonprofit American Type Culture
Collection made 11 shipments to Iraq that included a "witches'
brew of pathogens," including anthrax, botulinum toxin and
gangrene. All shipments were government-approved.
"Between January 1980 and
October 1993, the federal Centers for Disease Control shipped
a variety of toxic specimens to Iraq, including West Nile virus
and Dengue fever.
"The U.S. Commerce Department
and CDC provided lists of these shipments. "The Defense
Department ought to have the same lists, so that the decision-makers
will know exactly what types of biological agents American soldiers
may face in the field," Byrd said.
"At last week's Armed Services
Committee hearing, Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld said he had no
knowledge of any such shipments and doubted that they ever occurred.
He seemed to be affronted at the very idea that the United States
would ever countenance entering into such a deal with the devil."
I wonder, was Rumsfeld just having a Chirac moment?
^
TOP
Ideals are for wimps: a redefinition
of American ideals: a little bit of "smacky face" is
okay after all
There was a time when
the idea we would ever torture anyone would have been
anathema, but that was when we had the luxury to be humanitarian.
9/11 changed that. Now
we can be like everybody else. After over 200 plus years
of talking the talk, it's amazing how quickly we're folding on
constitutional issues.
In fact, fuzzy-headed ideals are for wimps and bleeding-heart
liberals. In the real world threat rules. Grow up.
The recent capture of Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
is the latest indication that the taboo on torture has been broken.
In the days after Mohammed's arrest, an unnamed official told
the Wall Street Journal that US interrogators may authorize "a
little bit of smacky-face" while questioning captives in
the war on terrorism. Others proposed that the United States
ship Mohammed off to a country where laxer rules apply. "There's
a reason why [Mohammed] isn't going to be near a place where
he has Miranda rights or the equivalent," a senior federal
law enforcer told the Journal. "You go to some other country
that'll let us pistol-whip this guy."
As we learned from the Enron debacle, there are always creative
ways around laws.
^
TOP
Blog world at a turning point
The why
and wherefore of blogs in the LA
Times.
Whatever happened to basic logic?
The reason
I ask this question has to do with Anthony Scalia, Supreme Court
Justice. Scalia was being honored by the City Club of Cleveland.
The award was for supporting free speech, which is fine. Free
speech is very American. Free speech is when you can actually
speak freely. This does not defy the rules of logic. What defies
logic is an award
ceremony
for supporting the protection of free speech at which the awardee
bans broadcast media.
According to Yahoo News the ban on broadcast media, "...begs
disbelief and seems to be in conflict with the award itself,"
C-SPAN vice president and executive producer Terry Murphy wrote
in a letter last week to the City Club. "How free is speech
if there are limits to its distribution?"
But Scalia is a throwback. The rules of logic dictate that a
throwback will... well, throw you back. Living in the past however,
is a luxury reserved for those privileged enough not to have
to face the rigors of free speech... back to a time when the
elite ruled and controlled everything from speech to whether
you ate or not.
But what about the constitutional "right" of free speech?
"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said.
"Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the
Constitution requires."
Is judge Scalia looking to change that?
^
TOP
Wednesday
- 03/19/03
This may or may not be
a slam-dunk, but if this war is to turn out as anything but a
disaster "..the Bush team needs an attitude lobotomy..."
Tom Friedman
writes today
in the New York Times:
"Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in
Six Days. It saw its victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors
saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh
Day ever since — never quite able to transform its dramatic
victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more secure."
^
TOP
Tuesday
- 03/18/03
Bush administration pushes for widespread
addiction to tobacco in Asia, Africa, and Europe countries
I wonder
if, when contemplating his
support for the spread of lung cancer in the rest of the world, George The
Facilitator of Business ever asks himself, What would Jesus do?
Would he render unto Ceasar with or without regulation?
In this report in Mother Jones News
we learn a phone call to U.S.
negotiators "...was part of a behind-the-scenes campaign
being waged by the Bush administration to water down international
restrictions on tobacco. The Geneva treaty, in the works since
1999, represents an unprecedented effort to stem a worldwide
epidemic that kills almost 5 million people a year. But as the
treaty nears its May completion date, the Bush administration
has been working quietly to ensure that the agreement does little
to curb smoking, opposing strict control measures backed by most
Asian, African, and European countries. In both public sessions
and private conversations, "the United States has continually
sought to weaken a treaty that they have no intent on signing,"
says Ross Hammond, who represents the Campaign for Tobacco-Free
Kids at the Geneva meetings.
How can we muster pride in our country when it's led by the likes
of the Bush administration? No wonder so much of the world thinks
we're bad news these days. So far this administration has no
redeeming social value.
^
TOP
One reason your
mother told you to always tell the truth:
Why does so much of the world think the Bush administration has
hidden, nefarious motives for its war in Iraq? Partly, it's because
Marxism isn't entirely dead--and many people still assume that
U.S. foreign policy is governed by a rapacious, imperialistic
desire for profit or, in this case, oil. Partly, it's because
anti-Semitism isn't dead--and many people still assume that Jews
run the United States for Israel's benefit. The responsibility
for these misguided, toxic analyses lies mostly with other societies
and other governments. But there's a third reason for the world's
radical distrust of America's war effort, and, for this, the
Bush administration has only itself to blame: It
keeps saying things about Iraq that turn out not to be true.
INTERVIEW
: What Makes W. Tick?
The historian and journalist
Richard Brookhiser weighs in on George
W. Bush—his management style, his mean streak, his religiosity,
and his recovery from alcoholism.
^
TOP
Saturday - 03/15/03
Is Iraq his Elizabeth Smart?
Jim Culleny
By all
the evidence I've come to believe that faithfulness to God is
like anything else in this world, it's only as good as its practitioner.
Sometimes faith leads to self immolation, sometimes to the immolation
of others; sometimes the practitioner goes to jail, sometimes
he starts a religion, sometimes he even gets declared president
by the Supreme Court. In the beginning (to quote a phrase), there's
no way of telling where it'll end up. This puts religious faith
in the same class as everything else we do and should not be
relied upon as a guarantee of right-action.
In fact claiming
God's imprimatur is often nothing more than a form of self-sanctioning,
so it falls into the same category of human motivation as auto
eroticism, but with a mystical bent.
We've learned lately (Howard Fineman
in Newsweek)
about George Bush's faith, and we can see where it's taking him
(and also us, since he's doing the driving and we're stuffed
in the trunk with the luggage), but we ought to be wary of so-called
God-based political action. People sometimes have strange ideas
about what God wants.
Case in point:
in another recent
example of this kind of mystical auto-misdirection Brian Mitchell, the
kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart (taken by this disciple of the Lord
from her home 9 months ago) has once again used a most convenient
age-old excuse: god made me do it. Religious chutzpa is
a thing to behold. Mitchell was as sure of himself as the president
is about his war.
According to
Vicki Cottrell, a friend of Mitchell and his wife Wanda Barzee
(messianic homeless people whom the Mormon Church had excommunicated),
"God told them to take Elizabeth...They were doing what
God asked them to do." And with God being a really omnipotent
ally, who could argue?
So it's not as if Mitchell and Barzee didn't have a good reason
for their actions. "Speaking on a telephone through a glass
partition, Ms. Barzee told Cotrell (who is executive director
of the Utah chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill) that on Thanksgiving 2000 (Barzee didn't give the exact
time, but it was probably after her spouse had one-too-many helpings
of oyster stuffing) she and her husband received a revelation
that the celestial law of polygamy had returned and that he was
to take seven wives.' " Seven must have seemed a fantastic
number of wives for a young and virile man. As we know now Elizabeth
Smart was just the first.
Luckily, God will sometimes undo a mistake and is not opposed
to using divine subterfuge. What led to Mitchell's capture was
another of his revelations. On Wednesday the three arrived in
Sandy, a suburb about 15 miles south of Salt lake City. Ms. Barzee
reportedly told her friend, Ms. Cottrell, that it had been revealed
to her in a prayer that they would be "taken to a jail by
the evildoers of the world" in Salt Lake City. Alright,
now we’re on familiar ground. Since we‘ve heard the
term "evildoers" bandied around a lot in the past two
years, we’re into something we can really understand.
But what about diplomacy? Wouldn't it have done some good if
the whole world had tried to convince Mitchell... before the
fact...that his intent was questionable? Well, it's hard to dissuade
a man who thinks he's god-directed, especially if he prays a
lot and is surrounded by fringe-group sycophants.
Mitchell
 |
.Bush
 |
|
Listening
to God? |
Keeping all this in mind, who knows why George Bush is doing
what he's doing? But for those of you who are tagging along behind
the president because he expresses profound faith in God, there's
a cautionary tale here. Bob Woodward of Watergate fame tells
us in his book "Bush at War", a month into the bombing
of Afghanistan, when the Taliban stronghold of Mazar-i-Sharif
fell, Mr. Bush turned to Condoleezza Rice, in a moment straight
out of "The Candidate," and asked: "Well, what
next?"
Combine George Bush’s disdain for international diplomacy
with his pandering to our fears instead of our hopes, mix in
his missionary war-on-terrorism with some America-first treaty-busting
preemptive obsessions, then throw in his conviction that he’s
doing the Lord’s work and (though he may not be wearing
long white robes) it might make you wonder, is Iraq Bush's Elizabeth
Smart?
More concerns
along these lines from Michelle Cottle of The New Republic here.
Cottle: "Lots of political leaders make decisions and pronouncements
based broadly on what they believe is God's will. But Bush's
brand of born-again Christianity isn't rooted in the kind of
theological study or debate that might produce a coherent worldview.
Instead, it follows directly from the believer's one-on-one communion
with God. At best this gives the prescriptions Bush gleans from
his faith an ad hoc quality--had Bush interpreted his particular
Iraq conversations with God differently, the fate of the entire
Middle East might have been altered. "
And still
more in the Atlantic:
In
the Name of God
by Jack Beatty
Bush's rhetoric
suggests that he feels God has chosen him to lead the U.S. against
"Evil." Is that why Bush is dragging us into an unprovoked
war?
^
TOP
The truth shall set
you free, but it's not the best way to get support for a war
(BUZZFLASH
REPORT)
"It was the
information that we had. We provided it. If that information
is inaccurate, fine," Colin Powell said on NBC's "Meet
the Press" last Sunday.
Powell was talking
about forged
documents he'd
used to support the administration's argument for war.
I guess it really depends on what the definition of "is
forged" is.
RETURN
TO TOP
Conservative Voices:
From
Ray Dee
(in reponse to article
included here
written by Paul Krugman)
I doubt that
you like William Safire any better than I like Paul Krugman,
but both are responsible journalists who check their facts. Yesterday,
Safire's article covered the China-France-Syria connection providing
ultra high-tech rocket fuel (not for little El Samouds but for
big Intermediate range). Both the French and the Germans have
been making money selling very bad chemicals to the Iraqi regime.
I just don't see that French (and German and Chinese) opposition
is based on principle - I think they each have a lot to hide,
and a lot to answer for. France is the #1 contractor for Iraqi
oil. Their behaviors since WWII has been reprehensible, including
the disasters they left behind in their colonies.
From
Jack King:
(An email correspondent
who's raked me over conservative coals before)
I
am old enough to remember the Alistair
Cooke broadcasts
during WW2. Many of my friends have heard me refer to the similarities
between The situation in the world from 1933 to 1945 and how
the situation in Iraq is so similar in many ways. What Alistair
Cooke did not include in his parallel is the end result of appeasement
in Europe prior to World War II. That end result was the loss
of 28 million human beings which included 6 million Jews and
nearly 18 million Russians.
Although I agree with Jack and Alistair that WWII and the political
decisions of the United Kingdom leading up to it were incorrect
and disastrous, that's where the parallel ends. I believe we're
making equally disastrous decisions in prosecuting this war.
But what about Cooke's analogy?
In the article contributed by Jack, Alistair Cook writes:
"Oh dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck (after
Hitler screwed him) "He has betrayed my trust."
But nobody today trusts Saddam Hussein. His a barbarian like
Hitler, yes. But there's nothing in any anti-war argument about
trusting him.
Cooke also tells us that "British voters had signed a
so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no
terms."
But this is not true of this situation. There are conditions
and terms. And if the president were as intent diplomatically
as he is militarily we might have a "coalition of the willing"
to squeeze Saddam until he turns blue. A smart and articulate
diplomat might even be able to convince the French.
Cooke also says, "In blunter words a majority of Britons
would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler
except fight him."
Again this is not as it is in this situation. It's not a matter
of not being willing to fight, but when and in league
with whom? Our military strength will not diminish in, say,
6 months.
Cooke also says, "In Britain the general response to
every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security."
But our response to Saddam when he invaded Kuwait was to kick
him out with George The First's great coalition.
And Cooke says of the then current cry regarding Hitler' forces,
"But he's not used them, he's not used them.... Still for
two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read
the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous
Labor men ... who voted against rearmament and still went on
pointing to the League of Nations as the savior."
But we are armed... and to the teeth. And the argument
to work through the United Nations (or at least some group of
allies who've been approached as partners not adversaries) is
not pointing to the United Nations as savior. First things first:
very firm diplomacy. If you want to get into the major death
business, use it as a very last resort, at least.
(definition
of diplomacy: 1. the conducting of relations between nations
2. skill in doing this 3. skill in
dealing with people, i.e. being a uniter, not a divider)
RETURN
TO TOP
Kerry says, no immanent
threat
BUZZFLASH
REPORT
 "Nothing I have
seen in the intelligence over the last years suggests to me that
in terms of threat to the United States that there is, at this
moment, such a compelling rationale that there is a distinction
of weeks or months," the Massachusetts Democrat told a news
conference.
He says we should be making a diplomatic assault as convincing
as our impending military one.
(REUTERS
PHOTO)
^
TOP
Antiwar Actions
Go to this article
in The Nation to learn how to support UN missions who are being
leaned on by the US to vote for war.
Other important connections here and here.
^
TOP
Wednesday
- 03/12/03
Are we in the process
of changing who we are?
It's downright un-American!
"THE
IMPENDING IRAQ war has become a watershed event. It will permanently
alter the American relationship to the Islamic Middle East. It
has already provoked serious change in Europe's relations with
Washington. It may have lasting influence on what becomes of
American society"
This
op-ed piece
by William Pfaff, of the Boston Globe, calls it a watershed event.
But what kind of watershed event? Is it good? Bad? My own view
is it's a bad watershed event no matter how the war turns out,
but according to my wife I've been known to be wrong.
I believe that George Bush has taken a tragic event and made
it more tragic. "9/11! 9/11!" he keeps saying, as if
the world ended on 9/11. The world didn't end on 9/11, look around.
The world's still here. You're still here. I'm still here. We
still have a constitution to uphold ...or did that collapse with
the World Trade Center too?
Forget 9/11 for
a few minutes. The question is what are going to do with what's
left? Why should we undermine the very things which make us American:
a commitment to strength based on a constitutional guarantee of liberty.
^
TOP
A symbolic
French purge
In a symbolic gesture
to rid the world of the French, Ohio Rep. Robert Ney, who runs
the House administration, ruled that all references to anything
French
be stricken from menus in house cafeterias..."Making
Congress look even sillier than it sometimes looks," said
Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank. Given the current grave
situation, "This would not be high on my priority list,"
he added.
This seems like such a good idea
I going to uproot every single shrub in my yard. I'll have a
Bush free zone at last!
^
TOP
Monday
- 03/10/03
Top God-dog
The president, so full
of talk of faith, the power of faith, etc. refuses to talk to
certain of the faithful. He ignores church anti-war leaders.
But, hey, it's only his faith that matters cause he happens
to be the new top god-dog.
Read buzzflash headlines
and click on article.
Calling names
Richard Perle, one of Bush's architects of war, calls New Yorker
magazines' Sy Hersh a terrorist: buzzflash.
Why? This article
may have something to do with it.
The Anti-democracy
cometh
When is democracy not such a good thing? When the common people
of the world are against
your war.
^
TOP
Sunday
- 03/09/03
What's the best way
to make even more millions of dollars?...
Well, first, you take a million
dollars and give it to the Republican party... preferably as
sneakily as possible.
"With only days left before the November election,
state Republicans solicited nearly $1
million from a Los Angeles insurance company and channeled
it to key races around California in a way that hid the source
of the contributions."
Soon though, after the Republican conservatives solidify their
power and take over the world, blatant purchasing of governmental
influence will be done over the table because there'll be no
other choices.
^
TOP
A Democrat fesses up
Pelosi: Democrats Missed
Chance to Avert Iraq Moves. Are
they awake now?
Bush constituents exempted again
"While small communities
and small construction projects in every other sector of the
economy must comply with strong storm water standards,"
Mr. Jeffords (Jim Jeffords, ex-Republican Independent from Vermont)
said, "the Bush administration is giving a free
ride to the oil and gas industry."
^
TOP
Heads in sand, and
unleashed forces
"Qatar, for its
part, gets some new military facilities and a guarantee of US
protection should the war on Iraq do just what the Emir of Qatar
fears and unleash forces in the region that cannot be controlled
.
The "force" the Qataris
and other Gulf states fear most is a resurgence of Shiite extremism
propelled by the new Iraq and its neighbor Iran forming an alliance
with designs on creating a pan-Arabic state."
Go here.
^
TOP
No just war
I always thought Jimmy Carter
was a decent man. I still do. But President Carter was a one-term
president to la large extent because he was a decent man. It
might be that decent men may not be U.S. presidential material.
Our current situation would bolster this conclusion.
Carter, a devout Christian, thinks
George Bush is barking up the wrong war. In his op-ed piece in
today's NY Times we find
out why.
"As a Christian and as a president who was severely
provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar
with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially
unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only
as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted... The war's weapons must discriminate
between combatants and noncombatants... Its violence must be
proportional to the injury we have suffered... The attackers
must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they
profess to represent...The peace it establishes must be a clear
improvement over what exists.
Go to the article
to understand Carter's views as he details why this Bush war
fails to meet these criteria.
^
TOP
The cart before the
horse
Fire,
ready, aim; as the headline on Thomas Friedman's
column
says.
"Fact: The invasion of Iraq
today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither
the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is
easily deterrable if he did."
When Saddam Hussein is a mere memory, when we are ensconced in
Baghdad virtually all alone, when we are paying through the nose
for our occupation of Iraq virtually all alone, when we are the
target for all of the frustrations of Islam and the Arabs and
anyone else with a bone to pick, it'll be too late for those
now giving George Bush his great approval ratings and backing
for war to wish they'd been wiser. But as George would probably
say, "God works in mysterious ways."
If God has anything it's dark sense of humor, so we can probably
count on it: we'll get what we deserve. If God gave us George,
maybe we already have.
^
TOP
Saturday
- 03/08/03
What
do you think might be the policy of a Tyrannosaurus Rex if it
won an election?
NY Times commentator
Paul
Krugman has some ideas along these lines:
"Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let
them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying
of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description
of current U.S. policy. But this week's crisis in U.S.-Mexican
relations — a crisis that has been almost ignored north
of the border — suggests that it is a perfect description
of George Bush's attitude toward the world.
^
TOP
"Damn
Americans. I hate those bastards."
Last week a member of
the Canadian Parliament for the
ruling party, Carolyn Parrish, was caught on television
declaring: "Damn
Americans. I hate those bastards."
Remember that (80s ?) movie starring Brian Denehey where this
town finally offs the Denehey character because he's a complete
and utter, unmitigated and unabashed S.O.B.? Of course we have
more missiles than Denehey had...
This is not to say we don't have our virtues, it's just that
right now, with the present government, they're not showing.
More, related thoughts on the subject (The Nation, by Richard
Goldstein):
"Say what you will about oil and hegemony,
but the pending invasion of Iraq is more than just a geopolitical
act. It's also the manifestation
of a cultural attitude. To understand how this war is being packaged
and sold, you have to look at the fantasies Americans consume
as they graze through the vast terrain of TV, radio, movies and
the Internet. In this charged environment, pop culture and politics
swirl around each other like strands of DNA. The product of this
interplay is the current crisis."
^
TOP
Congressional
democrats chalk-up one temporary victory
For the
time being at least, Democrats have blocked the nomination of
Miguel Estrada to the powerful US Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia.
As I said the other day this
is good. The ship of state has been leaning so far to starboard
these past few years it's become top heavy with ditto-heads (that
is, having to dots in place of brains).
But don't blink... constant vigilance is the cost for breathing.
^
TOP
"Have
ever a people been led more listlessly into war?"
I watched
that press conference the other night. President George Bush
is just
plain scary.
If you're not scared, you're as scary as he is. Descent into
chaos is often led by mobs of scary people led by nth degree assholes.
In discussing the coming Saddam vs. George war with an ex-Vietnam
machine-gunner marine friend of mine, he explained the situation
this way: it takes an asshole to deal with an asshole. He'll
get no argument from me on that point. But after the dust has
settled there'll probably be only one less asshole to
guard against.
Personal note: My friend Joe Z. mentioned above, after having
barely survived a horrendous and unnecessary war experience at
the instigation of big-balled, determined politicians, is dicidedly
unimpressed with the faux-cajones of the present batch, most
of whom managed to avoid his ordeal because of their priviledged
positions... George Bush included.
^
TOP
Funny-Little-Political-Coincidence-Dept.
A Florida insurance
company that channeled a $10,000 contribution to Minnesota Republicans
last fall settled allegations it sold illegal policies in the
state. And the settlement was for millions
less
than originally proposed after the Republican administration
of Gov. Tim Pawlenty took office.
^
TOP
What's it
gonna cost? Take a look... and that's just for car fare.
The Congressional Budget Office
estimated
that simply sending troops and equipment to the Persian
Gulf to fight Iraq and returning them home would cost nearly
$25 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office calculates that:
1.the initial cost of deploying troops and equipment in the region
of the war would be about $14 billion
2.the cost of the first month of combat would be $10 billion
and that the cost would then fall slightly to about $8 billion
a month --which may be a bargain, I don't know, my mind gets
tangled up after 6 or 7 zeros.
After the war, the budget office figured it would cost:
1.about $9 billion to return the troops and equipment to home
bases.
2.occupation of Iraq could vary from $1 billion to $4 billion
a month.
The effects on the deficit re:the Bush tax cuts (to those with
garages full of BMWs and Hummers), they calculated, would be:
1. $800 billion worse over the next 5 years, than without the
cuts (The cumulative deficits over five years would be $362 billion
if no changes were made in the law and $1.2 trillion if the Bush
proposals are enacted)
Following this man into a preemptive war is just a losing proposition,
in terms of bucks, national character, and international precedent.
^
TOP
If you're
going to pick a war, at least pick it with the right guy
While
George Bush has his army arrayed across the middle east ready
to take out a really bad guy with no apparent muscle, North Korea's
stranger-than-fiction Kim IL, who's really been pumping
nuclear iron these past weeks, is flexing biceps all over the
place. But having picked his fight Dubya's locked onto the wrong
target.
North Korea's
latest attempt to force
down a U.S. reconnaissance plane is further evidence of the cost of the
president's idiotic inertia.
If he would do it, would
it work?
Several days ago a friend forwarded
an email to me from Helen
Caldicott regarding a way we could assure an end to possible
war in Iraq...
Pope as human shield.
Or maybe if George
Bush aped Slim Pickens...
^
TOP
Like Rip Van Winkle Democrats unsnooze
Rubbing the sleep from their eyes "Congress's top
two Democrats yesterday
pointedly criticized President Bush's Iraq policy, signaling
a renewed Democratic willingness to challenge the administration's
march toward war just as international opposition is hardening."
This report from the Washington Post.
John Ashcroft surveils
some more
Freedoms
are permanently lost by a lack of imagination coupled with too
much credulity:
i.e. I believe so much in the good intentions of those in
government I can't imagine I'll personally ever need strong protections
against unwarranted search and seizure.
In that case
why have a constitution at all?
How trustworthy, really, is a faith-based Attorney General with
a political axe to grind, and what does he want now?
^
TOP
|
