The Daily Brew

2003-06-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

This blog is now officially closed. The main page, The Daily Brew, will continue to be updated. Check there for the latest column.

2003-04-23T01:53:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments- Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president--

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).

First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available)

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

by Kelley Kramer

2003-04-11T12:35:00.000-07:00

More Fighting To Do
© April 11, 2003
The Daily Brew

Nothing more thoroughly demonstrates the short memories and profound ignorance of the grass roots Republican base than the gloating over what has been presented as the end of the war in Iraq. As always, the media partnership with the White House is to blame.

The official script for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" apparently was to read like a spaghetti western, a showdown between Bush and Saddam at the Baghdad Corral. From the beginning of the conflict, the media and the administration presented the month long war as a nip and tuck battle. Given the facts on the ground, it was an audacious display of coordinated spin.

Arguments prior to the war concerned mostly the length of the cakewalk. Even as it happened, the raw facts showed the American military chewing up sporadic Iraqi resistance like a plow through a field. Nevertheless, from the moment the invasion began, the media breathlessly presented every small arms attack on an A1 Abrams tank as having the potential to turn the conflict into an American defeat. The ruse was so contrary to the reality that it must have been getting hard to do with a straight face. Fortunately for the script writers, the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad provided the perfect telegenic moment where the media and the administration could triumphantly declare victory.

So as the statue fell, all across the cable networks the familiar chorus of instant pundits fell into line, treating the moment as though it provided some sort of closure, and praising the White House as though it had just won the Superbowl. The military did its part to keep the news on message by attacking foreign news organizations that strayed from the triumphant reporting of pre-approved, "embedded" journalists. Never in the history of warfare had the presentation of a conflict been more thoroughly controlled, and as a result, never in the history of warfare had the actual uncertainties created by instigators of the conflict been more thoroughly ignored. The absurdity of the presentation; the total integration of White House and media spin, would have been comical if propaganda weren't effective in influencing the opinions of a gullible public.

Even mildly educated viewers were bewildered at the spectacle. After all, the eventual conquest of Saddam's regime in Iraq was perhaps the only predictable event of the whole war. Thoughtful people had been discussing the complexities of dealing with the aftermath of the conflict for over a year, ever since the administration telegraphed its determination that war was inevitable, regardless of what Saddam Hussein did or did not do. For all but the most easily led astray, the fall of Saddam represented the opening of Pandora's box. Yet the media reported the event as though it somehow provided closure. Of course, in a sense, it did. It represented the end of the period where the Bush administration could control or even predict the events it had just unleashed.

Now that the war has run its official media story line, it will be interesting to see how the script develops to explain the messy realities of post war Iraq they have so far ignored. Ruling the now conquered Iraq promises to be no small feat. The most obvious flaw in the story line is the fact that "liberated" Iraqis continue to fight against US forces. Iraqi's new found "freedom" also apparently includes suicide bombers, looting, the general breakdown of most utilities, no food or water, and a civil war that threatens to erupt as a result of the ongoing political assassinations. All of these facts detract from the cable news version of the war. As the ripples of the conflict begin to erupt outside of Iraq, as with today's storming of the Iraqi embassy in Iran, the administration and the corporate media will be challenged to develop a new narrative explaining how these events somehow reflect favorably on Bush. One option, the option selected in the case of Afghanistan, would be to simply ignore such developments. Another option would be to distract the public with yet another war. If the past is any guide, the media will chose the first, and the administration will choose the second.

2003-04-01T20:45:00.000-08:00

Can private Lynch sell her story to Hollywood, or does the army own it?

You know "Saving Private Lynch" would be a blockbuster. After all, she is a pretty blond teenager who, in my not so humble opinion, had no business being in a war zone, was taken prisoner and held behind enemy lines, and was saved by our guys. If it weren't true, you could never sell it, but since it is, it has Hollywood written all over it.

In a related note, WAY TO GO to the kick ass guys who saved her. If we had a commander in chief who was half as competent as you dudes, this thing would already be over, and the whole world would be thanking us for doing it. Good luck bringing the rest of them back. We all know you are looking, and we are praying you get it done.

2003-03-28T11:47:00.000-08:00

The Bush strategy seems to have had two main assumptions. First, that with US air and ground support, the majority of the Iraqi populace would revolt against Hussein, and second, that if Hussein were killed, even the Baathist loyalists would give up the fight. We know the first assumption proved wrong. The $64 question is whether the second assumption is also wrong.

If Saddam dies, and hundreds of thousands of Baath supporters, or even tens of thousands of Baath supporters, continue to wage a guerilla campaign against our troops, how on earth are we going to rebuild the country? Remember Lebanon? Can you say "exit strategy"? If any significant number of guerilla fighters remain after Saddam is dead, there is no way Bush is going to be able to get us out of this mess, EVER. The 2004 election will be run with the backdrop of our "peace keepers" (read: 20 year old kids from the heartland) getting killed every two or three weeks in Iraq by truck bombs and whatnot. Bush's only choice will be to try and distract the public once again and extend the war to Iran.

2003-03-27T22:35:00.000-08:00

In case you were wondering what "liberation" looks like.

2003-03-27T17:40:00.000-08:00

The Best Laid Plans
(c) March 27, 2003
The Daily Brew

For months, commentators from both the left and the right have sagely parroted President Bush's solemn assurance that the United States will ultimately prevail in Bush's war against Iraq. The problem with this bit of conventional wisdom is that it is only true if one accepts "prevail" in the narrowest sense of the word. If victory is defined as achieving any objective other than the removal of Saddam Hussein from a position of power, it is becoming increasingly clear that the United States cannot possibly achieve any of the broad and ever changing justifications used by the Bush administration to launch the attacks. Instead, the end of the conflict seems certain to herald an era of increased terrorism and weapons proliferation, and little in the way of true democratic reforms.

The invasion already shows every sign of increasing the prospect of terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies. Just yesterday, 14 leading Islamic clerics from nuclear-armed and supposed US ally Pakistan urged a "jihad," or holy war, against the United States. Included on the list of prominent clerics were Dr. Abdul Razzaq Sikander who heads the Islamic seminary of Binori Town - one of the biggest and most influential religious schools not just in the port city of Karachi, but in all of Pakistan.

The clerics said jihad had become mandatory for the more than 1.2 billion Muslims. "They have to participate in the jihad according to their capacity. This has become mandatory against America, its allies and the Muslim rulers" who are siding with Washington, they said in a statement. "Those who keep a soft corner for America compared to Saddam Hussein, or think that it is not a war of Islam, they are wrong," they said. The United States has used "Saddam as an excuse to attack Iraq." Against this background, both Iran and North Korea have substantially ramped up their capabilities for the production of nuclear weapons.

Daily protests throughout the Middle East demonstrate that the cleric's assessment of Bush's motives are broadly shared, including a much larger segment of the Iraqi people than had been assumed by US military planners. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney's earlier predictions that the Iraqi people would turn on their despotic leader have proven to be a disastrous miscalculation. Coalition forces have encountered significant resistance in southern Iraq where forces loyal to Saddam have engaged in guerrilla-style hit-and-run attacks. Reports of intimidation, brutality, and summary execution of the local population by Saddam Hussein's fedayeen and paramilitary forces may explain the reticence of the local populations to join with their US "liberators," but it really doesn't change the outcome. In the end, these people will be massacred as a result events set in motion by the US led invasion.

In response to these setbacks, the US military has announced plans to insert as many as 100,000 more U.S. soldiers into Iraq by the end of April, bringing the total U.S.-led force there to about 225,000. While this may or may not have been according to the original plan as claimed by Rumsfeld, it has become increasingly clear that, just as with the cities further to the south, the final assault on Baghdad will be fought against a motivated guerilla army in an urban setting, almost certainly resulting in massive Iraqi casualties.

Thus, given what is now known, it appears that to remove Saddam Hussein from power will require a massive toll in Iraqi civilians. To even attempt to rule such a country after inflicting such carnage will almost certainly require the imposition of martial law. One needs only to look at the almost daily attacks by suicide bombers in modern Israel to imagine the prospects for the coalition forces tasked with rebuilding Iraq. One need only consider the possibility of nuclear weapons supplied by North Korea or Iran added to this mix to understand how badly the Bush administration has miscalculated.

2003-03-24T19:15:00.000-08:00

Blood On Their Hands
© March 24, 2003
The Daily Brew

Any American with access to the internet can see what the American corporate media won't show us; the dead bodies of our American servicemen cut down in the prime of their lives. It is, without question, a disturbing sight. Our kids. Our neighbor's kids. Our future. But just because the media averts our eyes, it doesn't change the facts. Just because Fox News and CNN won't show us the real costs of this war, it doesn't mean we won't be paying them.

Sadly, the war is an all too predictable culmination of lies and omissions by the corporations who control our media dating back for years. While the incompetent and dishonest diplomacy of the Bush administration might remain a mystery to the bulk of the American public, it is well understood by the rest of the world who isn't saddled with our duplicitous press corp. With half of the American pubic still believing the Bush administration's often repeated and utterly false innuendo linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, how can any fair minded observer help but conclude that the media has utterly failed in its job of keeping the American public informed? Whether it was the forged evidence presented to the UN security counsel that Saddam tried to buy uranium, or the missing link between al Qaeda and Iraq, when it comes to correcting the lies and misdirection of the Bush administration, the corporate media has been AWOL, just as Bush was with his Texas Air National Guard unit during the Vietnam War. The result of these lies and omissions is that the American public broadly supports a war that is perceived by the rest of the global community as akin to Hitler's advance across Poland.

The apex, perhaps, of this corporate degeneracy are the pro-Bush rallies organized by the radio goliath Clear Channel. How many of the patriotic Americans attending these rallies know that Clear Channel is headed by a long time political patron of President Bush, or that important regulatory issues that will reap Clear Channel millions of dollars are currently before Bush's FCC chair and Colin Powell's son? How many of the patriotic Americans attending these rallies to "support our troops" know that as Bush prepared to send them into battle, he cut federal support to schools disproportionately attended by the their children? How many of them know that as our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq, Bush was cutting the Veteran's benefits they will need when they return? One thing is all but certain; Clear Channel won't be telling them. "Support our troops" indeed.

The genesis of this journalistic malpractice was, of course, election 2000. The corporate millionaires of cable TV, intent on receiving their promised tax cut, ignored Bush's outright lies concerning tax policy, social security, and medicare. Instead, they projected Bush's deceit onto poor Al Gore, inventing clever quotes concerning the origins of the internet. Real journalism, which would have revealed the illegal purging of thousands of democratic voters in time to make a difference in the stolen election, was forsaken for catty stories about "earth tones" and "Love Story."

And so, it has come home to roost. The best of our children are now dying in Iraq in a war that, even if successful, will brand the United States as an aggressor nation in the eyes of most of the world. It is a war that was launched by an illegitimate poseur, in equal parts to secure a congress sympathetic to his right wing agenda, to secure oil for his political benefactors, and as a misguided attempt to remake the politics of an entire region of the globe. The corporate celebrity spokespeople who masquerade as reporters won't let on to these grisly facts. The reason is simple. To do so would be to admit they have blood on their hands.

2003-03-18T12:57:00.000-08:00

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Garren
To: brew@thedailybrew.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: In rebuttal

Have you checked the Gallup Polls Today. 66 percent are behind the President as we forge ahead with our plans of war. I don't think you give those people benefit of their knowledge or intellect. I think you sound like a lawyer, a dyed in th wool democrat, and a real loser (one of the one's whose presidential candidate didn't win) the last election. I am among that 66 percentile and I take time out to read liberal garbage, one sided, and spoken by some little guy standing on a soap box, usuall north of the Mason Dixon Line, just to reinforce my beliefs in "My President" and "My Country." Have a nice day and print this if you like but I don't think you will.

Wayne

Thanks for your note, Wayne. Concerning your suspicion that I don't "give those people benefit of their knowledge or intellect" I must admit that I am guilty as charged. Polls consistently show that about half of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, and that the homicide/suicide pilots were Iraqis. I am assuming you fall in the informed half of the public and know better. On that basis alone, I am not sure the opinions of the public at large are sufficiently well informed to be of any real value in a serious policy debate. Stated differently, how much of the 66% that supports this war also believes that Saddam is responsible for 9/11? Logic would suggest that number is 75% (66/50=75). Once the ill-informed are removed from the equation, supporters for the war are plainly a small minority. I wonder why you think we should be listening to the idiots?

All of this discussion is, of course, a tempest in a teapot. Bush will launch his illegal war no matter what I say or do from my little soapbox, our troops will meet with either success or with set backs, and the political chips will fall where they may. I, for one, hope he is completely successful, as the consequences for failure will be disastrous.

I suspect the real difference between you and I isn't our shared hope that the war goes well, but rather our calculations concerning whether such is likely. You, along with 66% of the American public, apparently think our chances are good. I am not so sure. Certainly, the diplomatic efforts leading up to the war have been catastrophic. But it is now pointless to argue about this. All we can or need do is sit back and watch.

brew

2003-03-13T11:20:00.000-08:00

The Consequences of Failure
(c) March 13, 2003
The Daily Brew

Last night, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh denounced the Bush administration's approach to Iraq while accepting the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism at the Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Hersh began his acceptance speech by discussing the difficulties today's reporters face, especially in Washington. "I have never seen my peers as frightened as they are now" commented Mr. Hersh, who was recently described as a "terrorist" by Senior White House advisor Richard Perle. Mr. Hersh also spoke of his own frustration with the Bush administration. "There is no real standard of integrity because the White House doesn't have any," he said.

While Mr. Hersh's observation that the White House is deliberately intimidating the Washington press may be correct, it is disingenuous at best to blame President Bush for the White House's success in this effort. The catastrophic failure of our national press corps began well before Mr. Bush assumed office, at a time when American journalists were free to critique Mr. Bush with little fear of retribution.

During the Presidential campaign of 2000, journalists had the ability to compare Bush's mendacious campaign sloganeering with his record as the governor of Texas with little to fear from the White House. They did not, and Mr. Bush was able to convince a large segment of the American public that he was somehow qualified to be the President. The press was then free to point out the breathtaking and criminal tactics Mr. Bush's campaign used to steal the Presidential election in Florida. They did not, and the American public was sufficiently lethargic to embolden the Supreme Court to sweep these tactics under the rug and install Mr. Bush into office. Early in Mr. Bush's term, the press was again free to point out the easily predictable disaster that would result were Mr. Bush's tax proposals written into law. Again, the press took a pass, and since that time millions of Americans have lost their jobs and slipped into poverty. Perhaps most catastrophically, the press was free to point out that Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of September 11, and that White House assertions to the contrary where a most odious form of political sleight of hand. The press again failed to make the public aware of these basic facts, and as a result, our democracy stands poised to embark on a war of aggression in violation of both international law and the wishes of virtually the entire world community.

The significance of these failures cannot be overstated. Opinion polls conclusively demonstrate that the American public is fundamentally misinformed about key facts that have driven the Iraq debate. It is these misconceptions that are allowing the Bush administration to pursue a foreign policy that is decidedly not in our national security interests. One can only wonder if support for the war would fall to levels seen in our NATO allies (levels that would make the attack political suicide) were Americans made aware of the same stories that have received widespread attention in the foreign press. Would the American public support the war if they were aware that, contrary to Mr. Bush's assertions, Iraq and al Qaeda are essentially enemies? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were originally provided by the American military? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the Bush administration had grossly overstating Iraq's military capabilities and the threat posed by Iraq to American interests? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the White House was spying on UN counsel members in an attempt to influence their votes? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton, which still pays him a million dollars a year pension, is all but certain to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in the conflict and its aftermath?

We will never know the answer to these questions, because the press has never informed the American public of these and other key facts. The British press, on the other hand, has informed its public, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is perilously close to losing his job as a result. One can only wonder if Mr. Bush would suffer a similar fate were Mr. Hersh and his colleagues to finally stand up to the intimidation emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One thing is certain. Whatever retribution the press might receive pales in comparison to the price that will be paid by American servicemen, Iraqi citizens, and America's stature in the world for their failures. It is long past time for a little courage, men and women of the press.

2003-02-19T15:24:00.000-08:00

Jacoby and Kaus want to talk about Kerry's grandpappy. See, he was jewish.

Funny, their sudden affection for geneology doesn't extend to Dubya.

See, Dubya's grandpappy financed the Nazis.

Damn liberal media.

2003-02-13T03:31:00.000-08:00

The Reason For War
(c) February 13, 2003
The Daily Brew

As horrific as war may be, there are circumstances where the alternative is worse. Living in a country like Iraq may well be one. The Bush administration, in its relentless marketing of its coming attack, has insured that there is no need to recount the hell-hole that is Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Suffice it to say that Iraq is in essence a prison, run by a sociopath who is given to attacking his neighbors and entertained by torturing his countrymen. While Iraq is hardly the world's only despotic dictatorship, if there is a list of countries that would benefit by overthrowing their government, Iraq is certainly close to the top.

Overthrowing Saddam, however, is not a legitimate end unto itself. If Saddam is simply replaced with another repressive dictator, the Iraqi people will have paid the terrible price for nothing. If that dictator eventually becomes hostile to the United States and seeks weapons of mass destruction, the United States will have gained nothing as well. Let us not be relativists in this regard. Not all governments are created equally. History has demonstrated that as flawed as it may be, democratic governance is superior to all other forms. As a general rule, democracies tend to be far less threatening to their neighbors and far kinder to their citizens. One may argue that Iraq is so rife with internal hatreds and incompatible competing interests that it cannot be transformed into a stable democracy. It is beyond contention, however, that were it so transformed, the lives of both the Iraqi people and the rest of the world would be infinitely better.

It is also clear that the Iraqi people have little prospect of ending the rule of Saddam Hussein and forming their country into a democracy on their own. Like most of the world's dictators, Saddam is sufficiently well armed that it has little to fear from his subjugated population. This is a bitter irony, as Saddam's dominance over the Iraqi people, as with the dominance of many other dictators in the world, is a direct result of weapons supplied by supposedly civilized democracies, and the world's largest arms merchant is none other than the United States.

Thus, the case could be made that the US government that assisted in arming Saddam Hussein should atone for its sins and attack him, and that such would be in the interest of not only the American public, but also the Iraqi people and the world at large. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is uniquely incapable of making that case. The Bush administration cannot justify an attack on Iraq because the Bush administration has shown nothing but contempt for the fundamentally American concept of democratic government that might actually make it worth it.

At the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, Bush's father openly encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein in revolt. Both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south responded, and in March of 1991, it was clear that they had a better than even chance of succeeding. It was at this juncture that the prior Bush administration lost its nerve and sold these rebels down the river. Fearing a post-Saddam Iraq ruled by the majority Shiites would align itself with Iran, Bush allowed Saddam to attack the Kurds in the north with helicopters, and allowed the Iraqi army to literally penetrate the US line in the South to put down the Shiites. Two years later, Bush had lost his job, but Saddam remained in power.

Is it unfair to tar the current Bush administration with the decisions the prior one? Perhaps, but it is worth noting that many of the players are the same. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney may have worn different hats, but there is no doubt that they were as instrumental in forming foreign policy then as they are now. There is also little doubt that Bush is even less comfortable with democracy, either in America or Iraq, than was his father.

Bush once quipped that "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." The trouble is, he meant it. The evidence is simply overwhelming that the Bush administration has little use for the consent of the governed either in America or abroad.

Outside of the United States, the Bush administration has been overt in its contempt for democratic rule. From the Bush administration's giddy reaction to the military coup that temporarily ousted Hugo Chavez from the Venezuelan Presidency to the totalitarian government that was allowed to replace the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush has repeatedly shown little affinity for exporting America's most precious value; our system of governance. The explanation for this reticence is that Bush simply does not share this most important American value.

Bush gained his office only by having his brother purge voters in Florida. Having freed himself from the requirement that he actually be elected, Bush relentlessly sought to free himself from other confines of democratic rule from the day he assumed his stolen office. Prior to 9/11, Bush began quietly by conducting the public's business far away from public view, hiding the activities of not only his administration, but also those of his father, via executive order. After 9/11, Bush was no longer content with merely running the government in secret. Constitutional checks on Bush's power were summarily revoked via the so-called Patriot Act, where Bush assumed a variety of dictatorial powers, including the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, without any hearings, bail, or even charges. Bush is now proposing even more egregious changes to the Patriot Act, demanding the power to summarily strip Americans of their very citizenship. If the past is any guide, Bush will not only be given these new powers, he will then seek even more. From its inauspicious start right up to the present, the Bush administration's single guiding principle has been the continuous and ravenous concentration of power, the public be damned.

So as Bush plunges the world into an economic catastrophe to attack Iraq, we can be confident of only one thing. The only outcome that might possibly justify the death and destruction that lie ahead is the very outcome that Bush has absolutely no interest whatsoever in pursuing.

2003-02-10T10:37:00.000-08:00

conservative
SYLLABICATION: con·ser·va·tive
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: kn-sûrv-tv KEY
ADJECTIVE: 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Given the definition of the word, I fail to see how the theocratic right's position on abortion can be called "conservative." As noted by every single Bush nominee to the Federal bench, a women's right to choose is now well settled law, and has been for some thirty years. Futher, it enjoys the support of the majority of the American public. The theocrats are explicit, they want to negate this right against the will of the public by judical fiat. Their strategy could fairly be termed "activist" "revolutionary" or "radical", but to term it "conservative" at this point in American history is nothing less than an Orwellian bastardization of the word.

2003-01-30T00:37:00.000-08:00

um, I can't resist. Told you so.

2003-01-24T23:40:00.000-08:00

Crunch Time
© January 24, 2002
The Daily Brew

Next week should provide the decisive moment that determines whether Bush can reverse a political tide that has clearly turned against him. On Monday, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix will submit his report on Iraq to the UN security council. On Tuesday, Bush will give his State of the Union address.

Blix' public comments have clearly telegraphed the likely contents of his report. It will say that while Iraq has been less than completely forthcoming, as of yet, no "smoking gun" has been found proving the existence of an active weapons program. Blix' report will further make the case that despite this current lack of evidence, the weapons inspections are making headway. Blix will almost certainly call for their continuation. Immediately following the Blix report, the various members of the security council, including many of our NATO allies, will undoubtedly repeat their prior statements calling for a delay in any plans for war.

Following right on the heels of the report and the pronouncements by the rest of the world that it objects to Bush's war, Bush will be compelled to make his case. Bush will be forced to make his case not only to increasingly skeptical American voters, but also to an overwhelmingly skeptical world opinion. Bush's success or failure will determine whether the United States will have the support of the UN, the UN security council, many of our NATO allies, and the American people when Bush attacks Iraq this March. Perhaps never before has so much been riding on a single speech. Quite possibly, Bush's entire presidency will turn on this speech. He will almost certainly blow it.

Despite the best efforts of the corporate media who stand to profit mightily from the conflict, Bush's falling poll numbers stand as a stunning indictment that more and more Americans aren't buying Bush's rational for war. The spectacle of UN inspectors freely searching an entire country makes the administration's claim that Iraq poses a dangerous and immediate threat to the American public comical at best. Only the most stupid have failed to reach the obvious conclusion that no third world country decimated by twenty years of nearly continuous war and ten years of UN sanctions, and so humiliated that inspectors are picking through Saddam's underwear drawer at the presidential palace, represents any real threat to anyone, except perhaps its own citizens. None of this will be lost on the millions of Americans whose brothers, sons, cousins and uncles Bush plans to offer as cannon fodder for urban combat in Baghdad. Bush's last hurrah may fool the foolish, but they are quickly becoming the minority of American popular opinion.

Nor is Bush's speech likely to succeed in boosting his support on the domestic front. The major economic initiative Bush is set to unveil is a plan to eliminate the taxation of dividends. Unfortunately, no matter what numbers the Bush administration deceptively bandies about for the "average taxpayer," even the most ignorant of US citizens know how much income they received in dividends on corporate stock. It will be a small percentage of Tuesday's audience who will perceive the Bush tax cut as targeted towards them. Combined with the specter of the Dow Jones industrial average sinking below the psychologically important 8,000 level, Bush's proposed bromides for the economy will accelerate, rather than slow, his sinking popularity on domestic issues.

Thus, the coming week promises to be the beginning of the end of the Bush administration. Readers of the Daily Brew who were enraged when the Supreme Court installed Bush against the wishes of the voters, and then appalled when Bush's popularity was buoyed by the still uninvestigated 9/11 tragedy, will finally get to watch as a solid majority of the country comes to the same conclusion they had three years ago. Bush is not up to the job. Never has been, never will be. Enjoy the week

2003-01-06T19:31:00.000-08:00

2003-01-06T19:20:00.000-08:00

Digby points us to a Ron Brownstein piece in today's LA Times (sorry, Digby's link was broken) about who is up for grabs in 2004.

"The real battle is in the middle. Relative to Bob Dole, the GOP's 1996 nominee, Bush in the 2000 election advanced across the entire center of the electorate. Bush improved on Dole's vote by 7 percentage points with moderate Democrats and by double digits with the three other swing groups: moderate independents, conservative independents and moderate Republicans. Yet that still wasn't enough to win the popular vote."

Almost as interesting, for me, is the question about where those voters are.

Let's start with the assumption that whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to win all the states Gore won, except Florida, which Gore won, but it was stolen from him. To ease the discussion, we will call these "blue" states, and we will call the nominee "Kerry". Now assume Bush is going to win all the states he won last time, plus Florida, which he stole. To ease the discussion, we will call these the "red" states, and we will call Bush "Chimp." In 2000, Chimp had 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. However, after redistricting, the "red" states picked up a net of ten electoral votes. So, if the election were held today, and the Red and Blue states fell exactly as they did in 2000, Chimp would have 281, and Kerry would have 256. In other words, Kerry has to pick up at least 13 electoral votes from the Chimp to win. Here is the map, with the current electoral votes on it.

As with 2000, neither Chimp nor Kerry is likely to waste much time is states like California, which will give its highly educated 55 electoral votes to Kerry, or Utah, which will give its 5 religiously insane electoral votes to the Chimp.

Instead, both will concentrate their efforts on the states where Gore squeaked past the Chimp, and where Kerry's prospects are the brightest for picking off a red state. IMHO, Kerry's best prospects for picking off a red state are the states where Democrats held or took over the governor's mansion in 2002, plus Nevada, since Chimp screwed the casino state on Yucca mountain. IMHO, Field Marshall Rove is going to target both Iowa and New Mexico, since Gore only beat the Chimp by about 5,000 votes in each. Also possible are states Clinton won in either 1992 or 1996, but where the Chimp managed to convince the public to vote against their interest in 2000.

Using that as our baseline, the battleground states break down this way:

Missouri was close in 2000, narrowly going to the Chimp as a result of the usual anti-democracy tactics of the thug right. It currently has a Democrat as Governor, however the Governor's mansion will be in play during the 2004 election. Clinton won it twice, and it has enough electoral votes (11), so that if Kerry wins Missouri and any other red state, the Chimp goes back to Crawford to clear brush (a job he for which he is far better suited than squatting in Al Gore's Oval Office). It is a lock that Missouri will get lots of attention from both Kerry and the Chimp. Lousiana, with 9 electoral votes, is even more interesting, as term limits insure that the governor's mansion will be an open seat. The Chimp won it in 2000, and it is generally considered as GOP leaning, but Landreau's victory, and Clinton's previous victories, make it a safe bet that both candidates will be spending time on the Bayou. Democrats control the Governor's mansion in Arizona (10), Kentucky (8), Tennessee (11). and Maine (4), all of which foolishly cast their votes for the evil Chimp who has destroyed our economy and who will soon lead us into an unnecessary war of agression. If Kerry can win any two of those, Dick Cheney is again cooking the books at Halliburton. Tougher wins, yet still possible, are Arkansas (6), Colorado (9) Georgia (15) and Ohio (20), all of which have foolishly elected Republicans as governors. Of these, Georgia and Ohio are the toughest, with no real statewide Democratic coordination in Ohio, and a rabidly racist community of ditto-head hillbillies in Georgia, who are solid Chimp voters. But of all the battleground states, Georgia and Ohio are the only ones that Kerry can win with no other red state. In every other scenario, Kerry needs two.

So there you have it, folks. If you live in Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Lousiana, Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, or Ohio, you might get to meet Kerry personally in 2004, or be cordoned off to a "free-speech zone" to protest the Chimp. The rest of us will be watching on TV. Except for one thing:

Florida.

The Chimp's brother, the younger simian, has broken every law on the book to make Florida impossible for Democrats to win. But without it, and its 27 electoral votes, it is virtually impossible for Chimp to gain 4 more years. Thus, the very best strategy, the sure-fire-silver-bullet-send-Smirk-packing strategy is for Kerry to pick Florida's Democratic Senator Bob Graham to be his running mate, since alone among Democratic prospects, Graham can deliver Florida. Don't blow it, Kerry.

2003-01-06T17:52:00.000-08:00

2003-01-06T17:47:00.000-08:00

To make a long story short, Bush is terrorizing millions of Americans, and is set to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, because Karl Rove thinks this will get him re-elected.

First, the Bush administration is using bogus terrorist alerts to, well, terrorize the country.

Second, the Bush administration going to attack Iraq for manufacturing weapons of mass distruction even though UN weapons inspectors haven't found diddly.

Where is the honor? Where is the dignity? To any rational observer, Bush is a sociopath in command of the world's mightiest military. Yet Time magazine is gushing his praises on its current cover. Here at the Brew, we are beyond irony. We have entered the realm of pure disgust.

2003-01-04T16:05:00.000-08:00

Welcome back, MWO!

my favorite blog is back in business, and they've actually moved me to the top of their links list!

That kind of billing is both an honor, and a responsibility. If MWO is going to put me near the top of the list, I am going to have to write. Look for much more regular updates.

2002-12-21T02:19:00.000-08:00

2002-12-20T15:38:00.000-08:00

As the Bush Administration continues to prepare for its war of agression, please don't give up hope that the illegal war by the illegal Bush regieme may still be averted. Remember that Christmas is just around the corner, and strange things have been known to happen at Christmas. Below is a letter from the front line written Christmas Day, 1914.

My dear sister Janet,

It is 2:00 in the morning and most of our men are asleep in their dugouts—yet I could not sleep myself before writing to you of the wonderful events of Christmas Eve. In truth, what happened seems almost like a fairy tale, and if I hadn’t been through it myself, I would scarce believe it. Just imagine: While you and the family sang carols before the fire there in London, I did the same with enemy soldiers here on the battlefields of France!

As I wrote before, there has been little serious fighting of late. The first battles of the war left so many dead that both sides have held back until replacements could come from home. So we have mostly stayed in our trenches and waited.

But what a terrible waiting it has been! Knowing that any moment an artillery shell might land and explode beside us in the trench, killing or maiming several men. And in daylight not daring to lift our heads above ground, for fear of a sniper’s bullet.

And the rain—it has fallen almost daily. Of course, it collects right in our trenches, where we must bail it out with pots and pans. And with the rain has come mud—a good foot or more deep. It splatters and cakes everything, and constantly sucks at our boots. One new recruit got his feet stuck in it, and then his hands too when he tried to get out—just like in that American story of the tar baby!

Through all this, we couldn’t help feeling curious about the German soldiers across the way. After all, they faced the same dangers we did, and slogged about in the same muck. What’s more, their first trench was only 50 yards from ours. Between us lay No Man’s Land, bordered on both sides by barbed wire—yet they were close enough we sometimes heard their voices.

Of course, we hated them whenever they killed our friends. But other times, we joked about them and almost felt we had something in common. And now it seems they felt the same.

Just yesterday morning—Christmas Eve Day—we had our first good freeze. Cold as we were, we welcomed it, because at least the mud froze solid. Everything was tinged white with frost, while a bright sun shone over all. Perfect Christmas weather.

During the day, there was little shelling or rifle fire from either side. And as darkness fell on our Christmas Eve, the shooting stopped entirely. Our first complete silence in months! We hoped it might promise a peaceful holiday, but we didn’t count on it. We’d been told the Germans might attack and try to catch us off guard.

I went to the dugout to rest, and lying on my cot, I must have drifted asleep. All at once my friend John was shaking me awake, saying, “Come and see! See what the Germans are doing!” I grabbed my rifle, stumbled out into the trench, and stuck my head cautiously above the sandbags.

I never hope to see a stranger and more lovely sight. Clusters of tiny lights were shining all along the German line, left and right as far as the eye could see.

“What is it?” I asked in bewilderment, and John answered, “Christmas trees!”

And so it was. The Germans had placed Christmas trees in front of their trenches, lit by candle or lantern like beacons of good will.

And then we heard their voices raised in song.

Stille nacht, heilige nacht…

This carol may not yet be familiar to us in Britain, but John knew it and translated: “Silent night, holy night.” I’ve never heard one lovelier—or more meaningful, in that quiet, clear night, its dark softened by a first-quarter moon.

When the song finished, the men in our trenches applauded. Yes, British soldiers applauding Germans! Then one of our own men started singing, and we all joined in.

The first Nowell, the angel did say…

In truth, we sounded not nearly as good as the Germans, with their fine harmonies. But they responded with enthusiastic applause of their own and then began another.

O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum…

Then we replied.

O come all ye faithful…

But this time they joined in, singing the same words in Latin.

Adeste fideles…

British and German harmonizing across No Man’s Land! I would have thought nothing could be more amazing—but what came next was more so.

“English, come over!” we heard one of them shout. “You no shoot, we no shoot.”

There in the trenches, we looked at each other in bewilderment. Then one of us shouted jokingly, “You come over here.”

To our astonishment, we saw two figures rise from the trench, climb over their barbed wire, and advance unprotected across No Man’s Land. One of them called, “Send officer to talk.”

I saw one of our men lift his rifle to the ready, and no doubt others did the same—but our captain called out, “Hold your fire.” Then he climbed out and went to meet the Germans halfway. We heard them talking, and a few minutes later, the captain came back with a German cigar in his mouth!

“We’ve agreed there will be no shooting before midnight tomorrow,” he announced. “But sentries are to remain on duty, and the rest of you, stay alert.”

Across the way, we could make out groups of two or three men starting out of trenches and coming toward us. Then some of us were climbing out too, and in minutes more, there we were in No Man’s Land, over a hundred soldiers and officers of each side, shaking hands with men we’d been trying to kill just hours earlier!

Before long a bonfire was built, and around it we mingled—British khaki and German grey. I must say, the Germans were the better dressed, with fresh uniforms for the holiday.

Only a couple of our men knew German, but more of the Germans knew English. I asked one of them why that was.

“Because many have worked in England!” he said. “Before all this, I was a waiter at the Hotel Cecil. Perhaps I waited on your table!”

“Perhaps you did!” I said, laughing.

He told me he had a girlfriend in London and that the war had interrupted their plans for marriage. I told him, “Don’t worry. We’ll have you beat by Easter, then you can come back and marry the girl.”

He laughed at that. Then he asked if I’d send her a postcard he’d give me later, and I promised I would.

Another German had been a porter at Victoria Station. He showed me a picture of his family back in Munich. His eldest sister was so lovely, I said I should like to meet her someday. He beamed and said he would like that very much and gave me his family’s address.

Even those who could not converse could still exchange gifts—our cigarettes for their cigars, our tea for their coffee, our corned beef for their sausage. Badges and buttons from uniforms changed owners, and one of our lads walked off with the infamous spiked helmet! I myself traded a jackknife for a leather equipment belt—a fine souvenir to show when I get home.

Newspapers too changed hands, and the Germans howled with laughter at ours. They assured us that France was finished and Russia nearly beaten too. We told them that was nonsense, and one of them said, “Well, you believe your newspapers and we’ll believe ours.”

Clearly they are lied to—yet after meeting these men, I wonder how truthful our own newspapers have been. These are not the “savage barbarians” we’ve read so much about. They are men with homes and families, hopes and fears, principles and, yes, love of country. In other words, men like ourselves. Why are we led to believe otherwise?

As it grew late, a few more songs were traded around the fire, and then all joined in for—I am not lying to you—“Auld Lang Syne.” Then we parted with promises to meet again tomorrow, and even some talk of a football match.

I was just starting back to the trenches when an older German clutched my arm. “My God,” he said, “why cannot we have peace and all go home?”

I told him gently, “That you must ask your emperor.”

He looked at me then, searchingly. “Perhaps, my friend. But also we must ask our hearts.”

And so, dear sister, tell me, has there ever been such a Christmas Eve in all history? And what does it all mean, this impossible befriending of enemies?

For the fighting here, of course, it means regrettably little. Decent fellows those soldiers may be, but they follow orders and we do the same. Besides, we are here to stop their army and send it home, and never could we shirk that duty.

Still, one cannot help imagine what would happen if the spirit shown here were caught by the nations of the world. Of course, disputes must always arise. But what if our leaders were to offer well wishes in place of warnings? Songs in place of slurs? Presents in place of reprisals? Would not all war end at once?

All nations say they want peace. Yet on this Christmas morning, I wonder if we want it quite enough.

Your loving brother,

Tom

2002-12-20T13:09:00.000-08:00

Far out. I went to law school with the new Senator from Alaska. Maybe that means I can be a Senator too. All I have to do is get some Republican governor to adopt me.

JUNEAU, Alaska - Former Sen. Frank Murkowski on Friday appointed his daughter, Republican state Rep. Lisa Murkowski, to serve the remaining two years of his term in the U.S. Senate. more

2002-12-20T12:20:00.000-08:00

From the NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. rejected the idea of a new domestic intelligence agency today, for the first time expressing explicit opposition to the proposal by lawmakers and others who have said the bureau should be stripped of its primary role in countering terrorism in the United States.

Mr. Mueller said in a speech to a criminal research group in New York that a new domestic intelligence agency would be "a step backward in the war on terror" and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was "uniquely situated for the counterterrorism mission."

After all, they were doing such a great job in the days leading up to the attacks....

2002-12-20T12:17:00.000-08:00

"WASHINGTON, DC—Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six."

gotta love the Onion

2002-12-20T12:15:00.000-08:00

"You are either with us, or you are against us." ` GW Bush, talking tough. Unless you are a campaign contributor. In which case, you can ride the fence.

Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major U.S. corporations, as well as governmental agencies including the Department of Defense and the nation’s nuclear labs, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

On Wednesday, December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke the story on the US national listener-sponsored radio and television show “Democracy Now!” Zumach’s Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung plans to soon publish a full list of companies and nations who have aided Iraq. The paper first reported on Tuesday that German and U.S. companies had extensive ties to Iraq but didn’t list names. source

2002-12-20T12:10:00.000-08:00

Here are a couple of Republicans you might actually send some money:

We're Jeff and Tracy
We're Republicans
We Smoke Pot
www.jeffandtracy.com

2002-12-20T12:08:00.000-08:00

Do you think the "Christian" groups to whom Bush is now giving cash payoffs won't behave politically? hahahaha.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. –– Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was barred Thursday from playing Santa Claus at a Catholic home for troubled children because he supports abortion rights.

Despite a 20-year tradition of California governors delivering Christmas gifts to the St. Patrick's Home for Children, the school's director said Davis wouldn't be allowed on school grounds unless he asked forgiveness for and disavow his views on abortion.

Davis instead invited children from the home to the state Capitol to fetch their gifts.

"He's entitled to his point of view and I'm entitled to mine. I'm unapologetically pro-choice and I'm not changing my position," Davis said. "Having said this, the tradition is about children, not grown-ups. I didn't want the kids to be disappointed." source

2002-12-19T17:07:00.000-08:00

Where is the outrage?

Get off of Trent Lott and keep your eye on the ball.

"Two veteran FBI investigators say they were ordered to stop investigations into a suspected terror cell linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the Sept. 11 attacks." more at ABC news.

2002-12-18T03:57:00.000-08:00

Spent the night downloading tunes I haven't listened to in ages. Samson and Delilah. Sugar Magnolia. It occurred to me that when I learned Paul Wellstone's plane had crashed, I felt the same way I did when I found out Jerry died. That isn't going to make any sense to some people. For the ones who know what I am talking about.... I'm with you brother.

2002-12-13T02:47:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm up late, so I'll give you a few more thoughts.

I usually try not to engage in the circular firing squad instinct that seems to compel many liberals to attack their ideological allies. Which isn't to say I don't find myself disagreeing with other Democrats. But if I have a fight to pick, I usually try do it with a private email, rather than a public post. But I am going to make an exception.

The problem with Tapped, if you ask me, is that for all their advocacy of progressive policy, they are singularly beholden to conventional wisdom. The consequence of this mentality is that they are, at their core, followers. Deep in the middle of the herd. Destined never to be brilliant, or original, or even interesting.

This, in my not so humble opinion, is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic Party today. We have become a party of followers, not leaders. The party of the American Prospect, instead of the American Dream. When Democrats like Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Clinton embraced big, bold ideas, they stirred the public's imagination and passion. When Democrats cling to the status quo, like the congressional campaign of 2002, they are simply low fat conservatives. Not inconsequentially, when Democrats are bold and brash, they win. When they blather the conventional wisdom, like Tapped's daily muddle, they lose. The hard fact is, Tapped is written by followers. Liberal followers, to be sure. But followers nevertheless. They are the head cheerleader for losers.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in their vitreol for Cynthia McKinney. (Before you call Cynthia a loser, remember, she lost to a Democrat, not a Republican). Yesterday, Tapped took a typical conventional-wisdom-cheap-shot with this line:

Tapped is as willing as the next blogger to raise questions about conspiracy-mongering (and outgoing) Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney

This is exacly the kind of herd thinking that gets Tapped in trouble. Because in spouting this bit of popular mythology, they reveal themselves as intellectual lightweights, beholden not to reality, but to catering to (or worse believing) popular misconceptions. It is as if they told us Al Gore said he invented the internet. For anyone who knows the facts, Tapped shows themselves to be idiots.

The fact is, Cynthia McKinney simply told the truth. She called for an investigation into 9/11. She said that "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? ... What do they have to hide?" The next day she issued a written statement that read "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

Well guess what, Tapped? In the months that followed, it turned out that McKinney was right. The FBI and the CIA did know the attacks were coming. And that investigation McKinney wanted? It is going to happen. Here are McKinney's comments a few weeks later, when the facts turned up that vindicated her:

Several weeks ago, I called for a congressional investigation into what warnings the Bush Administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the White House, right wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist. Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history. Georgia Senator Zell Miller even went so far as to characterize my call for hearings as "dangerous, loony and irresponsible."

Today's revelations that the administration, and President Bush, were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a distinct possibility points out the critical need for a full and complete congressional investigation.

It now becomes clear why the Bush Administration has been vigorously opposing congressional hearings. The Bush Administration has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence. If committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for disclosure today's revelations would have been hidden by the White House.

Because I love my country, because I am a patriot, and because the American people deserve the truth, I believe it would be dangerous, loony and irresponsible not to hold full congressional hearings on any warnings the Bush Administration had before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those who have been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people."

So guess what, Tapped. It turned out McKinney was right. And the Bush administration is STILL doing everything in their power to thwart a full investigation. I mean, Henry Kissinger? C'mon! So where do you get off kicking Cynthia McKinney around, you pathetic sheep?

2002-12-12T23:22:00.000-08:00

Daddyo wanted me to blog, so blog I shall.

While it is certainly heartening (and fun) to watch Atrios and Josh Marshall push the big media into trashing Trent Lott, I still don't think it feeds the bulldog.

At the end of the day, southern whites vote for racists because they themselves are racist. While it undoubtedly hurts Bush in the Northern industrial states he hopes to win in 2004, as made obvious by his belated reaction, it really doesn't hurt Lott, or any other southern Republican. In fact, a tinge of racism probably helps them. What other explanation is there for the annual pilgrimages to Bob Jones University?

So I don't think the media highlighting the racism of southern Republican politicians is going to cause a massive shift in voting patterns in this country. What would cause such a shift is a scandal on the order of Watergate. Remeber what happened after Watergate? It was the Democratic equivalent of the 1994 Republican takeover. Even Republicans calling for Nixon's head lost their seats. Fortunately, there is a scandal in the Bush Administration that makes Watergate look like, well, the White House travel office. I am talking, of course, about 9/11.

Anyone remotely paying attention knows that the Bush Administration has spent every single day since the planes hit the towers pulling out all the stops to make sure no one ever finds out what really happened either before or after the attacks. Based on what we already know, it seems pretty clear that Bush & Co. were at a minimum grossly negligent in allowing al Qaeda to operate freely. It really isn't controverted that Bush removed the pressure the Clinton administration had been putting on Osama bin Laden. Speculating about the reasons for Bush's actions, a partisan such as myself can reach the darkest of conclusions. Indeed, if my worst suspicions are ever confirmed, Bush wouldn't just get impeached; he would be tried for treason. If found guilty, he would be punished with death. What a spectacle that would be. W begging for his life like Karla Fay Tucker.

Putting my fantasies aside, as regular readers will note, I have been braying that the 9/11 investigation is the game for well over a year. So while I am amused that liberal bloggers have pushed Trent Lott's racism into the spot light, I am at the same time frustrated, because if the media is focusing on Trent Lott's racism, they aren't focusing on Bush's efforts to hide his negligence, and potentially criminal acts, in the events surrounding 9/11. For example, yesterday, the Chicago Sun Times ran a story about George Mitchell's abrupt resignation from the commission investigating 9/11. Virtually no one else has picked up on it. C'mon, bloggers. Let's keep our eye on the ball and turn up the echoplex. Since they make you register, for your convenience, I'll just give you the whole story below.

Sept. 11 families criticize panel

Mitchell quits job; Bush accused of hindering probe

By Bob Kemper, Washington Bureau. Jill Zuckman of the Tribune's Washington Bureau contributed to this report

December 12, 2002

WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on a government commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks resigned Wednesday, while families of the attack victims charged that the White House is trying to undermine the commission's independent investigation.

Former Sen. George Mitchell of Maine, whom some saw as a potential counterweight to commission chairman Henry Kissinger, said in a brief statement that he needed more time for his law practice. Democratic leaders immediately replaced him with former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who has headed the House intelligence and foreign affairs committees.

Mitchell's abrupt resignation, just days after accepting the commission post, along with other controversies surrounding the panel, was a setback to the commission and raised questions about its credibility.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, Mitchell raised concerns about suggestions he sever his ties to his law firm, Piper Rudnick, noting that the need to support his family precluded him from leaving the job.

In another potential blow to the panel, family members who lobbied for months for the commission's creation now say they may withdraw their support and declare it a sham if President Bush and incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) refuse to appoint former Sen. Warren Rudman to the panel.

The Sept. 11 families also want Kissinger, who was appointed by Bush, to provide a list of clients for whom he has consulted since leaving public life. They want to determine if Kissinger, a former secretary of state with a wide-ranging consulting business, has a conflict of interest as he spearheads the investigation of the lapses leading up to Sept. 11.

Family members will meet with Kissinger on Thursday in New York to press him on the issue.

But the Sept. 11 families, as well as some lawmakers, are even more concerned over what they see as Lott's all but certain decision to block Rudman at the urging of the White House.

Rudman is viewed by the families as someone who would not shy away from taking on the intelligence, diplomatic and military establishments. He also might join up with the commission's five Democrats to create a majority for authorizing subpoenas and taking other aggressive investigative actions.

Lott has until Sunday to appoint commission members. A Republican familiar with Lott's plans said it is unlikely Rudman will be picked. Lott's aides have told family members that Rudman is on their list of candidates for the job, but that they are looking for someone more qualified.

Without Rudman, "we will oppose this commission as a whitewash," said Stephen Push, whose wife, Lisa Raines, was aboard the jetliner that hit the Pentagon.

"This is essentially a double-cross if they are going to block Warren Rudman on the commission," Push said. "We are not going to put our support behind a commission that is intended, as far as we can tell, to protect the president."

The White House denied that it has been anything but supportive of the commission and also denied pressuring Lott to block Rudman.

"The president strongly supported this bipartisan commission," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "That's why he signed it into law." And as for Rudman's appointment, McClellan said, "That's Sen. Lott's decision to make."

But the families argue Lott would not be making his choices without consulting the White House. Critics note that Bush steadfastly opposed the commission until its creation became inevitable, and they say he has sought to weaken it at every turn.

When Bush signed legislation creating the panel on Nov. 27, Bush said it should "uncover every detail and learn every lesson of Sept. 11" and "follow all the facts, wherever they lead."

But the president also urged the commission to show "responsible concern for sensitive information" and said he hoped the commission would complete its work in less than 18 months, the period set by law.

The White House also demanded and won the right to appoint the panel's sole chairman. Some lawmakers had wanted two co-chairmen, one appointed by the White House and one by Congress.

The White House also won a change that would bar the 10-member panel, divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats, from issuing subpoenas unless six members agreed. Lawmakers would have preferred to allow subpoenas to be issued with five votes, but administration officials said that would have allowed Democrats to go on politically motivated "fishing expeditions."

Congressional staff members involved in the negotiations and family members said that, in exchange for their concessions to the White House, they were promised by Lott that one of the Republicans appointed to the panel would be chosen by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). It was an informal agreement; nothing was put in writing.

McCain and Shelby have been staunch advocates of an independent and aggressive investigation into Sept. 11, and family members believed that as long as the two lawmakers could influence the Republican side of the panel, it would be harder for the White House to control and limit the investigation.

McCain and Shelby picked Rudman, the former senator from New Hampshire who, with former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.), spent two years investigating potential new security threats. They issued a report shortly before Sept. 11, concluding that a large-scale terrorist attack was imminent.

"Rudman is a no-brainer for this commission. He has the knowledge, he has the expertise," said Kirsten Breitweiser, whose husband, Ron, was killed in the World Trade Center attack. "I'm amazed that they would be opposed to Rudman."

Lott's office says there was no promise to allow McCain and Shelby to pick a candidate, and that Lott promised only to work with the two senators in choosing a panel member. They did not comment directly on what role the White House is playing in the current dispute.

The administration is also at odds with the 9/11 families over whether Kissinger should be required to reveal clients for whom he has worked in the private sector to determine if he has a conflict of interest in heading the commission.

Kissinger's refusal to reveal his client list is exacerbating existing concerns among lawmakers and family members that as a longtime part of the Washington power structure, Kissinger may feel protective of the intelligence and political establishment.

The White House has contended that Kissinger does not have to meet federal conflict of interest disclosure laws because the chairman's job is a part-time, unpaid position. But a legal opinion produced at the request of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), one of those pushing to create the commission, disputes the White House's claim.

Lott has so far named Slade Gorton, a former senator from Washington state.

Democratic leaders Wednesday announced their other appointees to the 10-member panel Wednesday. In addition to Hamilton, they include outgoing Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), outgoing Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), attorney Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under former President Bill Clinton.

Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune

2002-11-11T22:47:00.000-08:00

2002-11-11T22:45:00.000-08:00

The Art of War
© November 8, 2002
The Daily Brew

If von Clausewitz was correct, and war is simply politics by other means, then the reverse is also true, and politics is simply war by other means. Plainly, the Republicans figured this out the day Richard Nixon was forced to resign, and have behaved accordingly ever since.

Rather than fester in meaningless debates about whether the party should move left or right, the Democrats would do well to realize that no matter what they do, unless they begin to apply time tested principles for armed combat in their political struggles, they are unlikely to reverse their fortunes.

A good place to start would be by reading "The Art of War," written over two millenia ago by Sun Tzu [circa 400-320 B.C.] and widely believed to be the oldest book to formalize the concepts and principles of warfare. The text has more than withstood the test of time, and is taught in military academies throughout the world. The concepts and principles taught by Sun Tzu have become recognized as broadly applicable, and are currently put to use by business strategists, athletic teams, Islamic terrorists, and Republican political operatives. Sun Tzu wrote that "it is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected." The Democrats might want to give it a try.

Sun Tzu believed that all warfare is based on deception. "If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant."

This should not present a problem for the Democrats. While the GOP's arrogance may be at its apex, the Democrats are actually far stronger than they now appear. If the Democrats can win the Presidential election in 2004, it is easy to conceive that they will also pick up at least 3 Senate seats and a dozen or so in the House. How different will the national agenda look with these relatively modest gains?

"If he is taking his ease, give him no rest."

The GOP is clearly at ease, and Sun Tzu's counsel is thus to attack. The days of accommodating Bush must come to an end. This should not be problematic. After supporting Bush's most ill-advised adventures in both tax and foreign policy, Democrats were rudely kicked out of power by Bush, who actively campaigned against them as obstructionists. Perhaps we have not yet tested the true measure of spinelessness on the part of Democrats, but it seems unlikely that Democrats will continue to rely on subservience to their adversary as their governing principle.

"If his forces are united, separate them."

Their failure to heed this portion of Sun Tzu's precepts is perhaps where the Democrats have failed most miserably, and Republicans have operated most successfully. For years, religious conservatives would readily break ranks with the plutocratic wing of the GOP over the issue of abortion, thereby allowing Democrats to win elections. Once they wised up and began to hang together, the GOP became a far more formidable opponent. Combined with their newfound unity, the Republicans then actively aided and abetted the rise of the Green Party, paying for ads and recruiting candidates to split the Democratic vote. Grover Norquist then watched gleefully as the Democrats were divided and fell.

How could the Democrats reinvigorate this natural wedge in the Republican Party? I would suggest they begin by putting the abortion issue in play. The GOP controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. While they all campaign as friends of religious right, is there any doubt that this is simply a ruse by the GOP to attract their votes? After all, two years ago, the GOP also controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. While the plutocrats were quickly rewarded with a massive tax cut, I don't seem to recall the religious right being similarly rewarded with a ban on abortion.

Call their bluff. Have a few maverick Democratic Congressman from rural Southern districts introduce legislation banning abortions, all abortions, including cases of rape and incest. The remainder of the Democrats would be free to keep a safe distance. Then dare the GOP to pass it. They never will, because they know the minute they do, the gender gap becomes unbridgeable, and they become the permanent minority party. But in the meantime, as they bottle it up in committee, watch them squirm as the religious right grows increasingly incensed at the great betrayal. Which feeds directly into Sun Tzu's next bit of wisdom:

"Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

Would anything catch the GOP more off-guard than a Democratic sponsored push to outlaw abortion? Is the GOP really prepared to follow through on the rhetoric they routinely blather at the religious community to gain their votes? Is there any issue that will more decisively divide the GOP's base? Were Sun Tzu in the Democratic Party, he would be putting a women's right to choose on the legislative agenda.

Before you write to attack me as a sell-out to women's rights, recognize that I don't believe for a minute that such legislation would ever get to Bush's desk. The GOP simply cannot afford to match their rhetoric on this issue with action. But even if they did, it is far better that it arrive there now, before Sandra Day O'Conner retires. As currently constituted, the Supreme Court would strike it down. And simply by having the issue in play, it would be far easier for Senate Democrats to filibuster a Scalia-like replacement for O'Conner, were she to retire. Of course, Democrats could choose not to take any risks, not to confront Bush, not to try to divide the Republican base. After all, it is working so well, why change things?

2002-11-11T22:43:00.000-08:00

2002-11-06T18:55:00.000-08:00

Hollywood to the Rescue
(c) November 6, 2002
The Daily Brew

More than 60% of the American public believes Saddam Hussein was a co-conspirator in the attacks of September 11, despite the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency had issued a report concluding that no connection existed. A majority also believe that the so-called "death tax" will apply to them, despite the fact that fewer than 2.5% of Americans actually possess sufficient net worth to be eligible. Most Americans believe that the recent recession was caused by September 11, despite the fact that it began prior to the attack. Many Americans believe that the deficits projected by the government are unrelated to the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush, although both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have concluded that the tax cuts will greatly exacerbate the problem.

As we learned last Tuesday, these and other misconceptions harbored by the public shape our elected leadership, which, in turn, shapes our domestic and foreign policy. Given that the public suffers from a profound ignorance concerning the basic problems that confront the Nation, and that the Republican party has gained control of the entire federal government as a direct result of this ignorance, there is little hope that the Republican leadership will endeavor to educate the public. There is even less hope that the GOP or the GOP's billionaire corporate sponsors will enact public policy that will rationally address these problems, as it is directly contrary to their interests.

Still, one ought not blame the public's ignorance on the Republicans. Having wedded themselves to policies that will impoverish and pollute America, one can hardly blame the GOP for lying about their intentions. Nor can one fairly blame the Democrats. Democrats routinely point out the fallacies and fantasies emanating from the mouths of Republican lawmakers. Unfortunately, all too often, the public is never made aware of these truths because a duplicitous and easily distracted national media either will not report on the substance of the loyal opposition, or if it does, it will fail to point out which among the two is telling the truth, as if failing to point out one side is lying in a public policy debate is somehow akin to achieving balance. Plainly, in handing total control of the government to the Republicans, last Tuesday proved that the Democrats alone are incapable of successfully combating the public's ongoing war with reality. It is irrational to expect that at some point in the future, the Democrats are going to be able to successfully combat the mighty wurlitzer, after they have failed to do so for two elections in a row.

Equally plain is the fact that the few intellectuals who are willing to speak out are even more powerless at spreading the truth to the greater population than a major, albeit minority, political party. America's most respected minds, be they literary, academic, or otherwise, have proven themselves no match for the corrupt corporate media. But if the nation's brightest minds and half its political actors have failed for four years to achieve this result, how could it possibly come to pass?

There is only one hope.

America's last chance is our celebrities. Only the star power from the music and entertainment industry has the power to change the current cabal of liars and spinners who shape our public debate. Don't buy it? Let me propose a hypothetical.

Suppose that Hugh Hefner were to sell the Playboy mansion and set up shop in Washington DC. Suppose further that every A-list actor and musician in Malibu and New York made a similar move. In short, suppose that the entire entertainment industry were to pack up their bags and set down roots in Washington DC. Now suppose that every night, these powerful icons of American culture were to host parties, movie premieres, award shows, and other gala events for each other, as they currently do in New York and Los Angeles. But in DC, they could invite the likes Howard Fineman, Chris Mathews, and Tim Russert to be a part of the scene. This could create a powerful incentive for certain pundits to start telling the truth. If Russert told lies about Democratic leaders, his invitation to Brad Pitt's birthday party might get lost in the mail. If Fineman covered up the malfeasance of the Bush Administration's SEC chairman, he might not get to go to the star-studded opening of Steven Spielberg's new movie. If Mathews regurgitated RNC spin points without pointing out the logical inconsistencies, disconfirming evidence, and outright lies, he might be left waiting in the line at Johnny Depp's club on M Street. Events for President Bush and his Republican campaign contributors would suddenly be for the second string only. The new game in town would be gala fundraisers, where guys like Rob Reiner and Dennis Kucinich toasted the work of outfits like the Sierra Club. The whole pecking order would be instantly turned on its head.

So what do you say, liberal Hollywood elite? I realize this is a huge sacrifice. Compared to Los Angeles, the weather in DC is positively awful. Compared to New York, DC doesn't have a single decent restaurant. But think of the country. America has been fairly good to you, no? Isn't it time you gave something back? What gift could possibly be greater than a fair, accurate, and impartial media? Think it over, and then have your people call my people.

2002-10-30T12:41:00.000-08:00

More battles with the dillusional Greens:

----- Original Message -----
From: "RS"
To: brew@thedailybrew.com
Sent: Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:02 AM

I didn't appreciate having my name and address put on your blog without my permission, not to mention the name calling (ie idiot mail). Your intolerance of differing viewpoints is more than disappointing. I once thought you were smart, not smart-ass. For the record, my Green vote was in a state that went solidly for Gore as I knew it would. If our votes counted, Gore would be president.

For the record, you DID give me permission. My site clearly states: "Anything you submit you give permission to publish. If you wish to remain anonymous, please indicate as such." When you sent your original message, you failed to indicate that you wished to remain anonymous, so I published your name and email. In fact, you seemed to WANT that, as you proudly proclaimed yourself a "Green Party Member." Now that you have expressed a contrary desire, I have gone back and edited the post to hide your name. Your party identification, however, lives on. Your attack, submitting that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, is the BIG LIE that Nader repeated over and over and over, not in California or New York, where Nader conceivably could have picked up enough votes to give the Green Party federal matching funds (the stated purpose of his campaign) but in Florida, where, as we saw, he campaigned extensively in the waning days leading up to the election and where he was successful in making the vote close enough for Bush to steal it. Until and unless you see through Nader's easily exposed LIES and recognise the now indisputable fact that Nader's real agenda is to destroy the Democratic Party (as opposed to building a viable Green party (which he never joined) or moving the Democratic party to the Wellstone left), you are, IMHO a rube, a dupe, a pitiful decieved fool, and yes, an idiot. If that makes me a smart ass in your eyes, as opposed to being smart, so be it. I'll survive. brew

2002-10-22T00:36:00.000-07:00

2002-10-22T00:20:00.000-07:00

----- Original Message -----
From: GoGoAugie@aol.com
To: brew@thedailybrew.com
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Your October 16, 2002 column featuring assault weapon licensing

Are you of the opinion that it is it legal for a person to possess an assault weapon? I believe that present laws prohibit individuals from owning any of a long list of firearms which are designated assault weapons.

Hi GoGoAugie, or can I call you GoGo?

Depends on how you define "assault weapons" now doesn't it? Personally, I consider any gun which can kill me as an "assault weapon." Clearly the sniper who is currently terrorizing the D.C. area could have bought a 50 caliber rifle capable of consistent accuracy at a range of over 500 yards in any of America's fine gunshops. I, for one, consider the sniper's MO far more threatening than a close-in assault you would find with an Uzi or some such weapon, because he is far more likely to survive to snipe again than one who choses to show themself during the attack. I thus consider a good sniper rifle with a good scope with night vision far more dangerous than many guns currently outlawed with the arbitrary definition of "assault weapons."

The very folks who you most passionately wish would register their assault weapons are the very folks who will never do so. They obtained their weapons illegally. Do you really expect them to come forward and risk being jailed? I have read that estimates of their number well exceed two million.

You have read estimates that two million people have obtained weapons illegally? I find that easily conceivable, although I would like to understand the methodology for the estimation, as I doubt they would be any more likely to admit to illegally buying, selling, or stealing a gun as they would be to register it.

Why is it that the hundreds of current laws which were intended to control the problem fail to do so? And, what makes you so sure that a brand new law will do the trick?

I doubt very seriously that a brand new law will end gun violence, just as I doubt that the government will be able to defend us from terrorists even after stripping us of our civil rights. I do think that having a register of ballistic fingerprints of sniper rifles could have some positive benefit, however, even if it were only to lessen the likelyhood that any gun so registered would be used to pick off random people.

The remedy is a simple one. The full weight of the present laws should come down with merciless severity, without exception, upon all persons convicted of possession of any illegal firearm, assault or otherwise. This is not done now and it will never be done. Why? Those with political ambitions believe it is better to retain the problem for use as a straw man with whom to joust.

I agree with the cynicism of your second point, however, I wonder about your first. Can you site me statistics that show that most, or even a large minority, of shootings are by people in possession of an illegal firearm? Even if what you say is true, I note that we have hammered the black community with the "full weight" of the drug laws for several decades with little to show for it, so I am skeptical of your proposed solution.

Listen to any incumbent exhort voters to return him for another term. He promises to fix everything that he promised to fix the last time he ran, and the time before that, etc. It seems as though politicians worry that if everything gets fixed, they will no longer have anything to talk about fixing. So, they keep talking about the problems that need fixing and manage to never fix much of anything.

I disagree emphatically with this assertion. IMHO, democracy has made life infinitely more bearable for virtually every member of the world's population who has had the pleasure to live under it, and politics and politicians have created every single reason for that fact.

It appears as if you have been recruited to carry this water for these pols. Having read these same arguments under quite a few different bylines leads me to conclude that there are enough water carriers to form a lengthy bucket brigade.

I hardly disguise the fact that I am an enthusiastic partisan participant in the political process. Refusing to participate is to surrender your influence on the world around you, a choice only a coward makes. Participating on behalf of the GOP simply accelerates our own demise. Participating on behalf of groups who splinter the vote for progressive candidates ensuring the election of the GOP is simply another form of suicide, albeit one with the apparent benefit of allowing the self-deluded to proclaim their hastening of disaster as somehow noble or moral. Thus, I am left with only one choice. I support the most progressive candidate who has a chance of winning. Anyone who doesn't is, in my opinion, either a coward or a fool.

But, back to your commentary -- assuming the enactment of legislation satisfactory to you, how long do you think it would it take for that mutually despised "skinhead with a swastika tattooed on his neck" to show up at the registry?

For so long as he waited to buy a gun legally, which is an improvement over the current state of affairs.

2002-10-14T17:11:00.000-07:00

I like betting, because it lets me make a point in terms even a warblogger can understand. The point I want everyone to understand is that conservatives are far, far more dangerous and given to socio-pathic behaviour than liberals. You don't agree? Then let's make a wager.

Safliar wants us to believe the sniper is al Qaeda. I tend to think the sniper is a right wing racist nut job ala Tim McViegh. But I'm not certain the sniper is a soldier of fortune reading-NRA belonging-GW Bush voting ditto-head; I just suspect as much. On the other hand, I am absolutely positive that the sniper is NOT a tree-hugging, Al Gore voting, ACLU belonging, liberal. So this is my bet:

If the sniper turns out to be a liberal democrat, I will pay you $100,000
If the sniper turns out to be an NRA member, you pay me $100,000
If the sniper turns out to be anyone else, we push.

Any takers? Then you cede my point. Liberals make better neighbors.

2002-10-12T21:07:00.001-07:00

2002-10-12T21:07:00.000-07:00

To leave some spare change for The Daily Brew, Click on the case.

2002-10-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas the nation of Iraq has substantial oil and gas reserves,

Whereas over the past decade certain executives in the oil and gas industry have donated generously to various political campaigns of President George W. Bush, and many were in fact "Bush Pioneers" in the 2000 presidential campaign,

Whereas the return of weapons inspectors and the subsequent destruction of any weapons programs would allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, where Saddam Hussein would be able to complete various agreements with nations such as France and Russia designed to exploit Iraq's oil and gas resources without the participation of Bush Pioneers,

Whereas Bush Pioneers would be therefore by financially harmed if Saddam Hussein were allowed to remain in power, even if Saddam were completely disarmed, as a result of these agreements,

Therefore, the United States Congress hereby authorizes the President to use of United States Armed Forces to commence an unprovoked attack against Iraq, regardless of whether Iraq agrees to allow weapons inspectors to return or to otherwise disarm, with or without the participation of the UN or any other nation, and in direct violation of all established conventions of international law, for the express purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power, thereby advancing the interests of Bush Pioneers.

In making this authorization, the Congress hereby further recognizes that the following observations shall be considered unpatriotic:

Throughout the nineteen eighties, the United States government provided substantial military assistance to Saddam Hussein,

As a result of that assistance, the government of Iraq was able to establish a substantial chemical weapons program that was subsequently used first against Iran, with the United States passive acquiescence, and then against Iraq's own Kurdish minority, after the United States had overtly encouraged them to rebel against Saddam Hussein, and then abandoned them when they did,

Substantially all of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons programs, Iraq's oil and gas industry which financed these programs, and Iraq's economy, were destroyed by the Gulf War of 1991, by UN weapons inspectors in the aftermath of the conflict, and by economic sanctions imposed at the conclusion of the Gulf War,

It was only as a result of then chief executive officer and current vice president Dick Cheney, that the Brown and Root subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation rebuilt much of the oil and gas extraction infrastructure that had been destroyed in Iraq during the Gulf war, thereby providing Iraq with the financial means to again rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

2002-10-12T21:03:00.000-07:00

2002-10-09T10:49:00.000-07:00

Clark, Ramsey, 1927–, attorney general of the United States (1967–69), b. Dallas, Texas; son of Tom Campbell Clark. Admitted to the bar in 1951, Ramsey Clark practiced law in Dallas. After serving in the federal government as assistant attorney general in charge of the lands division (1961–65), deputy attorney general (1965–66), and acting attorney general (Oct., 1966–Feb., 1967), he was appointed by President Johnson to succeed Nicholas Katzenbach as attorney general. Clark proved to be a vigorous defender of civil liberties and civil rights; he opposed the use of government wiretaps and initiated the first Northern school desegregation case. After leaving the government, he taught law and later became active in the anti–Vietnam War movement, visiting North Vietnam in 1972. In 1974 he was the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York but was defeated by Jacob Javits. Subsequently he practiced as a defense lawyer in New York and continued his political activism. Clark wrote Crime in America (1970). For an account of his career as Attorney General, see Justice by Richard Harris (1970).

The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly. Please circulate.

September 20, 2002

Secretary General Kofi Annan United Nations New York, NY

Dear Secretary General Annan,

George Bush will invade Iraq unless restrained by the United Nations. Other international organizations-- including the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, the Arab League, stalwart nations courageous enough to speak out against superpower aggression, international peace movements, political leadership, and public opinion within the United States--must do their part for peace. If the United Nations, above all, fails to oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, it will forfeit its honor, integrity and raison d’etre.

A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower, which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace, and how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for retaliatory terrorism it would create.

1. President George Bush Came to Office Determined to Attack Iraq and Change its Government.

George Bush is moving apace to make his war unstoppable and soon. Having stated last Friday that he did not believe Iraq would accept UN inspectors, he responded to Iraq’s prompt, unconditional acceptance by calling any reliance on it a “false hope” and promising to attack Iraq alone if the UN does not act. He is obsessed with the desire to wage war against Iraq and install his surrogates to govern Iraq by force. Days after the most bellicose address ever made before the United Nations--an unprecedented assault on the Charter of the United Nations, the rule of law and the quest for peace--the U.S. announced it was changing its stated targets in Iraq over the past eleven years, from retaliation for threats and attacks on U.S. aircraft which were illegally invading Iraq’s airspace on a daily basis. How serious could those threats and attacks have been if no U.S. aircraft was ever hit? Yet hundreds of people were killed in Iraq by U.S. rockets and bombs, and not just in the so called “no fly zone,” but in Baghdad itself. Now the U.S. proclaims its intentions to destroy major military facilities in Iraq in preparation for its invasion, a clear promise of aggression now. Every day there are threats and more propaganda is unleashed to overcome resistance to George Bush’s rush to war. The acceleration will continue until the tanks roll, unless nonviolent persuasion prevails.

2. George Bush Is Leading the United States and Taking the UN and All Nations Toward a Lawless World of Endless Wars.

George Bush in his “War on Terrorism” has asserted his right to attack any country, organization, or people first, without warning in his sole discretion. He and members of his administration have proclaimed the old restraints that law sought to impose on aggression by governments and repression of their people, no longer consistent with national security. Terrorism is such a danger, they say, that necessity compels the U.S. to strike first to destroy the potential for terrorist acts from abroad and to make arbitrary arrests, detentions, interrogations, controls and treatment of people abroad and within the U.S. Law has become the enemy of public safety. “Necessity is the argument of tyrants.” “Necessity never makes a good bargain.”

Heinrich Himmler, who instructed the Nazi Gestapo “Shoot first, ask questions later, and I will protect you,” is vindicated by George Bush. Like the Germany described by Jorge Luis Borges in Deutsches Requiem, George Bush has now “proffered (the world) violence and faith in the sword,” as Nazi Germany did. And as Borges wrote, it did not matter to faith in the sword that Germany was defeated. “What matters is that violence ... now rules.” Two generations of Germans have rejected that faith. Their perseverance in the pursuit of peace will earn the respect of succeeding generations everywhere.

The Peoples of the United Nations are threatened with the end of international law and protection for human rights by George Bush’s war on terrorism and determination to invade Iraq.

Since George Bush proclaimed his “war on terrorism,” other countries have claimed the right to strike first. India and Pakistan brought the earth and their own people closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since October 1962 as a direct consequence of claims by the U.S. of the unrestricted right to pursue and kill terrorists, or attack nations protecting them, based on a unilateral decision without consulting the United Nations, a trial, or revealing any clear factual basis for claiming its targets are terrorists and confined to them.

There is already a near epidemic of nations proclaiming the right to attack other nations or intensify violations of human rights of their own people on the basis of George Bush’s assertions of power in the war against terrorism. Mary Robinson, in her quietly courageous statements as her term as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ended, has spoken of the “ripple effect” U.S. claims of right to strike first and suspend fundamental human rights protection is having.

On September 11, 2002, Colombia, whose new administration is strongly supported by the U.S., “claimed new authority to arrest suspects without warrants and declare zones under military control,” including “[N]ew powers, which also make it easier to wiretap phones and limit foreigners’ access to conflict zones... allow security agents to enter your house or office without a warrant at any time of day because they think you’re suspicious.” These additional threats to human rights follow Post-September 11 “emergency” plans to set up a network of a million informants in a nation of forty million. See, New York Times, September 12, 2002, p. A7.

3. The United States, Not Iraq, Is the Greatest Single Threat to the Independence and Purpose of the United Nations.

President Bush’s claim that Iraq is a threat justifying war is false. Eighty percent of Iraq’s military capacity was destroyed in 1991 according to the Pentagon. Ninety percent of materials and equipment required to manufacture weapons of mass destruction was destroyed by UN inspectors during more than eight years of inspections. Iraq was powerful, compared to most of its neighbors, in 1990. Today it is weak. One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos, promising short lives, illness and impaired development. In 1989, fewer than one in twenty infants born live weighed less than two kilos. Any threat to peace Iraq might become is remote, far less than that of many other nations and groups and cannot justify a violent assault. An attack on Iraq will make attacks in retaliation against the U.S. and governments which support its actions far more probable for years to come.

George Bush proclaims Iraq a threat to the authority of the United Nations while U.S.-coerced UN sanctions continue to cause the death rate of the Iraqi people to increase. Deaths caused by sanctions have been at genocidal levels for twelve years. Iraq can only plead helplessly for an end to this crime against its people. The UN role in the sanctions against Iraq compromise and stain the UN’s integrity and honor. This makes it all the more important for the UN now to resist this war.

Inspections were used as an excuse to continue sanctions for eight years while thousands of Iraqi children and elderly died each month. Iraq is the victim of criminal sanctions that should have been lifted in 1991. For every person killed by terrorist acts in the U.S. on 9/11, five hundred people have died in Iraq from sanctions.

It is the U.S. that threatens not merely the authority of the United Nations, but its independence, integrity and hope for effectiveness. The U.S. pays UN dues if, when and in the amount it chooses. It coerces votes of members. It coerces choices of personnel on the Secretariat. It rejoined UNESCO to gain temporary favor after 18 years of opposition to its very purposes. It places spies in UN inspection teams.

The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, rejected the treaty banning land mines, endeavored to prevent its creation and since to cripple the International Criminal Court, and frustrated the Convention on the Child and the prohibition against using children in war. The U.S. has opposed virtually every other international effort to control and limit war, protect the environment, reduce poverty and protect health.

George Bush cites two invasions of other countries by Iraq during the last 22 years. He ignores the many scores of U.S. invasions and assaults on other countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas during the last 220 years, and the permanent seizure of lands from Native Americans and other nations--lands like Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Puerto Rico, among others, seized by force and threat.

In the same last 22 years the U.S. has invaded, or assaulted Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and others directly, while supporting assaults and invasions elsewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

It is healthy to remember that the U.S. invaded and occupied little Grenada in 1983 after a year of threats, killing hundreds of civilians and destroying its small mental hospital, where many patients died. In a surprise attack on the sleeping and defenseless cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986, the U.S. killed hundreds of civilians and damaged four foreign embassies. It launched 21 Tomahawk cruise missiles against the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum in August 1998, destroying the source of half the medicines available to the people of Sudan. For years it has armed forces in Uganda and southern Sudan fighting the government of Sudan. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on hundreds of occasions since the Gulf War, including this week, killing hundreds of people without a casualty or damage to an attacking plane.

4. Why Has George Bush Decided The U.S. Must Attack Iraq Now?

There is no rational basis to believe Iraq is a threat to the United States, or any other country. The reason to attack Iraq must be found elsewhere.

As governor of Texas, George Bush presided over scores of executions, more than any governor in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (after a hiatus from 1967). He revealed the same zeal he has shown for “regime change” for Iraq when he oversaw the executions of minors, women, retarded persons and aliens whose rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of notification of their arrest to a foreign mission of their nationality were violated. The Supreme Court of the U.S. held that executions of a mentally retarded person constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution. George Bush addresses the United Nations with these same values and willfulness.

His motives may include to save a failing Presidency which has converted a healthy economy and treasury surplus into multi-trillion dollar losses; to fulfill the dream, which will become a nightmare, of a new world order to serve special interests in the U.S.; to settle a family grudge against Iraq; to weaken the Arab nation, one people at a time; to strike a Muslim nation to weaken Islam; to protect Israel, or make its position more dominant in the region; to secure control of Iraq’s oil to enrich U.S. interests, further dominate oil in the region and control oil prices. Aggression against Iraq for any of these purposes is criminal and a violation of a great many international conventions and laws including the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974.

Prior regime changes by the U.S. brought to power among a long list of tyrants, such leaders as the Shah of Iran, Mobutu in the Congo, Pinochet in Chile, all replacing democratically elected heads of government.

5. A Rational Policy Intended to Reduce the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in The Middle East Must Include Israel.

A UN or U.S. policy of selecting enemies of the U.S. for attack is criminal and can only heighten hatred, division, terrorism and lead to war. The U.S. gives Israel far more aid per capita than the total per capita income of sub Sahara Africans from all sources. U.S.-coerced sanctions have reduced per capita income for the people of Iraq by 75% since 1989. Per capita income in Israel over the past decade has been approximately 12 times the per capita income of Palestinians.

Israel increased its decades-long attacks on the Palestinian people, using George Bush’s proclamation of war on terrorism as an excuse, to indiscriminately destroy cities and towns in the West Bank and Gaza and seize more land in violation of international law and repeated Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads derived from the United States, sophisticated rockets capable of accurate delivery at distances of several thousand kilometers, and contracts with the U.S. for joint development of more sophisticated rocketry and other arms with the U.S.

Possession of weapons of mass destruction by a single nation in a region with a history of hostility promotes a race for proliferation and war. The UN must act to reduce and eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, not submit to demands to punish areas of evil and enemies of the superpower that possesses the majority of all such weapons and capacity for their delivery.

Israel has violated and ignored more UN Resolutions for forty years than any other nation. It has done so with impunity.

The violation of Security Council resolutions cannot be the basis for a UN-approved assault on any nation, or people, in a time of peace, or the absence of a threat of imminent attack, but comparable efforts to enforce Security Council resolutions must be made against all nations who violate them.

6. The Choice Is War Or Peace.

The UN and the U.S. must seek peace, not war. An attack on Iraq may open a Pandora’s box that will condemn the world to decades of spreading violence. Peace is not only possible; it is essential, considering the heights to which science and technology have raised the human art of planetary and self-destruction.

If George Bush is permitted to attack Iraq with or without the approval of the UN, he will become Public Enemy Number One--and the UN itself worse than useless, an accomplice in the wars it was created to end. The Peoples of the World then will have to find some way to begin again if they hope to end the scourge of war.

This is a defining moment for the United Nations. Will it stand strong, independent and true to its Charter, international law and the reasons for its being, or will it submit to the coercion of a superpower leading us toward a lawless world and condone war against the cradle of civilization?

Do not let this happen.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark

2002-10-07T22:20:00.000-07:00

Sick of the RIAA? Don't like Clear Channel?

Here is your chance to do something about it.

Buy a record from an independent label.

These guys are my friends, they are totally independent, the music rocks, and they are really cool. So shell out twelve bucks for an album or shut the f**k up about the quality of the tunes you are fed by the corporate masters.

2002-10-07T22:16:00.000-07:00

It took a minute, but I figured out why nothing published. So, to make a long story short, I'm back.

2002-10-07T22:11:00.000-07:00

test

2002-10-04T09:33:00.000-07:00

Idiot mail:

----- Original Message -----
From: "RS"
To: brew@thedailybrew.com
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:34 PM
Subject: War and Republicrats

Tell me again the difference between the Dems and the Repubs.

Oh yes, the Repubicans are almost entirely for the war on Iraq and the Democrats are mostly for it.

Gimme a break,
RS (Green Party member)

Yeah, you got me. McDermott and Bonior went to Iraq(!) where they argued against an invasion. They are clearly on board. Kucinich and the Congressional Black Caucus, war mongers for sure. Howard Dean, John Kerry, and (gulp!) Al Gore; are all waxing elequently about the joys of unilateral bombing.

The reason this is happening is because of Bush. Any support for the war has been created by Bush and his team arguing their case to the American public. Do you really think that had Al Gore been in the White House, he would be using the bully pulpit to gain support for a unilateral attack? Do you really believe that? The reason (some) Democrats are going along with it is because they have to or they will lose their seats. Not to Greens, but to Republicans.

You elected Bush. This is your fault.

Deal with it.

2002-10-01T02:09:00.000-07:00

What are you doing next Sunday (October 6)? Why don't you join me in trying to save the world from what the Bush administration has now admitted is simply a campaign of never ending war in the name of American Imperialism? Interested? Visit this site: http://www.notinourname.net/ I'll be in Seattle. You can pick someplace closer to your own town. See you there.

2002-09-16T02:03:00.000-07:00

Do me a favor, could you?

If you see a snappy one-liner from a democratic congressional campaign, either in the paper or on the TV or radio, send it along to me could you? I have some friends who could use it.

2002-09-11T23:30:00.000-07:00

My problem with Cheney starting a war from an underground bunker is this: I would feel a lot more confident if he were above ground, with the rest of us.

2002-09-11T23:06:00.000-07:00

I used to think I was "angry" about my corrupt, unelected government. Then today I got this in my email. Now I know what anger looks like. Now the best that I can say is that I am in full sympathy with the author.

Statement of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy

Fundamentalism is the Enemy of All Civilized Humanity

RAWA joins with the rest of the civilized world in remembering the innocent lives lost on September 11th, as well as all those others lost to terrorism and oppression throughout the world. It is with great sadness that RAWA sees other people experiencing the pain that the women, children and men of Afghanistan have long suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists.

For ten long years the people of Afghanistan -Afghan women in particular- have been crushed and brutalized, first under the chains and atrocities of the "Northern Alliance" fundamentalists, then under those of the Taliban. During all this period, the governments of the Western powers were bent on finding ways to "work with" these criminals. These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to "work with" the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment.

Immediately after the September 11 tragedy the American military might moved into action to punish its erstwhile hirelings. A captive, bleeding, devastated, hungry, pauperised, drought-stricken and ill-starred Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion by the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry ever created in human history. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives in the September 11 atrocity, were taken. Even joyous wedding gatherings were not spared. The Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda support were toppled without any significant dent in their human combat resources. What was not done away with was the sinister shadow of terrorist threat over the whole world and its alter ego, fundamentalist terrorism.

Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism have been eradicated in Afghanistan. There is neither peace nor stability in this tormented country, nor has there been any relief from the scourges of extreme pauperisation, prostitution, and wanton plunder. Women feel much more insecure than in the past. The bitter fact that even the personal security of the President of the country cannot be maintained without recourse to foreign bodyguards and the recent terrorist acts in our country speak eloquent volumes about the chaotic and terrorist-ridden situation of the country. Why is it so? Why has the thunderous uproar in the aftermath of September 11 resulted in nothing? For the following reasons which RAWA has reiterated time and again:

1. For the people of Afghanistan, it is "out of the frying pan, into the fire". Instead of the Taliban terrorists, Jihadi terrorists of the "Northern Alliance" have been installed in power. The Jihadi and the Taliban fundamentalists share a common ideology; their differences are the usual differences between brethren-in-creed.

2. For the past more or less twenty years, Osama bin Laden has had Afghan fundamentalists on his payroll and has been paying their leaders considerable stipends. He and Mullah Omar, together with a band of followers equipped with the necessary communication resources, can live for many years under the protection of different fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue to plot against the people of Afghanistan and the rest of humankind.

3. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda phenomena, as manifestations of an ideology and a political culture infesting an Islamic country, could only have been uprooted by a popular insurrection and the strengthening and coming to power of secular democratic forces. Such a purge cannot be effected solely with the physical elimination of the likes of Osama and Mullah Omar.

The "Northern Alliance" can never sincerely want the total elimination of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda, as such elimination would mean the end of the raison d'être of the backing and support extended to them by foreign forces presently dominant in the country. This was the rationale behind RAWA's slogan for the overthrow of the Taliban and al-Qaeda through popular insurrection. Unfortunately, before such popular insurrection could come about, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forfeited their positions to the "brethren of the 'Northern Alliance'" without suffering any crippling decimation.

With their second occupation of Kabul, the "Northern Alliance" thwarted any hopes for a radical, meaningful change. They are themselves now the source and root of insecurity, the disgraceful police atmosphere of the Loya Jirga, rampant terrorism, gagging of democracy, atrocious violations of human rights, mounting pauperisation, prostitution and corruption, the flourishing of poppy cultivation, failure of beginning to reconstruct, and a host of further unlisted evils, too many to enumerate.

Oppression and crimes against women are rife in different forms throughout the country. RAWA has always maintained that the fundamentalists' rabid hatred of women as equal human beings - be they fundamentalists of the Jihadi brand or of the Taliban one- is not due merely to their unhealthy upbringing or morbid mind frame, but emanates from their religio-fascistic ideological world outlook. As long as such an ideology exists, propped up by military forces available at its disposal, neither crazed misogyny nor a myriad of shameful social evils associated with it can be eradicated. This is not a problem that can be dealt with by the creation of a "Ministry of Women's Affairs" nor by the presence of a couple of token women in high government positions. To hope for the attainment of freedom, democracy and equality within the framework of a corrupt, religion-based, ethno-chauvinistic system is either self-delusion or hypocrisy -or both.

We find no happiness in the fact that RAWA's predictions in regard to the consequences of the re-domination of the "Northern Alliance" have once again been borne out. Those who claimed that the "Northern Alliance" were better than, and therefore preferable to, the Taliban must wake up and apologise to our people for their noxious sermons. The establishment of democracy and social justice can be possible only with the overthrow of fundamentalist domination as a prime precondition. This cannot be achieved without an organised and irreconcilable campaign of the women masses against fundamentalism, its agents and apologists.

Some politically bankrupt entities who have no shame in grovelling to the "Northern Alliance" in the hope of securing positions and feathering their nests, label RAWA as "Maoist" and "radical" because of our decisive and irreconcilable stances and viewpoints. But does the current situation in the country prove the fallacy of RAWA's positions or do they give a slap in the face to the ladies and gentleman with the penchant for being colluding and mealy-mouthed? The assassinations of a vice president and a cabinet minister and the ban on investigating these murders, the discovery of mass graves, the banning of women singers and artists and showing of dancing on TV, the censorship of the media, arbitrary fatwas of kofr and apostasy against women, gang rapes of even expatriate women working for international NGOs, the disgusting campaign of making an idol out of Ahmad Shah Masoud, are these not enough to bring home the realisation that indulgence and permissiveness towards rabid dogs only serve to make them more ferocious?

RAWA's experience in fighting fundamentalism, particularly during the past 10 years, motivates us to be all the more persistent in our attempts to mobilise women even in the most remote corners of our country. At the same time, we shall not desist from pursuing an irreconcilable policy towards fundamentalism and standing in solidarity with all pro-democracy forces. We staunchly believe that in addition to causing the tragic deaths of over 3,000 innocent Americans and non-Americans and the sorrow and bereavement of tens of thousands more, the monstrous terrorist attack of September 11 showed the world what a nefarious pestilence fundamentalism is; it showed the world the sort of inferno the peoples of Afghanistan, Iran, Algeria, Sudan and other such countries live in.

Fundamentalism is the mortal enemy of civilised humanity; to address it demands the consolidated action of all freedom-loving nations of the world. The present "world anti-terrorism coalition" has been debased by innumerable ambiguities and impurities of purpose, motivation and objectives. The contradictions between world powers will spell its doom. Therefore, it behoves anti-fundamentalist individuals and organisations working for social justice the world over to draw together without hesitation to contain and ultimately stamp out, once and for all, the vermin of fundamentalism, so that the tragedy of September 11 will never be repeated, neither in America nor anywhere else.

RAWA takes pride in the fact that up till now we have been able to establish contact with a considerable number of anti-terrorist organisations on all five continents and enjoy their moral and material support. However, for the purpose of waging a swifter and more encompassing fight against terrorism, it is necessary for such solidarity to be expanded and strengthened. In this connection we shake the hands of all freedom-loving individuals and organisations.

We would like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to once again extend our heartfelt condolences to all those who lost their loved ones in the savage calamity of September 11, as well as to the friends and families of those innocent compatriots -for all we know, anti-Taliban and anti-"Northern Alliance"- who were blown to shreds by American aerial bombardment. We sincerely hope that a vast number of those who are bereaved and grieving for their loved ones will, sooner or later, join the ranks of the legions mobilising against fundamentalist fascism in their respective countries and on an international level.

No to Al-Qaeda, No to the Taliban, No to the "Northern Alliance"! Long Live a Free, Democratic and Blossoming Afghanistan! Victory in the Decisive War to the Very End of Afghan Women Against Fundamentalism and for Democracy! Long Live International Solidarity Against Fundamentalist Terrorism!

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
September 11, 2002

2002-09-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

Will Pitt thinks the draft is coming back.

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

On the one hand, I can see one obviously bad outcome from reinstating the draft: your friends and relatives, pacifists among them, would suddenly face the possibility of dying on a foreign battlefield.

On the other hand, I can see numerous good outcomes. Forcing together people of widely different backgrounds, races, religions, and socio-economic status has been shown time and time again to have a moderating effect, building tolerance and trust between groups who might otherwise be at odds with one and another. A draft has that effect, even if it is unintended. For example, Israel's society is much more tight knit than our own. Many Israelis will tell you this is in large part due to the esprit de corp of their military, which all Israeli citizens are required to join.

But the biggest benefit I see is that because your friends and relatives would suddenly face the possibility of dying on a foreign battlefield, they would have an enormous incentive to become more engaged in the political life of the country, thereby putting in place political leaders who were responsive to their desire that they prevent wars that might kill them from happening in the first place.

2002-09-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

I think most libertarian philosophy is utopian crap. But this little ditty hits the nail squarely on the head.

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 11, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has moral obligation to pardon every drug offender, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has a moral obligation to pardon every nonviolent drug offender, Libertarians say, after insisting on Tuesday that his daughter's latest drug episode should be treated as a "family matter" rather than as a criminal matter.

"Why is Noelle Bush sitting in a rehab center while other drug-law violators are rotting in prison?" asked Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian Party political director. "The answer is obvious: Because her father happens to be a hypocritical governor who believes in one standard of justice for his family and another standard for yours."

Police were called to the Center for Drug Free Living on Monday after employees reported finding a "white, rocklike substance" believed to be crack cocaine in Noelle Bush's shoe. The 25-year-old daughter of the Republican governor wasn't immediately arrested, police say, because clinic supervisors refused to cooperate with police and wanted the matter handled "in house."

Gov. Bush, whose daughter has had previous drug violations, told the Associated Press: "This is a private issue as it relates to my daughter and myself and my wife. The road to recovery is a rocky one for a lot of people that have this kind of problem."

But the question Libertarians are asking is: Why shouldn't every American get the Noelle Bush treatment?

"Gov. Bush is exactly right that drug abuse should be treated as a private, medical problem rather than as a criminal problem," Crickenberger said. "Unfortunately, Bush is an ardent drug warrior who believes in throwing ordinary individuals in jail for committing the same 'crime' as his daughter - which makes him a despicable Drug War hypocrite as well.

"Why does Bush believe that other young men and women should be locked inside steel cages for years for doing exactly what his daughter has done?

"Why should other Americans have their lives ruined and their careers destroyed by a drug conviction while he hands his daughter a get-out- of-jail-free card?

"And why must other families be torn apart when a loved one is dragged off to prison while he visits his daughter in a cozy rehab center?

"The fact is that individuals with drug problems harm only themselves, and perhaps their families. But a politician with a hypocrisy problem has the power to tear everyone's family apart."

But there's a way that the governor can redeem himself, Libertarians say:

"Gov. Bush should grant every nonviolent drug offender in the Florida state prison system a full and immediate pardon," Crickenberger said. "Then let them join his daughter on the road to recovery."

2002-08-30T22:50:00.000-07:00

2002-08-30T22:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a laugher. The Thomas B Fordham Foundation has put out its own suggestions for what to teach the children about 9/11. Along with pithy essays by such luminaries as Bill Bennett and Lynne Cheney, Chester E. Finn, Jr., the President of the foundation, urges America's teachers to "teach the common culture, the history of democracy and the centrality of freedom and its defense against aggressors."

Also included in Finn's little essay is the predictable shot at the NEA: "A perceptive journalist who spent some time on the NEA web site found, for example, the union urging teachers not to "suggest any group is responsible" for the attacks of 9/11/01."

As we all know, thanks to Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler (Get that man a TV show, MSNBC!) this is a complete canard; a lie, a total fabrication. As stated by Robert Kuttner the day after the Washington Times ran the report, it was “a hoax." It was “about the most dishonest piece of journalism I’ve read in years”

So we have to ask, is Finn urging America's teachers to teach their students the actual history of democracy, or the fabricated partisan bullshit that is spewed forth everyday by our corporate media? Because we know which one Finn is teaching.

2002-08-30T20:59:00.001-07:00

2002-08-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

The Coming Slaughter
(c) August 31, 2002
The Daily Brew

So far, the debate over Operation Repair Dad's Legacy has taken place mostly between neo-conservatives who haven't fought in a war and conservatives who have. For a while, it looked like the veterans had the upper hand, but the chicken hawks cheered when Cheney struck what looked like the decisive blow last week. His argument, that the United States must act quickly to remove Saddam Hussein from power because "deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined" seems to have settled the issue.

Perhaps liberals ought to chime in, because Cheney's imagination is obviously stunted. One can easily imagine a variety of threats that are at least as grave as that posed by Saddam Hussein. All one need do is imagine the situation in the Middle East at the conclusion of the war Cheney is trying so desperately to launch.

While Saddam is undoubtedly a murderous dictator who does finance fundamentalist terrorist groups, Saddam is for the most part a secular murderous dictator who has historically calculated his military activities in terms of real politic. As far as we know, neither he nor any of the terrorist groups he finances have ever directly attacked the United States. By way of comparison, the last secular leader driven from power in the Middle East was also a murderous dictator; the Shah of Iran. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who immediately declared America the "Great Satan" and seized 52 American hostages. Given that background, it is fair to ask, if the United States invades Iraq, will whoever replaces Saddam be better or worse? Will Iraq's capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of people even more likely than Saddam to use them? Does removing Saddam from power make it more likely, or less likely, that weapons of mass destruction will ultimately be used against America? After all, isn't that really the threat with which we ought to be concerned?

Even without the support of the UN, its allies, a substantial portion of the American public, or even neighboring countries that Iraq has invaded from time to time over the past two decades, if the US attacks Iraq, the United States will almost certainly prevail. Which is to say, when the dust settles, it is unlikely that Saddam will remain in power. Beyond that, it is difficult to predict much about the outcome, except to note that the cost in terms of the lives of US servicemen is likely to be high, the costs in terms of the lives of Iraqis is likely to be astronomical, and the post-Saddam power struggle is likely to take place in a highly unstable environment.

With Saddam's army dug into the cities, the US forces will either keep their distance, bombing the Iraqi infrastructure and waiting to starve them out, or move in for urban combat that will be the next generation of the battles fought by the Russians in Chechnya. The slow starvation of Iraq would likely take too long, and provide too grim a spectacle, and thus appears off the table as a realistic policy option. Assuming the latter strategy, American forces will undoubtedly seek to avoid the casualties the Russians endured at the hands of the Chechens. They will have the advantages afforded by superior technology; precision guided munitions and night vision equipment. They will also likely emulate the Israeli's use of bulldozers in Gaza and the West Bank as weapons that effectively level cities and which are immune to booby traps.

Unfortunately, the Iraqis are also far better equipped than their Chechen counterparts. While Iraq's military capacity was largely useless in the turkey shoot on the open desert during the Gulf war, when deployed in urban environments by guerrilla fighters conducting ambushes, it is highly conceivable that the Iraqis will be able to inflict much higher casualties this time around. Rightly fearing, or heaven forbid experiencing, such casualties, US commanders will have little choice but to employ methods and tactics even more devastating and brutal than those employed by the Russians. Assuming the Iraqis dig in and fight as hard as the Chechens, (a reasonable assumption according to those familiar with the current sentiment in Baghdad), the end result will be a devastated Iraq having much of its infrastructure turned into rubble, thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead, and its Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd populations thrust into a power struggle created by the vacuum. Iraq's neighbors will likely choose sides in this struggle, and Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will almost certainly participate in at least a proxy war, leading perhaps to a shooting war.

Swirling about in all of this instability will be the specter of various terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, who will naturally seek to use the situation to their advantage. While many in the Arab world will care little about the loss of life on the American side, they will likely perceive the death of so many Iraqis at the hand of such a technologically superior aggressor as approximating a genocide. This perception will provide the terrorists who have repeatedly attacked the United States with a decisive recruiting tool, not only for volunteers and financiers to inflict more terrorism against the United States, but more importantly, to acquire whatever weapons of mass destruction that might remain in the aftermath of the war, including the expertise of those in Iraq who know how to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Unlike Saddam, these groups have proven willing to ignore the United States military and economic superiority, and have attacked the United States repeatedly.

Bush and Cheney are correct; Saddam is a menace. But sometimes the menace you know is preferable to the menace you don't know. Liberals ought to join the debate and point that out.

2002-08-30T20:57:00.000-07:00

2002-08-29T01:05:00.000-07:00

Renata Adler has written a stunning criticism of the press in general, and the NY Times in particular.

Here is the money shot:

I have always known, and even written, that the strongest, perhaps sole remaining taboo on freedom of expression in this country is any criticism of the press. Here I had not only questioned a received idea cherished by the Times; I had also been insufficiently deferential to this Times reporter. And the whole Times bureaucracy, instinctively totalitarian, needed to stamp out this disrespect. It would, of course, have gone without saying, until the Times, through Barringer, cited it with indignation, that a writer does choose what to write and when to write it. Now the matter had come to this: if you do not accept some cliché, bromide, or myth of theirs, and are not sufficiently deferential to them, this is not just insubordination. It is a breach of ethics.

You must be admonished. You must be taught a lesson. Other people may learn from it. Not only is your own reputation affected. You must, above all, recant. And this, this last issue -- retraction -- is where the stakes are inescapably, dangerously, raised.

2002-08-27T09:58:00.000-07:00

Osama bin Laden is firmly back in command of al Qaeda and the group is digging in for guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan according to Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper with close ties to the militant's associates.

"My sense is that he will time any new attack to coincide with a U.S. attack on Iraq. He would want to capitalize on this to appeal to the Arab street so he will probably delay any attacks until the United States moves on Iraq," said Atwan. more

Maybe this is why Bush wants to attack? To flush out Osama?

2002-08-26T12:24:00.000-07:00

First, thanks to everyone who wrote MSNBC and asked them to give Bob a show. I've posted some of the replies below so that everyone can see that we have stuffed their email box with Bob's name. Second, thanks for making this website so much fun. I don't know if MSNBC will realize how much money they could make by putting Bob on the air, but they certainly can't say we didn't tell them.

~brew

2002-08-26T12:21:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I believe that Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler hosting a show offering media criticism from the left, would be a huge hit. Millions of Americans are turned off by the so-called "news" offered by main-stream corporate managed media. His show would be a much needed "breath of fresh air".

Come on guys and gals - let's have a balance here - let's hear both sides of the story.

Respectfully,

Harold S Kramer

2002-08-26T12:20:00.001-07:00

Dear Sirs:

It would be a great asset to your program if you would allow Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler to have a program on media criticism from 'the left'.

Thank you, Jesse Galvan

=====
Jesse Galvan
San Antonio, TX

2002-08-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

The cable news channels and broadcast channels are flooded with conservative and right-wing show hosts. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are not conservative, nor are they right-wing.

If MSNBC would offer a show with a moderate host, as a media critic, it would fill a void, and could build a following. The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby is far more moderate than the majority of media critics and right-wing hosts, he is far closer to the center of American politics, and would be a success.

Talking with people at work, they are rapidly growing disgusted with the lock-step of media controlled by conservatives and the Republicans. A topic of conversation is the seemingly choreographed propaganda from the right and the Republicans flooding the radio and television. MSNBC has been guilty of chiming in with this choir of chattering nabobs of conservatism, and many of us are losing faith in the integrity, the objectivity of the broadcast media. From Rush Limbaugh to the babbling Fox chorus, they preached hatred of those who try to include all Americans, respect all Americans, and question those who want to divide America.

MSNBC can improve the public discourse, do something for America, and make money, which would seem to be a winning idea. Will MSNBC do so, or will it follow the path of the others, appealing to a shrinking minority of conservatives and Republicans?

Jim "TWIG" Terwilliger

"When you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance"
Green Parrot Bar, Key West, Florida

2002-08-26T12:19:00.000-07:00

Madam/Sir,

Would you please consider allowing Bob Somerby of The Howler to host a show. I think that the networks and radio are over whelmed with way to much rhetoric from extreme right wingers. I see very little broadcast balance in the news/talk shows. I always thought and felt that a News Agency should show balance.

Now, if you are a News Agency that is trying to form Public Opinion for a certain political party or group then you really don't need viewers or listeners, you just need people that subscribe to your way of thinking and you don't want anyone else to hear what may very well be the truth. Were you one of the Agencies that kept mum on the findings of the debacle in the Florida Voting (presidential), because I ending up reading in one of the UK's News Service of what the results and findings were, a full two weeks before any US media reported this, and it was obvious that every news service was keeping quiet about what was discovered. If US Citizens find out what the US media is truly doing than you are going to be in deep doodoo, especially with the Internet being around. You can't allow any Politician or Groups with a Political agenda to suppress the truth, we the citizens of this Nation deserves the truth and we expect you to present the TRUTH and not one sided lies.

Thanks for your time and reading my request for some balance reporting.

Melvin Hayes Memphis, TN

2002-08-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

Sir/Madam:
I would much like to see Bob Somerby host a show on your channel. I think you will be surprised at the success I'm sure he and you will have. There is so much ultra conservative garbage that it has become very boring.
Thank you.

Douglas Kinney Oneonta, NY

2002-08-26T12:17:00.000-07:00

I have heard rumors of a new show, or segment of an existing show which would feature Bob Somerby from the Daily Howler commenting on the performance of the media, especially in the political context. I wanted to add my two cents to let you know that such a show, or segment, would be of great interest to me as a viewer. Go for it!

Ruth A. Courtney

2002-08-26T12:16:00.001-07:00

People,

Media criticism from a new perspective (the left) would not only be a huge success it would be about time! My point: Be a pioneer and jump on the band wagon now.

2002-08-26T12:16:00.000-07:00

With the new Nachtman and Donahue shows, and a featured role for Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC is making great strides. You're still missing a key aspect of reporting.

CNN has "reliable sources" which is a solid show and a favorite of mine. Nothing is more important for the media than to watch itself.

One of my favorite websites is the Daily Howler, http://dailyhowler.com/ run by Bob Somerby. He's a witty, well informed, but most of all evenhanded and accurate media critic. A show hosted by Mr. Somerby, or one with him as a regular would lift MSNBC news to the next level.

I don't know him personally, but I am familiar with his influential work. I use his research and reporting at my website, and I've seen top flight print and on air journalists refer to him as well.

You can contact Bob Somerby at: bobsomerby@hotmail.com and I hope you do so before someone else hires him.

Mike Hersh
MSNBC Viewer

2002-08-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

Hey, a media critical show from the "left" would be a great addition to your programming. For a host, I would suggest Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler. I think it would be a big success with a large following/audience.

Thanks,
Marc

2002-08-26T12:14:00.000-07:00

Hello there

I enjoy your website and much of the programming I see from MSNBC, but I think if you were to allow Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler host a show offering media criticism from the left, it would be a big success. People aren't getting much of any message from the left, aside from what we can see on CNN on Crossfire, and The American people have voted overwhelmingly in favor of left-leaning politicians in the last three presidential elections.

Thanks for your attention!

Jim Turner

2002-08-26T12:13:00.000-07:00

Done

David Allyn
www.politicalpulpit.com

Save a tree:
Clear-cut the Bush Administration

2002-08-26T12:12:00.000-07:00

From: William Putney
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:46:42 -0500
To:
Subject: a huge hit

if you let Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler host a show offering media criticism from the left, it would be a huge hit. This is in my humble & sophisticated opinion.

Thank you --
William Putney

2002-08-26T12:11:00.001-07:00

DONE! (From a constant "Tush-watcher") (love the 'countdown clock'

Jeff T.

2002-08-26T12:11:00.000-07:00

Done!

-- Kathleen de la Peña McCook
kmccook@tampabay.rr.com
University of South Florida, Library & Information Science
A Librarian at Every Table
http://www.cas.usf.edu/lis/a-librarian-at-every-table/

2002-08-26T12:10:00.000-07:00

I sent an email (per your request) to MSNBC.

Tricia Galbraith ;-)

2002-08-26T12:09:00.001-07:00

If you folks let Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler host a show offering media criticism from the left, it would be a smash.

Tim Doherty

2002-08-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

here is what I sent:
Dear sirs'

If Boby Somerby of the Dailer Howler were to host a show with a left wing slant it would be a huge hit. You might want to take a look at the numbers since Crossfire added Paul Begula and James Carville.

I know I would certainly tune in.

Wolf Grulkey

2002-08-26T12:08:00.001-07:00

OK, I did. I wrote a glowing assessment for Bob Somerby addressed to msnbc for a show, who ever he is. I trust your advice.

Regards,

Steve Luther
Louisiana

2002-08-26T12:08:00.000-07:00

To Whom It Concerns:

Hey, I heard that you were considering Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler as a host for a show which critiques the media. Somerby would be great. I read the Howler regularly and find him accurate, funny and insightful. What this country needs is fewer centrist and conservative pundits and more progressive voices in the mix. I have almost stopped watching cable and network news for this reason. One gets weary listening to people politely disagreeing about minutia, while there are huge problems and much wider viewpoints available (to the left). Dial me back in, with Somerby.

Dan Bishton Fort Wayne, Indiana

2002-08-26T12:07:00.000-07:00

How's this:

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Malone [mailto:lmalone1@houston.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:53 AM
To: Cable@msnbc.com
Subject: Bob Somerby

As you know, many people have been touting this idea that the media has a liberal bias. I don't know what planet these people have been living on, but in my view, the media has for years been serving nothing but Nerf-balls to the right wing, and ignoring the substance of liberal thought.

I encourage you to bring in Bob Somerby to host another point of view. It would be a breath of fresh air, and I expect, a huge hit among people who think.

Larry Malone Houston, TX

2002-08-26T12:06:00.000-07:00

Done.

2002-08-26T12:05:00.001-07:00

Here's a copy for you---

----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Raizen
To: Cable@msnbc.com
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:06 AM
Subject: Bob Somerby show?

Would you consider a show hosted by Bob Somerby? It would attract enough people who think like him that it should have a good audience.

Ben Raizen, Denver, CO

2002-08-26T12:05:00.000-07:00

Brew:

You got it, dude. Great idea!

TD

2002-08-26T12:04:00.002-07:00

DONE! jp

2002-08-26T12:04:00.001-07:00

I did.

2002-08-26T12:04:00.000-07:00

Done. I don't even watch TV or know who Somerby is, but you asked for a favor which I'm happy to help out with any time.

Warren Gammel
Ocala Florida

2002-08-26T12:03:00.001-07:00

Done and sent you and Bob a bcc

2002-08-26T12:03:00.000-07:00

Just sent it to them Lots of luck"

2002-08-26T12:02:00.000-07:00

Brew:

Here's what I sent them (you may reprint all but my name and city).

Rock On!

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:21:23 -0400
To: cable@msnbc.com
From: RM
Subject: programming suggestion

To Whom It May Concern:

I am one of the thousands of MSNBC viewers, and Americans concerned about the integrity of journalism and the news, who think it would be a WONDERFUL idea for you to hire Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com) to do a media criticism show from the left. CNN's Unreliable Sources sure could use the balance!

I believe such a program would be a very big hit, on the order of the new Crossfire--a higher level of discussion and debate than currently seen anywhere else on cable television.

I urge you to seriously consider such a program, scheduled, perhaps, directly across from Mr. Kurtz and Co. Or, perhaps, just before or after, so viewers could watch both and REALLY see what a load of unapologetic, self-congratulating nonsense Howie and the others spew.

Thanks for your attention,

RM

2002-08-26T12:00:00.001-07:00

DONE....

RAUCnCAUC

2002-08-26T12:00:00.000-07:00

Message Sent!
Good luck,
Greg Jungheim
Chicago

Also, check out my personal op-ed toon site...
http://www.senryusid.com/

2002-08-26T11:59:00.000-07:00

Done!

________________
Julie Jackson Lusby julie@yaysoft.com

2002-08-25T22:59:00.000-07:00

2002-08-25T22:50:00.000-07:00

Bob Somerby is again hitting on all cylinders. Face it, the guy is a national treasure. The counterspin blog has suggested that we begin an email campaign to get MSNBC to hire Bob for a cable talk show on media criticism "from the left." I am firmly on board.

2002-08-25T13:48:00.000-07:00

I am considering filing a lawsuit, but I am in need of a theory.

The essence of the suit is thus; I am an outspoken left wing liberal. Anne Coulter has, in print, openly advocated my murder. If any of you smart lawyers out there know of a federal statute that will form a plausible cause of action based on these two facts, send me an email

2002-08-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

2002-08-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

How Not To Run a War

Assume for the sake of argument that it is a good idea for the US to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. You might as well, because in case you haven't figured it out, sooner or later Bush is going to do just that. If you were 43, how would you go about it? How would you instigate an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation without making the United States an international pariah?

41 might opine that a prudent course would be to let your actions speak for you. Begin by mobilizing a massive build-up of force in the region, thereby signaling to all of our allies that you are serious. That way, when you sent your diplomatic team out to get the rest of the world on board, they would know that it was time to stand up and be counted.

43's plan was to first blather a bunch of bellicose rhetoric, and then to send Cheney out to call in the chits. Predictably, with no attack imminent, most of the world politely demurred. Bush had left them plenty of time to change their minds, so why show their cards now? 43 simultaneously gave the rest of the world a pass from standing beside the United States while painting himself into a corner. As stated by his own subordinate, Richard Perle, "the failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."

Once the build-up was clicking, 41 took his case directly to the public. If there is one golden rule for the use of US military force, it is get the public behind you. Get on the TV. Look us in the eye. Tell us what you are going to do, and why you are going to do it.

43 had a big advantage over his dad here. Two months ago, better than 70% of the public approved of military action to remove Saddam. But almost as soon as Bush put the issue on the radar, he stopped talking about it in any meaningful way. If one disregards Bush's off the cuff statements from the golf course (watch this drive!), most of the play in the media has come from leaks at the Pentagon as amplified by the punditocracy, hardly a formula for rallying America to sacrifice its sons and daughters on some foreign battlefield. Predictably, support for the invasion has dropped steadily. The defection of prominent Republicans on the Sunday talk shows and in the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers only sped the descent of public approval.

The coup de grace will come when Bush finally decides it is time to make the case why young servicemen should die to clear the blight of Saddam from Daddy-one-term's legacy. But by then, Bush will be forced to trot out a bunch of lame reasons that the media have picked apart to show they don't make any sense. Establishing democracy in the Middle East? Sorry, tell that to your oil partners, the monarchy that rules Kuwait and the Saudi Royal family. Weapons of mass destruction? Not very compelling. Experts are already lining up on the cable shows to say Iraq doesn't have any capabilities, and even if they do, the national press has spilled the beans that Iraq got their start in the chemical warfare business with the complicity of the Reagan administration. Iraq is harboring terrorists? That logic can be extended all the way to Pakistan, and contrary to the nonsense spouted by Perle, any attack on Iraq is going to make it infinitely harder to earn the cooperation of such nations in rooting them out. Saddam is a danger to his neighbors? That would explain why every country that borders Iraq is against the invasion.

There is one saving grace for Bush. However idiotic he has been in conducting the build up to the war, Israel has been even more so. Back when 41 was in charge, a liberal government in Israel held itself in check while Saddam rained scuds on Tel Aviv. The Israeli silence in the face of Iraqi attacks gave the world a stunning portrait of who was the aggressor in the Middle East. Not this time.

The Israelis have been out in front, publicly encouraging Bush to attack. Sharon is set to visit 43's kid brother on the eve of the Florida primary. Has anyone in the Knesset thought this through? Rightly or wrongly, the larger Arab world has long viewed America as far too complicit in furthering the interests of Israel. Yesterday's defeat of Muslim backed incumbents like Cynthia McKinney to Jewish backed challengers has hardly changed that view. With all of the Arab world lining up against an invasion, why on earth would Israel want to be viewed as instigating the attack? If the war destabilizes any of the other Arab states, who do you think they are going to blame? If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, who do you suppose he is going to use them on? If Sharon responds by nuking Baghdad, how long do you suppose it will be before the Arab world responds in kind? Too bad for the United States and Israel that neither Bush nor Sharon have ever learned that sometimes discretion truly is the better part of valor.

To leave some spare change for The Daily Brew, Click on the case.