Thursday, July 31, 2003
The disappearance of white collar jobs.
That whooosh sound is the sound of white collar jobs fleeing overseas, many of them to India. I'll ask this simple question: who in America will be able to afford the products the corporations want us to purchase? From abcnews.com:
Michael Emmons thought he knew how to keep a job as a software programmer.
"You have to continue to keep yourself up to speed," he said. "If you don't, you'll get washed out."
Up to speed or not, Emmons wound up being "washed out" anyway. Last summer, he moved his family from California to Florida for the Siemens Co., makers of electronics and equipment for industries. Not long after, Emmons and 19 other programmers were replaced by cheaper foreign workers.
Adding insult to injury, Emmons and the others had to train their replacements.
"It was the most demoralizing thing I've ever been through," he told ABCNEWS. "After spending all this time in this industry and working to keep my skills up-to-date, I had to now teach foreign workers how to do my job so they could lay me off."
Just as millions of American manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1980s and 1990s, today white-collar American jobs are disappearing. Foreign nationals on special work visas are filling some positions but most jobs are simply contracted out overseas.
"The train has left the station, the cows have left the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube," said John McCarthy, director of research at Forrester Research, who has studied the exodus of white-collar jobs overseas. "However you want to talk about it, you're not going to turn the tide on this in the same way we couldn't turn the tide on the manufacturing shift."
India Calling
Almost 500,000 white-collar American jobs have already found their way offshore, to the Philippines, Malaysia and China. Russia and Eastern Europe are expected to be next. But no country has captured more American jobs than India.
Michael Emmons thought he knew how to keep a job as a software programmer.
"You have to continue to keep yourself up to speed," he said. "If you don't, you'll get washed out."
Up to speed or not, Emmons wound up being "washed out" anyway. Last summer, he moved his family from California to Florida for the Siemens Co., makers of electronics and equipment for industries. Not long after, Emmons and 19 other programmers were replaced by cheaper foreign workers.
Adding insult to injury, Emmons and the others had to train their replacements.
"It was the most demoralizing thing I've ever been through," he told ABCNEWS. "After spending all this time in this industry and working to keep my skills up-to-date, I had to now teach foreign workers how to do my job so they could lay me off."
Just as millions of American manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1980s and 1990s, today white-collar American jobs are disappearing. Foreign nationals on special work visas are filling some positions but most jobs are simply contracted out overseas.
"The train has left the station, the cows have left the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube," said John McCarthy, director of research at Forrester Research, who has studied the exodus of white-collar jobs overseas. "However you want to talk about it, you're not going to turn the tide on this in the same way we couldn't turn the tide on the manufacturing shift."
India Calling
Almost 500,000 white-collar American jobs have already found their way offshore, to the Philippines, Malaysia and China. Russia and Eastern Europe are expected to be next. But no country has captured more American jobs than India.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:39 AM |
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Iraqi civilians shot by American soldiers.
And finally, this article demonstrates that whatever shred of decency we have left in us as a nation, ought to be directed at ending the violence in Iraq, even if it means immediately withdrawing our own troops. From the guardian.co.uk:
The first vehicle to get unlucky was a Chevrolet Malibu. For some reason, the driver did not stop as he approached the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. Mr Saad had taken cover behind a wall. When he dared to look up, the soldiers were dragging two men away from the car. "I think they were dead," he said.
Fifteen minutes later, a Toyota Corona being driven by a man called Mazin, who was disabled and walked with the aid of a frame, arrived in the area. His wife was in the passenger seat and his teenage son in the back. If he had turned left out of the small lane that led to their house, they might all still be alive.
Instead, Mazin made the mistake of turning right towards the roadblock. A bullet from the volley of shots fired at the car passed through the windscreen and blew off the right half his head, according to Ahmed Ibrahim, who runs an optician's shop opposite the Al Sa'ah restaurant.
Nobody on the street yesterday seemed to know what had happened to his wife or teenage son, only that they had been injured and taken away by the Americans.
The first vehicle to get unlucky was a Chevrolet Malibu. For some reason, the driver did not stop as he approached the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. Mr Saad had taken cover behind a wall. When he dared to look up, the soldiers were dragging two men away from the car. "I think they were dead," he said.
Fifteen minutes later, a Toyota Corona being driven by a man called Mazin, who was disabled and walked with the aid of a frame, arrived in the area. His wife was in the passenger seat and his teenage son in the back. If he had turned left out of the small lane that led to their house, they might all still be alive.
Instead, Mazin made the mistake of turning right towards the roadblock. A bullet from the volley of shots fired at the car passed through the windscreen and blew off the right half his head, according to Ahmed Ibrahim, who runs an optician's shop opposite the Al Sa'ah restaurant.
Nobody on the street yesterday seemed to know what had happened to his wife or teenage son, only that they had been injured and taken away by the Americans.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:49 PM |
The soul of the party, and economics
There is a fight going on for the soul of the democratic party, that is now becoming more apparent to myself, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC believes we ought to be more centrist, in order to win the presidency. Yesterday, Kos on the Daily Kos asked for suggestions for bumber stickers for the DLC (seriously folks), only, he didn't get many serious answers. Many were quite hilarious. My contribution was this:
"Help, I'm stuck in 1992, and I can't get out", which is, admittedly, not very funny, but is a reference to the DLC's obsession with Bill Clinton, and how Clinton was as a centrist.
All of this begs further study, of course, which I don't have time for today. The farmer at Escaton links to Digby at Hullabalo, for an analysis of the DLC:
It seems that by the DLC’s calculation, the “far left” doesn’t consist of Green party members or anti-globalization protestors or radical groups like Earth First and Peta. According to them, middle aged, middle class Democrats like me who enthusiastically backed charter DLC favorite sons Clinton and Gore in 3 successive presidential elections, supported the wars in Kosovo and in Afghanistan, aren’t fond of bureaucrats whether they work for government or the corporations, respect the need to curb long term deficit spending and come down on the side of the CATO institute as much as the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties…are now “far left.”
Concering a subject important to me right now, economics, the farmer also linked to an awesome sight called the Conceptual Gurerilla's Strategy and Tactics, on the subject "cheap labor conservatives".
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it -- “cheap labor”.
"Help, I'm stuck in 1992, and I can't get out", which is, admittedly, not very funny, but is a reference to the DLC's obsession with Bill Clinton, and how Clinton was as a centrist.
All of this begs further study, of course, which I don't have time for today. The farmer at Escaton links to Digby at Hullabalo, for an analysis of the DLC:
It seems that by the DLC’s calculation, the “far left” doesn’t consist of Green party members or anti-globalization protestors or radical groups like Earth First and Peta. According to them, middle aged, middle class Democrats like me who enthusiastically backed charter DLC favorite sons Clinton and Gore in 3 successive presidential elections, supported the wars in Kosovo and in Afghanistan, aren’t fond of bureaucrats whether they work for government or the corporations, respect the need to curb long term deficit spending and come down on the side of the CATO institute as much as the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties…are now “far left.”
Concering a subject important to me right now, economics, the farmer also linked to an awesome sight called the Conceptual Gurerilla's Strategy and Tactics, on the subject "cheap labor conservatives".
Using this ideology, the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “big government tyranny”. In fact, the whole idea that the “private sector” is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What the he wants is the “privatized tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it -- “cheap labor”.
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:21 PM |
Bounty hunters
Today I'm going to link to some good posts, as I don't have time for much else. Here is Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo fame, on the decision by the Texas republicans to consider the use of, yes I'm not kidding, bounty hunters, to reign in those rebeleous Texas democrats:
In any case, without the ability to use the state police, Republican state officials are now considering sending bounty-hunters across state lines to bring them back -- an idea you can certainly understand since bounty-hunters are such an upstanding and constitutionally-minded group of characters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has helpfully obliged by issuing an opinion okaying the bounty hunter idea.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has provided the Dems with a state police detail to protect them and, reportedly, has vowed to press kidnapping charges against any bounty hunters who try to take them into custody.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the ultimate author of all this ridiculousness, is off on a tour of the Middle East where, one would imagine, he'll fit right in.
In any case, without the ability to use the state police, Republican state officials are now considering sending bounty-hunters across state lines to bring them back -- an idea you can certainly understand since bounty-hunters are such an upstanding and constitutionally-minded group of characters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has helpfully obliged by issuing an opinion okaying the bounty hunter idea.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has provided the Dems with a state police detail to protect them and, reportedly, has vowed to press kidnapping charges against any bounty hunters who try to take them into custody.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the ultimate author of all this ridiculousness, is off on a tour of the Middle East where, one would imagine, he'll fit right in.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:54 PM |
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
The trees tell the story.
This story adds to the weight of judgement on Israel. Even while the Isreali government talks of peace, they allow this to happen. When you destroy a person's livelihood, are you not destroying their security in the world? Is the Israeli government, and some of its people, adhering to a genocidal policy towards the Palestinians?
From the Telegraph.co.uk:
Palestinian olive trees sold to rich Israelis
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 28/11/2002)
Israel's Defence Ministry is investigating reports that Palestinian olive trees uprooted to make way for a security fence are being sold illegally to rich Israelis and town councils, sometimes for thousands of pounds each.
The illegal trade in olive trees has flourished as Israeli contractors, supported by armed guards, clear Palestinian agricultural land where an 80-mile electronic fence is being built to seal off the West Bank.
Thousands of olive trees have been dug up to make way for the 150-ft wide barrier and security zone. Its route usually passes inside Palestinian territory, not along the old pre-1967 border, and thousands of Palestinian farmers say their livelihood is being taken away.
Sale of the olive trees emerged after the owner of a contracting company offered two reporters from a popular Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, 100 large olive trees for £150 each.
The reporters found one enormous tree, said to be 600 years old, on sale at an Israeli plant nursery for £3,500. They said the trade was conducted with the complicity of an official in the civil administration, the Israeli military government in the occupied territories.
Olive trees are extremely hardy, can live for hundreds of years and will often stand transplanting. Gnarled old specimens which are claimed, with some exaggeration, to have been alive at the time of Jesus are much sought after for gardens of the rich or city parks.
The Defence Ministry, which is in charge of the security fence, said it had launched an investigation. "The ministry pays contractors for uprooting and replanting and, in their contract, there is no clause that allows for trade in the trees. If there is such a trade, it is a criminal activity," it said.
Some contracts require the olive trees to be relocated to areas suggested by their owners outside the Israeli-declared security zone. But Yael Stein, researcher for B'tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, said: "We have never seen any relocation. The contractors cannot just sell the trees. That is theft."
While the trees may be ornaments to Israelis, olives are the lifeblood of Palestinian agriculture, almost the only crop which grows on the stony hillsides of the West Bank without irrigation. Most Palestinians are unemployed after two years of violence and their staple diet is bread and olive oil.
About 11,000 Palestinian farmers will lose all or some of their land holdings to the fence. Sharif Omar, from the village of Jayous, near the Israeli town of Kochav Yair, said: "I have lost almost everything. I have lost 2,700 fruit and olive trees. And 44 of 50 acres I own have been confiscated for the fence."
His village lost seven wells, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus and other fruit trees. "This area is the agricultural store for the West Bank. They are destroying us," he said.
Israel is offering compensation for confiscated agricultural land but Palestinians are unlikely to apply, as they still hope to get their land back.
The Palestinian Agriculture Ministry says 200,000 olive trees have been destroyed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the past two years to provide security for settlers.
The £90 million fence will prevent suicide bombers infiltrating into Israel. But some Israeli border communities say depriving Palestinians of their livelihood will make for worse, not better, neighbours.
From the Telegraph.co.uk:
Palestinian olive trees sold to rich Israelis
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 28/11/2002)
Israel's Defence Ministry is investigating reports that Palestinian olive trees uprooted to make way for a security fence are being sold illegally to rich Israelis and town councils, sometimes for thousands of pounds each.
The illegal trade in olive trees has flourished as Israeli contractors, supported by armed guards, clear Palestinian agricultural land where an 80-mile electronic fence is being built to seal off the West Bank.
Thousands of olive trees have been dug up to make way for the 150-ft wide barrier and security zone. Its route usually passes inside Palestinian territory, not along the old pre-1967 border, and thousands of Palestinian farmers say their livelihood is being taken away.
Sale of the olive trees emerged after the owner of a contracting company offered two reporters from a popular Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, 100 large olive trees for £150 each.
The reporters found one enormous tree, said to be 600 years old, on sale at an Israeli plant nursery for £3,500. They said the trade was conducted with the complicity of an official in the civil administration, the Israeli military government in the occupied territories.
Olive trees are extremely hardy, can live for hundreds of years and will often stand transplanting. Gnarled old specimens which are claimed, with some exaggeration, to have been alive at the time of Jesus are much sought after for gardens of the rich or city parks.
The Defence Ministry, which is in charge of the security fence, said it had launched an investigation. "The ministry pays contractors for uprooting and replanting and, in their contract, there is no clause that allows for trade in the trees. If there is such a trade, it is a criminal activity," it said.
Some contracts require the olive trees to be relocated to areas suggested by their owners outside the Israeli-declared security zone. But Yael Stein, researcher for B'tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, said: "We have never seen any relocation. The contractors cannot just sell the trees. That is theft."
While the trees may be ornaments to Israelis, olives are the lifeblood of Palestinian agriculture, almost the only crop which grows on the stony hillsides of the West Bank without irrigation. Most Palestinians are unemployed after two years of violence and their staple diet is bread and olive oil.
About 11,000 Palestinian farmers will lose all or some of their land holdings to the fence. Sharif Omar, from the village of Jayous, near the Israeli town of Kochav Yair, said: "I have lost almost everything. I have lost 2,700 fruit and olive trees. And 44 of 50 acres I own have been confiscated for the fence."
His village lost seven wells, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus and other fruit trees. "This area is the agricultural store for the West Bank. They are destroying us," he said.
Israel is offering compensation for confiscated agricultural land but Palestinians are unlikely to apply, as they still hope to get their land back.
The Palestinian Agriculture Ministry says 200,000 olive trees have been destroyed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the past two years to provide security for settlers.
The £90 million fence will prevent suicide bombers infiltrating into Israel. But some Israeli border communities say depriving Palestinians of their livelihood will make for worse, not better, neighbours.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:19 PM |
A new economy.
I am thinking on the subject of economics these days, and considering reading a good deal on the subject. I have been reading Howard Zinn, Declarations of Independence, and am inspired to read some of the works he has referred to, including the Communist Manifesto.
There is so much strife in the world that ultimately seems to be related somehow to the "issue" of economics, that a very plain and simple reality stares me in the face everyday. The economies of our times, in most countries, is not efficient enough, if you will, to deal with the most pressing problems and needs of the people that the economies serve.
I use the word "efficient" for lack of a better one, for now. People are going hungry. People are without shelter. Many without adequate self-support to take care of their basic needs.
The economies of nations are reflections of collections of beliefs about the sharing and distribution of resources. It is beliefs that form the basis of economies. If beliefs can change, then economies can change. Economies can be made to be more respondent and flexible to the true needs of the people that it serves. When I say true needs, I am referring to basic issues: food, clothing, shelter, health care, jobs and education. It seems that all the needs I mentioned are required for most to feel safe, secure and that they are a needed and contributing member of their community.
It is my belief that we need each and every individual, to contribute their talents and abilities, for a community to be healthy and thriving. If due to health reasons, a person cannot make a "traditional" contribution, then the person ought to be cared for. It is nothing short of what we would expect for ourselves.
I know these thoughts are phrased somewhat primitively, simply. As I said, economics is a subject that for myself, begs further study.
There is so much strife in the world that ultimately seems to be related somehow to the "issue" of economics, that a very plain and simple reality stares me in the face everyday. The economies of our times, in most countries, is not efficient enough, if you will, to deal with the most pressing problems and needs of the people that the economies serve.
I use the word "efficient" for lack of a better one, for now. People are going hungry. People are without shelter. Many without adequate self-support to take care of their basic needs.
The economies of nations are reflections of collections of beliefs about the sharing and distribution of resources. It is beliefs that form the basis of economies. If beliefs can change, then economies can change. Economies can be made to be more respondent and flexible to the true needs of the people that it serves. When I say true needs, I am referring to basic issues: food, clothing, shelter, health care, jobs and education. It seems that all the needs I mentioned are required for most to feel safe, secure and that they are a needed and contributing member of their community.
It is my belief that we need each and every individual, to contribute their talents and abilities, for a community to be healthy and thriving. If due to health reasons, a person cannot make a "traditional" contribution, then the person ought to be cared for. It is nothing short of what we would expect for ourselves.
I know these thoughts are phrased somewhat primitively, simply. As I said, economics is a subject that for myself, begs further study.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:32 PM |
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich
My friend Jeremy doesn't believe Kucinich is electable. We are having a series of email exchanges on the subject, that began with an email from a friend of his:
<< Kucinich is a good man and I agree with his views more than the rest,
but like Ralph Nader, I think he's too radical to get elected, and if he
was elected, I think he'd be too radical to build the necessary
consensuses to get anything done. >>
Ben
I'm curious to know if you think I'm excessively cynical to
consider electibility in supporting a candidate. There are those I know
who apparently do. Of course, I also expressed a consideration about his
effectiveness as President.
I believe Bush II (by which I mean the military/industrial
complex) is extremely ruthless and dangerous when it comes to political
opposition. I strongly suspect that Paul Wellstone was murdered, for
example. I think the anthrax attacks were staged by domestic
intelligence services to maximize public fear and malleability. I think
it's curious that a full, public investigation of the events of 9/11 has
been opposed by the administration, which profited enormously from them
in terms of power and control. The 2000 election debacle, I think,
shows Bush II's complete disdain for democratic principles and respect
for the Constitution, the rule of law and fair play. I believe the tax
cuts and corporate deregulation are essentially bribes to the American
ruling class, including the mass media and our senators and
representatives.
While I tend to identify more with Kucinich's ideas, I think he's
too fringe left and I don't think he's tough enough to face Bush II and
win. Al Gore wasn't tough enough. Howard Dean or John Kerry, I think,
might be tough enough, but whoever is the candidate will need the
overwhelming support of the American voting public. If it's close again,
Bush II holds all the cards and they're not above resorting to violence.
J( *}
Here's where I jump in:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:25 -0500 "elizabeth cook"
> writes:
>Jeremy,
>You actually seem to know little about Kucinich. If you did, you would
>know that he has "balls the size of Texas", as one supporter put it. He
>is extremely tough, fighting battle after battle against Bush, et al in
>the House of Representatives. You say he is on the "fringe", yet he
>co-chairs the progressive caucus in the H. of R. I'm not sure why you
>think Dean is tougher. You haven't explained yourself on that one. If you
>ever saw Kucinich on TV, he is as tough as nails in a debate, while Dean
>really floundered on Meet the Press. I'll say this for Kucinich, he has
>the courage of his convictions, while Dean is an obvious political
>opportunist, who is willing to sway with public opinion on many issues.
>He steers clear of controversial issues by claiming "states rights".
>Apparently, you and many others, don't have the courage of your
>convictions to stand up and support someone you really agree with. It is
>curious to me. When I first "discovered" Kucinich, I was sure he would
>catch on. Instead, all I have heard is he "can't be elected". It seems
>the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who agree with
>his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one they agree
>with, the rest could be history.
>Betsy
Jeremy responds:
Betsy,
> We have different ideas of what it means to be tough in the
>political arena. Being in-your-face ideological and confrontational is
>the obvious way to be tough, like Bush. Bill Clinton was a really tough
>politician, a diplomatic, persistent one who could stand up to the most
>scathing criticism and even an impeachment and survive and succeed and
>never even lose his good humor.
> Sooner or later, Bush is going down because he's brittle inside.
>To me, Kucinich thinks well, he's very smart, but he doesn't know
>craftiness or diplomacy. He asks tough questions but he doesn't know how
>to get them answered -- those questions posed to Dick Cheney are good
>questions, but Cheney will blow them off and there's nothing Kucinich can
>do about it. A really tough politician would ask those questions in a
>forum where he couldn't be ignored. If this was poker, Kucinich shows
>his hand too quickly, before he's suckered the opposition into building
>up the pot. He has no charm except to those who agree with him and want
>him to win. You need charm to persuade the opposition to back you.
> You can also use fear, like Bush II does. They do it through
>sheer terrifying ruthlessness and that's where their real toughness lies.
> We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and
>deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter
>their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax.
> I don't know if Dean or Kerry is all that's necessary. I think
>they might be. I feel sure that Kucinich isn't, even though I like him
>because we agree. I think a smart politician doesn't let all his
>personal convictions be known too easily -- his enemies can use that
>knowledge against him. Kucinich has already been buried by the pundits
>because they know exactly where he stands on every issue and that means
>his opposition will not be surprised and already knows how to counter
>him.
>
><< It seems the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who
>agree with his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one
>they agree with, the rest could be history. >>
>
> I disagree. People like you who completely agree with Kucinich
>do support him. I don't agree with him entirely because I disagree with
>his lack of subtlety and diplomacy. The people who say he can't be
>elected are the pundits whose job it is to handicap races, and they see
>his political weaknesses. His honesty makes him vulnerable. You dismiss
>the pundits because you want them to be wrong; I don't, because I
>consider them knowledgeable.
> I hope you'll continue to support Kucinich with enthusiasm. The
>more people support him, the more the main candidates will be pulled to
>the left rhetorically to try to co-opt his supporters.
> Something that makes Bush uncommonly dangerous, though, is that
>he lies continuously and without conscience. Fortunately, he's not too
>smart -- he doesn't know what to say to co-opt his opponent's supporters.
> He does have advisers, though. His advisers will be coming up with all
>sorts of sneaky tricks before election day. And then there's the tricks
>of the military/industrial complex for us to contend with, up to and
>probably including massive vote fraud next year.
> We're going to need a very strong Democratic candidate with a
>very broad appeal who can deliver a decisive victory that can't be
>stolen. That's got to be someone who at least seems much more mainstream
>and centrist than Dennis Kucinich.
>
>J( *}
And then I say:
Jeremy,
"His honesty makes him vulnerable". Honest usually does. If what you are arguing is that Dean is withholding important information about himself, in order to surprise his opponents later, I'm scratching my head on that one.
I know of a Taoist saying that goes something like this: the beginning holds the seeds to the end. If Dean is ambiguous and equivocal now, he will be then, whenever 'then' is. If Kucinich is blunt and honest now, he will be then. I mean really, are you advocating dishonesty?
I think Dean is making clear is that he is willing to compromise his principals in order to be elected. He is willing to put up with guns everywhere in order to please the NRA. He is willing to put up with a bloated military budget. He is willing to put up with the death penalty. He is willing to put up with the banning of marajuana for medicinal purposes. If Dean isn't choosing to be honest now about his true belliefs, what makes you think he will be honest later?
Personally, I believe it is time for someone who is in your face, confrontational and honest with what he truly believes. I am a little surprised at you defending the classic, political huckster, the charming, snake-like dealer. Clinton was full of charm, and managed to hand over his presidency to his enemies. Yes, he survived impeachment; but his political enemies in the process managed to steal the limelight from the real issues facing this country.
I appreciate Clinton's efforts to whittle down the deficit. He did a good job with that. Honestly, though, the recession seemed unavoidable due to incredible corporate corruption and greed and hyper inflated stock, and lies told the public about the true worth of their stock, all happening in the Clinton administration.
I'm not blaming Clinton, but a pattern was continued that has been going on since practically the birth of this country, that laws are passed to favor the rich and those who want to get richer, and wars are fought to benefit the rich, to put it simply, while the poor are ignored, used and oppressed, and the middle class suckored.
By the way, I wasn't able to read your essay on the Civil War, though I did read your summation of it in one of your emails, I believe, to one of your brothers. I would like to have that essay again, if you don't mind.Your ideas on the Civil War as not necessarily needing to be fought, are thought provoking and insightful. Very Howard Zinnian, as well. I believe we have to take the courage to re-envision and reinterpret our past, in order to better understand present day events.
Howard Zinn, in his book Declarations of Independence, even takes on our justifications for entering WW2. It is interesting reading.
When I read about your essay on the Civil War and Lincoln, when I read Howard Zinn, I get a very similar feeling when I study the positions of Kucinich. He is willing to confront popular notions and beliefs with a candor and bluntness that is incredibly refreshing. He is electrifying and not afraid to turn popularly held notions upside down, such as our commitment to NAFTA and the WTO.
It is also about siphoning through the complexity and the layers of things, to try to find their roots. I believe Kucinich tries hard to do this. Remember the Frontline special that we saw together, that began with a clip of Paula Poundstone entertaining some sort of convention where Clinton as president was attending, along with many CEOs from major, international corporations. She asked, "Who decides who sits next to the president?" I remember the Chiquita Banana ceo was on one side of Clinton. Can't remember who was on the other.
She made a brilliant point, and until the underlying strength of that point is examined openly, we will never take back our democracy from the rich. Dean worries me precisely because he seems so enamored of power, he is willing, like many before him, to compromise parts of himself in order to seem more palatable to the general public. Unfortunately, what winds up happening, the person doing the compromising begins to lose sight of who they really are. I believe that was also one of the underlying issues with the Gore run for the presidency. He was a man of many contradictions, with a wealthy background, and apparently to me, contradictory beliefs.
I am not per se, targeting wealth as "the problem", but I am targeting the laws that allow for the unfair accumulation of wealth, and the shifting of the the tax burden to the middle and working class, to the benefit of the upper tier.
With Kucinich, I have the distinct feeling that what you see is what you get. He wears his heart on his sleave, he's a tireless worker, and his heart is in the right place. He's not afraid of losing, obviously, because otherwise he wouldn't be so upfront about his beliefs. With Dean, there seems to be a real calculation to avoid losing. Consequently, he may wind up losing a part of himself in the process. I see this as a general tendency among most politicians, by the way, not just Dean.
But our politicians reflect fundamental truths about ourselves. Is it that Kucinich is unelectable, or is it that we are unwilling to confront the difficult issues with much needed candor and hard work? Makes life more complex to do that.
Regarding certain points of your argument, what forum would you suggest for Kucinich's letter to Cheney? Tompaine.commonsense seems like a pretty good one given that the media is not likely to print such a letter. Kucinich has been speaking out tirelessly on the issue of faulty intelligence, by the way, whenever possible, in speeches to the general public and before Congress.
Yes, Bush is idealogical and confrontational, and also a pathological liar. He can never give specifics as to the nature or reasons for his beliefs, because he has to keep those secret. Kucinich is not shy about sharing specifics. You say Kucinich doesn't know craftiness or diplomacy, though the two traits seem mutually exclusive. He is a member of the House of Representatives with an excellent reputation. I haven't followed all of the battles and legislation that he is responsible for; I did though, see a very conservative House member defend Kucinich on TV, on one of his stances.
I really confused on this: "We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax."
Why do we need to charm them? What we need to do is expose them, their lies and corruption. Daschle and Gephardt and Kerry and all the rest tried to play the game their way, and we wound embroiled in a war that is a humanitarian disaster.
Please don't forget to send me your civil war essay. As always, I enjoy the exchange,
Betsy
<< Kucinich is a good man and I agree with his views more than the rest,
but like Ralph Nader, I think he's too radical to get elected, and if he
was elected, I think he'd be too radical to build the necessary
consensuses to get anything done. >>
Ben
I'm curious to know if you think I'm excessively cynical to
consider electibility in supporting a candidate. There are those I know
who apparently do. Of course, I also expressed a consideration about his
effectiveness as President.
I believe Bush II (by which I mean the military/industrial
complex) is extremely ruthless and dangerous when it comes to political
opposition. I strongly suspect that Paul Wellstone was murdered, for
example. I think the anthrax attacks were staged by domestic
intelligence services to maximize public fear and malleability. I think
it's curious that a full, public investigation of the events of 9/11 has
been opposed by the administration, which profited enormously from them
in terms of power and control. The 2000 election debacle, I think,
shows Bush II's complete disdain for democratic principles and respect
for the Constitution, the rule of law and fair play. I believe the tax
cuts and corporate deregulation are essentially bribes to the American
ruling class, including the mass media and our senators and
representatives.
While I tend to identify more with Kucinich's ideas, I think he's
too fringe left and I don't think he's tough enough to face Bush II and
win. Al Gore wasn't tough enough. Howard Dean or John Kerry, I think,
might be tough enough, but whoever is the candidate will need the
overwhelming support of the American voting public. If it's close again,
Bush II holds all the cards and they're not above resorting to violence.
J( *}
Here's where I jump in:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:53:25 -0500 "elizabeth cook"
> writes:
>Jeremy,
>You actually seem to know little about Kucinich. If you did, you would
>know that he has "balls the size of Texas", as one supporter put it. He
>is extremely tough, fighting battle after battle against Bush, et al in
>the House of Representatives. You say he is on the "fringe", yet he
>co-chairs the progressive caucus in the H. of R. I'm not sure why you
>think Dean is tougher. You haven't explained yourself on that one. If you
>ever saw Kucinich on TV, he is as tough as nails in a debate, while Dean
>really floundered on Meet the Press. I'll say this for Kucinich, he has
>the courage of his convictions, while Dean is an obvious political
>opportunist, who is willing to sway with public opinion on many issues.
>He steers clear of controversial issues by claiming "states rights".
>Apparently, you and many others, don't have the courage of your
>convictions to stand up and support someone you really agree with. It is
>curious to me. When I first "discovered" Kucinich, I was sure he would
>catch on. Instead, all I have heard is he "can't be elected". It seems
>the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who agree with
>his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one they agree
>with, the rest could be history.
>Betsy
Jeremy responds:
Betsy,
> We have different ideas of what it means to be tough in the
>political arena. Being in-your-face ideological and confrontational is
>the obvious way to be tough, like Bush. Bill Clinton was a really tough
>politician, a diplomatic, persistent one who could stand up to the most
>scathing criticism and even an impeachment and survive and succeed and
>never even lose his good humor.
> Sooner or later, Bush is going down because he's brittle inside.
>To me, Kucinich thinks well, he's very smart, but he doesn't know
>craftiness or diplomacy. He asks tough questions but he doesn't know how
>to get them answered -- those questions posed to Dick Cheney are good
>questions, but Cheney will blow them off and there's nothing Kucinich can
>do about it. A really tough politician would ask those questions in a
>forum where he couldn't be ignored. If this was poker, Kucinich shows
>his hand too quickly, before he's suckered the opposition into building
>up the pot. He has no charm except to those who agree with him and want
>him to win. You need charm to persuade the opposition to back you.
> You can also use fear, like Bush II does. They do it through
>sheer terrifying ruthlessness and that's where their real toughness lies.
> We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and
>deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter
>their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax.
> I don't know if Dean or Kerry is all that's necessary. I think
>they might be. I feel sure that Kucinich isn't, even though I like him
>because we agree. I think a smart politician doesn't let all his
>personal convictions be known too easily -- his enemies can use that
>knowledge against him. Kucinich has already been buried by the pundits
>because they know exactly where he stands on every issue and that means
>his opposition will not be surprised and already knows how to counter
>him.
>
><< It seems the same people who say he can't be elected, are the ones who
>agree with his ideas. If these same people actually supported the one
>they agree with, the rest could be history. >>
>
> I disagree. People like you who completely agree with Kucinich
>do support him. I don't agree with him entirely because I disagree with
>his lack of subtlety and diplomacy. The people who say he can't be
>elected are the pundits whose job it is to handicap races, and they see
>his political weaknesses. His honesty makes him vulnerable. You dismiss
>the pundits because you want them to be wrong; I don't, because I
>consider them knowledgeable.
> I hope you'll continue to support Kucinich with enthusiasm. The
>more people support him, the more the main candidates will be pulled to
>the left rhetorically to try to co-opt his supporters.
> Something that makes Bush uncommonly dangerous, though, is that
>he lies continuously and without conscience. Fortunately, he's not too
>smart -- he doesn't know what to say to co-opt his opponent's supporters.
> He does have advisers, though. His advisers will be coming up with all
>sorts of sneaky tricks before election day. And then there's the tricks
>of the military/industrial complex for us to contend with, up to and
>probably including massive vote fraud next year.
> We're going to need a very strong Democratic candidate with a
>very broad appeal who can deliver a decisive victory that can't be
>stolen. That's got to be someone who at least seems much more mainstream
>and centrist than Dennis Kucinich.
>
>J( *}
And then I say:
Jeremy,
"His honesty makes him vulnerable". Honest usually does. If what you are arguing is that Dean is withholding important information about himself, in order to surprise his opponents later, I'm scratching my head on that one.
I know of a Taoist saying that goes something like this: the beginning holds the seeds to the end. If Dean is ambiguous and equivocal now, he will be then, whenever 'then' is. If Kucinich is blunt and honest now, he will be then. I mean really, are you advocating dishonesty?
I think Dean is making clear is that he is willing to compromise his principals in order to be elected. He is willing to put up with guns everywhere in order to please the NRA. He is willing to put up with a bloated military budget. He is willing to put up with the death penalty. He is willing to put up with the banning of marajuana for medicinal purposes. If Dean isn't choosing to be honest now about his true belliefs, what makes you think he will be honest later?
Personally, I believe it is time for someone who is in your face, confrontational and honest with what he truly believes. I am a little surprised at you defending the classic, political huckster, the charming, snake-like dealer. Clinton was full of charm, and managed to hand over his presidency to his enemies. Yes, he survived impeachment; but his political enemies in the process managed to steal the limelight from the real issues facing this country.
I appreciate Clinton's efforts to whittle down the deficit. He did a good job with that. Honestly, though, the recession seemed unavoidable due to incredible corporate corruption and greed and hyper inflated stock, and lies told the public about the true worth of their stock, all happening in the Clinton administration.
I'm not blaming Clinton, but a pattern was continued that has been going on since practically the birth of this country, that laws are passed to favor the rich and those who want to get richer, and wars are fought to benefit the rich, to put it simply, while the poor are ignored, used and oppressed, and the middle class suckored.
By the way, I wasn't able to read your essay on the Civil War, though I did read your summation of it in one of your emails, I believe, to one of your brothers. I would like to have that essay again, if you don't mind.Your ideas on the Civil War as not necessarily needing to be fought, are thought provoking and insightful. Very Howard Zinnian, as well. I believe we have to take the courage to re-envision and reinterpret our past, in order to better understand present day events.
Howard Zinn, in his book Declarations of Independence, even takes on our justifications for entering WW2. It is interesting reading.
When I read about your essay on the Civil War and Lincoln, when I read Howard Zinn, I get a very similar feeling when I study the positions of Kucinich. He is willing to confront popular notions and beliefs with a candor and bluntness that is incredibly refreshing. He is electrifying and not afraid to turn popularly held notions upside down, such as our commitment to NAFTA and the WTO.
It is also about siphoning through the complexity and the layers of things, to try to find their roots. I believe Kucinich tries hard to do this. Remember the Frontline special that we saw together, that began with a clip of Paula Poundstone entertaining some sort of convention where Clinton as president was attending, along with many CEOs from major, international corporations. She asked, "Who decides who sits next to the president?" I remember the Chiquita Banana ceo was on one side of Clinton. Can't remember who was on the other.
She made a brilliant point, and until the underlying strength of that point is examined openly, we will never take back our democracy from the rich. Dean worries me precisely because he seems so enamored of power, he is willing, like many before him, to compromise parts of himself in order to seem more palatable to the general public. Unfortunately, what winds up happening, the person doing the compromising begins to lose sight of who they really are. I believe that was also one of the underlying issues with the Gore run for the presidency. He was a man of many contradictions, with a wealthy background, and apparently to me, contradictory beliefs.
I am not per se, targeting wealth as "the problem", but I am targeting the laws that allow for the unfair accumulation of wealth, and the shifting of the the tax burden to the middle and working class, to the benefit of the upper tier.
With Kucinich, I have the distinct feeling that what you see is what you get. He wears his heart on his sleave, he's a tireless worker, and his heart is in the right place. He's not afraid of losing, obviously, because otherwise he wouldn't be so upfront about his beliefs. With Dean, there seems to be a real calculation to avoid losing. Consequently, he may wind up losing a part of himself in the process. I see this as a general tendency among most politicians, by the way, not just Dean.
But our politicians reflect fundamental truths about ourselves. Is it that Kucinich is unelectable, or is it that we are unwilling to confront the difficult issues with much needed candor and hard work? Makes life more complex to do that.
Regarding certain points of your argument, what forum would you suggest for Kucinich's letter to Cheney? Tompaine.commonsense seems like a pretty good one given that the media is not likely to print such a letter. Kucinich has been speaking out tirelessly on the issue of faulty intelligence, by the way, whenever possible, in speeches to the general public and before Congress.
Yes, Bush is idealogical and confrontational, and also a pathological liar. He can never give specifics as to the nature or reasons for his beliefs, because he has to keep those secret. Kucinich is not shy about sharing specifics. You say Kucinich doesn't know craftiness or diplomacy, though the two traits seem mutually exclusive. He is a member of the House of Representatives with an excellent reputation. I haven't followed all of the battles and legislation that he is responsible for; I did though, see a very conservative House member defend Kucinich on TV, on one of his stances.
I really confused on this: "We need a candidate who is tough in a loving, charming, intelligent and deceptively diplomatic way. He needs to sucker these brutes, flatter their egos and pull the rug out from under them when they relax."
Why do we need to charm them? What we need to do is expose them, their lies and corruption. Daschle and Gephardt and Kerry and all the rest tried to play the game their way, and we wound embroiled in a war that is a humanitarian disaster.
Please don't forget to send me your civil war essay. As always, I enjoy the exchange,
Betsy
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:33 AM |
Saturday, July 26, 2003
Get out the vote.
More correspondence with Charlton, a Dean supporter, regarding how to reach out to uninvolved voters, and in particular, uninvolved minority voters. An African American activist in the Kansas area responds as well:
Right on, Elizabeth! (From Charlton)
As you indicate, New Orleans and LA rural are
different from Kansas City MO (where we are), rural
Missouri, St. Louis, and the state of Kansas. The
eastern tier of KS counties is basically in the
hinterland of KC MO and Wichita KS. The area west of
Manhattan KS or Salina to the CO line is wheat, gas,
some oil, and very few peple, all of them
Repulblican.
But Caucasians going to Black and Hispanic
neighborhoods -- probably not too effective, or even
counter-productive, in many places. Likewise, in
some places Black and Hispanic middle
class/professionals going to blue collar folks not
too effective. And reaching these folks by computer
is a non-starter, as you point out.
There must be a best way to proceed in each
locality. All we have to do is figure it out.
My reply:
charlton,
You are right, concerning the lack of access to
certain parts of the city. But there are meeting
places for all races here, certain store fronts,
churches, that could be utilized. It is sad that we
are even talking about this. Unwittingly, we have
demonstrated how much work there is to do in our own
country. I mean, it really is all about the economic
gap, isn't it? Also, I wouldn't take for granted
that republicans are up to supporting Bush again.
Check out Kucinich's platform regarding corporate
welfare for big farms, at the expense of little
farms. Sometimes people don't even realize, or find
it hard to believe that there are alternatives to
the way things are currently being done.
I think it is up to us to find ways to get
minorities involved in our campaigns. Sometimes just
asking for help, you'll be surprised at the
response. People need to feel needed, and
appreciated. Again, though, I'm hoping it won't be
'we need your vote, then we forget about you, after
this election'. Grass roots efforts on many issues
will need to continue, if we are going to really
change the face of democracy, and take it back from
the rich.
Talking about all of this is helping me to reaffirm
my own commitment to certain goals. Thanks for the
feedback.
elizabeth
Then Charlton responded with a response included from A. , an African American inner-city property developer in Kansas, and, well, here it is:
Elizabeth -- A. is a black residential property developer and
consultant in the KC inner city market. C.is a lawyer with a
large firm here, and an activitst in the loca Dean campaign. I had forwarded
to them your very useful comments.
These kinds of connections are why it makes sense to put one's e-mail
address, from time to time, on posts in DailyKos! Am I right?
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Fw: Re:our contact via
> She is correct: the racial reconciliation road before
> stretches more defiantly than the road behind. Soon,
> classism will be the new racism. It will have the same
> divisive effects of racism, and that divide will
> continue to exist largely along ethnic lines.
> Classism, however, will be much more difficult to
> combat than racism because it is legal.
>
Right on, Elizabeth! (From Charlton)
As you indicate, New Orleans and LA rural are
different from Kansas City MO (where we are), rural
Missouri, St. Louis, and the state of Kansas. The
eastern tier of KS counties is basically in the
hinterland of KC MO and Wichita KS. The area west of
Manhattan KS or Salina to the CO line is wheat, gas,
some oil, and very few peple, all of them
Repulblican.
But Caucasians going to Black and Hispanic
neighborhoods -- probably not too effective, or even
counter-productive, in many places. Likewise, in
some places Black and Hispanic middle
class/professionals going to blue collar folks not
too effective. And reaching these folks by computer
is a non-starter, as you point out.
There must be a best way to proceed in each
locality. All we have to do is figure it out.
My reply:
charlton,
You are right, concerning the lack of access to
certain parts of the city. But there are meeting
places for all races here, certain store fronts,
churches, that could be utilized. It is sad that we
are even talking about this. Unwittingly, we have
demonstrated how much work there is to do in our own
country. I mean, it really is all about the economic
gap, isn't it? Also, I wouldn't take for granted
that republicans are up to supporting Bush again.
Check out Kucinich's platform regarding corporate
welfare for big farms, at the expense of little
farms. Sometimes people don't even realize, or find
it hard to believe that there are alternatives to
the way things are currently being done.
I think it is up to us to find ways to get
minorities involved in our campaigns. Sometimes just
asking for help, you'll be surprised at the
response. People need to feel needed, and
appreciated. Again, though, I'm hoping it won't be
'we need your vote, then we forget about you, after
this election'. Grass roots efforts on many issues
will need to continue, if we are going to really
change the face of democracy, and take it back from
the rich.
Talking about all of this is helping me to reaffirm
my own commitment to certain goals. Thanks for the
feedback.
elizabeth
Then Charlton responded with a response included from A. , an African American inner-city property developer in Kansas, and, well, here it is:
Elizabeth -- A. is a black residential property developer and
consultant in the KC inner city market. C.is a lawyer with a
large firm here, and an activitst in the loca Dean campaign. I had forwarded
to them your very useful comments.
These kinds of connections are why it makes sense to put one's e-mail
address, from time to time, on posts in DailyKos! Am I right?
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Fw: Re:our contact via
> She is correct: the racial reconciliation road before
> stretches more defiantly than the road behind. Soon,
> classism will be the new racism. It will have the same
> divisive effects of racism, and that divide will
> continue to exist largely along ethnic lines.
> Classism, however, will be much more difficult to
> combat than racism because it is legal.
>
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:01 AM |
Friday, July 25, 2003
More on the psychology of fascism.
I participated in a rather frustrating exchange with a right-wing fascist today on the Daily Kos commentary. Whew, it is important to know how these people think, which I blogged on a little before I visited Daily Kos today, concidentally. Also, An Unenviable Situation has some excellent comments on the psychology of fascism (on Tuesday, July 22, although he is always a good read). I had this brief exchange with a Daily Kos supporter.
> >Elizabeth...Most of us here in DailyKos are with you. I am guessing you are a Dean-er, too, because none of the other wannabes are proposing programs and policies that are alternatives to the current regime. They only protest and condemn -- rightly so -- the actions and inactions of the current regime.
> >
> > Somehow,we have to find ways to concentrate on the Alternatives -- what are we going to do to get rid of these people who are stealing the country? And then, what needs to be done to correct the damage that is being done to us daily?
My reply:
charlton,
Actually, I support Kucinich for president, as his beliefs most closely resemble my own regarding many issues. I will however, vote for Dean, if he is the party nomination. In fact, I would be willing to support Kerry and Gephardt, Edwards...you get my drift. The most important goal is regime change, here at home. Thank you for your support. I thought it was very helpfull for Sally Jennings to comment today. We really do need to see and understand how these people think, although I honestly believe she is a minority in this country. Through deception, her kind have gained the upper hand. Most people, like my own sisters, simply don't take the time to think about the issues, and have their heads buried in the sands. They are most prone to be influenced by sound bites. I am struggling to find a way to reach these kinds of people, rather than the Sally Jennings, who are probably lost to us and may never change.
elizabeth,
Reaching for the Uninvolved is a smart move.
>
>The Dean campaign, for example, is mounting a massive registration drive on college campuses. How these people finally vote, as long as it's not for Dubya (aka to me as Boy George) doesn't really matter. Dr. Dean will be able to make the strongest case that he should be the nominee. He's going to do very well in the early primaries, especially in Iowa and New England, much better than the "conventional wisdom" (i.e. the media) is yet prepared to admit.
>
>Another large contingent of the Univolved is in the Darker Nations, black and brown. Any ideas about how to reach into these groups? This may differ in different parts of the country. I am in the Kansas City area. Here we are in many ways an older-type Southern city. Less progressive than e.g. Atlanta or Raleigh-Durham, in my opinion. No legal segregation, but strickly demarcated Black and Hispanic enclaves. Where are you located, Elizabeth?
>
>Though you are for Kucinich now, I appreciate your openness to backing another eventually.
>
>. Please look at www.deanforamerica.com to see what Dr. Dean is saying and doing.
My reply:
charlton,
I suppose the only way to reach to the brown and dark skins is to find a way to go into the neighborhoods and reach. In my state of Louisiana, the democratic party is sponsoring voter registration drives beginning in August. It is my belief that we can deliver the state of Louisiana to the democratic party in 2004. I hope to organize supporters from the campaigns of all of the democratic candidates here in New Orleans and hold registration drives in various neighborhoods where we can reach the most people. It is especially imperative to reach out to minorities, because many don't have the internet access that we do, hence, face- to- face reach-outs are vitally important.
The concept of reach-outs can be difficult in communities where the dividing line between black and white is strict. Here in New Orleans, while neighborhoods can be black or white, we have many mixed neighborhoods as well, although a short drive outside of the city and I'm sure the state would begin to look more like Kansas. I suggest recruiting black and white volunteers for these efforts.
Also, can a personal commitment be made to reach out to minority voters after the election? Is it get their vote now and forget about them later? We have to find ways to continue to reach out to each other beyond this election. In my view, this election is about changing the way that we conduct democracy in this country. We must find a way to participate directly in the practice of democracy, and encourage others to do so, as a counter to the fascists who would force their will upon us. And we know what that 'will' means: the looting of our treasury, the oppression of the working poor and middle classes, and war for the sake of power and profit.
What about the churches in your area, including churches with minority members as a majority? Perhaps they would be interested in co-sponsoring voter registration drives in their neighborhoods, at their churches? The churches here that have agreed to participate in the democratic party sponsored drives do not want campaign literature handed out. That doesn't mean though, that volunteers still aren't needed, or that drives can't be held in other venues where campaign literature could be available. We are limited only by the extent of our imagination. Good luck with this. Let's get out the vote.
> >Elizabeth...Most of us here in DailyKos are with you. I am guessing you are a Dean-er, too, because none of the other wannabes are proposing programs and policies that are alternatives to the current regime. They only protest and condemn -- rightly so -- the actions and inactions of the current regime.
> >
> > Somehow,we have to find ways to concentrate on the Alternatives -- what are we going to do to get rid of these people who are stealing the country? And then, what needs to be done to correct the damage that is being done to us daily?
My reply:
charlton,
Actually, I support Kucinich for president, as his beliefs most closely resemble my own regarding many issues. I will however, vote for Dean, if he is the party nomination. In fact, I would be willing to support Kerry and Gephardt, Edwards...you get my drift. The most important goal is regime change, here at home. Thank you for your support. I thought it was very helpfull for Sally Jennings to comment today. We really do need to see and understand how these people think, although I honestly believe she is a minority in this country. Through deception, her kind have gained the upper hand. Most people, like my own sisters, simply don't take the time to think about the issues, and have their heads buried in the sands. They are most prone to be influenced by sound bites. I am struggling to find a way to reach these kinds of people, rather than the Sally Jennings, who are probably lost to us and may never change.
elizabeth,
Reaching for the Uninvolved is a smart move.
>
>The Dean campaign, for example, is mounting a massive registration drive on college campuses. How these people finally vote, as long as it's not for Dubya (aka to me as Boy George) doesn't really matter. Dr. Dean will be able to make the strongest case that he should be the nominee. He's going to do very well in the early primaries, especially in Iowa and New England, much better than the "conventional wisdom" (i.e. the media) is yet prepared to admit.
>
>Another large contingent of the Univolved is in the Darker Nations, black and brown. Any ideas about how to reach into these groups? This may differ in different parts of the country. I am in the Kansas City area. Here we are in many ways an older-type Southern city. Less progressive than e.g. Atlanta or Raleigh-Durham, in my opinion. No legal segregation, but strickly demarcated Black and Hispanic enclaves. Where are you located, Elizabeth?
>
>Though you are for Kucinich now, I appreciate your openness to backing another eventually.
>
>. Please look at www.deanforamerica.com to see what Dr. Dean is saying and doing.
My reply:
charlton,
I suppose the only way to reach to the brown and dark skins is to find a way to go into the neighborhoods and reach. In my state of Louisiana, the democratic party is sponsoring voter registration drives beginning in August. It is my belief that we can deliver the state of Louisiana to the democratic party in 2004. I hope to organize supporters from the campaigns of all of the democratic candidates here in New Orleans and hold registration drives in various neighborhoods where we can reach the most people. It is especially imperative to reach out to minorities, because many don't have the internet access that we do, hence, face- to- face reach-outs are vitally important.
The concept of reach-outs can be difficult in communities where the dividing line between black and white is strict. Here in New Orleans, while neighborhoods can be black or white, we have many mixed neighborhoods as well, although a short drive outside of the city and I'm sure the state would begin to look more like Kansas. I suggest recruiting black and white volunteers for these efforts.
Also, can a personal commitment be made to reach out to minority voters after the election? Is it get their vote now and forget about them later? We have to find ways to continue to reach out to each other beyond this election. In my view, this election is about changing the way that we conduct democracy in this country. We must find a way to participate directly in the practice of democracy, and encourage others to do so, as a counter to the fascists who would force their will upon us. And we know what that 'will' means: the looting of our treasury, the oppression of the working poor and middle classes, and war for the sake of power and profit.
What about the churches in your area, including churches with minority members as a majority? Perhaps they would be interested in co-sponsoring voter registration drives in their neighborhoods, at their churches? The churches here that have agreed to participate in the democratic party sponsored drives do not want campaign literature handed out. That doesn't mean though, that volunteers still aren't needed, or that drives can't be held in other venues where campaign literature could be available. We are limited only by the extent of our imagination. Good luck with this. Let's get out the vote.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:29 AM |
The entitlements of the rich.
I've been on vacation for the last several days in beautiful, laid-back Arkansas. Arkansas is the best-kept secret this side of the Rocky Mountains.
I've kept up by watching (ugh) the network news and C-Spann. Ummm, I understand several pages were deleted from the 9/11 report pertaining to Saudi Arabia.
I have an internet exercise suggestion for everyone. Do a search on the Bush family+Saudi connections. I came up with over 20,000 answers.
My mothers believes that the press isn't onto the story of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family connection because of their "blue" blood. The press doesn't pick on aristocrats. But people like the Clintons, who pulled themselves up from their boot straps, are instant targets. I don't know about this philosophy, as Gore is blue blood, and they sure picked on him.
Somehow, the press more closely identifies with the Bushies, and with the Bushies' rather simplistic view of life. Good versus evil, it's either black or white. The complexity underlying most issues, foreign and domestic, is simply ignored or not even seen or acknowledged. The fundamentalist view of the world has invaded our approach to solving issues on every level. Wether religious or not, most government and media takes a one-way approach to issues: and you are either wrong or you are right.
Usually, you are right if you are for hands-off capitalism. You are wrong if you want to limit the ability to make profits, and you are wrong if you want to help the less fortunate, because they ought to be helping themselves.
I am generalizing to a great extent, but in my view, the people in charge of American interests, wether economic or political, think like children. I don't know, maybe some children are capable of greater complexity in thinking. Everything seems to be based on a 'I want this, and you can't stop me from having it, or getting it'. Talk about entitlements. Its the ultimate, selfish form of capitalism, and a form that we as a nation have been practicing almost since the birth of our country. What is different now, is the stakes are so much higher, world war and everything.
And those are my thoughts, on two cups of coffee and a good night's sleep.
I've kept up by watching (ugh) the network news and C-Spann. Ummm, I understand several pages were deleted from the 9/11 report pertaining to Saudi Arabia.
I have an internet exercise suggestion for everyone. Do a search on the Bush family+Saudi connections. I came up with over 20,000 answers.
My mothers believes that the press isn't onto the story of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family connection because of their "blue" blood. The press doesn't pick on aristocrats. But people like the Clintons, who pulled themselves up from their boot straps, are instant targets. I don't know about this philosophy, as Gore is blue blood, and they sure picked on him.
Somehow, the press more closely identifies with the Bushies, and with the Bushies' rather simplistic view of life. Good versus evil, it's either black or white. The complexity underlying most issues, foreign and domestic, is simply ignored or not even seen or acknowledged. The fundamentalist view of the world has invaded our approach to solving issues on every level. Wether religious or not, most government and media takes a one-way approach to issues: and you are either wrong or you are right.
Usually, you are right if you are for hands-off capitalism. You are wrong if you want to limit the ability to make profits, and you are wrong if you want to help the less fortunate, because they ought to be helping themselves.
I am generalizing to a great extent, but in my view, the people in charge of American interests, wether economic or political, think like children. I don't know, maybe some children are capable of greater complexity in thinking. Everything seems to be based on a 'I want this, and you can't stop me from having it, or getting it'. Talk about entitlements. Its the ultimate, selfish form of capitalism, and a form that we as a nation have been practicing almost since the birth of our country. What is different now, is the stakes are so much higher, world war and everything.
And those are my thoughts, on two cups of coffee and a good night's sleep.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:38 AM |
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Rape and the silence about it in Baghdad.
There has been much focus on the suffering of the American soldiers in Iraq. There is untold misery we have brought to the Iraqi people that deserves its place in present day memory, lest we forget, besides the misery of the soldiers, why we don't want war no more. From the New York Times, day before yesterday:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 15 — In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She cries, "Let me go!"
"I am afraid of the gangsters," Sanariya whispered in the twilight of her hallway. "I feel like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have these nightmares."
Since the end of the war and the outbreak of anarchy on the capital's streets, women here have grown increasingly afraid of being abducted and raped. Rumors swirl, especially in a country where rape is so rarely reported.
The breakdown of the Iraqi government after the war makes any crime hard to quantify.
But the incidence of rape and abduction in particular seems to have increased, according to discussions with physicians, law-enforcement officials and families involved.
A new report by Human Rights Watch based on more than 70 interviews with law-enforcement officials, victims and their families, medical personnel and members of the coalition authority found 25 credible reports of abduction and sexual violence since the war. Baghdadis believe there are far more, and fear is limiting women's role in the capital's economic, social and political life just as Iraq tries to rise from the ashes, the report notes.
For most Iraqi victims of abduction and rape, getting medical and police assistance is a humiliating process. Deeply traditional notions of honor foster a sense of shame so strong that many families offer no consolation or support for victims, only blame.
Sanariya's four brothers and parents beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after they returned from an abduction — even, in some cases, when they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.
"For a woman's family, all this is worse than death," said Dr. Khulud Younis, a gynecologist at the Alwiyah Women's Hospital. "They will face shame. If a woman has a sister, her future will be gone. These women don't deserve to be treated like this."
It is not uncommon in Baghdad to see lines of cars outside girls' schools. So fearful are parents that their daughters will be taken away that they refuse to simply drop them off; they or a relative will stay outside all day to make sure nothing happens.
"Women and girls today in Baghdad are scared, and many are not going to schools or jobs or looking for work," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "If Iraqi women are to participate in postwar society, their physical security needs to be an urgent priority."
Beyda Jafar Sadiq, 17, made the simple decision to go to school on the morning of May 22 and never returned. Her family has been looking for her ever since. They have appealed to every international nongovernmental organization, the Iraqi police and the American authorities. Her eldest brother, Feras, 29, has crisscrossed the country, visiting the morgue in Basra in the south, traveling to Amara and Nasiriya on reports from acquaintances that they saw a girl who looked like Beyda.
"I just want to find her," said Beyda's mother, Zakiya Abd, her eyes swollen with grief. "Whether she's alive or dead, I just want to find her."
Some police in Baghdad concede that at this point, there is little they can do to help. Their precinct houses were thoroughly looted after the war. Despite promises from the American authorities, Baghdad police still lack uniforms, weapons, communications and computer equipment and patrol cars.
"We used to patrol all the time before the war," said a senior officer at the Aadimiya precinct house. "Now, nothing, and the criminals realize there is no security on the streets."
"BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 15 — In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She cries, "Let me go!"
"I am afraid of the gangsters," Sanariya whispered in the twilight of her hallway. "I feel like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have these nightmares."
Since the end of the war and the outbreak of anarchy on the capital's streets, women here have grown increasingly afraid of being abducted and raped. Rumors swirl, especially in a country where rape is so rarely reported.
The breakdown of the Iraqi government after the war makes any crime hard to quantify.
But the incidence of rape and abduction in particular seems to have increased, according to discussions with physicians, law-enforcement officials and families involved.
A new report by Human Rights Watch based on more than 70 interviews with law-enforcement officials, victims and their families, medical personnel and members of the coalition authority found 25 credible reports of abduction and sexual violence since the war. Baghdadis believe there are far more, and fear is limiting women's role in the capital's economic, social and political life just as Iraq tries to rise from the ashes, the report notes.
For most Iraqi victims of abduction and rape, getting medical and police assistance is a humiliating process. Deeply traditional notions of honor foster a sense of shame so strong that many families offer no consolation or support for victims, only blame.
Sanariya's four brothers and parents beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after they returned from an abduction — even, in some cases, when they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.
"For a woman's family, all this is worse than death," said Dr. Khulud Younis, a gynecologist at the Alwiyah Women's Hospital. "They will face shame. If a woman has a sister, her future will be gone. These women don't deserve to be treated like this."
It is not uncommon in Baghdad to see lines of cars outside girls' schools. So fearful are parents that their daughters will be taken away that they refuse to simply drop them off; they or a relative will stay outside all day to make sure nothing happens.
"Women and girls today in Baghdad are scared, and many are not going to schools or jobs or looking for work," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "If Iraqi women are to participate in postwar society, their physical security needs to be an urgent priority."
Beyda Jafar Sadiq, 17, made the simple decision to go to school on the morning of May 22 and never returned. Her family has been looking for her ever since. They have appealed to every international nongovernmental organization, the Iraqi police and the American authorities. Her eldest brother, Feras, 29, has crisscrossed the country, visiting the morgue in Basra in the south, traveling to Amara and Nasiriya on reports from acquaintances that they saw a girl who looked like Beyda.
"I just want to find her," said Beyda's mother, Zakiya Abd, her eyes swollen with grief. "Whether she's alive or dead, I just want to find her."
Some police in Baghdad concede that at this point, there is little they can do to help. Their precinct houses were thoroughly looted after the war. Despite promises from the American authorities, Baghdad police still lack uniforms, weapons, communications and computer equipment and patrol cars.
"We used to patrol all the time before the war," said a senior officer at the Aadimiya precinct house. "Now, nothing, and the criminals realize there is no security on the streets."
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:37 PM |
I take another swing.
This is correspondence I am having with another Kucinich supporter, named diamondsoul, regarding Chris Matthews, Dennis Kucinich, and Matthews' comment regarding gay groups. I've included my most recent email to Chris Matthews. Here is the transcript of that show.
diamondsoul,
I think you raised a very good point, and I think this whole flap between Kucinich and Matthews inadvertently left the ball in the anti-abortion court. With what I consider to be illegal detentions, in this country, Guatanamo Bay and now Iraq, and the passage of the Patriot Act, just how would this ban on abortion be enforced?
This is how the Human Life Amendment reads:
"The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from
the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of
dependency."
Most of the literature I am reading on it suggests it would be left to the states to enforce this. In today's climate, I wouldn't put it past some law
enforcement agency wanting to put women in jail for having abortions. As you said, let's hope this never comes to pass.
Here is another letter I wrote to Matthews today, outlining his remark concerning gays. Keep up the good fight!
Chris Matthews,
I still have not received a response regarding the statement below that you made, outlined in black:
Kweise Mfume was referring to two other no-shows. Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry meanwhile spoke today to another liberal special interest group, the gay rights human rights campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No conservative Republican would run up the deficits the way they are. No conservative Republican would, in fact, allow the line between church and state to be crossed the way they are. No conservative Republican would allow his attorney general to trample on civil rights the way this one has. I believe that they are extreme.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: I don’t know what he is talking about in front of a gay group.
You seem to be suggesting that the "gay rights human rights campaign", is extreme. You did not explain your views. Are you suggesting that human rights for gays is extreme, or an extreme issue? Or are you suggesting that gay groups are extreme? I believe that the comment and the view behind it are worthy of an explanation.
elizabeth cook
diamondsoul,
I think you raised a very good point, and I think this whole flap between Kucinich and Matthews inadvertently left the ball in the anti-abortion court. With what I consider to be illegal detentions, in this country, Guatanamo Bay and now Iraq, and the passage of the Patriot Act, just how would this ban on abortion be enforced?
This is how the Human Life Amendment reads:
"The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from
the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of
dependency."
Most of the literature I am reading on it suggests it would be left to the states to enforce this. In today's climate, I wouldn't put it past some law
enforcement agency wanting to put women in jail for having abortions. As you said, let's hope this never comes to pass.
Here is another letter I wrote to Matthews today, outlining his remark concerning gays. Keep up the good fight!
Chris Matthews,
I still have not received a response regarding the statement below that you made, outlined in black:
Kweise Mfume was referring to two other no-shows. Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry meanwhile spoke today to another liberal special interest group, the gay rights human rights campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No conservative Republican would run up the deficits the way they are. No conservative Republican would, in fact, allow the line between church and state to be crossed the way they are. No conservative Republican would allow his attorney general to trample on civil rights the way this one has. I believe that they are extreme.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: I don’t know what he is talking about in front of a gay group.
You seem to be suggesting that the "gay rights human rights campaign", is extreme. You did not explain your views. Are you suggesting that human rights for gays is extreme, or an extreme issue? Or are you suggesting that gay groups are extreme? I believe that the comment and the view behind it are worthy of an explanation.
elizabeth cook
# posted by scorpiorising : 12:09 PM |
Playing hardball with Chris Matthews.
My ongoing love-affair with Chris Matthews of Hardball fame continues. Last night he interviewed Representative Chris Smith concerning his proposed constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion, and Dennis Kucinich's name came up again. Here is my email to Chris Matthews that I wrote today:
Chris Matthews,
Yesterday I wrote to you expressing disgust for your attack on Dennis Kucinich. I and he were wrong concerning the supposed arrest of women for having illegal abortions. Apparently, Dennis was wrong concerning the intentions of Representative Chris Smith, and in a search on the net, I could find no evidence that women were jailed for having illegal abortions. However, there are ample horror stories of women dying from back-alley abortions, which is why this issue is so emotional for women. We want control over our own bodies.
It is interesting the obvious contempt with which you held Mr. Kucinich. Obviously, Kucinich did not get his facts straight concerning the intent of the proposed amendment to ban abortions. It is also interesting than neither you nor I knew wether women were arrested for having abortions when they were illegal. It appears we all three need to do our homework on this issue.
Granted, Dennis Kucinich has much to lose right now in verbal gaffes such as the one he made. But I don't believe, and I don't think that you believe, that he purposefully lied. I do believe that he feels so emotional about the issue, as I do, that his mouth moved before his brain did, as mine did when I wrote the email to you, and stated women had been jailed. We didn't check our facts first.
It reminds me of the time recently when you stated the democratic candidates attacks on President Bush as "political", regarding Bush's statement, 'Bring 'em on'. Your reaction was emotional. They're just out to get him. You didn't stop to think that his statement might actually endanger the troops, and is also extremely insensitive to the dangers they face on a daily basis. You were corrected by the two people you were interviewing on the subject. One of them was Howard Fineman, I believe.
If you want to talk about lying, then I would love to see you dress down some of the administration officials who ,apparently now, lied to bring this country into a war where thousands of Iraqis have died, and American soldiers are dying every day. A constitutional crisis of international proportions? You betcha.
Lets get to work.
elizabeth cook
Chris Matthews,
Yesterday I wrote to you expressing disgust for your attack on Dennis Kucinich. I and he were wrong concerning the supposed arrest of women for having illegal abortions. Apparently, Dennis was wrong concerning the intentions of Representative Chris Smith, and in a search on the net, I could find no evidence that women were jailed for having illegal abortions. However, there are ample horror stories of women dying from back-alley abortions, which is why this issue is so emotional for women. We want control over our own bodies.
It is interesting the obvious contempt with which you held Mr. Kucinich. Obviously, Kucinich did not get his facts straight concerning the intent of the proposed amendment to ban abortions. It is also interesting than neither you nor I knew wether women were arrested for having abortions when they were illegal. It appears we all three need to do our homework on this issue.
Granted, Dennis Kucinich has much to lose right now in verbal gaffes such as the one he made. But I don't believe, and I don't think that you believe, that he purposefully lied. I do believe that he feels so emotional about the issue, as I do, that his mouth moved before his brain did, as mine did when I wrote the email to you, and stated women had been jailed. We didn't check our facts first.
It reminds me of the time recently when you stated the democratic candidates attacks on President Bush as "political", regarding Bush's statement, 'Bring 'em on'. Your reaction was emotional. They're just out to get him. You didn't stop to think that his statement might actually endanger the troops, and is also extremely insensitive to the dangers they face on a daily basis. You were corrected by the two people you were interviewing on the subject. One of them was Howard Fineman, I believe.
If you want to talk about lying, then I would love to see you dress down some of the administration officials who ,apparently now, lied to bring this country into a war where thousands of Iraqis have died, and American soldiers are dying every day. A constitutional crisis of international proportions? You betcha.
Lets get to work.
elizabeth cook
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:36 AM |
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Winning enemies and losing friends.
This article was originally posted by Eschaton. The extent of the debacle in Iraq is being furthered by an obviously exhausted and demoralised army that has been given an impossible job.
Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures approaching 50C (122F).
On the edge of Baghdad International Airport, US military commanders have built a tent city that human rights groups are comparing to the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Remarkably, the Americans have also set up another detention camp in the grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad. Many thousands of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again.
Every day, relatives scuff their way along the dirt track to reach the razor wire barricades surrounding Abu Ghraib, where they plead in vain for information about the whereabouts of the missing.
The response from impassive American sentries is to point to a sign, scrawled in red felt-tip pen on a piece of cardboard hanging on the barbed wire, which says: “No visits are allowed, no information will be given and you must leave.”
Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures approaching 50C (122F).
On the edge of Baghdad International Airport, US military commanders have built a tent city that human rights groups are comparing to the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Remarkably, the Americans have also set up another detention camp in the grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad. Many thousands of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again.
Every day, relatives scuff their way along the dirt track to reach the razor wire barricades surrounding Abu Ghraib, where they plead in vain for information about the whereabouts of the missing.
The response from impassive American sentries is to point to a sign, scrawled in red felt-tip pen on a piece of cardboard hanging on the barbed wire, which says: “No visits are allowed, no information will be given and you must leave.”
# posted by scorpiorising : 10:00 AM |
I wonder if I'm becoming a bit unglued. Last night I dreamt that a good friend said I had begun to take off my clothes in public. I suppose there is nothing more revealing, than shedding your outer skin. If I am exposing the deeper layers in public, so be it. Here is why I am so damn mad at Chris Matthews from Hardball and MSNBC:
Chris Matthews,
Yesterday, you showed a tape of John Kerry speaking before a gay audience. Kerry accused the Bush administration of being extreme, rather than conservative. After the tape played, you muttered "look who's extreme". You seemed to be referring to the gay audience that Kerry was addressing. You sir, you are the extreme. As a gay person and a citizen of this country, I am deeply offended by your remark. Is this kind of remark very far off from the remarks by recently fired Mike Savage? I think not. It seems to reflect the basic editorial policy of your network, to bash minority groups for the sake of the largely white, male audience that watches MSNBC.
As a democrat, I have noticed that you seem to have little respect for the views of the democratic candidates running for office. You and your network make a mockery of the concept of journalism as I studied it in school. I wonder if you and your corporate owners are thinking from your pocketbooks?
In the buildup to war, this network along with the other major networks, waved the flag and unquestioningly supported the war effort. We and the soldiers and the Iraqi people are now paying the price, and will be for a long time. In my view, the major television news networks bare some responsibility for this war.
Elizabeth Cook
and
Chris Matthews,
I just saw the tape of your interview with Dennis Kucinich, and then your phone interview with Imus in the morning. I think you damn well knew what Kucinich was trying to say. He made the logical extension, that if abortions are again criminalized, then the women who have them and the doctors who give them may go to jail. When abortion was illegal in this country, women did go to jail for having them, and doctors went to jail for giving them. If there are members of Congress who want to criminalize abortion, then isn't it logical to assume that they want to see women who have abortions, and doctors who give them, jailed? How do you respond to this?
Chris Matthews,
Yesterday, you showed a tape of John Kerry speaking before a gay audience. Kerry accused the Bush administration of being extreme, rather than conservative. After the tape played, you muttered "look who's extreme". You seemed to be referring to the gay audience that Kerry was addressing. You sir, you are the extreme. As a gay person and a citizen of this country, I am deeply offended by your remark. Is this kind of remark very far off from the remarks by recently fired Mike Savage? I think not. It seems to reflect the basic editorial policy of your network, to bash minority groups for the sake of the largely white, male audience that watches MSNBC.
As a democrat, I have noticed that you seem to have little respect for the views of the democratic candidates running for office. You and your network make a mockery of the concept of journalism as I studied it in school. I wonder if you and your corporate owners are thinking from your pocketbooks?
In the buildup to war, this network along with the other major networks, waved the flag and unquestioningly supported the war effort. We and the soldiers and the Iraqi people are now paying the price, and will be for a long time. In my view, the major television news networks bare some responsibility for this war.
Elizabeth Cook
and
Chris Matthews,
I just saw the tape of your interview with Dennis Kucinich, and then your phone interview with Imus in the morning. I think you damn well knew what Kucinich was trying to say. He made the logical extension, that if abortions are again criminalized, then the women who have them and the doctors who give them may go to jail. When abortion was illegal in this country, women did go to jail for having them, and doctors went to jail for giving them. If there are members of Congress who want to criminalize abortion, then isn't it logical to assume that they want to see women who have abortions, and doctors who give them, jailed? How do you respond to this?
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:45 AM |
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Letter to a friend.
This is a letter I just posted to a friend. There seems to be a theme for today that I keep bumping heads with, as to what constitutes a true democracy:
Jeremy,
Chris's thoughts on the demos and republicans, comparing the two and seeing little difference, strikes a resonant chord in me. We have a chairman of the democratic party, Terry McAuliffe, who made thousands from what appears to be insider trading in relation to his stock holdings in Global Crossing. We have John Breaux and Tom Daschle with relatives lobbying Congress for influence; I'm sure there are other examples of this too numerous to mention, on both aisles.
There are still some good guys though. There is Dennis Kucinich who kept Cleveland's energy company out of the hands of private investors, and therefore, kept rates down, when he was mayor. Now he is running for the presidency supporting issues based solely, it seems, on his true beliefs. There is Howard Dean, who appears beholden to no one and nothing but his own belief in himself, and his desire to be elected. I say that as a compliment, though I don't believe in all of his views, some of which he seems to have tailored in order to gain more support. He is blunt and outspoken and we need this right now.
But there are good guys on the republican side as well. Senator Chuck Hagel is calling for an independent inquiry into the intelligence mess. People have the capacity for change at any given moment, and I think we will see more and more small heroic stands taken as people find their collective voices again. It is as though the public is waking from a deep sleep as they see their well-being, and their democracy, further slipping away from them.
The internet has immerged as an integral tool in the creation of what may be the next revolution of our country, which would be true democracy: rule by the people, and not by the rich few.
We have a lot of work to do. Getting rid of Bush is the first step, as he has created a dangerous precendent in his belief in preemptive war. But what will come afterwards will prove crucial as well, if we really want to create a democracy in this country.
I've been reading Howard Zinn's Declarations of Independence. He points out that there was a strong socialist movement in this country until WW1 and the crackdown on dissent snuffed it out. Now, some of the socialist ideas, including universal health care and public financing of campaigns, have become mainsteam issues, and in no small measure due to the power of the internet.
I wonder if Chris would agree that money has corrupted our political process, on both sides of the aisle? Yes, Clinton was able to reduce the deficit, but corporate corruption thrived right under our noses and blew-up and into the open during the stock market dive when Bush took over. None of this started recently. Munitions manufacturers were a deciding factor in dragging this reluctant country into WW1. The enrichment of all the Pesident's men, through Halliburton, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, is occuring while people are dying in Iraq. Democrats and republicans flock to profitable investment and lobbying groups when they leave office.
Chris, as we all do, possesses understandable cynicism towards our government. What he and all of us need to realize, is we are the government, and we don't have to stand for this. We are the government. We are the media. Until these statements become an actuality, we are fighting an uphill battle.
Betsy
Jeremy,
Chris's thoughts on the demos and republicans, comparing the two and seeing little difference, strikes a resonant chord in me. We have a chairman of the democratic party, Terry McAuliffe, who made thousands from what appears to be insider trading in relation to his stock holdings in Global Crossing. We have John Breaux and Tom Daschle with relatives lobbying Congress for influence; I'm sure there are other examples of this too numerous to mention, on both aisles.
There are still some good guys though. There is Dennis Kucinich who kept Cleveland's energy company out of the hands of private investors, and therefore, kept rates down, when he was mayor. Now he is running for the presidency supporting issues based solely, it seems, on his true beliefs. There is Howard Dean, who appears beholden to no one and nothing but his own belief in himself, and his desire to be elected. I say that as a compliment, though I don't believe in all of his views, some of which he seems to have tailored in order to gain more support. He is blunt and outspoken and we need this right now.
But there are good guys on the republican side as well. Senator Chuck Hagel is calling for an independent inquiry into the intelligence mess. People have the capacity for change at any given moment, and I think we will see more and more small heroic stands taken as people find their collective voices again. It is as though the public is waking from a deep sleep as they see their well-being, and their democracy, further slipping away from them.
The internet has immerged as an integral tool in the creation of what may be the next revolution of our country, which would be true democracy: rule by the people, and not by the rich few.
We have a lot of work to do. Getting rid of Bush is the first step, as he has created a dangerous precendent in his belief in preemptive war. But what will come afterwards will prove crucial as well, if we really want to create a democracy in this country.
I've been reading Howard Zinn's Declarations of Independence. He points out that there was a strong socialist movement in this country until WW1 and the crackdown on dissent snuffed it out. Now, some of the socialist ideas, including universal health care and public financing of campaigns, have become mainsteam issues, and in no small measure due to the power of the internet.
I wonder if Chris would agree that money has corrupted our political process, on both sides of the aisle? Yes, Clinton was able to reduce the deficit, but corporate corruption thrived right under our noses and blew-up and into the open during the stock market dive when Bush took over. None of this started recently. Munitions manufacturers were a deciding factor in dragging this reluctant country into WW1. The enrichment of all the Pesident's men, through Halliburton, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, is occuring while people are dying in Iraq. Democrats and republicans flock to profitable investment and lobbying groups when they leave office.
Chris, as we all do, possesses understandable cynicism towards our government. What he and all of us need to realize, is we are the government, and we don't have to stand for this. We are the government. We are the media. Until these statements become an actuality, we are fighting an uphill battle.
Betsy
# posted by scorpiorising : 8:39 AM |
All the president's spin.
What a roller coaster ride this past weekend. On Friday, with the press hot on the Niger debacle in the state of the union speech, I don't know about ya'll, but my spirits soared. I always worry when I go flying off to the stratosphere, because something always seems to happen to bring my feet right back down to earth. Sure enough, George Tenet decides to take the fall, we find out on Saturday.
What sustained me through that Saturday, was the commentary section of the Daily Kos, and in particular, the comments by someone named Melanie. She immediately recognized that the sword Tenet was falling on was made of rubber, and, that it was possible he is positioning himself, by taking the "blame" for the SOTU, for further revelations and leaks from his agency. Particularly in light of the fact that the 9/11 report was to be made public soon, and contains potentially damaging info regarding the president.
By the end of Saturday and into Sunday, it was clear the media was not going to drop the ball on this one. As one MSNBC reporter said, "this one has legs".
Speaking of the media, I'm reading Howard Zinn right now, Declarations of Independence, and it is clear that the history of our media in this country is not necessarily that of a medium for enlightenment for important issues. The corporate owned media played a huge role in convincing this country that World War 1 was a necessary war, and one the U.S. ought to support, a "war to end all wars", as the "liberal" Woodrow Wilson said.
By the way, the time leading up to WW1 was perhaps our darkest time, besides the McCarthy era, for the oppression of dissent. Zinn writes:
When the U.S. government decided to enter WW1, it did not find an eager army of males, just waiting for an opportunity to vent their "natural" anger against the enemy, to indulge their "natural" inclination to kill. Indeed, there was a large protest movement against entrance into the war, leading Congress to pass punitive legislation for antiwar statements (2,000 people were prosecuted for criticizing the war). The government, besides conscripting men for service on threat of prison and jailing antiwar protesters, had to organize a propaganda campaign, sending 75,000 speakers to give 750,000 speeches in hundreds of towns and cities to persuade people of the rightness of the war.
It is interesting now, because I think the most powerful form of censorship in operation today is that of self-censorship, or should I say, individual thought self-censorship. The goverment doesn't have to arrest dissenters, although it did all across the country during anti-war demonstrations the last several months. There were also thousands of peaceful demonstrations where no arrests occured. Rather, what is pervasive, is a public that refuses to look deeper than the rhetoric spewed by our "leaders".
This is an issue that the internet is directly addressing, in that the access to shared information has tilted the power of political activity towards the average person. This is no small shift, and people are only beginning to flex their political muscles.
There is still the issue of the poor having access to the internet, so that their views can be heard, but that is an issue for the near future.
I'm poor, financially speaking, and I have regular access because of my father's computer, though it is possible if he didn't give a hoot about computers, I would have found a way...
Getting back to Zinn, he writes that there was a strong socialist movement in the time before WW1. There were 100,000 members of the party, and "more than a thousand Socialists had been elected to office in 340 towns and cities" Zinn said.
Zinn estimates that "probably one million Americans read socialist newspapers. There were fifty-five weekly Socialist newspapers in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas alone; over a hundred socialists were elected to office in Oklahoma ."
Socialist newspapers in my home state of Louisiana, actually being read? We've come a long way towards consolidation of viewpoint in this country. We've largely narrowed our beliefs towards the backing of unfettered capitalism and the two party system. What has resulted is corruption beyond belief in the collusion between the corporations and the government. Just check out TomPaine.Commonsense today, for an article on the direct connection between corporate donors, legislators, and soft money.
I'm not advocating a third party movement at this time. Our most important goal right now is regime change, and our best hope for this is the democratic party. But it would behoove us all to know that there once was a strong socialist movement, and it was fueled by discontent and newspapers, the power of a free press.
We have the power of the internet now, and we have Ralph Nader and the Green party, but we have Ralph Nader's ego as well. In serving his country, he should have dropped out of the race. He wound up serving no one but himself. I do however, support the efforts of the Green party members to run for local and statewide offices. This is probably where they could do the most good.
WW1 killed the socialist party, when the government cracked down and arrested dissenters. Now some socialist issues such as universal health care and public financing of campaigns have become mainstream issues, in no small measure from the effect and power of the internet. I bet the Republicans had wished Al Gore had done anything but invent the internet. Just kidding.
It's damn expensive to print a newspaper, but if one can sit at a neighbor's computer, or one at the local library, one can have an effect on world opinion. I'm not exaggerating folks. Word of mouth spreads fast in this digital age, and it is difficult to hide the truth when so many digital eyes are fastened upon it.
It looks like the president won't be able to spin his way out of this one. There are just too many ordinary Americans, with or without digital access, learning and yearning to take apart the spin. During the photo-op yesterday in the White House, Bush's smirk was gone, and he looked like a man cornered.
I suppose my greatest fear right now is this North Korean nightmare, and that the administration will launch some kind of military strike against that nation, bringing us to the brink of a nuclear exchange of some kind.
Yes, North Korea sells munitions to rogue states, but aren't we one of the biggest, if not the biggest, arms dealer in the world? If it were illegal to sell arms to other nations, what a different world it would be. If only...
Yesterday, the conservative Tacitus posted on one of the Daily Kos commentaries, and initiated an interesting exchange between his conservative supporters and progressives. I suppose he was feeling just a little insecure, what with recent developments and everything. I thought it was healthy and helpful, the exchange that he sparked, in that it is difficult for the two sides to communicate with each other without shouting each other down, like we see on the talking head shows on TV. The internet could be another powerful medium for bringing people with divergent viewpoints together, and get them at least talking.
I propose we eliminate the term "troll", and encourage each other to visit and comment on each other's sites, beginning some sort of dialogue. More communication is the answer, not less.
Anyway, those are my thoughts since Black Thursday for George Bush.
What sustained me through that Saturday, was the commentary section of the Daily Kos, and in particular, the comments by someone named Melanie. She immediately recognized that the sword Tenet was falling on was made of rubber, and, that it was possible he is positioning himself, by taking the "blame" for the SOTU, for further revelations and leaks from his agency. Particularly in light of the fact that the 9/11 report was to be made public soon, and contains potentially damaging info regarding the president.
By the end of Saturday and into Sunday, it was clear the media was not going to drop the ball on this one. As one MSNBC reporter said, "this one has legs".
Speaking of the media, I'm reading Howard Zinn right now, Declarations of Independence, and it is clear that the history of our media in this country is not necessarily that of a medium for enlightenment for important issues. The corporate owned media played a huge role in convincing this country that World War 1 was a necessary war, and one the U.S. ought to support, a "war to end all wars", as the "liberal" Woodrow Wilson said.
By the way, the time leading up to WW1 was perhaps our darkest time, besides the McCarthy era, for the oppression of dissent. Zinn writes:
When the U.S. government decided to enter WW1, it did not find an eager army of males, just waiting for an opportunity to vent their "natural" anger against the enemy, to indulge their "natural" inclination to kill. Indeed, there was a large protest movement against entrance into the war, leading Congress to pass punitive legislation for antiwar statements (2,000 people were prosecuted for criticizing the war). The government, besides conscripting men for service on threat of prison and jailing antiwar protesters, had to organize a propaganda campaign, sending 75,000 speakers to give 750,000 speeches in hundreds of towns and cities to persuade people of the rightness of the war.
It is interesting now, because I think the most powerful form of censorship in operation today is that of self-censorship, or should I say, individual thought self-censorship. The goverment doesn't have to arrest dissenters, although it did all across the country during anti-war demonstrations the last several months. There were also thousands of peaceful demonstrations where no arrests occured. Rather, what is pervasive, is a public that refuses to look deeper than the rhetoric spewed by our "leaders".
This is an issue that the internet is directly addressing, in that the access to shared information has tilted the power of political activity towards the average person. This is no small shift, and people are only beginning to flex their political muscles.
There is still the issue of the poor having access to the internet, so that their views can be heard, but that is an issue for the near future.
I'm poor, financially speaking, and I have regular access because of my father's computer, though it is possible if he didn't give a hoot about computers, I would have found a way...
Getting back to Zinn, he writes that there was a strong socialist movement in the time before WW1. There were 100,000 members of the party, and "more than a thousand Socialists had been elected to office in 340 towns and cities" Zinn said.
Zinn estimates that "probably one million Americans read socialist newspapers. There were fifty-five weekly Socialist newspapers in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas alone; over a hundred socialists were elected to office in Oklahoma ."
Socialist newspapers in my home state of Louisiana, actually being read? We've come a long way towards consolidation of viewpoint in this country. We've largely narrowed our beliefs towards the backing of unfettered capitalism and the two party system. What has resulted is corruption beyond belief in the collusion between the corporations and the government. Just check out TomPaine.Commonsense today, for an article on the direct connection between corporate donors, legislators, and soft money.
I'm not advocating a third party movement at this time. Our most important goal right now is regime change, and our best hope for this is the democratic party. But it would behoove us all to know that there once was a strong socialist movement, and it was fueled by discontent and newspapers, the power of a free press.
We have the power of the internet now, and we have Ralph Nader and the Green party, but we have Ralph Nader's ego as well. In serving his country, he should have dropped out of the race. He wound up serving no one but himself. I do however, support the efforts of the Green party members to run for local and statewide offices. This is probably where they could do the most good.
WW1 killed the socialist party, when the government cracked down and arrested dissenters. Now some socialist issues such as universal health care and public financing of campaigns have become mainstream issues, in no small measure from the effect and power of the internet. I bet the Republicans had wished Al Gore had done anything but invent the internet. Just kidding.
It's damn expensive to print a newspaper, but if one can sit at a neighbor's computer, or one at the local library, one can have an effect on world opinion. I'm not exaggerating folks. Word of mouth spreads fast in this digital age, and it is difficult to hide the truth when so many digital eyes are fastened upon it.
It looks like the president won't be able to spin his way out of this one. There are just too many ordinary Americans, with or without digital access, learning and yearning to take apart the spin. During the photo-op yesterday in the White House, Bush's smirk was gone, and he looked like a man cornered.
I suppose my greatest fear right now is this North Korean nightmare, and that the administration will launch some kind of military strike against that nation, bringing us to the brink of a nuclear exchange of some kind.
Yes, North Korea sells munitions to rogue states, but aren't we one of the biggest, if not the biggest, arms dealer in the world? If it were illegal to sell arms to other nations, what a different world it would be. If only...
Yesterday, the conservative Tacitus posted on one of the Daily Kos commentaries, and initiated an interesting exchange between his conservative supporters and progressives. I suppose he was feeling just a little insecure, what with recent developments and everything. I thought it was healthy and helpful, the exchange that he sparked, in that it is difficult for the two sides to communicate with each other without shouting each other down, like we see on the talking head shows on TV. The internet could be another powerful medium for bringing people with divergent viewpoints together, and get them at least talking.
I propose we eliminate the term "troll", and encourage each other to visit and comment on each other's sites, beginning some sort of dialogue. More communication is the answer, not less.
Anyway, those are my thoughts since Black Thursday for George Bush.
# posted by scorpiorising : 8:04 AM |
Friday, July 11, 2003
George Bush is a weapon of mass destruction.
This has been fun today, when the clouds lifted a bit, and, quoting someone in comments at the Daily Kos, we get to hear the loud yawn of a public waking up from a deep slumber.
All fingers in the Bush administration seem to be pointing at the CIA, blaming the CIA for not objecting to the Niger line in the state of the union speech. The Bushies are hoping the public will buy this pathetic explanation for their lies, distortions and war.
Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, weighed in just a few moments ago when he released a statement calling the CIA intelligence leading up to the war "sloppy". He also accused the CIA of deliberately leaking reports in order to discredit the president.
I never in a million years thought I would be defending the CIA, but I'm not going to wax sentimental for my contempt of this agency, and urge everyone to email Senator Pat Roberts in protest of his and the Bush and company's attempts to pass this stinker off to the CIA, and specifically, George Tenet. Tell Pat I said "Hi".
All fingers in the Bush administration seem to be pointing at the CIA, blaming the CIA for not objecting to the Niger line in the state of the union speech. The Bushies are hoping the public will buy this pathetic explanation for their lies, distortions and war.
Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, weighed in just a few moments ago when he released a statement calling the CIA intelligence leading up to the war "sloppy". He also accused the CIA of deliberately leaking reports in order to discredit the president.
I never in a million years thought I would be defending the CIA, but I'm not going to wax sentimental for my contempt of this agency, and urge everyone to email Senator Pat Roberts in protest of his and the Bush and company's attempts to pass this stinker off to the CIA, and specifically, George Tenet. Tell Pat I said "Hi".
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:37 PM |
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Introducing Ishtar Talking
Where is Raed introduces a female Iraqi blogger living in Basra. She passionately talks of her love/hate feelings for her own country:
In the presence of that mountain sized despair, which has already burdened my weary heart with the frustrations of all the past years to wait for me now and rip me apart to pieces which are hard to bring back together. I am going to declare what has been gnawing on me brutally from the inside so hard I can't even think about blaming myself for keeping this inside for so long. I will confess that I despise you.
Yes, I blame you for creating all these rifts within me, I hate you as much our people have suffered, as much as my ears had to listen to the sounds of bombs and missiles, I hate you as much as the destruction my eyes has seen, as much as I hate the blood that flowed, the wasted years and the loss of my hopes for a future. I hate you as much as all the Iraqis who had to immigrate, as much as the politicians who had to disappear. I blame you for the suffering through the merciless humid and hot nights of Basra without the simplest creature comforts, I blame you for not being able to find the simplest entertainment in my city the second biggest city in Iraq, blame you for the dirt road I have to travel to get to my university which is right in the middle of the city. Blame you for loosing the will to live and for my need for love which was lost in you……..
Because of all that, my dearest Iraq, I despise you. But please, my love and hate, understand my anger. I want you to stop answering my questions about the wasted childhood and youth by saying that these things will be forgotten, because if you do that again you will have to allow me to keep on despising you.
In the presence of that mountain sized despair, which has already burdened my weary heart with the frustrations of all the past years to wait for me now and rip me apart to pieces which are hard to bring back together. I am going to declare what has been gnawing on me brutally from the inside so hard I can't even think about blaming myself for keeping this inside for so long. I will confess that I despise you.
Yes, I blame you for creating all these rifts within me, I hate you as much our people have suffered, as much as my ears had to listen to the sounds of bombs and missiles, I hate you as much as the destruction my eyes has seen, as much as I hate the blood that flowed, the wasted years and the loss of my hopes for a future. I hate you as much as all the Iraqis who had to immigrate, as much as the politicians who had to disappear. I blame you for the suffering through the merciless humid and hot nights of Basra without the simplest creature comforts, I blame you for not being able to find the simplest entertainment in my city the second biggest city in Iraq, blame you for the dirt road I have to travel to get to my university which is right in the middle of the city. Blame you for loosing the will to live and for my need for love which was lost in you……..
Because of all that, my dearest Iraq, I despise you. But please, my love and hate, understand my anger. I want you to stop answering my questions about the wasted childhood and youth by saying that these things will be forgotten, because if you do that again you will have to allow me to keep on despising you.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:59 AM |
The Brits in Basra and blood money.
The Baghdad blogger, Where is Raed now writes a column for the Guardian, and from his report, it looks like the Brits have done a much better job in Basra, than the Americans in Baghdad. Maybe if we turned over the entire country to the Brits, (and kick out Halliburton in the process)...
The flip side of this decision is the way the British have dealt with the issue of Iraqis killed by the British forces by mistake. The south is very tribal. Killing someone, especially if he came from a powerful tribe, might start a chain of revenge killings unless the two tribes were to agree on some sort of compensation, ie blood money. So while we are sitting with some people in Amarah we hear the following story.
During a wedding celebration, two young men fire celebratory shots into the air. A British patrol happens to be near by, they think they have a couple of Fedayeen shooting at them. Bang bang, the Iraqis are dead.
The British take the bodies to the hospital, and after conducting an investigation they find out they were not Fedayeen, a mistake has been made. So the next day two British officers, two Iraqi lawyers and a translator go to the hospital and ask how the locals deal with this sort of thing. The concept of "Fasil" or blood money is explained to them. A couple of days later the word spreads that the British have paid 15 million Iraqi dinars in blood money to the families of the two Iraqi men. Further bloodshed was stopped. Perfect.
The flip side of this decision is the way the British have dealt with the issue of Iraqis killed by the British forces by mistake. The south is very tribal. Killing someone, especially if he came from a powerful tribe, might start a chain of revenge killings unless the two tribes were to agree on some sort of compensation, ie blood money. So while we are sitting with some people in Amarah we hear the following story.
During a wedding celebration, two young men fire celebratory shots into the air. A British patrol happens to be near by, they think they have a couple of Fedayeen shooting at them. Bang bang, the Iraqis are dead.
The British take the bodies to the hospital, and after conducting an investigation they find out they were not Fedayeen, a mistake has been made. So the next day two British officers, two Iraqi lawyers and a translator go to the hospital and ask how the locals deal with this sort of thing. The concept of "Fasil" or blood money is explained to them. A couple of days later the word spreads that the British have paid 15 million Iraqi dinars in blood money to the families of the two Iraqi men. Further bloodshed was stopped. Perfect.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:19 AM |
Gettin' down and dirty.
I don't mind the idea of a candidate directly challenging the ideas of another, without getting dirty and personal, but you have to wonder about the over-all health of the candidacy of John Kerry, when he has apparently decided to focus on finding the dirt on Dean.
Dean was governor of Vermont for 11 years. If there was real dirt on him, it would more than likely be out by now folks. Okay, maybe there is some dirt that hasn't been dug up.
It was my understanding that the democratic candidates made some kind of pledge to refrain from attacking each other. In my view, its gone a little too far, with no one challenging the views and beliefs of the other, which makes for a rather dull campaign and little media attention. It is through healthy conflict that the candidates can potentially distinguish themselves from each other.
The way that the strategy of cooperation has worked is that democrats and their constituents appear united as never before in the common goal of regime change. We need this. What we don't need is for the candidates to go in search of personal dirt on each other.
Dean has a record of distinguished service in Vermont. You may not agree with his philosophy, or his political choices, but there were no scandals. If Kerry is going in search of scandals, he may create one himself.
Edwin Edwards, the ex-governor of Louisiana now in prison, used to say,
"The only way my political enemies can defeat me, is if they find me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." Edwards wound up being convicted of extortion, basically. Barring any discoveries of this nature, it is difficult to see what will be accomplished with the dirt digging strategy, except the angering and alienation of Dean's supporters.
Let me bring it down to the micro level. Here in Louisiana, I am attempting to organize voter registration drives utilizing volunteers from the campaigns of the candidates. I am making my contacts through the meet-ups of each candidate. I am wondering how Dean supporters are going to react to the news that Kerry is searching for dirt on their candidate. I am also wondering if Kerry's hostility to Dean is going to trickle down to the well-attended Kerry meet-ups here. Will Kerry volunteers be willing to cooperate with Dean volunteers if they perceive that the "new" strategy is one of personal attack?
One has to wonder if there isn't a paucity of ideas right now in the Kerry camp, for such a strategy to be decided on. Wouldn't it be more constructive to find a way to better promote the ideas of Kerry in order to reach more people, which is, by the way, what Dean has managed to accomplish in his campaign?
Unfortunately, attack politics has worked all too well in American history, but this strategy has succeeded in denigrating the message. Does Kerry really want this political climate to continue, in which voters decide not on the basis of the merit of ideas, but rather on the dirt that manages to stain the man or woman running for political office? The choice is his, and ours:
THE HOWARD DEAN PROJECT
The presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry may be saying that it doesn't care about the new momentum of Howie Dean's team, but it sure isn't acting like it. Kerry's folks have begun intensive opposition research on Dean, sending staff to Vermont to pull together whatever dirt they can find out about not only Dean but also his wife, who continues to work as a physician in the state.
"It's early, but not too early to start taking him down a notch," says a Kerry staffer. "We've gone head to head with Dean in debates, we've tried to shout them down and shut them up, and they are still hanging around. We're going on the offensive."
From the beginning, perhaps because Kerry was a fellow Northeastern Democrat, Dean seemed to focus his attacks on the senator from Massachusetts. The two candidates have gone at each other throats in debates and candidate forums around the country, and Dean has jabbed at Kerry from the podium. Now Dean has apparently outraised Kerry and his huge fundraising operation in the second quarter of this fiscal year.
Kerry's oppo staff appears to be focusing on Dean's career as a practicing physician, which the candidate has spoken about on the stump. Dean has claimed that he assisted underaged women who were pregnant, but has declined to say whether he provided them with abortions. Dean has also attempted to side-step his deferment from the military during the Vietnam War. Dean claims it was for a congenital back problem. But after receiving his free pass out of service, he spent several months skiing in Colorado, and has bragged about it.
The Kerry staffer says that Dean's recent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" gave them pause. "He was avoiding having to talk about anything substantive from his background. There has to be stuff there. We're looking. If he's going to be around for the long haul, we might as well be ready."
Dean was governor of Vermont for 11 years. If there was real dirt on him, it would more than likely be out by now folks. Okay, maybe there is some dirt that hasn't been dug up.
It was my understanding that the democratic candidates made some kind of pledge to refrain from attacking each other. In my view, its gone a little too far, with no one challenging the views and beliefs of the other, which makes for a rather dull campaign and little media attention. It is through healthy conflict that the candidates can potentially distinguish themselves from each other.
The way that the strategy of cooperation has worked is that democrats and their constituents appear united as never before in the common goal of regime change. We need this. What we don't need is for the candidates to go in search of personal dirt on each other.
Dean has a record of distinguished service in Vermont. You may not agree with his philosophy, or his political choices, but there were no scandals. If Kerry is going in search of scandals, he may create one himself.
Edwin Edwards, the ex-governor of Louisiana now in prison, used to say,
"The only way my political enemies can defeat me, is if they find me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." Edwards wound up being convicted of extortion, basically. Barring any discoveries of this nature, it is difficult to see what will be accomplished with the dirt digging strategy, except the angering and alienation of Dean's supporters.
Let me bring it down to the micro level. Here in Louisiana, I am attempting to organize voter registration drives utilizing volunteers from the campaigns of the candidates. I am making my contacts through the meet-ups of each candidate. I am wondering how Dean supporters are going to react to the news that Kerry is searching for dirt on their candidate. I am also wondering if Kerry's hostility to Dean is going to trickle down to the well-attended Kerry meet-ups here. Will Kerry volunteers be willing to cooperate with Dean volunteers if they perceive that the "new" strategy is one of personal attack?
One has to wonder if there isn't a paucity of ideas right now in the Kerry camp, for such a strategy to be decided on. Wouldn't it be more constructive to find a way to better promote the ideas of Kerry in order to reach more people, which is, by the way, what Dean has managed to accomplish in his campaign?
Unfortunately, attack politics has worked all too well in American history, but this strategy has succeeded in denigrating the message. Does Kerry really want this political climate to continue, in which voters decide not on the basis of the merit of ideas, but rather on the dirt that manages to stain the man or woman running for political office? The choice is his, and ours:
THE HOWARD DEAN PROJECT
The presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry may be saying that it doesn't care about the new momentum of Howie Dean's team, but it sure isn't acting like it. Kerry's folks have begun intensive opposition research on Dean, sending staff to Vermont to pull together whatever dirt they can find out about not only Dean but also his wife, who continues to work as a physician in the state.
"It's early, but not too early to start taking him down a notch," says a Kerry staffer. "We've gone head to head with Dean in debates, we've tried to shout them down and shut them up, and they are still hanging around. We're going on the offensive."
From the beginning, perhaps because Kerry was a fellow Northeastern Democrat, Dean seemed to focus his attacks on the senator from Massachusetts. The two candidates have gone at each other throats in debates and candidate forums around the country, and Dean has jabbed at Kerry from the podium. Now Dean has apparently outraised Kerry and his huge fundraising operation in the second quarter of this fiscal year.
Kerry's oppo staff appears to be focusing on Dean's career as a practicing physician, which the candidate has spoken about on the stump. Dean has claimed that he assisted underaged women who were pregnant, but has declined to say whether he provided them with abortions. Dean has also attempted to side-step his deferment from the military during the Vietnam War. Dean claims it was for a congenital back problem. But after receiving his free pass out of service, he spent several months skiing in Colorado, and has bragged about it.
The Kerry staffer says that Dean's recent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" gave them pause. "He was avoiding having to talk about anything substantive from his background. There has to be stuff there. We're looking. If he's going to be around for the long haul, we might as well be ready."
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:55 AM |
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Ari Fleischer refuses to stand by his man, the White House backs off of the claims regarding Iraq's nuclear program and says Bush should not have used the documents in his State of the Union speech. All of this triggered by yesterday's report issued by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, in which it was questioned why this debunked intelligence was used, when it was already disproved by the CIA:
WASHINGTON, July 7 — The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.
The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.
The acknowledgment came after a day of questions — and sometimes contradictory answers from White House officials — about an article published on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on Sunday by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. He reported back that the intelligence was likely fraudulent, a warning that White House officials say never reached them.
"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa," the statement said. "However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."
In other words, said one senior official, "we couldn't prove it, and it might in fact be wrong."
Separately tonight, The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Some administration officials have expressed similar sentiments in interviews in the past two weeks.
Asked about the statement early today, before President Bush departed for a six-day tour of Africa, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said, "There is zero, nada, nothing new here." He said that "we've long acknowledged" that information on the attempted purchases from Niger "did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."
But in public, administration officials have defended the president's statement in the State of Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
While Mr. Bush cited the British report, seemingly giving the account the credibility of coming from a non-American intelligence service, Britain itself relied in part on information provided by the C.I.A., American and British officials have said.
But today a report from a parliamentary committee that conducted an investigation into the British assertions also questioned the credibility of what the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair had published.
The committee went on to say that Mr. Blair's government had asserted it had other evidence of Iraqi attempts to procure uranium. But eight months later the government still had not told Parliament what that other information was.
While Mr. Bush quoted the British report, his statement was apparently primarily based on American intelligence — a classified "National Intelligence Estimate" published in October of last year that also identified two other countries, Congo and Somalia, where Iraq had sought the material, in addition to Niger.
But many analysts did not believe those reports at the time, and were shocked to hear the president make such a flat, declarative statement.
Asked about the accuracy of the president's statement this morning, Mr. Fleischer said, "We see nothing that would dissuade us from the president's broader statement." But when pressed, he said he would clarify the issue later today.
Tonight, after Air Force One had departed, White House officials issued a statement in Mr. Fleischer's name that made clear that they no longer stood behind Mr. Bush's statement.
How Mr. Bush's statement made it into last January's State of the Union address is still unclear. No one involved in drafting the speech will say who put the phrase in, or whether it was drawn from the classified intelligence estimate.
That document contained a footnote — in a separate section of the report, on another subject — noting that State Department experts were doubtful of the claims that Mr. Hussein had sought uranium.
If the intelligence was true, it would have buttressed statements by Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking a nuclear weapon, and could build one in a year or less if he obtained enough nuclear material.
In early March, before the invasion of Iraq began, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismissed the uranium reports about Niger, noting that they were based on forged documents.
In an interview late last month, a senior administration official said that the news of the fraud was not brought to the attention of the White House until after Mr. Bush had spoken.
But even then, White House officials made no effort to correct the president's remarks. Indeed, as recently as a few weeks ago they were arguing that Mr. Bush had quite deliberately avoided mentioning Niger, and noted that he had spoken more generally about efforts to obtain "yellowcake," the substance from which uranium is extracted, from African nations.
Tonight's statement, though, calls even those reports into question. In interviews in recent days, a number of administration officials have conceded that Mr. Bush never should have made the claims, given the weakness of the case. One senior official said that the uranium purchases were "only one small part" of a broader effort to reconstitute the nuclear program, and that Mr. Bush probably should have dwelled on others.
White House officials would not say, however, how the statement was approved. They have suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the wording, though the C.I.A. has said none of its senior leaders had reviewed it. Other key members of the administration said the information was discounted early on, and that by the time the president delivered the State of the Union address, there were widespread questions about the quality of the intelligence.
"We only found that out later," said one official involved in the speech.
WASHINGTON, July 7 — The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.
The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.
The acknowledgment came after a day of questions — and sometimes contradictory answers from White House officials — about an article published on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on Sunday by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. He reported back that the intelligence was likely fraudulent, a warning that White House officials say never reached them.
"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa," the statement said. "However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."
In other words, said one senior official, "we couldn't prove it, and it might in fact be wrong."
Separately tonight, The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Some administration officials have expressed similar sentiments in interviews in the past two weeks.
Asked about the statement early today, before President Bush departed for a six-day tour of Africa, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said, "There is zero, nada, nothing new here." He said that "we've long acknowledged" that information on the attempted purchases from Niger "did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect."
But in public, administration officials have defended the president's statement in the State of Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
While Mr. Bush cited the British report, seemingly giving the account the credibility of coming from a non-American intelligence service, Britain itself relied in part on information provided by the C.I.A., American and British officials have said.
But today a report from a parliamentary committee that conducted an investigation into the British assertions also questioned the credibility of what the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair had published.
The committee went on to say that Mr. Blair's government had asserted it had other evidence of Iraqi attempts to procure uranium. But eight months later the government still had not told Parliament what that other information was.
While Mr. Bush quoted the British report, his statement was apparently primarily based on American intelligence — a classified "National Intelligence Estimate" published in October of last year that also identified two other countries, Congo and Somalia, where Iraq had sought the material, in addition to Niger.
But many analysts did not believe those reports at the time, and were shocked to hear the president make such a flat, declarative statement.
Asked about the accuracy of the president's statement this morning, Mr. Fleischer said, "We see nothing that would dissuade us from the president's broader statement." But when pressed, he said he would clarify the issue later today.
Tonight, after Air Force One had departed, White House officials issued a statement in Mr. Fleischer's name that made clear that they no longer stood behind Mr. Bush's statement.
How Mr. Bush's statement made it into last January's State of the Union address is still unclear. No one involved in drafting the speech will say who put the phrase in, or whether it was drawn from the classified intelligence estimate.
That document contained a footnote — in a separate section of the report, on another subject — noting that State Department experts were doubtful of the claims that Mr. Hussein had sought uranium.
If the intelligence was true, it would have buttressed statements by Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that Saddam Hussein was actively seeking a nuclear weapon, and could build one in a year or less if he obtained enough nuclear material.
In early March, before the invasion of Iraq began, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismissed the uranium reports about Niger, noting that they were based on forged documents.
In an interview late last month, a senior administration official said that the news of the fraud was not brought to the attention of the White House until after Mr. Bush had spoken.
But even then, White House officials made no effort to correct the president's remarks. Indeed, as recently as a few weeks ago they were arguing that Mr. Bush had quite deliberately avoided mentioning Niger, and noted that he had spoken more generally about efforts to obtain "yellowcake," the substance from which uranium is extracted, from African nations.
Tonight's statement, though, calls even those reports into question. In interviews in recent days, a number of administration officials have conceded that Mr. Bush never should have made the claims, given the weakness of the case. One senior official said that the uranium purchases were "only one small part" of a broader effort to reconstitute the nuclear program, and that Mr. Bush probably should have dwelled on others.
White House officials would not say, however, how the statement was approved. They have suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the wording, though the C.I.A. has said none of its senior leaders had reviewed it. Other key members of the administration said the information was discounted early on, and that by the time the president delivered the State of the Union address, there were widespread questions about the quality of the intelligence.
"We only found that out later," said one official involved in the speech.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:40 AM |
Monday, July 07, 2003
Ending notes.
Tompaine.commonsense has an excellent article on the need for a liberal media.
Arms and the Man (who's making a killing on killing in Iraq) has a link to a Washington Post story on the rather strange and portent appointment of a Republican operative to a position in post-war Iraq.
Arms and the Man (who's making a killing on killing in Iraq) has a link to a Washington Post story on the rather strange and portent appointment of a Republican operative to a position in post-war Iraq.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:29 PM |
Thanks to the Daily Howler for this link to a Washington Post article concerning the findings of a CIA internal review panel on wmd's in Iraq. The 4-person panel was headed by Richard J. Kerr, a former CIA deputy director.
From the report, we glean that the CIA was relying on intelligence gathered before 1998, the year the weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Apparently, the CIA assumed Iraq was continuing the development of wmds, based on purchases made by the country (what purchases and when???).
Kerr must be from a different planet where different rules of logic are used, because he concludes that "the analysts were pretty much on the mark." Is he talking about the same country that we've all been talking about, where no trace of wmds have been found, no smoking guns, no barrels of chemical and vials of biological weapons?
U.S. intelligence analysts lacked new, hard information about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons after United Nations inspectors left Iraq in 1998, and so had to rely on data from the early and mid-1990s when they concluded in months leading up to the war that those programs continued into 2003, according to preliminary findings of a CIA internal review panel.
Although the post-1998 evidence was largely circumstantial or "inferential" because of the inspectors' absence and the lack of reliable agents inside Iraq, the panel said yesterday, the judgment that Hussein continued to have weapons of mass destruction appears justified.
"It would have been very hard to conclude those programs were not continuing, based on the reports being gathered in recent years about Iraqi purchases and other activities before the war," said Richard J. Kerr, a former CIA deputy director who heads the four-person review panel appointed in February by CIA Director George J. Tenet. The panel's mission, initially suggested by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is to provide "lessons learned" from the Iraq war by comparing the prewar analyses and estimates to the intelligence gathered inside the country after the war.
Kerr said the prewar intelligence reports given to Bush administration policymakers from the CIA, the Pentagon and State Department contained caveats and disagreements on data underlying some judgments, such as whether Hussein's nuclear program was being reconstituted. But "on the whole, the analysts were pretty much on the mark," he said.
Kerr offered no evidence that analysts were pressured to conform to the administrations wishes in creating justification for this war.
In my view, this report is a crock. Having an ex-deputy director investigate the body he use to head is as good as having the CIA investigate itself. There are preconceived notions and beliefs that Kerr took with him in this "investigation". This report proves nothing, except something we already knew: Tenet does not really want the truth revealed, because his goose would be cooked.
From the report, we glean that the CIA was relying on intelligence gathered before 1998, the year the weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Apparently, the CIA assumed Iraq was continuing the development of wmds, based on purchases made by the country (what purchases and when???).
Kerr must be from a different planet where different rules of logic are used, because he concludes that "the analysts were pretty much on the mark." Is he talking about the same country that we've all been talking about, where no trace of wmds have been found, no smoking guns, no barrels of chemical and vials of biological weapons?
U.S. intelligence analysts lacked new, hard information about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons after United Nations inspectors left Iraq in 1998, and so had to rely on data from the early and mid-1990s when they concluded in months leading up to the war that those programs continued into 2003, according to preliminary findings of a CIA internal review panel.
Although the post-1998 evidence was largely circumstantial or "inferential" because of the inspectors' absence and the lack of reliable agents inside Iraq, the panel said yesterday, the judgment that Hussein continued to have weapons of mass destruction appears justified.
"It would have been very hard to conclude those programs were not continuing, based on the reports being gathered in recent years about Iraqi purchases and other activities before the war," said Richard J. Kerr, a former CIA deputy director who heads the four-person review panel appointed in February by CIA Director George J. Tenet. The panel's mission, initially suggested by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is to provide "lessons learned" from the Iraq war by comparing the prewar analyses and estimates to the intelligence gathered inside the country after the war.
Kerr said the prewar intelligence reports given to Bush administration policymakers from the CIA, the Pentagon and State Department contained caveats and disagreements on data underlying some judgments, such as whether Hussein's nuclear program was being reconstituted. But "on the whole, the analysts were pretty much on the mark," he said.
Kerr offered no evidence that analysts were pressured to conform to the administrations wishes in creating justification for this war.
In my view, this report is a crock. Having an ex-deputy director investigate the body he use to head is as good as having the CIA investigate itself. There are preconceived notions and beliefs that Kerr took with him in this "investigation". This report proves nothing, except something we already knew: Tenet does not really want the truth revealed, because his goose would be cooked.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:46 PM |
Cheney loved to visit the CIA.
Ray McGovern, ex-CIA analyst, talks about Cheney's many visits to the CIA before the war began:
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:31 PM |
Conclusions, conclusions, conclusions...
There are many conclusions in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report released today, and these conlcusions seem based on the kind of fragile and faulty reasoning and intelligence that lead us into this war to begin with.
For example, the committee concluded that Britain relied too heavily on U.S. intelligence, including that of exiles and defectors with an "agenda of their own". Yet it is also concluded that the perception of the threat posed by Iraq to Britain was "genuinely perceived as a real and present danger and that the steps taken to protect them [the United Kingdoms] were justified by the information available at the time. (Paragraph 41)"
In other words, relying on the U.S. for intelligence information, to the degree that Britain did, was seen as faulty, but the perception of threat was genuine.
This despite the fact that a March 2002 British intelligence report on wmd's in Iraq basically downplayed the threat. This despite the fact of pre-9/11 conclusions reached in this country by the CIA. When the CIA adruptly changed its intelligence reports on Iraq after 9/11, to claim the presence of vast Iraqian stockpiles of chemican and biological weapons, wouldn't the British be just a little skeptical?
And if British officials weren't skeptical, committee members want to know why, given that it is likely that British officials were made aware of the CIA report from March 2002, declaring the Niger document to be forged. According to the committee, the report was "squelched", and the committee, in today's report wants to know why and how this report was squelched.
In light of available intelligence, it is difficult to swallow the belief that officials in Britain "genuinely" believed in a threat, just as it is difficult to believe American officials believed in an immanent threat. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that officials genuinely believed in the need to convince the British public of a threat. Wether the threat was real or not was at question then, as it is now.
It doesn't help that one of the architects of this preemptive policy, Wolfowitz, admitted wmd's were basically an excuse for going to war. Hard to believe the British weren't aware of this "excuse". Why, you'd have to believe that Blair is the willing dupe of the U.S., instead of a collaborator.
It is difficult to believe that Vice-President Cheney and intelligence on this side of the Atlantic failed to inform the British of Joseph Wilson's report on the Niger/Iraq connection. The question remains, why did Bush and Blair choose to rely on that report, despite evidence to the contrary. The committee in its report is asking for intelligence data as to when British intelligence was informed of the forged Niger documents by the CIA.
The report, while clearing Alastair Cambell of "sexing the dossier", has not cleared the government of emphasizing the 45 minute claim of readiness of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, and wants to know why the claim was included in the dossier, given that it was from a single uncorroborated source.
An article in the guardian.co.uk, in which experts in weapons assessments were gathered from both sides of the Atlantic, says UN weapons inspectors had inspected the supposed sites of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, and nothing was turned up.
Bottom line conclusion of the report: the Ministers did not mislead Parliament.
This conclusion has been made despite the second dossier being plagiarized and a sham, despite the use of forged documents in the first dossier, despite the 2002 intelligence report to the contrary of the september dossier, despite the continued findings of the UN inspectors that failed to corroborate a single belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
One can only conclude that conclusions reached in this report are politically motivated. Yet the report leaves many unanswered questions, leading one to wonder how such a conclusion could be reached. How long will the British public put up with denial and deception?
Parliament is asking for answers now:
The intelligence and security committee is to investigate whether Downing Street spun or distorted intelligence from MI6 to drum up public and parliamentary support for the war against Iraq.
This investigation could not occur a moment too soon, yet one would hope the investigation would be thorough and take as much time as needed. The health of our republics is all that is at stake.
For example, the committee concluded that Britain relied too heavily on U.S. intelligence, including that of exiles and defectors with an "agenda of their own". Yet it is also concluded that the perception of the threat posed by Iraq to Britain was "genuinely perceived as a real and present danger and that the steps taken to protect them [the United Kingdoms] were justified by the information available at the time. (Paragraph 41)"
In other words, relying on the U.S. for intelligence information, to the degree that Britain did, was seen as faulty, but the perception of threat was genuine.
This despite the fact that a March 2002 British intelligence report on wmd's in Iraq basically downplayed the threat. This despite the fact of pre-9/11 conclusions reached in this country by the CIA. When the CIA adruptly changed its intelligence reports on Iraq after 9/11, to claim the presence of vast Iraqian stockpiles of chemican and biological weapons, wouldn't the British be just a little skeptical?
And if British officials weren't skeptical, committee members want to know why, given that it is likely that British officials were made aware of the CIA report from March 2002, declaring the Niger document to be forged. According to the committee, the report was "squelched", and the committee, in today's report wants to know why and how this report was squelched.
In light of available intelligence, it is difficult to swallow the belief that officials in Britain "genuinely" believed in a threat, just as it is difficult to believe American officials believed in an immanent threat. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that officials genuinely believed in the need to convince the British public of a threat. Wether the threat was real or not was at question then, as it is now.
It doesn't help that one of the architects of this preemptive policy, Wolfowitz, admitted wmd's were basically an excuse for going to war. Hard to believe the British weren't aware of this "excuse". Why, you'd have to believe that Blair is the willing dupe of the U.S., instead of a collaborator.
It is difficult to believe that Vice-President Cheney and intelligence on this side of the Atlantic failed to inform the British of Joseph Wilson's report on the Niger/Iraq connection. The question remains, why did Bush and Blair choose to rely on that report, despite evidence to the contrary. The committee in its report is asking for intelligence data as to when British intelligence was informed of the forged Niger documents by the CIA.
The report, while clearing Alastair Cambell of "sexing the dossier", has not cleared the government of emphasizing the 45 minute claim of readiness of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, and wants to know why the claim was included in the dossier, given that it was from a single uncorroborated source.
An article in the guardian.co.uk, in which experts in weapons assessments were gathered from both sides of the Atlantic, says UN weapons inspectors had inspected the supposed sites of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, and nothing was turned up.
Bottom line conclusion of the report: the Ministers did not mislead Parliament.
This conclusion has been made despite the second dossier being plagiarized and a sham, despite the use of forged documents in the first dossier, despite the 2002 intelligence report to the contrary of the september dossier, despite the continued findings of the UN inspectors that failed to corroborate a single belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
One can only conclude that conclusions reached in this report are politically motivated. Yet the report leaves many unanswered questions, leading one to wonder how such a conclusion could be reached. How long will the British public put up with denial and deception?
Parliament is asking for answers now:
The intelligence and security committee is to investigate whether Downing Street spun or distorted intelligence from MI6 to drum up public and parliamentary support for the war against Iraq.
This investigation could not occur a moment too soon, yet one would hope the investigation would be thorough and take as much time as needed. The health of our republics is all that is at stake.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:51 AM |
Sunday, July 06, 2003
In this comment by political journalist Andrew Rawnsley in the guardian.co.uk, he suggests that we should not have high expectations of the report that is to be issued tomorrow by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
The title of the committee's inquiry - 'The Decision To Go To War In Iraq' - suggests a scope which is sweeping. The actual product will be narrow. It rushed at the job, taking just six days of evidence. It focused its inquiries on one aspect of one area - the '45-minute' claim - to the exclusion of many other vital topics.
Here are some of the large questions about the war that the committee cannot answer because it did not make a start on asking the questions. Exactly when did Tony Blair promise George Bush that he would commit British forces to the war? Why did British diplomacy fail to secure the second resolution at the United Nations which the Prime Minister had previously staked so much on? Was the Cabinet fully informed and consulted at all times? Were the intelligence assessments of Saddam Hussein's arsenal wrong? Why did the Prime Minister choose to believe the most frightening warnings? Why was there such scant preparation for handling the post-war situation in Iraq? Tony Blair's revelation, made to our political editor in today's The Observer , that he expected the war to last 125 days is more illuminating than any new fact established by the committee.
The title of the committee's inquiry - 'The Decision To Go To War In Iraq' - suggests a scope which is sweeping. The actual product will be narrow. It rushed at the job, taking just six days of evidence. It focused its inquiries on one aspect of one area - the '45-minute' claim - to the exclusion of many other vital topics.
Here are some of the large questions about the war that the committee cannot answer because it did not make a start on asking the questions. Exactly when did Tony Blair promise George Bush that he would commit British forces to the war? Why did British diplomacy fail to secure the second resolution at the United Nations which the Prime Minister had previously staked so much on? Was the Cabinet fully informed and consulted at all times? Were the intelligence assessments of Saddam Hussein's arsenal wrong? Why did the Prime Minister choose to believe the most frightening warnings? Why was there such scant preparation for handling the post-war situation in Iraq? Tony Blair's revelation, made to our political editor in today's The Observer , that he expected the war to last 125 days is more illuminating than any new fact established by the committee.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:38 PM |
This article in today's Sunday Herald shows a BBC that is not cowed:
The BBC has issued a stark warning to Alastair Campbell that it will sue him if he repeats his allegations that its journalist Andrew Gilligan lied over claims that Downing Street “sexed up” a dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.
In a defiant signal that the corporation will not be cowed, intimidated or bullied by Number 10 in its increasingly bitter war of words over the Iraq war, the BBC has also authorised its defence correspondent to threaten legal action against a Labour MP who claims that he misled a Commons inquiry.
In a separate development, a senior intelligence officer, who previously briefed the Sunday Herald that the government had misled the public and parliament, last night strongly rebutted Campbell’s denial that he spun the case for war.
“I previously said that there was absolute scepticism among British intelligence over the case for the invasion of Iraq. That is still the case. Campbell’s claims that the dossier wasn’t sexed up are utter rubbish.”
Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who reported that Campbell had “sexed up” a 45-minute attack warning on weapons of mass destruction, is set to sue Labour MP Phil Woolas over claims he misled a Commons committee.
The move has the full backing of the BBC Director General Greg Dyke, who came to the barricades with his senior managers to defend the corporation’s reputation over the accusations.
“Basically, we’re pretty fed up with this bullying and we want to put a stop to it,” said a senior BBC insider. “We’re fed up of the intimidation and we will sue if Woolas doesn’t retract.
“If we could sue Campbell we would too, but he has been careful to make his statements under privilege while giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee.”
There was also a story in the Sunday Herald today that focused on the methods and tactics of Alastair Campbell as he attempts to spin himself and Tony Blair out of trouble:
It takes one to know one, you might think, but Sir Bernard has some evidence to back his claims. Campbell's appearance on Channel 4 News was an extraordinary piece of television, eclipsing in 10 minutes anything you might wait three weeks to see on Big Brother .
He turned up unannounced at the studios on Gray's Inn Road, London, apparently having made a decision that he, the master of the broadcasting universe, would now talk to the nation. For all the warning anchorman Jon Snow was given, it might well have been Elvis at the door. 'Alastair Campbell is in the building' was what the presenter was told in his earpiece two minutes before the interview -- if it can be described as that -- began. What followed was an incredible gladiatorial clash, with Campbell jabbing his finger and questioning every assertion Snow made. It was a political interview -- but Campbell is not a politician, so he can step outside the conventions of calm politeness that stifle so many television encounters with ministers and MPs. And he did so in spades. The windmilling arm movements which he has taught others not to use; the repeated stretching for a drink of water during questioning; the camera cutting back to capture him with a glass in one hand, pen pointing at the interviewer with the other. The overall effect was of a pub boor -- ironic given that Campbell has famously forsworn alcohol after it nearly destroyed his life.
To those familiar with him, it was a typical Campbell performance. He is belligerent, he argues aggressively, he is passionately loyal to Tony Blair and he will fight tooth and nail to preserve his own reputation and that of the Prime Minister. Yet in the battle for the truth over the reasons for going to war with Iraq, Campbell has been branded a liar. Completely frustrated that he has been rendered unbelievable in the eyes of the public, he has started a street brawl between the government and the BBC, the guardian of the nation's political morals. It is hard ground on which to choose to fight -- the master of spin accusing one of the most trusted institutions in Britain of 'weasel words and sophistry'. The BBC, in turn, has accused the government of attempting to intimidate its journalists in the run-up to and during the Iraq war. This is not just a spat. It is a series of serious hostile exchanges between two of Britain's most important and powerful institutions.
People might debate whether Campbell is mad, but they certainly have to credit him with genius. His appearance on Channel 4 meant the heat was on him and off Blair; it also ensured that for another 48 hours the news focus would remain sharply on the war. Not, that is, the real war -- the dirty one in the desert where British military policemen are executed in gangland-style killings and where weapons of mass destruction remain hidden in the shifting sands of claim and counter-claim. Not that war, but the war of words between the government and the BBC that Campbell engineered earlier in the week.
The BBC has issued a stark warning to Alastair Campbell that it will sue him if he repeats his allegations that its journalist Andrew Gilligan lied over claims that Downing Street “sexed up” a dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.
In a defiant signal that the corporation will not be cowed, intimidated or bullied by Number 10 in its increasingly bitter war of words over the Iraq war, the BBC has also authorised its defence correspondent to threaten legal action against a Labour MP who claims that he misled a Commons inquiry.
In a separate development, a senior intelligence officer, who previously briefed the Sunday Herald that the government had misled the public and parliament, last night strongly rebutted Campbell’s denial that he spun the case for war.
“I previously said that there was absolute scepticism among British intelligence over the case for the invasion of Iraq. That is still the case. Campbell’s claims that the dossier wasn’t sexed up are utter rubbish.”
Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who reported that Campbell had “sexed up” a 45-minute attack warning on weapons of mass destruction, is set to sue Labour MP Phil Woolas over claims he misled a Commons committee.
The move has the full backing of the BBC Director General Greg Dyke, who came to the barricades with his senior managers to defend the corporation’s reputation over the accusations.
“Basically, we’re pretty fed up with this bullying and we want to put a stop to it,” said a senior BBC insider. “We’re fed up of the intimidation and we will sue if Woolas doesn’t retract.
“If we could sue Campbell we would too, but he has been careful to make his statements under privilege while giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee.”
There was also a story in the Sunday Herald today that focused on the methods and tactics of Alastair Campbell as he attempts to spin himself and Tony Blair out of trouble:
It takes one to know one, you might think, but Sir Bernard has some evidence to back his claims. Campbell's appearance on Channel 4 News was an extraordinary piece of television, eclipsing in 10 minutes anything you might wait three weeks to see on Big Brother .
He turned up unannounced at the studios on Gray's Inn Road, London, apparently having made a decision that he, the master of the broadcasting universe, would now talk to the nation. For all the warning anchorman Jon Snow was given, it might well have been Elvis at the door. 'Alastair Campbell is in the building' was what the presenter was told in his earpiece two minutes before the interview -- if it can be described as that -- began. What followed was an incredible gladiatorial clash, with Campbell jabbing his finger and questioning every assertion Snow made. It was a political interview -- but Campbell is not a politician, so he can step outside the conventions of calm politeness that stifle so many television encounters with ministers and MPs. And he did so in spades. The windmilling arm movements which he has taught others not to use; the repeated stretching for a drink of water during questioning; the camera cutting back to capture him with a glass in one hand, pen pointing at the interviewer with the other. The overall effect was of a pub boor -- ironic given that Campbell has famously forsworn alcohol after it nearly destroyed his life.
To those familiar with him, it was a typical Campbell performance. He is belligerent, he argues aggressively, he is passionately loyal to Tony Blair and he will fight tooth and nail to preserve his own reputation and that of the Prime Minister. Yet in the battle for the truth over the reasons for going to war with Iraq, Campbell has been branded a liar. Completely frustrated that he has been rendered unbelievable in the eyes of the public, he has started a street brawl between the government and the BBC, the guardian of the nation's political morals. It is hard ground on which to choose to fight -- the master of spin accusing one of the most trusted institutions in Britain of 'weasel words and sophistry'. The BBC, in turn, has accused the government of attempting to intimidate its journalists in the run-up to and during the Iraq war. This is not just a spat. It is a series of serious hostile exchanges between two of Britain's most important and powerful institutions.
People might debate whether Campbell is mad, but they certainly have to credit him with genius. His appearance on Channel 4 meant the heat was on him and off Blair; it also ensured that for another 48 hours the news focus would remain sharply on the war. Not, that is, the real war -- the dirty one in the desert where British military policemen are executed in gangland-style killings and where weapons of mass destruction remain hidden in the shifting sands of claim and counter-claim. Not that war, but the war of words between the government and the BBC that Campbell engineered earlier in the week.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:31 PM |
The British goverment is playing musical dossiers, hoping that by admitting mistakes in the second dossiers, this will deflect concerns on the first dossier:
The British Government is to express regret about fundamental flaws in the second dossier it released on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify war.
Whitehall sources said officials would tell a parliamentary inquiry into the issue that the second dossier on Saddam's history of deception undermined public trust in government information.
If the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is questioned on the issue, he will concede that mistakes were made.
Government officials now admit that the second dossier, which was largely culled from a 13-year-old thesis by a Californian PhD student, is damaging the British case for war against Iraq.
The dossier was published last February to coincide with Mr Blair's war summit with President George Bush in Washington. A week later it was revealed to be a mish-mash of intelligence reports, student work and publicly available briefings by Jane's Intelligence Review. The sources were not acknowledged, leaving the impression that it was all based on fresh intelligence.
Officials hope that admitting errors over the second dossier will strengthen their case on the first dossier, published last September, which has been the subject of allegations that it was "sexed up" to make a stronger case for war.
Is this the British goverment rationalizing that by admitting mistakes regarding the second dossier, this may deflect concern regarding the first dossier? How in the world will a flawed second dossier, not lead to questions regarding the first dossier?
The British goverment might as well admit the fox is in the hen house, and it is only a matter of time before the crumbling cases of intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic point to Bush and Blair.
Speaking of foxes in the hen house, consider that the Australian government has dirtied itself by its involvement in this war:
One of the Prime Minister's justifications for war on Iraq was declared unreliable in a United States State Department alert to the Australian Government several months before.
According to a former senior State Department official, CIA claims that the Iraqi regime had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program were strongly challenged by the State Department and the US Department of Energy, and this was made known to the Australian Government.
The assertion by Greg Theilmann came as the US Government was accused of ignoring a report which rejected claims that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger, a premise the President, George Bush, used to invade Iraq.
A former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said the claims of attempted purchases about three years ago were used by Mr Bush and officials to support their assertions that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.
"It really comes down to the Administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," Mr Wilson told The Washington Post. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"
Mr Theilmann, who between 2000 and 2002 analysed all the US intelligence on Iraq and its nuclear ambitions, said these dissenting views would not have been a secret to the Howard Government.
"If the Prime Minister was reaching the conclusion that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, which in our office was one of the biggest issues of all, well, we saw no evidence."
Australian and US intelligence officials say analysis from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research is passed to Australia through the Office of National Assessments, which assesses intelligence and reports to the Prime Minister.
On February 4, Mr Howard told Parliament that a CIA analysis said Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program". He also cited British intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa and "continues to work on developing nuclear weapons".
Mr Theilmann told the Herald that intelligence material claiming that Iraq was buying aluminium tubes allegedly designedto reprocess uranium using a gas-centrifuge method was rejected.
"We did not buy the CIA interpretation," he said. "We agreed with the Department of Energy, who were the US experts on centrifuge technology, who said that this was not for the nuclear weapons program."
Mr Theilmann's office had also investigated the Niger claims and rejected them in mid-2002. He had been shocked to hear Mr Bush on January 28 citing British intelligence reports claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from an African country.
Based on the content of Mr. Howard's speech cited in the above article, On Feb. 4, is it apparent then that Mr. Howard lied to the parliament, and the Australian people?
The British Government is to express regret about fundamental flaws in the second dossier it released on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify war.
Whitehall sources said officials would tell a parliamentary inquiry into the issue that the second dossier on Saddam's history of deception undermined public trust in government information.
If the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is questioned on the issue, he will concede that mistakes were made.
Government officials now admit that the second dossier, which was largely culled from a 13-year-old thesis by a Californian PhD student, is damaging the British case for war against Iraq.
The dossier was published last February to coincide with Mr Blair's war summit with President George Bush in Washington. A week later it was revealed to be a mish-mash of intelligence reports, student work and publicly available briefings by Jane's Intelligence Review. The sources were not acknowledged, leaving the impression that it was all based on fresh intelligence.
Officials hope that admitting errors over the second dossier will strengthen their case on the first dossier, published last September, which has been the subject of allegations that it was "sexed up" to make a stronger case for war.
Is this the British goverment rationalizing that by admitting mistakes regarding the second dossier, this may deflect concern regarding the first dossier? How in the world will a flawed second dossier, not lead to questions regarding the first dossier?
The British goverment might as well admit the fox is in the hen house, and it is only a matter of time before the crumbling cases of intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic point to Bush and Blair.
Speaking of foxes in the hen house, consider that the Australian government has dirtied itself by its involvement in this war:
One of the Prime Minister's justifications for war on Iraq was declared unreliable in a United States State Department alert to the Australian Government several months before.
According to a former senior State Department official, CIA claims that the Iraqi regime had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program were strongly challenged by the State Department and the US Department of Energy, and this was made known to the Australian Government.
The assertion by Greg Theilmann came as the US Government was accused of ignoring a report which rejected claims that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger, a premise the President, George Bush, used to invade Iraq.
A former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said the claims of attempted purchases about three years ago were used by Mr Bush and officials to support their assertions that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.
"It really comes down to the Administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," Mr Wilson told The Washington Post. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"
Mr Theilmann, who between 2000 and 2002 analysed all the US intelligence on Iraq and its nuclear ambitions, said these dissenting views would not have been a secret to the Howard Government.
"If the Prime Minister was reaching the conclusion that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, which in our office was one of the biggest issues of all, well, we saw no evidence."
Australian and US intelligence officials say analysis from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research is passed to Australia through the Office of National Assessments, which assesses intelligence and reports to the Prime Minister.
On February 4, Mr Howard told Parliament that a CIA analysis said Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program". He also cited British intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa and "continues to work on developing nuclear weapons".
Mr Theilmann told the Herald that intelligence material claiming that Iraq was buying aluminium tubes allegedly designedto reprocess uranium using a gas-centrifuge method was rejected.
"We did not buy the CIA interpretation," he said. "We agreed with the Department of Energy, who were the US experts on centrifuge technology, who said that this was not for the nuclear weapons program."
Mr Theilmann's office had also investigated the Niger claims and rejected them in mid-2002. He had been shocked to hear Mr Bush on January 28 citing British intelligence reports claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from an African country.
Based on the content of Mr. Howard's speech cited in the above article, On Feb. 4, is it apparent then that Mr. Howard lied to the parliament, and the Australian people?
# posted by scorpiorising : 10:21 AM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005
