Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
My Links
Project for the OLD American Century
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' BAITS BUSH -- AND SPRINGS THE TRAP ... |
| 06.30.04 (7:00 am) [edit] |
[b]'Fahrenheit 9/11' Baits Bush -- and Springs the Trap[/b]
The media chatter about Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" comes down to three basic issues:
--Is the film 100 percent accurate, or is it fundamentally misleading?
--Can it sway the undecideds and thereby affect the election itself, or will only partisans fork out their money for a ticket?
--Is this a legitimate use of a medium whose role is to entertain us, not ridicule the government or lecture the populace?
Those three media preoccupations largely miss the point, however. Moore's brilliant political achievement -- whether intended or not -- doesn't happen directly on the screen, and it's not likely to show up in weekend polls.
This is not an electorate easily swayed by reasoned discourse. If it were, the war on Iraq might never have been initiated. The winning formula for this election won't be convincing the formerly hostile; it will be mobilizing the already convinced.
Moore may conceivably nudge a few undecideds, but his real accomplishment may be firing up his own partisans, especially the cynical young and the economically ignored. By legitimizing their anger and alienation, he may motivate them to participate in what otherwise seems to many of them a futile electoral exercise.
Not only will this be an election campaign to mobilize the partisans; it will also be a tug of war to define the subject matter. Is it the economy, stupid? Is it wounded pride and feel-good patriotism? Is it fear of terrorism? The war on evil? Iraq? Torture? Education? Abortion and gay marriage? Civil liberties? The Ten Commandments?
We've all grown accustomed to manipulation by carefully posed photos, orchestrated "messages of the day" and focus-grouped slogans for which candidates pay consultants exorbitant fees. They're the essence of contemporary American politics, but no one would maintain that they are exercises in reasoned debate. Rather, they're attempts to stake out territory as one's own, with little or no regard for policy content.
"The Education President," for example, makes no pretense of telling the voter what the candidate would do for education -- only that he's a guy who really, really cares a whole lot more than his opponent about that issue. For instance, here he is reading to a grade-school class.
The key to those "messages of the day" is to grab the initiative; to make sure that the contest is fought in your home stadium. And THAT's where Michael Moore has thrown his monkey wrench into George Bush's finely tuned campaign machine. For no matter what you think of Moore's arguments, no matter what you think of his film's persuasiveness, no matter what you think of his factual assumptions ... Michael Moore has rewritten the agenda. He has seized home-field advantage.
No doubt the disintegration in Iraq softened the opposition for Moore. But both in his film and in the buzz surrounding it, he has brashly commandeered attention. The press, the public and especially the Bush White House, normally so adept at guiding the media discourse, must deal with Moore's images and his issues, and that can only work to John Kerry's advantage.
A White House that stage-manages every single photo op to the tiniest detail (and a press corps that compliantly retails those images) is now forced to contend with unscripted, real-world images -- sometimes as goofy as the official photos are saccharine.
Moore's issues, too, are in the national spotlight, driven partly by attempts to suppress them or challenge them. Did the president's negligence or his loyalty to the Saudis or the Bin Laden family distort his response to 9/11? The answer is debatable, but the focus now, belatedly, is on the question itself. Was the war in Iraq all about the poor being cajoled into risking their lives on behalf of oil plutocrats, ideologues and defense contractors? Once again, Moore's answer is not as significant as the fact that the question is being asked -- and heard.
If the White House had its way, this campaign would not be waged on issues like the undue influence of Saudi potentates or greedy defense contractors ... or on economic equity ... or whether the president was on autopilot while New York and Washington burned.
But for the past week (and, with its unprecedented box-office popularity, for the foreseeable future), those have indeed become issues in this campaign, whether John Kerry raised them or not -- and whether or not Michael Moore has every last one of his facts right. What's more, the issues are being addressed not in Washington code talk but in language and images familiar to the average dude.
THAT is Michael Moore's great achievement. He got the White House and its allies to lunge for his bait. It's rather like an animal trap -- the more aggressively the prey fights back, the more tightly bound it becomes.
Brilliant.
|
|
|
| |
| 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' BAITS BUSH -- AND SPRINGS THE TRAP ... |
| 06.30.04 (6:59 am) [edit] |
[b]'Fahrenheit 9/11' Baits Bush -- and Springs the Trap[/b]
The media chatter about Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" comes down to three basic issues:
--Is the film 100 percent accurate, or is it fundamentally misleading?
--Can it sway the undecideds and thereby affect the election itself, or will only partisans fork out their money for a ticket?
--Is this a legitimate use of a medium whose role is to entertain us, not ridicule the government or lecture the populace?
Those three media preoccupations largely miss the point, however. Moore's brilliant political achievement -- whether intended or not -- doesn't happen directly on the screen, and it's not likely to show up in weekend polls.
This is not an electorate easily swayed by reasoned discourse. If it were, the war on Iraq might never have been initiated. The winning formula for this election won't be convincing the formerly hostile; it will be mobilizing the already convinced.
Moore may conceivably nudge a few undecideds, but his real accomplishment may be firing up his own partisans, especially the cynical young and the economically ignored. By legitimizing their anger and alienation, he may motivate them to participate in what otherwise seems to many of them a futile electoral exercise.
Not only will this be an election campaign to mobilize the partisans; it will also be a tug of war to define the subject matter. Is it the economy, stupid? Is it wounded pride and feel-good patriotism? Is it fear of terrorism? The war on evil? Iraq? Torture? Education? Abortion and gay marriage? Civil liberties? The Ten Commandments?
We've all grown accustomed to manipulation by carefully posed photos, orchestrated "messages of the day" and focus-grouped slogans for which candidates pay consultants exorbitant fees. They're the essence of contemporary American politics, but no one would maintain that they are exercises in reasoned debate. Rather, they're attempts to stake out territory as one's own, with little or no regard for policy content.
"The Education President," for example, makes no pretense of telling the voter what the candidate would do for education -- only that he's a guy who really, really cares a whole lot more than his opponent about that issue. For instance, here he is reading to a grade-school class.
The key to those "messages of the day" is to grab the initiative; to make sure that the contest is fought in your home stadium. And THAT's where Michael Moore has thrown his monkey wrench into George Bush's finely tuned campaign machine. For no matter what you think of Moore's arguments, no matter what you think of his film's persuasiveness, no matter what you think of his factual assumptions ... Michael Moore has rewritten the agenda. He has seized home-field advantage.
No doubt the disintegration in Iraq softened the opposition for Moore. But both in his film and in the buzz surrounding it, he has brashly commandeered attention. The press, the public and especially the Bush White House, normally so adept at guiding the media discourse, must deal with Moore's images and his issues, and that can only work to John Kerry's advantage.
A White House that stage-manages every single photo op to the tiniest detail (and a press corps that compliantly retails those images) is now forced to contend with unscripted, real-world images -- sometimes as goofy as the official photos are saccharine.
Moore's issues, too, are in the national spotlight, driven partly by attempts to suppress them or challenge them. Did the president's negligence or his loyalty to the Saudis or the Bin Laden family distort his response to 9/11? The answer is debatable, but the focus now, belatedly, is on the question itself. Was the war in Iraq all about the poor being cajoled into risking their lives on behalf of oil plutocrats, ideologues and defense contractors? Once again, Moore's answer is not as significant as the fact that the question is being asked -- and heard.
If the White House had its way, this campaign would not be waged on issues like the undue influence of Saudi potentates or greedy defense contractors ... or on economic equity ... or whether the president was on autopilot while New York and Washington burned.
But for the past week (and, with its unprecedented box-office popularity, for the foreseeable future), those have indeed become issues in this campaign, whether John Kerry raised them or not -- and whether or not Michael Moore has every last one of his facts right. What's more, the issues are being addressed not in Washington code talk but in language and images familiar to the average dude.
THAT is Michael Moore's great achievement. He got the White House and its allies to lunge for his bait. It's rather like an animal trap -- the more aggressively the prey fights back, the more tightly bound it becomes.
Brilliant.
|
|
|
| |
| 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' BAITS BUSH -- AND SPRINGS THE TRAP ... |
| 06.30.04 (6:57 am) [edit] |
[b]'Fahrenheit 9/11' Baits Bush -- and Springs the Trap[/b]
The media chatter about Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" comes down to three basic issues:
--Is the film 100 percent accurate, or is it fundamentally misleading?
--Can it sway the undecideds and thereby affect the election itself, or will only partisans fork out their money for a ticket?
--Is this a legitimate use of a medium whose role is to entertain us, not ridicule the government or lecture the populace?
Those three media preoccupations largely miss the point, however. Moore's brilliant political achievement -- whether intended or not -- doesn't happen directly on the screen, and it's not likely to show up in weekend polls.
This is not an electorate easily swayed by reasoned discourse. If it were, the war on Iraq might never have been initiated. The winning formula for this election won't be convincing the formerly hostile; it will be mobilizing the already convinced.
Moore may conceivably nudge a few undecideds, but his real accomplishment may be firing up his own partisans, especially the cynical young and the economically ignored. By legitimizing their anger and alienation, he may motivate them to participate in what otherwise seems to many of them a futile electoral exercise.
Not only will this be an election campaign to mobilize the partisans; it will also be a tug of war to define the subject matter. Is it the economy, stupid? Is it wounded pride and feel-good patriotism? Is it fear of terrorism? The war on evil? Iraq? Torture? Education? Abortion and gay marriage? Civil liberties? The Ten Commandments?
We've all grown accustomed to manipulation by carefully posed photos, orchestrated "messages of the day" and focus-grouped slogans for which candidates pay consultants exorbitant fees. They're the essence of contemporary American politics, but no one would maintain that they are exercises in reasoned debate. Rather, they're attempts to stake out territory as one's own, with little or no regard for policy content.
"The Education President," for example, makes no pretense of telling the voter what the candidate would do for education -- only that he's a guy who really, really cares a whole lot more than his opponent about that issue. For instance, here he is reading to a grade-school class.
The key to those "messages of the day" is to grab the initiative; to make sure that the contest is fought in your home stadium. And THAT's where Michael Moore has thrown his monkey wrench into George Bush's finely tuned campaign machine. For no matter what you think of Moore's arguments, no matter what you think of his film's persuasiveness, no matter what you think of his factual assumptions ... Michael Moore has rewritten the agenda. He has seized home-field advantage.
No doubt the disintegration in Iraq softened the opposition for Moore. But both in his film and in the buzz surrounding it, he has brashly commandeered attention. The press, the public and especially the Bush White House, normally so adept at guiding the media discourse, must deal with Moore's images and his issues, and that can only work to John Kerry's advantage.
A White House that stage-manages every single photo op to the tiniest detail (and a press corps that compliantly retails those images) is now forced to contend with unscripted, real-world images -- sometimes as goofy as the official photos are saccharine.
Moore's issues, too, are in the national spotlight, driven partly by attempts to suppress them or challenge them. Did the president's negligence or his loyalty to the Saudis or the Bin Laden family distort his response to 9/11? The answer is debatable, but the focus now, belatedly, is on the question itself. Was the war in Iraq all about the poor being cajoled into risking their lives on behalf of oil plutocrats, ideologues and defense contractors? Once again, Moore's answer is not as significant as the fact that the question is being asked -- and heard.
If the White House had its way, this campaign would not be waged on issues like the undue influence of Saudi potentates or greedy defense contractors ... or on economic equity ... or whether the president was on autopilot while New York and Washington burned.
But for the past week (and, with its unprecedented box-office popularity, for the foreseeable future), those have indeed become issues in this campaign, whether John Kerry raised them or not -- and whether or not Michael Moore has every last one of his facts right. What's more, the issues are being addressed not in Washington code talk but in language and images familiar to the average dude.
THAT is Michael Moore's great achievement. He got the White House and its allies to lunge for his bait. It's rather like an animal trap -- the more aggressively the prey fights back, the more tightly bound it becomes.
Brilliant.
|
|
|
| |
| WHO LOST IRAQ? |
| 06.30.04 (6:53 am) [edit] |
[b]Who Lost Iraq?[/b]
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.
Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's invaluable Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the electricity supply and oil production show a pattern of fitful recovery and frequent reversals; figures on insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security situation that got progressively worse, not better; public opinion polls show an occupation that squandered the initial good will.
What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of ideological obsession and cronyism that lie behind that dismal performance.
The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."
Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics.
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."
Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity, Christian Aid, released a scathing report, "Fueling Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi oil revenue. It points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend that revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.
Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.
Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that Christian Aid and other critics have no proof that the unaccounted-for billions were ill spent. But think of it this way: given the Arab world's suspicion that we came to steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that they were profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is, the charges are true.
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor. - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| BUSH/CHENEY NEO-CON IDEOLOGY & CRONYISM LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ! |
| 06.30.04 (6:50 am) [edit] |
[b]Who Lost Iraq?[/b]
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.
Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's invaluable Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the electricity supply and oil production show a pattern of fitful recovery and frequent reversals; figures on insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security situation that got progressively worse, not better; public opinion polls show an occupation that squandered the initial good will.
What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of ideological obsession and cronyism that lie behind that dismal performance.
The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."
Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics.
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."
Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity, Christian Aid, released a scathing report, "Fueling Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi oil revenue. It points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend that revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.
Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.
Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that Christian Aid and other critics have no proof that the unaccounted-for billions were ill spent. But think of it this way: given the Arab world's suspicion that we came to steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that they were profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is, the charges are true.
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor. - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| FREE SPEECH IN AN AGE OF TERROR ... |
| 06.29.04 (6:49 am) [edit] |
[b]Free speech in an age of terror[/b]
A WIDELY MISUNDERSTOOD and under-appreciated aspect of the First Amendment's free speech guaranty was reaffirmed earlier this month by a federal jury in Idaho. At the same time, however, the principle was being undermined by some of the nation's premier charitable foundations. The issue? Protection of speech that advocates violence, including violence against the very system of constitutional government that brings us the First Amendment.
In terms of the never-ending battle for free speech, it's always the hardest sell -- protecting speech that's often violent, subversive, revolutionary. And yet it's precisely the kind of speech where the First Amendment plays its most important role.
After seven days of deliberations, the jury acquitted Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a 34-year-old Muslim Saudi graduate student at the University of Idaho, of charges that he provided "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist organizations by operating websites and e-mail discussion groups that advocated what lead prosecutor Kim Lindquist termed "extreme jihad."
Boise federal prosecutors had brought the case under a controversial provision of the US Patriot Act that broadened a Clinton-era prohibition against lending assistance to causes designated by the federal government as "foreign terrorist organizations." To support their contention that Al-Hussayen had assisted a terrorist conspiracy, prosecutors pulled several examples of inflammatory speech from Al-Hussayen's otherwise mundane collection of Muslim-themed websites and discussion groups. These included his redistribution of four fatwas issued by radical clerics offering religious justifications for "martyrdom attacks" and his hyperlinks to a Hamas-affiliated website.
But the prosecutors ran up against the First Amendment. As US District Judge Edward Lodge instructed the jury, the Constitution protects expression of beliefs "even if those beliefs advocate the use of force or violation of law, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
Civil liberties and legal communities widely viewed this case as a terrorism-era test of the free speech protections first articulated in a McCarthy-era Supreme Court opinion; that ruling protected the right of public university professor Paul Sweezy, a self-styled "classical Marxist," to argue that the capitalist system would collapse when confronted by violence on the part of those seeking to create a "truly human society."
This protection was broadened and clarified in 1969 when the court, in a case involving pro-violence rhetoric at a Klan rally, held that speech-restrictive legislation had to be limited to "advocacy [that] is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
In this age of terrorism, it is not "classical Marxists" but fundamentalist religious radicals -- and those who disseminate their sermons and writings -- who are increasingly targeted by such viewpoint-based prosecutions. And like the anti-Communist purges of the '50s, these government actions are inspiring similar private sector purges
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://www.boston.com/news/gl...
|
|
|
| |
| FREE SPEECH IS NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER BEFORE ... |
| 06.29.04 (6:46 am) [edit] |
[b]Free speech in an age of terror[/b]
A WIDELY MISUNDERSTOOD and under-appreciated aspect of the First Amendment's free speech guaranty was reaffirmed earlier this month by a federal jury in Idaho. At the same time, however, the principle was being undermined by some of the nation's premier charitable foundations. The issue? Protection of speech that advocates violence, including violence against the very system of constitutional government that brings us the First Amendment.
In terms of the never-ending battle for free speech, it's always the hardest sell -- protecting speech that's often violent, subversive, revolutionary. And yet it's precisely the kind of speech where the First Amendment plays its most important role.
After seven days of deliberations, the jury acquitted Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a 34-year-old Muslim Saudi graduate student at the University of Idaho, of charges that he provided "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist organizations by operating websites and e-mail discussion groups that advocated what lead prosecutor Kim Lindquist termed "extreme jihad."
Boise federal prosecutors had brought the case under a controversial provision of the US Patriot Act that broadened a Clinton-era prohibition against lending assistance to causes designated by the federal government as "foreign terrorist organizations." To support their contention that Al-Hussayen had assisted a terrorist conspiracy, prosecutors pulled several examples of inflammatory speech from Al-Hussayen's otherwise mundane collection of Muslim-themed websites and discussion groups. These included his redistribution of four fatwas issued by radical clerics offering religious justifications for "martyrdom attacks" and his hyperlinks to a Hamas-affiliated website.
But the prosecutors ran up against the First Amendment. As US District Judge Edward Lodge instructed the jury, the Constitution protects expression of beliefs "even if those beliefs advocate the use of force or violation of law, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
Civil liberties and legal communities widely viewed this case as a terrorism-era test of the free speech protections first articulated in a McCarthy-era Supreme Court opinion; that ruling protected the right of public university professor Paul Sweezy, a self-styled "classical Marxist," to argue that the capitalist system would collapse when confronted by violence on the part of those seeking to create a "truly human society."
This protection was broadened and clarified in 1969 when the court, in a case involving pro-violence rhetoric at a Klan rally, held that speech-restrictive legislation had to be limited to "advocacy [that] is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
In this age of terrorism, it is not "classical Marxists" but fundamentalist religious radicals -- and those who disseminate their sermons and writings -- who are increasingly targeted by such viewpoint-based prosecutions. And like the anti-Communist purges of the '50s, these government actions are inspiring similar private sector purges
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://www.boston.com/news/gl...
|
|
|
| |
| IRAQIS "HOPE" FOR REAL "SOVEREIGNTY" (IRAQ IS IN A SHAMBLES) ... THEY BETTER NOT "HOLD-THEIR-BREATHE |
| 06.29.04 (6:42 am) [edit] |
[b]Iraqis[i] hope [/i]for real sovereignty[/b]
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - When the U.S. formal transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government was televised on Monday, some Iraqis on a bustling downtown street dismissed it as a cosmetic change in a country destabilised by occupation.
But others said the handover was a step in the right direction, and called on Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to take stern measures to restore stability.
"We are happy. Although Allawi was chosen by the Americans, at least now we have some sovereignty," said Mohammed al-Daraji, a driver for a transport company.
"Allawi may succeed if he is very tough."
At a grimy transport firm, long-haul drivers predicted more trouble on Iraq's roads, where they have seen everything from suicide bombings to carjackings in the last 14 months.
"What could change now? I was held up by armed men and then detained by the Americans for a month for holding a weapon in my vehicle for protection," said Ali Ibrahim.
"How can sovereignty mean anything when American soldiers are going to stay in Iraq? If they leave it will be stable."
U.S. troops will lead a multinational force of more than 160,000 soldiers that will support Allawi's government.
At the handover ceremony, Allawi said in his speech that security was under control in the new sovereign Iraq.
Although Iraqis were happy to see their interim government take over after the occupation that ended 24 years of Saddam Hussein's rule, some questioned the extent of their sovereignty.
"We will have an American embassy here with thousands of employees, the biggest embassy in the world. The Americans will keep interfering," said the transport company's manager, Bashar. "Sovereignty means full sovereignty -- no American troops."
[b]LONGING FOR RESPECT[/b]
Many of his drivers hope sovereignty means Iraqis will no longer be treated as second-class citizens on the Jordanian border, where passport inspections became rigorous after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
"We have been treated badly for so long. I drove Iraqi families to Jordan and the customs people would just send them back. This Iraqi passport has no value in the rest of the world," said driver Abbas Mahmoud, waving a friend's passport.
The al-Quds transport company, with its diverse ethnic mix of employees, offers a glimpse into the minds of a people who have seen no way out of suffering for decades.
First there was Saddam's brutal one-party state. Then U.S. President George W. Bush's troops invaded with promises of prosperity and democracy. Now Allawi's untested government faces a host of challenges, with security as the highest priority.
Violence has become so pervasive that many want to see stern measures to restore security. Allawi says the government plans to introduce emergency laws, including curfews.
"I want to behead Saddam Hussein for what he did. He killed four members of my family," said Akeel Kathim, another driver. "Despite that I hope he comes back because only he can end the security crisis."
The roads were safe under Saddam because criminals faced severe sentences such as long prison terms, or the severing of hands for illegal money dealing. During the chaos of occupation, armed gangs preyed on motorists. Now al-Quds's 25 drivers can only wait to see if Allawi delivers.
"I used to take jobs at two in the morning. Now I shut down at six because it is too dangerous to drive at night," Bashar said. "The future is uncertain now. I hope I we can work at night again soon." - http://www.reuters.co.uk/news...
|
|
|
| |
| IRAQIS "HOPE" FOR REAL "SOVEREIGNTY" (IRAQ IS IN A SHAMBLES) ... THEY BETTER NOT "HOLD-THEIR-BREATHE |
| 06.29.04 (6:10 am) [edit] |
[b]Iraqis[i] hope [/i]for real sovereignty[/b]
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - When the U.S. formal transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government was televised on Monday, some Iraqis on a bustling downtown street dismissed it as a cosmetic change in a country destabilised by occupation.
But others said the handover was a step in the right direction, and called on Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to take stern measures to restore stability.
"We are happy. Although Allawi was chosen by the Americans, at least now we have some sovereignty," said Mohammed al-Daraji, a driver for a transport company.
"Allawi may succeed if he is very tough."
At a grimy transport firm, long-haul drivers predicted more trouble on Iraq's roads, where they have seen everything from suicide bombings to carjackings in the last 14 months.
"What could change now? I was held up by armed men and then detained by the Americans for a month for holding a weapon in my vehicle for protection," said Ali Ibrahim.
"How can sovereignty mean anything when American soldiers are going to stay in Iraq? If they leave it will be stable."
U.S. troops will lead a multinational force of more than 160,000 soldiers that will support Allawi's government.
At the handover ceremony, Allawi said in his speech that security was under control in the new sovereign Iraq.
Although Iraqis were happy to see their interim government take over after the occupation that ended 24 years of Saddam Hussein's rule, some questioned the extent of their sovereignty.
"We will have an American embassy here with thousands of employees, the biggest embassy in the world. The Americans will keep interfering," said the transport company's manager, Bashar. "Sovereignty means full sovereignty -- no American troops."
[b]LONGING FOR RESPECT[/b]
Many of his drivers hope sovereignty means Iraqis will no longer be treated as second-class citizens on the Jordanian border, where passport inspections became rigorous after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
"We have been treated badly for so long. I drove Iraqi families to Jordan and the customs people would just send them back. This Iraqi passport has no value in the rest of the world," said driver Abbas Mahmoud, waving a friend's passport.
The al-Quds transport company, with its diverse ethnic mix of employees, offers a glimpse into the minds of a people who have seen no way out of suffering for decades.
First there was Saddam's brutal one-party state. Then U.S. President George W. Bush's troops invaded with promises of prosperity and democracy. Now Allawi's untested government faces a host of challenges, with security as the highest priority.
Violence has become so pervasive that many want to see stern measures to restore security. Allawi says the government plans to introduce emergency laws, including curfews.
"I want to behead Saddam Hussein for what he did. He killed four members of my family," said Akeel Kathim, another driver. "Despite that I hope he comes back because only he can end the security crisis."
The roads were safe under Saddam because criminals faced severe sentences such as long prison terms, or the severing of hands for illegal money dealing. During the chaos of occupation, armed gangs preyed on motorists. Now al-Quds's 25 drivers can only wait to see if Allawi delivers.
"I used to take jobs at two in the morning. Now I shut down at six because it is too dangerous to drive at night," Bashar said. "The future is uncertain now. I hope I we can work at night again soon." - http://www.reuters.co.uk/news...
|
|
|
| |
| BUSH'S RATING FALLS TO ITS LOWEST POINT, NEW SURVEY FINDS |
| 06.28.04 (7:19 pm) [edit] |
President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks and skeptical about whether the White House has been fully truthful about the war or about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.
A majority of respondents in the poll, conducted before yesterday's transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government, said that the war was not worth its cost in American lives and that the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to restore order to Iraq.
The survey, which showed Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42 percent, also found that nearly 40 percent of Americans say they do not have an opinion about Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, despite what have been both parties' earliest and most expensive television advertising campaigns.
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| 91% PUBLIC LOVES IT - 90% CRITICS GIVE IT A THUMBS-UP: 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' |
| 06.28.04 (6:58 am) [edit] |
[b]Red-Hot 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a No. 1 Hit Across America [/b]
Bush-bashing became the nation's favorite spectator sport over the weekend as Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his previous record-breaking movie did in its entire run.
According to studio estimates issued on Sunday, "Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.
All told, the movie's total stands at $21.96 million, because it got a head-start on Wednesday in two Manhattan theaters to help build more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (By contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)
Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," which nabbed the Academy Award for best documentary last year, grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, peaking at about 250 theaters, according to Moore. That haul was a record for a documentary in regular movie theaters.
"These are mind-blowing numbers," Moore said during a conference call, "And the fact that all the predictions that the movie would only speak to the choir and that it would only be those who don't like Bush coming to the movie, I don't think have turned out to be true."
Indeed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" played strongly in big cities and small towns, in Democrat and Republican states, said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, one of the firms that backed the movie.
[b]"FAHRENHEIT" FRENZY[/b]
According to exit surveys in about 15 cities, 91 percent of respondents gave the film an "excellent" rating, while 93 percent said they would "definitely recommend" the film -- tallies that Ortenberg said were the best he had ever seen. The core audience was aged between 25 and 34, he added.
Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp, partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.
The Disney brouhaha, which broke in early May, weeks before "Fahrenheit 9/11" went on to win the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, helped give the movie a huge public profile virtually unprecedented for a $6 million documentary.
Moore and the Weinsteins, well-practiced masters of media spin, were also helped in their efforts by grassroots groups from both sides of the political fence that chimed in with their opinions. Moore thanked his detractors for helping boost awareness and ticket sales.
While Moore has previously boasted that "Fahrenheit 9/11" would help Bush lose his job in November, he backed down during the teleconference, merely hoping that the film would inspire the large non-voting bloc to be "an active participant in our democracy." Similarly, Moore reversed himself on previously stated plans to release the DVD version of the film in October. "No deal has been done to do that," he said.
But one thing is certain. The Oscar race is now definitely underway ahead of next year's Feb. 27 ceremony, with "Fahrenheit 9/11" joining Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as the highest-profile contender. "We have big plans for the award season, absolutely," Ortenberg said.
Elsewhere at the box office, the comedy "White Chicks" opened at No. 2 with $19.6 million for the weekend, and $27.1 million since bowing nationally on Wednesday. Last weekend's champion, "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," fell to No. 3 with $18.5 million, and a 10-day haul of $67.2 million.
Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal," starring Tom Hanks, fell two places to No. 4 with $13.9 million, and a 10-day total of $41.8 million. Director Nick Cassavetes' "The Notebook," a tear-jerker romance based on the Nicholas Sparks bestseller," opened at No. 5 with a solid $13 million.
"White Chicks" was released by Columbia Pictures, a unit of Sony Corp . "Dodgeball" was released by Twentieth Century Fox, a unit of News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment Group Inc . "The Terminal" was released by DreamWorks SKG, which is privately held. "The Notebook" was released by New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc . - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
|
|
|
| |
| 91% PUBLIC LOVES IT - 90% CRITICS GIVE IT A THUMBS-UP: 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' |
| 06.28.04 (6:53 am) [edit] |
[b]Red-Hot 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a No. 1 Hit Across America [/b]
Bush-bashing became the nation's favorite spectator sport over the weekend as Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his previous record-breaking movie did in its entire run.
According to studio estimates issued on Sunday, "Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.
All told, the movie's total stands at $21.96 million, because it got a head-start on Wednesday in two Manhattan theaters to help build more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (By contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)
Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," which nabbed the Academy Award for best documentary last year, grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, peaking at about 250 theaters, according to Moore. That haul was a record for a documentary in regular movie theaters.
"These are mind-blowing numbers," Moore said during a conference call, "And the fact that all the predictions that the movie would only speak to the choir and that it would only be those who don't like Bush coming to the movie, I don't think have turned out to be true."
Indeed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" played strongly in big cities and small towns, in Democrat and Republican states, said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, one of the firms that backed the movie.
[b]"FAHRENHEIT" FRENZY[/b]
According to exit surveys in about 15 cities, 91 percent of respondents gave the film an "excellent" rating, while 93 percent said they would "definitely recommend" the film -- tallies that Ortenberg said were the best he had ever seen. The core audience was aged between 25 and 34, he added.
Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp, partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.
The Disney brouhaha, which broke in early May, weeks before "Fahrenheit 9/11" went on to win the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, helped give the movie a huge public profile virtually unprecedented for a $6 million documentary.
Moore and the Weinsteins, well-practiced masters of media spin, were also helped in their efforts by grassroots groups from both sides of the political fence that chimed in with their opinions. Moore thanked his detractors for helping boost awareness and ticket sales.
While Moore has previously boasted that "Fahrenheit 9/11" would help Bush lose his job in November, he backed down during the teleconference, merely hoping that the film would inspire the large non-voting bloc to be "an active participant in our democracy." Similarly, Moore reversed himself on previously stated plans to release the DVD version of the film in October. "No deal has been done to do that," he said.
But one thing is certain. The Oscar race is now definitely underway ahead of next year's Feb. 27 ceremony, with "Fahrenheit 9/11" joining Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as the highest-profile contender. "We have big plans for the award season, absolutely," Ortenberg said.
Elsewhere at the box office, the comedy "White Chicks" opened at No. 2 with $19.6 million for the weekend, and $27.1 million since bowing nationally on Wednesday. Last weekend's champion, "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," fell to No. 3 with $18.5 million, and a 10-day haul of $67.2 million.
Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal," starring Tom Hanks, fell two places to No. 4 with $13.9 million, and a 10-day total of $41.8 million. Director Nick Cassavetes' "The Notebook," a tear-jerker romance based on the Nicholas Sparks bestseller," opened at No. 5 with a solid $13 million.
"White Chicks" was released by Columbia Pictures, a unit of Sony Corp . "Dodgeball" was released by Twentieth Century Fox, a unit of News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment Group Inc . "The Terminal" was released by DreamWorks SKG, which is privately held. "The Notebook" was released by New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc . - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
|
|
|
| |
| 91% PUBLIC LOVES IT - 90% CRITICS GIVE IT A THUMBS-UP: 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' |
| 06.28.04 (6:50 am) [edit] |
[b]Red-Hot 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a No. 1 Hit Across America [/b]
Bush-bashing became the nation's favorite spectator sport over the weekend as Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his previous record-breaking movie did in its entire run.
According to studio estimates issued on Sunday, "Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.
All told, the movie's total stands at $21.96 million, because it got a head-start on Wednesday in two Manhattan theaters to help build more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (By contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)
Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," which nabbed the Academy Award for best documentary last year, grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, peaking at about 250 theaters, according to Moore. That haul was a record for a documentary in regular movie theaters.
"These are mind-blowing numbers," Moore said during a conference call, "And the fact that all the predictions that the movie would only speak to the choir and that it would only be those who don't like Bush coming to the movie, I don't think have turned out to be true."
Indeed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" played strongly in big cities and small towns, in Democrat and Republican states, said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, one of the firms that backed the movie.
[b]"FAHRENHEIT" FRENZY[/b]
According to exit surveys in about 15 cities, 91 percent of respondents gave the film an "excellent" rating, while 93 percent said they would "definitely recommend" the film -- tallies that Ortenberg said were the best he had ever seen. The core audience was aged between 25 and 34, he added.
Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp, partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.
The Disney brouhaha, which broke in early May, weeks before "Fahrenheit 9/11" went on to win the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, helped give the movie a huge public profile virtually unprecedented for a $6 million documentary.
Moore and the Weinsteins, well-practiced masters of media spin, were also helped in their efforts by grassroots groups from both sides of the political fence that chimed in with their opinions. Moore thanked his detractors for helping boost awareness and ticket sales.
While Moore has previously boasted that "Fahrenheit 9/11" would help Bush lose his job in November, he backed down during the teleconference, merely hoping that the film would inspire the large non-voting bloc to be "an active participant in our democracy." Similarly, Moore reversed himself on previously stated plans to release the DVD version of the film in October. "No deal has been done to do that," he said.
But one thing is certain. The Oscar race is now definitely underway ahead of next year's Feb. 27 ceremony, with "Fahrenheit 9/11" joining Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as the highest-profile contender. "We have big plans for the award season, absolutely," Ortenberg said.
Elsewhere at the box office, the comedy "White Chicks" opened at No. 2 with $19.6 million for the weekend, and $27.1 million since bowing nationally on Wednesday. Last weekend's champion, "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," fell to No. 3 with $18.5 million, and a 10-day haul of $67.2 million.
Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal," starring Tom Hanks, fell two places to No. 4 with $13.9 million, and a 10-day total of $41.8 million. Director Nick Cassavetes' "The Notebook," a tear-jerker romance based on the Nicholas Sparks bestseller," opened at No. 5 with a solid $13 million.
"White Chicks" was released by Columbia Pictures, a unit of Sony Corp . "Dodgeball" was released by Twentieth Century Fox, a unit of News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment Group Inc . "The Terminal" was released by DreamWorks SKG, which is privately held. "The Notebook" was released by New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc . - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
|
|
|
| |
| THE DISASTER OF FAILED [IRAQ] POLICY ... |
| 06.28.04 (6:29 am) [edit] |
In its scale and intent, President Bush's war against Iraq was something new and radical: a premeditated decision to invade, occupy and topple the government of a country that was no imminent threat to the United States. This was not a handful of GIs sent to overthrow Panamanian thug Manuel Noriega or to oust a new Marxist government in tiny Grenada. It was the dispatch of more than 100,000 U.S. troops to implement Bush's post-Sept. 11 doctrine of preemption, one whose dangers President John Quincy Adams understood when he said the United States "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. began by assisting a friendly government resisting communist takeover in a civil war, though the conflict disintegrated into a failure that still haunts this country. The 1991 Persian Gulf War, under Bush's father, was a successful response to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait — and Bush's father deliberately stopped short of toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
The current president outlined a far more aggressive policy in a speech to the West Point graduating class in 2002, declaring that in the war on terror "we must take the battle to the enemy" and confront threats before they emerge. The Iraq war was intended as a monument to his new Bush Doctrine, which also posited that the U.S. would take what help was available from allies but would not be held back by them. It now stands as a monument to folly.
The planned transfer Wednesday of limited sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an interim Iraqi government occurs with U.S. influence around the world at a low point and insurgent violence in Iraq reaching new heights of deadliness and coordination. Important Arab leaders this month rejected a U.S. invitation to attend a summit with leaders of industrialized nations. The enmity between Israelis and Palestinians is fiercer than ever, their hope for peace dimmer. Residents of the Middle East see the U.S. not as a friend but as an imperial power bent on securing a guaranteed oil supply and a base for U.S. forces. Much of the rest of the world sees a bully.
[b]The War's False Premises[/b]
All the main justifications for the invasion offered beforehand by the Bush administration and its supporters — weapons of mass destruction, close ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a chance to make Baghdad a fountain of democracy that would spread through the region — turned out to be baseless.
Weeks of suicide car bombings, assassinations of political leaders and attacks on oil pipelines vital to the country's economy have preceded the handover.
On Thursday alone, car bombs and street fighting in five cities claimed more than 100 lives. Iraqis no longer fear torture or death at the hands of Hussein's brutal thugs, but many fear leaving their homes because of the violence.
The U.S. is also poorer after the war, in lives lost, billions spent and terrorists given new fuel for their rage. The initial fighting was easy; the occupation has been a disaster, with Pentagon civilians arrogantly ignoring expert advice on the difficulty of the task and necessary steps for success.
Two iconic pictures from Iraq balance the good and the dreadful — the toppling of Hussein's statue and a prisoner crawling on the floor at Abu Ghraib prison with a leash around his neck. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 to a hero's welcome and a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished."
A year later, more than 90% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their country. The president boasted in July that if Iraqi resistance fighters thought they could attack U.S. forces, "bring them on." Since then, more than 400 personnel have been killed by hostile fire.
Iraqis hope, with little evidence, that the transfer of limited sovereignty to an interim government will slow attacks on police, soldiers and civilians. Another goal, democracy, is fading. The first concern remains what it should have been after the rout of Hussein's army: security. The new Iraqi leaders are considering martial law, an understandable response with suicide bombings recently averaging about one a day but a move they could hardly enforce with an army far from rebuilt.
The new government also faces the difficulty of keeping the country together. In the north, the Kurds, an ethnically separate minority community that had been persecuted by Hussein, want at least to maintain the autonomy they've had for a decade. The Sunnis and Shiites distrust each other. Within the Shiite community, to which the majority of Iraqis belong, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the violent Muqtada Sadr are opponents. Sadr was a relatively minor figure until occupation officials shut his party's newspaper in March and arrested one of his aides, setting off large protests and attacks on U.S. troops.
The U.S. carries its own unwelcome legacies from the occupation:
• Troops are spending more time in Iraq than planned because about one-quarter of the Army is there at any one time. National Guard and Army Reserve forces are being kept on active duty longer than expected, creating problems at home, where the soldiers' jobs go unfilled and families go without parents in the home.
• The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has raised questions about the administration's willingness to ignore Geneva Convention requirements on treatment of prisoners. Investigations of prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay must aim at finding out which high-ranking officers approved of the abuse or should have known of it. The U.S. also must decide what to do with prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention requires they be released when the occupation ends unless they have been formally charged with a crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross says fewer than 50 prisoners have been granted POW status. Thousands more detained as possible security threats also should be released or charged.
• The use of private contractors for military jobs once done by soldiers also demands closer examination. Civilians have long been employed to feed troops and wash uniforms, but the prevalence of ex-GIs interrogating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison raises harsh new questions. For instance, what, if any, charges could be brought against them if they were found complicit in mistreatment?
[b]Investigate the Contracts[/b]
The administration also put private U.S. contractors in charge of rebuilding Iraq. Congress needs to take a much closer look at what they do and how they bill the government.
Halliburton is the best-known case, having won secret no-bid contracts to rebuild the country. A Pentagon audit found "significant" overcharges by the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney; Halliburton denies the allegations.
Iraqis say they want the Americans out, but most understand they will need the foreign forces for many more months. A U.S. troop presence in Iraq should not be indefinite, even if the Iraqis request it. By the end of 2005, Iraq should have enough trained police, soldiers, border guards and other forces to be able to defend the country and put down insurgencies but not threaten neighboring countries.
The Bush administration should push NATO nations to help with the training. Once the Iraqis have a new constitution, an elected government and sufficient security forces, the U.S. should withdraw its troops. That does not mean setting a definite date, because the U.S. cannot walk away from what it created. But it should set realistic goals for Iraq to reach on its own, at which time the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad becomes just another diplomatic outpost. It also means living up to promises to let Iraq choose its own government, even well short of democracy.
France, Germany and others that opposed the war seem to understand that letting Iraq become a failed state, an Afghanistan writ large, threatens them as well as the U.S. and the Middle East. But other nations will do little to help with reconstruction if Iraq remains a thinly disguised fiefdom where U.S. companies get billion-dollar contracts and other countries are shut out.
[b]A Litany of Costly Errors[/b]
The missteps have been many: listening to Iraqi exiles like Ahmad Chalabi who insisted that their countrymen would welcome invaders; using too few troops, which led to a continuing crime wave and later to kidnappings and full-blown terror attacks. Disbanding the Iraqi army worsened the nation's unemployment problem and left millions of former soldiers unhappy — men with weapons. Keeping the United Nations at arm's length made it harder to regain assistance when the need was dire.
It will take years for widely felt hostility to ebb, in Iraq and other countries. The consequences of arrogance, accompanied by certitude that the world's most powerful military can cure all ills, should be burned into Americans' memory banks.
Preemption is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster. The U.S. needs better intelligence before it acts in the future. It needs to listen to friendly nations. It needs humility. - http://www.latimes.com/news/o...,1,5326006.story?coll=la-news-commen t-editorials
|
|
|
| |
| THE DISASTER OF FAILED POLICY ... |
| 06.28.04 (6:25 am) [edit] |
In its scale and intent, President Bush's war against Iraq was something new and radical: a premeditated decision to invade, occupy and topple the government of a country that was no imminent threat to the United States. This was not a handful of GIs sent to overthrow Panamanian thug Manuel Noriega or to oust a new Marxist government in tiny Grenada. It was the dispatch of more than 100,000 U.S. troops to implement Bush's post-Sept. 11 doctrine of preemption, one whose dangers President John Quincy Adams understood when he said the United States "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. began by assisting a friendly government resisting communist takeover in a civil war, though the conflict disintegrated into a failure that still haunts this country. The 1991 Persian Gulf War, under Bush's father, was a successful response to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait — and Bush's father deliberately stopped short of toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
The current president outlined a far more aggressive policy in a speech to the West Point graduating class in 2002, declaring that in the war on terror "we must take the battle to the enemy" and confront threats before they emerge. The Iraq war was intended as a monument to his new Bush Doctrine, which also posited that the U.S. would take what help was available from allies but would not be held back by them. It now stands as a monument to folly.
The planned transfer Wednesday of limited sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an interim Iraqi government occurs with U.S. influence around the world at a low point and insurgent violence in Iraq reaching new heights of deadliness and coordination. Important Arab leaders this month rejected a U.S. invitation to attend a summit with leaders of industrialized nations. The enmity between Israelis and Palestinians is fiercer than ever, their hope for peace dimmer. Residents of the Middle East see the U.S. not as a friend but as an imperial power bent on securing a guaranteed oil supply and a base for U.S. forces. Much of the rest of the world sees a bully.
[b]The War's False Premises[/b]
All the main justifications for the invasion offered beforehand by the Bush administration and its supporters — weapons of mass destruction, close ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a chance to make Baghdad a fountain of democracy that would spread through the region — turned out to be baseless.
Weeks of suicide car bombings, assassinations of political leaders and attacks on oil pipelines vital to the country's economy have preceded the handover.
On Thursday alone, car bombs and street fighting in five cities claimed more than 100 lives. Iraqis no longer fear torture or death at the hands of Hussein's brutal thugs, but many fear leaving their homes because of the violence.
The U.S. is also poorer after the war, in lives lost, billions spent and terrorists given new fuel for their rage. The initial fighting was easy; the occupation has been a disaster, with Pentagon civilians arrogantly ignoring expert advice on the difficulty of the task and necessary steps for success.
Two iconic pictures from Iraq balance the good and the dreadful — the toppling of Hussein's statue and a prisoner crawling on the floor at Abu Ghraib prison with a leash around his neck. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 to a hero's welcome and a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished."
A year later, more than 90% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their country. The president boasted in July that if Iraqi resistance fighters thought they could attack U.S. forces, "bring them on." Since then, more than 400 personnel have been killed by hostile fire.
Iraqis hope, with little evidence, that the transfer of limited sovereignty to an interim government will slow attacks on police, soldiers and civilians. Another goal, democracy, is fading. The first concern remains what it should have been after the rout of Hussein's army: security. The new Iraqi leaders are considering martial law, an understandable response with suicide bombings recently averaging about one a day but a move they could hardly enforce with an army far from rebuilt.
The new government also faces the difficulty of keeping the country together. In the north, the Kurds, an ethnically separate minority community that had been persecuted by Hussein, want at least to maintain the autonomy they've had for a decade. The Sunnis and Shiites distrust each other. Within the Shiite community, to which the majority of Iraqis belong, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the violent Muqtada Sadr are opponents. Sadr was a relatively minor figure until occupation officials shut his party's newspaper in March and arrested one of his aides, setting off large protests and attacks on U.S. troops.
The U.S. carries its own unwelcome legacies from the occupation:
• Troops are spending more time in Iraq than planned because about one-quarter of the Army is there at any one time. National Guard and Army Reserve forces are being kept on active duty longer than expected, creating problems at home, where the soldiers' jobs go unfilled and families go without parents in the home.
• The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has raised questions about the administration's willingness to ignore Geneva Convention requirements on treatment of prisoners. Investigations of prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay must aim at finding out which high-ranking officers approved of the abuse or should have known of it. The U.S. also must decide what to do with prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention requires they be released when the occupation ends unless they have been formally charged with a crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross says fewer than 50 prisoners have been granted POW status. Thousands more detained as possible security threats also should be released or charged.
• The use of private contractors for military jobs once done by soldiers also demands closer examination. Civilians have long been employed to feed troops and wash uniforms, but the prevalence of ex-GIs interrogating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison raises harsh new questions. For instance, what, if any, charges could be brought against them if they were found complicit in mistreatment?
[b]Investigate the Contracts[/b]
The administration also put private U.S. contractors in charge of rebuilding Iraq. Congress needs to take a much closer look at what they do and how they bill the government.
Halliburton is the best-known case, having won secret no-bid contracts to rebuild the country. A Pentagon audit found "significant" overcharges by the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney; Halliburton denies the allegations.
Iraqis say they want the Americans out, but most understand they will need the foreign forces for many more months. A U.S. troop presence in Iraq should not be indefinite, even if the Iraqis request it. By the end of 2005, Iraq should have enough trained police, soldiers, border guards and other forces to be able to defend the country and put down insurgencies but not threaten neighboring countries.
The Bush administration should push NATO nations to help with the training. Once the Iraqis have a new constitution, an elected government and sufficient security forces, the U.S. should withdraw its troops. That does not mean setting a definite date, because the U.S. cannot walk away from what it created. But it should set realistic goals for Iraq to reach on its own, at which time the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad becomes just another diplomatic outpost. It also means living up to promises to let Iraq choose its own government, even well short of democracy.
France, Germany and others that opposed the war seem to understand that letting Iraq become a failed state, an Afghanistan writ large, threatens them as well as the U.S. and the Middle East. But other nations will do little to help with reconstruction if Iraq remains a thinly disguised fiefdom where U.S. companies get billion-dollar contracts and other countries are shut out.
[b]A Litany of Costly Errors[/b]
The missteps have been many: listening to Iraqi exiles like Ahmad Chalabi who insisted that their countrymen would welcome invaders; using too few troops, which led to a continuing crime wave and later to kidnappings and full-blown terror attacks. Disbanding the Iraqi army worsened the nation's unemployment problem and left millions of former soldiers unhappy — men with weapons. Keeping the United Nations at arm's length made it harder to regain assistance when the need was dire.
It will take years for widely felt hostility to ebb, in Iraq and other countries. The consequences of arrogance, accompanied by certitude that the world's most powerful military can cure all ills, should be burned into Americans' memory banks.
Preemption is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster. The U.S. needs better intelligence before it acts in the future. It needs to listen to friendly nations. It needs humility. - http://www.latimes.com/news/o...,1,5326006.story?coll=la-news-commen t-editorials
|
|
|
| |
| THE DISASTER OF FAILED [IRAQ] POLICY ... |
| 06.28.04 (6:21 am) [edit] |
In its scale and intent, President Bush's war against Iraq was something new and radical: a premeditated decision to invade, occupy and topple the government of a country that was no imminent threat to the United States. This was not a handful of GIs sent to overthrow Panamanian thug Manuel Noriega or to oust a new Marxist government in tiny Grenada. It was the dispatch of more than 100,000 U.S. troops to implement Bush's post-Sept. 11 doctrine of preemption, one whose dangers President John Quincy Adams understood when he said the United States "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. began by assisting a friendly government resisting communist takeover in a civil war, though the conflict disintegrated into a failure that still haunts this country. The 1991 Persian Gulf War, under Bush's father, was a successful response to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait — and Bush's father deliberately stopped short of toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
The current president outlined a far more aggressive policy in a speech to the West Point graduating class in 2002, declaring that in the war on terror "we must take the battle to the enemy" and confront threats before they emerge. The Iraq war was intended as a monument to his new Bush Doctrine, which also posited that the U.S. would take what help was available from allies but would not be held back by them. It now stands as a monument to folly.
The planned transfer Wednesday of limited sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an interim Iraqi government occurs with U.S. influence around the world at a low point and insurgent violence in Iraq reaching new heights of deadliness and coordination. Important Arab leaders this month rejected a U.S. invitation to attend a summit with leaders of industrialized nations. The enmity between Israelis and Palestinians is fiercer than ever, their hope for peace dimmer. Residents of the Middle East see the U.S. not as a friend but as an imperial power bent on securing a guaranteed oil supply and a base for U.S. forces. Much of the rest of the world sees a bully.
[b]The War's False Premises[/b]
All the main justifications for the invasion offered beforehand by the Bush administration and its supporters — weapons of mass destruction, close ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a chance to make Baghdad a fountain of democracy that would spread through the region — turned out to be baseless.
Weeks of suicide car bombings, assassinations of political leaders and attacks on oil pipelines vital to the country's economy have preceded the handover.
On Thursday alone, car bombs and street fighting in five cities claimed more than 100 lives. Iraqis no longer fear torture or death at the hands of Hussein's brutal thugs, but many fear leaving their homes because of the violence.
The U.S. is also poorer after the war, in lives lost, billions spent and terrorists given new fuel for their rage. The initial fighting was easy; the occupation has been a disaster, with Pentagon civilians arrogantly ignoring expert advice on the difficulty of the task and necessary steps for success.
Two iconic pictures from Iraq balance the good and the dreadful — the toppling of Hussein's statue and a prisoner crawling on the floor at Abu Ghraib prison with a leash around his neck. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 to a hero's welcome and a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished."
A year later, more than 90% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their country. The president boasted in July that if Iraqi resistance fighters thought they could attack U.S. forces, "bring them on." Since then, more than 400 personnel have been killed by hostile fire.
Iraqis hope, with little evidence, that the transfer of limited sovereignty to an interim government will slow attacks on police, soldiers and civilians. Another goal, democracy, is fading. The first concern remains what it should have been after the rout of Hussein's army: security. The new Iraqi leaders are considering martial law, an understandable response with suicide bombings recently averaging about one a day but a move they could hardly enforce with an army far from rebuilt.
The new government also faces the difficulty of keeping the country together. In the north, the Kurds, an ethnically separate minority community that had been persecuted by Hussein, want at least to maintain the autonomy they've had for a decade. The Sunnis and Shiites distrust each other. Within the Shiite community, to which the majority of Iraqis belong, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the violent Muqtada Sadr are opponents. Sadr was a relatively minor figure until occupation officials shut his party's newspaper in March and arrested one of his aides, setting off large protests and attacks on U.S. troops.
The U.S. carries its own unwelcome legacies from the occupation:
• Troops are spending more time in Iraq than planned because about one-quarter of the Army is there at any one time. National Guard and Army Reserve forces are being kept on active duty longer than expected, creating problems at home, where the soldiers' jobs go unfilled and families go without parents in the home.
• The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has raised questions about the administration's willingness to ignore Geneva Convention requirements on treatment of prisoners. Investigations of prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay must aim at finding out which high-ranking officers approved of the abuse or should have known of it. The U.S. also must decide what to do with prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention requires they be released when the occupation ends unless they have been formally charged with a crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross says fewer than 50 prisoners have been granted POW status. Thousands more detained as possible security threats also should be released or charged.
• The use of private contractors for military jobs once done by soldiers also demands closer examination. Civilians have long been employed to feed troops and wash uniforms, but the prevalence of ex-GIs interrogating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison raises harsh new questions. For instance, what, if any, charges could be brought against them if they were found complicit in mistreatment?
[b]Investigate the Contracts[/b]
The administration also put private U.S. contractors in charge of rebuilding Iraq. Congress needs to take a much closer look at what they do and how they bill the government.
Halliburton is the best-known case, having won secret no-bid contracts to rebuild the country. A Pentagon audit found "significant" overcharges by the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney; Halliburton denies the allegations.
Iraqis say they want the Americans out, but most understand they will need the foreign forces for many more months. A U.S. troop presence in Iraq should not be indefinite, even if the Iraqis request it. By the end of 2005, Iraq should have enough trained police, soldiers, border guards and other forces to be able to defend the country and put down insurgencies but not threaten neighboring countries.
The Bush administration should push NATO nations to help with the training. Once the Iraqis have a new constitution, an elected government and sufficient security forces, the U.S. should withdraw its troops. That does not mean setting a definite date, because the U.S. cannot walk away from what it created. But it should set realistic goals for Iraq to reach on its own, at which time the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad becomes just another diplomatic outpost. It also means living up to promises to let Iraq choose its own government, even well short of democracy.
France, Germany and others that opposed the war seem to understand that letting Iraq become a failed state, an Afghanistan writ large, threatens them as well as the U.S. and the Middle East. But other nations will do little to help with reconstruction if Iraq remains a thinly disguised fiefdom where U.S. companies get billion-dollar contracts and other countries are shut out.
[b]A Litany of Costly Errors[/b]
The missteps have been many: listening to Iraqi exiles like Ahmad Chalabi who insisted that their countrymen would welcome invaders; using too few troops, which led to a continuing crime wave and later to kidnappings and full-blown terror attacks. Disbanding the Iraqi army worsened the nation's unemployment problem and left millions of former soldiers unhappy — men with weapons. Keeping the United Nations at arm's length made it harder to regain assistance when the need was dire.
It will take years for widely felt hostility to ebb, in Iraq and other countries. The consequences of arrogance, accompanied by certitude that the world's most powerful military can cure all ills, should be burned into Americans' memory banks.
Preemption is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster. The U.S. needs better intelligence before it acts in the future. It needs to listen to friendly nations. It needs humility. - http://www.latimes.com/news/o...,1,5326006.story?coll=la-news-commen t-editorials
|
|
|
| |
| 40,000 PROTEST BUSH IN TURKEY-- BUSH HAS TO TOUR THRU DESERTED STREETS OF EUROPE (THEY HATE HIM) |
| 06.28.04 (6:17 am) [edit] |
[u][b]More Than 40,000 Protest Bush in Turkey[/b][/u]
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -- Tens of thousands of Turks chanting anti-Bush slogans demonstrated against the president's visit to their country on Sunday and a NATO summit.
Bush is unpopular in Turkey, where the overwhelming majority of the public opposed the Iraq war. As the president arrived in Turkey Saturday, supporters of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said they kidnapped three Turkish workers in Iraq, Arab TV station al-Jazeera reported. The group has threatened to behead the hostages, an al-Jazeera employee told The Associated Press.
The protest in the Kadikoy district, on the Asian side of Istanbul, attracted more than 40,000 people, mostly members of leftist groups, police said. There were some 100 foreign protesters from Greece, Britain, The Netherlands, Portugal and Syria.
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/...
[u][b]Bush tours through the deserted streets of Europe[/b][/u]
From Co Clare's cliffs to the Anatolian plain; from medieval battlements to Ottoman minarets; from the slate grey Atlantic to the Golden Horn; from armoured cars on deserted streets to, er, armoured cars on deserted streets.
President George W Bush took in the full East-West sweep of Europe this weekend, travelling from the mouth of the Shannon to the Bosphorus via Ankara in less than 24 hours. He also appeared to have fostered a rare unanimity on the streets of two of Europe's geographical extremes.
Hours after anti-Bush Irish demonstrators outwitted the Garda and delayed the president's plans, Turkish police in Ankara clashed with protesters trying to break through a barricade outside Mr Bush's hotel.
The only difference was the colour of the armoured cars: in Ireland they were khaki; in Ankara and Istanbul they were black.
Otherwise the impression from the motorcade was the same: anti-Bush graffiti, lines of armed policemen, roadblocks, and emptied roads.
The tour began on Friday night in Co Clare's Dromoland Castle, yet weeks of preparations almost went awry. Mr Bush was changing for dinner when a cameraman snatched an "unauthorised" shot of him at his window in a T-shirt, the cue for the briefest of losses of presidential cool. Memos went out insisting it was not for use.
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
|
|
|
| |
| 40,000 PROTEST BUSH IN TURKEY-- BUSH HAS TO TOUR THRU DESERTED STREETS OF EUROPE (THEY HATE HIM) |
| 06.28.04 (6:15 am) [edit] |
[u][b]More Than 40,000 Protest Bush in Turkey[/b][/u]
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -- Tens of thousands of Turks chanting anti-Bush slogans demonstrated against the president's visit to their country on Sunday and a NATO summit.
Bush is unpopular in Turkey, where the overwhelming majority of the public opposed the Iraq war. As the president arrived in Turkey Saturday, supporters of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said they kidnapped three Turkish workers in Iraq, Arab TV station al-Jazeera reported. The group has threatened to behead the hostages, an al-Jazeera employee told The Associated Press.
The protest in the Kadikoy district, on the Asian side of Istanbul, attracted more than 40,000 people, mostly members of leftist groups, police said. There were some 100 foreign protesters from Greece, Britain, The Netherlands, Portugal and Syria.
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/...
[u][b]Bush tours through the deserted streets of Europe[/b][/u]
From Co Clare's cliffs to the Anatolian plain; from medieval battlements to Ottoman minarets; from the slate grey Atlantic to the Golden Horn; from armoured cars on deserted streets to, er, armoured cars on deserted streets.
President George W Bush took in the full East-West sweep of Europe this weekend, travelling from the mouth of the Shannon to the Bosphorus via Ankara in less than 24 hours. He also appeared to have fostered a rare unanimity on the streets of two of Europe's geographical extremes.
Hours after anti-Bush Irish demonstrators outwitted the Garda and delayed the president's plans, Turkish police in Ankara clashed with protesters trying to break through a barricade outside Mr Bush's hotel.
The only difference was the colour of the armoured cars: in Ireland they were khaki; in Ankara and Istanbul they were black.
Otherwise the impression from the motorcade was the same: anti-Bush graffiti, lines of armed policemen, roadblocks, and emptied roads.
The tour began on Friday night in Co Clare's Dromoland Castle, yet weeks of preparations almost went awry. Mr Bush was changing for dinner when a cameraman snatched an "unauthorised" shot of him at his window in a T-shirt, the cue for the briefest of losses of presidential cool. Memos went out insisting it was not for use.
[i]The Full Story [/i] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
|
|
|
| |
| PANICKY-BUSH/FUCK-YOU-CHENEY'S EARLY "HANDOVER" 'CAUSE THEY'VE FUCKED-IT-UP & DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO |
| 06.28.04 (6:05 am) [edit] |
[b]U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq 2 days early
[i]Ministers sworn in; Bremer leaves country after surprise power shift[/i][/b]
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on Monday, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who might have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule.
The new interim government was sworn in six hours after the handover ceremony. The Arab world voiced cautious optimism, but maintained calls for the U.S. military to leave the country quickly.
Members of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s Cabinet each stepped forward to place their right hand on the Quran and pledged to accept their new duties with sincerity and impartiality. Behind them, a bank of Iraqi flags lined the podium.
“Before us is a challenge and a burden and we ask God almighty to give us the patience and guide us to take this country whose people deserves all goodness,” said President Ghazi al-Yawer after taking his oath. “May God protect Iraq and its citizens.”
Sovereignty documents were earlier handed over by outgoing U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer to Allawi in a small ceremony attended by about a half dozen Iraqi and coalition officials in the heavily guarded Green Zone.
“This is a historical day,” Allawi said during that ceremony. “We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation.”
[b]Bremer leaves Iraq[/b]
Two hours after the ceremony Bremer left Iraq on a U.S. Air Force C-130, said Robert Tappan, an official of the former coalition occupation authority. Bremer was accompanied by coalition spokesman Dan Senor and close members of his staff.
Although the interim government will have full sovereignty, it will operate under major restrictions — some of them imposed at the urging of the influential Shiite clergy, which sought to limit the powers of an un-elected administration.
The new government’s major tasks will be to prepare for elections by Jan. 31, handle the day to day running of the country and work along with the U.S.-led multinational force, which is responsible for security. The Iraqis can in principle ask the foreign troops to leave — although it is unlikely this will happen.
However, the United States and its partners hope that the transfer of sovereignty will serve as a psychological boost for Iraqis, who have been increasingly frustrated by and hostile to foreign military occupation. U.S. officials hope Iraqis will believe that they are now in control of their country and that that will take the steam out of the insurgency.
Asked why the new government decided to hold the transfer earlier, a senior coalition official said on condition of anonymity that Allawi had indicated his ministries were already fully staffed. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
|
|
|
| |
| PANICKY-BUSH/FUCK-YOU-CHENEY'S EARLY "HANDOVER" 'CAUSE THEY'VE FUCKED-IT-UP & DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO! |
| 06.28.04 (5:56 am) [edit] |
[b]U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq 2 days early
[i]Ministers sworn in; Bremer leaves country after surprise power shift[/i][/b]
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on Monday, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who might have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule.
The new interim government was sworn in six hours after the handover ceremony. The Arab world voiced cautious optimism, but maintained calls for the U.S. military to leave the country quickly.
Members of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s Cabinet each stepped forward to place their right hand on the Quran and pledged to accept their new duties with sincerity and impartiality. Behind them, a bank of Iraqi flags lined the podium.
“Before us is a challenge and a burden and we ask God almighty to give us the patience and guide us to take this country whose people deserves all goodness,” said President Ghazi al-Yawer after taking his oath. “May God protect Iraq and its citizens.”
Sovereignty documents were earlier handed over by outgoing U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer to Allawi in a small ceremony attended by about a half dozen Iraqi and coalition officials in the heavily guarded Green Zone.
“This is a historical day,” Allawi said during that ceremony. “We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation.”
[b]Bremer leaves Iraq[/b]
Two hours after the ceremony Bremer left Iraq on a U.S. Air Force C-130, said Robert Tappan, an official of the former coalition occupation authority. Bremer was accompanied by coalition spokesman Dan Senor and close members of his staff.
Although the interim government will have full sovereignty, it will operate under major restrictions — some of them imposed at the urging of the influential Shiite clergy, which sought to limit the powers of an un-elected administration.
The new government’s major tasks will be to prepare for elections by Jan. 31, handle the day to day running of the country and work along with the U.S.-led multinational force, which is responsible for security. The Iraqis can in principle ask the foreign troops to leave — although it is unlikely this will happen.
However, the United States and its partners hope that the transfer of sovereignty will serve as a psychological boost for Iraqis, who have been increasingly frustrated by and hostile to foreign military occupation. U.S. officials hope Iraqis will believe that they are now in control of their country and that that will take the steam out of the insurgency.
Asked why the new government decided to hold the transfer earlier, a senior coalition official said on condition of anonymity that Allawi had indicated his ministries were already fully staffed. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
|
|
|
| |
| AN ANALYSIS OF 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' & WHY THE NEO-CONS ARE MAD-DOGS FOAMING AT THE MOUTH!!! |
| 06.27.04 (7:07 pm) [edit] |
[b]'Fahrenheit 9/11' did exceptionally well at the American Box Offices http://www.commondreams.org/h... on its opening day (Friday, 25.June.04) ... Roger Ebert gave Michael Moore's movie a big '[i]Thumbs-Up[/i]' http://www.suntimes.com/ebert... , citing that Bush "comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner" ... Finally,[i] the truth [/i]is being told to the American people ...[/b]
Today is the nationwide premiere of Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" – an analysis of how the president misled the country to war in Iraq and how the Bush-Saudi relationship has compromised America's national security. Even before the movie was public, the White House and its right-wing allies sought to smear both the film and Moore personally. Last month, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the movie "was so outrageously false it's not even worth comment," even though he had not yet seen the film. Meanwhile, the [i]Hollywood Reporter [/i]discovered that "big-time conservative donors" are funding a slew of anti-Moore activities. Following the White House's tactic of attacking critics' patriotism, the right-wing is also apparently bankrolling a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America." But despite conservatives' best efforts to discredit the film, the [i]NY Times [/i]notes, "central assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public record." When the movie was aired at the Cannes Film Festival, it won top prize from a panel made up of mostly American and British judges.
[b]ACCURATE – NEW REPORT SAYS SAUDI FLIGHTS OCCURRED ON 9/13:[/b] Critics have accused Moore of wrongly claiming a group of Saudis were allowed to fly out of the United States on September 13, when much of American airspace was still closed. In fact, the movie accurately reports that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave after September 13 – a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission http://www.9-11commission.gov... . Additionally, new reports prove that Saudi flights did occur on 9/13, despite three years of Bush administration denials. As the [i]St. Petersburg Times [/i]reports, on September 13,"with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left" for Lexington, KY. The Saudis "then took another flight out of the country." Because the information is so new, it was not in the 9/11 Commission's preliminary report. Subsequently, however, the commission has asked the Tampa airport "for any information about 'a chartered flight with six people, including a Saudi prince, that flew from Tampa, Florida on or about Sept. 13, 2001.'"
[b]ACCURATE – BUSH WAS NOT FOCUSED ON TERRORISM:[/b] In the movie, Moore charges that President Bush did not pay enough attention to pre-9/11 warnings that al Qaeda was about to attack. Instead of focusing on terrorism, charges the movie, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation. That figure "came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by [i]The Washington Post[/i]. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/art... " Read American Progress's report http://www.americanprogress.o... "[i]Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and 9/11[/i]" for a comprehensive history of how the White House underfunded counter-terrorism and downgraded terrorism as a priority before 9/11. See American Progress's new "[i]Complete Saudi Primer[/i]" - http://www.americanprogress.o... a guide to everything you always wanted to know about the Bush-Saudi connection but were afraid to ask.
[b]DISNEY'S EFFORT TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE:[/b] At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign contributor http://www.opensecrets.org/in...(all+states)&txtZip=&txtE mploy=Disney&txtCand=Bush &txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2 000=Y&Order=N ), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The company enjoys a cozy relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides."
[b]RIGHT-WING EFFORTS TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE:[/b] The campaign to silence Moore was taken up by the right-wing group with the ironic name Move America Forward. The group is headed by right-winger Howard Kaloogian, who also spearheaded the partisan campaign to quash a miniseries about Ronald Reagan and led the partisan fight to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. Kaloogian also "credits himself with helping elect President Bush because he was No. 4 of 25 elected officials who signed a letter asking him to run in January 1999." The group, without having seen the film, "launched a preemptive attack against" the movie "by requesting movie theaters across the country not to show the film."
[b]DAVID BOSSIE'S HYPOCRISY:[/b] The conservative front group "Citizens United," which is headed by Clinton attacker David Bossie, is trying to get the Federal Election Commission to intervene and censor advertising for "Fahrenheit 9/11". Just two years ago, however, it was Bossie who led the charge against FEC interventions. On 6/12/02, [i]The Hill [/i]newspaper reported him saying his group feels "FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent…they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics."
[b]RATED R FOR REALITY:[/b] The Motion Picture Association of America saddled the movie with an R rating. Tom Ortenberg, president of the company releasing the film, "argued that 15- and 16-year-olds, who might end up fighting in the war on terrorism," should be able to see the film, which shows the true cost of war - gravely wounded Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops. Much of that cost has been hidden by the Bush administration, which has banned photos of flag-draped coffins coming home (even though the Bush campaign uses flag draped corpses at Ground Zero in its political commercials). President Bush has also refused to attend funerals of the fallen in Iraq. Moore argues that the movie needs to be seen by the widest possible audience to give the public a glimpse of the reality of war. All told, between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 836 U.S. military. For more on the hidden cost of war, read this summary http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/co... by the Institute for Policy Studies.
[b]Update:[/b] Hot off the press on Sunday afternoon, 27.June.04: "'Fahrenheit 9/11' tops North American box office" http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/n... : [i]"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at U.S. President George W. Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.[/i]
[b]Source:[/b]
[i]SamAdams' CounterPoint[/i]: http://samadams.tblog.com
|
|
|
| |
| ARE THE MAD KING GEORGE & 'FUCK-YOU' CHENEY LOSING IT??? |
| 06.27.04 (6:52 pm) [edit] |
One thing you've got to say for Dick Cheney: No one will ever again dismiss the vice presidency as a pitcher of warm spit. Mr. Major League Potty Mouth has shown that, with obsequiousness to the president and obtuseness to the facts, a vice president can run the world. Right into the ground.
This week, it's not just Democrats who are questioning whether Vice is losing it. Now, even some in the White House are saying it's bizarre that he chose a class photo-op on the Senate floor to suggest that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that you won't even find described in Bill Clinton's "My Life."
While Democratic lawmakers delayed final passage of a defense spending bill so they could mingle with Michael Moore, the once sweat-free Bushies were acting jangly.
First Vice chewed out The Times for accurately reporting that the 9/11 commission said there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Then Paul Wolfowitz called the reporters risking their lives in Iraq craven rumormongers. Then came Mr. Cheney's F-word. (Not Fox, the other one.)
Finally, President Bush got agitated when an Irish TV interviewer said most of the Irish found the world more dangerous now than before the Iraq invasion. "First of all, most of Europe supported the decision in Iraq," Mr. Bush declared. (It's all in how you define "Europe.")
Even as Tom Daschle proposed bipartisan family retreats to heal the harsh mood, even as the Senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act," Mr. Cheney profanely laced into Mr. Leahy for criticizing Halliburton's getting no-bid contracts.
"I felt better afterwards," he told Neil Cavuto during a no-bid interview with Fox News. Hey, if it feels good, Dick, do it.
He said he had no regrets about his "little floor debate in the United States Senate." He didn't want to go along with Mr. Leahy's attitude that "everything's peaches and cream" when the Democrat had just been jawing about Halliburton war profiteering. Peaches and cream have never been on the Bush-Cheney menu, only brimstone and gall.
By playing on the insecurities of an inexperienced leader, Mr. Cheney has managed to change W. from a sunny, open, bipartisan, uniter-not-a-divider, non-nation-builder into a crabby, secretive, partisan, divider-not-a-uniter, inept imperialist. Vice is bounding around the country, talking to his usual circumscribed audiences of conservatives, right-wing think tanks and Fox News anchors. No need to burrow in the bunker when you've turned America into one.
As they used to say about the Soviet Union, the defensive Bush imperialists have to keep expanding because they're encircled. Mr. Cheney's gloomy, scary, contentious world view has fueled a more gloomy, scary, contentious world.
After disastrously dividing the world into the strong (Bush hawks) and the weak (everyone else), Vice turned his coarseness into another macho, tough-guy moment against a Democrat considered a pill by many Republicans. "I think a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue," he preened.
The conservatives defending Mr. Cheney are largely the same crowd that went off the deep end because of a glimpse of breast on the Super Bowl, demanding everything from fines to new regulations to protect red states from blue language.
Mr. Cheney's foul outburst was not as bad as his foul reasoning. On Fox, he again belabored his obsession with "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Exhibiting WASP chutzpah, this time he used The Times to bolster his faux case.
But the Thom Shanker story he cited said only that in the mid-1990's, Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda and that a request from Osama "to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered."
Rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda? As a threat to U.S. security, that's right up there with Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."
Mr. Cheney assured Fox's anxious viewers that he would stay on the ticket and in the White House until January '09. (No four letter words, dear Democrats.) Vice said of W., "he knows I'm there to serve him."
Mr. Bush must have missed that classic "Twilight Zone" episode where the aliens arrive with a book entitled, "To Serve Man." It turns out to be a cookbook. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' IS CASTING A WIDE NET AT THEATRES!!! |
| 06.27.04 (6:48 pm) [edit] |
[i]Anti-Bush sentiment runs high at showings of the documentary, which has had a strong opening weekend on 868 screens[/i].
Before the movie started, Leslie Hanser prayed.
"I prayed the Lord would open my eyes," she said.
For months, her son Joshua, a college student, had been drawing her into political debate. He'd tell her she shouldn't trust President Bush. He'd tell her the Iraq war was wrong. Hanser, a 41-year-old homemaker, pushed back. She defended the president, supported him fiercely
But Joshua kept at her, until she prayed for help understanding her son's fervor.
Emerging from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," her eyes wet, Hanser said she at last understood. "My emotions are just.... " She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. "I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before."
That's the reaction Moore hopes to provoke with his film, which explores the ties between the Bush family and Osama bin Laden's relatives, the president's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq. Moore has said he aims to shake the apathetic, move the undecided -- and inspire voters to deny President Bush a second term.
Riding a week of enormous publicity, and controversy, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a hit at the box office. Opening Friday on 868 screens, the movie grossed more than the farces "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," even though those films showed on far more screens.
Industry sources estimated that the weekend gross for "Fahrenheit 9/11" could approach $20 million. That's close to the $21.6 million that Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" -- until now, the highest-grossing documentary ever -- took in during its entire run.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" got a shot of free publicity when Walt Disney Co., concerned about the movie's partisan edge, barred its subsidiary from releasing it. The buzz only grew last month when the film won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival.
Yet its appeal seemed to take some by surprise: In the heavily Latino and Asian community of Downey, theater manager William Vasquez was surprised at the line -- which was so long, he decided to show the film on two screens simultaneously Friday night. "I don't know of any documentary that has created this kind of stir," he said, noting that even teenagers seemed "glued to the screen."
In many cities, and even in conservative suburbs, the crowds were predictably (and loudly) liberal, hissing and hooting their reactions to Bush on screen.
Here in suburban St. Louis -- in a multiplex catering to well-off neighborhoods that were flocked with Bush/Cheney signs in 2000 -- the rowdy throng cheered when a man in back stood to shout an appeal for Democratic Party volunteers. "Anyone here for [Ralph] Nader?" another man called out. He was booed.
Across the country, in another conservative neighborhood, the audience at an Orange County multiplex chanted: "Throw Bush out! Throw Bush out!" as the lights came on.
College student Jebodiah Beard, 25, summed up the crowd this way: "I think we're preaching to the choir."
Moore acknowledged as much -- but saw no need to apologize.
"It's good to give the choir something to sing," he said at a politician-packed premiere in Washington last week. "The choir has been demoralized."
If so, the movie was an electric wake-up call.
Outside a sold-out screening Friday on Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, activists stamped hands with peace signs and passed around petitions calling for universal healthcare, gay rights and the repeal of the Patriot Act.
"I can't imagine anyone coming out of [the movie] and not working their brains out to get rid of this administration," said Mimi Adams, 70, who was holding a sign that said: "No One Died When Clinton Lied."
In theaters nationwide, many viewers said they couldn't imagine loyal Republicans coming to see a movie the Bush administration had dismissed as a twisted montage of misleading innuendo and outright falsehoods. But for all the partisan hooting, the movie did appear to draw at least a strong smattering of the Republican and the undecided voters that Moore most desperately hopes to reach.
And some of them said they were deeply moved.
Moved enough, perhaps, to consider voting for Kerry in November.
For Richard Hagen, 56, it was the footage from Iraq: the raw cries of bombed civil | |
