The Washington Post reports that convicted felon (and subsequently pardoned by Bush I) Elliott Abrams will be promoted to Deputy National Security Adviser and given responsibility for the promotion of democracy in the NSC. It's appropriate that Bush should appoint a felon to be in charge of promoting democracy! Abrams will remain responsible for Israeli-Palestinian and other middle eastern affairs. He was convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal. It's ironic that Iran will again be one of the main countries in his portfolio. He will reportedly be working under the new, overall number two at the NSC, J. D. Crouch, currently US Ambassador to Romania and previously a conservative Pentagon hack.
There has got to be a better, more honorable person to fill the democracy position. How cynical we look putting Abrams in it! But Abrams, as an elite Jew who has worked on foreign policy matters for years, has strong support from the Jewish politically active Zionists (AIPAC,. etc.) to remain in charge of anything that might affect Israel, like overthrowing the Iranian government.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Monday, January 31, 2005
Jew Says Holocaust Over Used
An Op-Ed in the New York Times by Ami Eden, the national editor of The Forward, a Jewish publication, strikes the correct tone regarding the Holocaust. He recognizes that the Holocaust has been over marketed, and is therefore losing its moral value. He says:
"Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying."
He says later:
"One protester, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, called on the [British] prince [Harry] to make amends by traveling to Poland for the Auschwitz ceremony.
"This is exactly the wrong approach. By playing the Holocaust card against Harry, Jewish critics deflected attention from how Harry had insulted the memory of the millions of Britons who suffered during World War II; they also risked squandering a diminishing supply of hard-won moral capital better spent in the fight against terrorism and the rise in Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism."
Well said! I think he strikes the right chord. I hope other Jews, who are so quick to condemn Gentiles as anti-Semites for comments that are political or moral, or simply thoughtless, but that are not about Jews as a religion or a race, will take his advice to heart.
His comment about Jews as bullies is particularly important to me because I am concerned that many people within, or close to, the Bush administration pushing for war in Iraq were Jewish: Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and many other neo-cons. It's arguable that Iraq is a Jewish war, not an American war. Bush gave in to Jewish pressure; ordinary Americans supported it once it started, but Jews were responsible for starting it.
"Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying."
He says later:
"One protester, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, called on the [British] prince [Harry] to make amends by traveling to Poland for the Auschwitz ceremony.
"This is exactly the wrong approach. By playing the Holocaust card against Harry, Jewish critics deflected attention from how Harry had insulted the memory of the millions of Britons who suffered during World War II; they also risked squandering a diminishing supply of hard-won moral capital better spent in the fight against terrorism and the rise in Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism."
Well said! I think he strikes the right chord. I hope other Jews, who are so quick to condemn Gentiles as anti-Semites for comments that are political or moral, or simply thoughtless, but that are not about Jews as a religion or a race, will take his advice to heart.
His comment about Jews as bullies is particularly important to me because I am concerned that many people within, or close to, the Bush administration pushing for war in Iraq were Jewish: Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and many other neo-cons. It's arguable that Iraq is a Jewish war, not an American war. Bush gave in to Jewish pressure; ordinary Americans supported it once it started, but Jews were responsible for starting it.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
More Jewish Influence on US Iraq Policy
The New York Times today has an article on parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. It says that shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, talk of comparing Iraq and Vietnam was forbidden. Now, however, the article says, "Nearly two years after the American invasion of Iraq, such comparisons are no longer dismissed in mainstream political discourse as facile and flawed, but are instead bubbling to the top."
Then the article goes on to quote Tony Lake, giving the liberal, Democratic view, and Michael Rubin, giving the conservative view. The article says, "Michael Rubin, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who recently returned from Iraq, published an op-ed piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday in which he noted that Arab television in Baghdad routinely showed archival footage of American diplomats fleeing Saigon, as if to suggest that whatever Mr. Bush may say about America's staying power, 'it is weak.'"
Why is the AEI writing about American policy in an Israeli newspaper? Israel is not America's 51st state. It's another country, which has a very strong interest in the US killing Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere. I think that America must do what is best for its own self-interest, not what is best for Israel. We should not confuse the two. And policy advisers should not confuse the two, or if they want to do so, they should declare themselves agents of a foreign government.
Then the article goes on to quote Tony Lake, giving the liberal, Democratic view, and Michael Rubin, giving the conservative view. The article says, "Michael Rubin, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who recently returned from Iraq, published an op-ed piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday in which he noted that Arab television in Baghdad routinely showed archival footage of American diplomats fleeing Saigon, as if to suggest that whatever Mr. Bush may say about America's staying power, 'it is weak.'"
Why is the AEI writing about American policy in an Israeli newspaper? Israel is not America's 51st state. It's another country, which has a very strong interest in the US killing Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere. I think that America must do what is best for its own self-interest, not what is best for Israel. We should not confuse the two. And policy advisers should not confuse the two, or if they want to do so, they should declare themselves agents of a foreign government.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Jews Complain Allies Allowed Holocaust
According to the report in the New York Times about the Holocaust memorial service in Poland on Thursday, Israeli President Katsav said that the allies "did not do enough" to prevent the killing of Jews in World War II.
Unfortunately, this strikes me as ungrateful. I saw the criticism of FDR at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. I support FDR's and Churchill's decision to go slowly on the invasion of Europe to preserve the lives of Allied troops. I can understand Jewish frustration that Jews died while the Allies were organizing D-Day, but the alternative would have been many more deaths of Allied soldiers in the invasion. Jews must take some responsibility for their own fate. One of the Holocaust vignettes I saw on TV was of a Jew who was a barber at Auschwitz, shaving German officers. He said he could have killed one of them, but then he would certainly have been killed himself. He decided it was more important for him to live; why shouldn't allied troops be allowed to live as well?
The allies also abandoned Eastern Europe to live behind the Iron Curtain for fifty years after World War II. This was mainly because the Allies really needed the Soviet Union in the alliance. The Soviets lost millions of people in the war, but the war in the East sapped German strength, making victory in the West possible, or at least easier. It was another trade off to save the lives of Allied troops. The Jews were not the only ones who suffered; many millions of East Europeans were sentenced to live most of their lives under Communism.
Unfortunately, this strikes me as ungrateful. I saw the criticism of FDR at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. I support FDR's and Churchill's decision to go slowly on the invasion of Europe to preserve the lives of Allied troops. I can understand Jewish frustration that Jews died while the Allies were organizing D-Day, but the alternative would have been many more deaths of Allied soldiers in the invasion. Jews must take some responsibility for their own fate. One of the Holocaust vignettes I saw on TV was of a Jew who was a barber at Auschwitz, shaving German officers. He said he could have killed one of them, but then he would certainly have been killed himself. He decided it was more important for him to live; why shouldn't allied troops be allowed to live as well?
The allies also abandoned Eastern Europe to live behind the Iron Curtain for fifty years after World War II. This was mainly because the Allies really needed the Soviet Union in the alliance. The Soviets lost millions of people in the war, but the war in the East sapped German strength, making victory in the West possible, or at least easier. It was another trade off to save the lives of Allied troops. The Jews were not the only ones who suffered; many millions of East Europeans were sentenced to live most of their lives under Communism.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Civil Service on Its Way Out
The Washington Post reports that the civil service system is on its way out at the Department of Homeland Security. Civil service was introduced a hundred or so years ago because the old patronage system resulted in so many abuses. But Bush wants patronage. No more independent thinking! If you don't support the Bush political view, you're fired, or certainly not promoted.
Bush at first fought the law creating the Homeland Security Department because it included civil service protections for its employees. Now it's clear why he opposed it so strongly. It was his chance to get political patronage re-introduced widely into the federal government. Already there are thousands of "Schedule C," senior, policy-related jobs that are exempt from the civil service. That's not enough for Bush. If there were more Democrats in the House and Senate, there might be some chance of resisting his onslaught, but probably not now.
The article says the system at Homeland Security will become the model for all government agencies. One question: Why would one of the worst managed bureaucracies in the government become the model for the other, better functioning bureaucracies?
Presumably, the important thing to Bush is loyalty, not results. Just look at Iraq. Is that a successful war? But to the Bushies, it's the most successful, wonderful war ever. Forget the fact that Iraqis are leaving in droves because of the lack of security, electricity, water, gasoline, etc. It took George Bush to make Saddam Hussein look like a good government leader.
Bush at first fought the law creating the Homeland Security Department because it included civil service protections for its employees. Now it's clear why he opposed it so strongly. It was his chance to get political patronage re-introduced widely into the federal government. Already there are thousands of "Schedule C," senior, policy-related jobs that are exempt from the civil service. That's not enough for Bush. If there were more Democrats in the House and Senate, there might be some chance of resisting his onslaught, but probably not now.
The article says the system at Homeland Security will become the model for all government agencies. One question: Why would one of the worst managed bureaucracies in the government become the model for the other, better functioning bureaucracies?
Presumably, the important thing to Bush is loyalty, not results. Just look at Iraq. Is that a successful war? But to the Bushies, it's the most successful, wonderful war ever. Forget the fact that Iraqis are leaving in droves because of the lack of security, electricity, water, gasoline, etc. It took George Bush to make Saddam Hussein look like a good government leader.
Doug Feith to Leave Pentagon
Douglas Feith, Defense Under Secretary for Policy, announced that he plans to resign this summer, according to the Washington Post. Hooray!
He certainly bears a heavy responsibility for the failure of the war in Iraq. He and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz worked together closely on the war. Now if Wolfowitz would just leave, along with Rumsfeld. I particularly want Feith and Wolfowitz to leave because they are Jewish and, given the way they ran the war, I believe they ran it more for Israel's interest than for America's. They are part of the mostly Jewish "neo-conservatives," including Richard Perle, who favored war with Iraq. It's not surprising that there have been indications of disloyalty within the Pentagon, where some officials were sharing classified data with the Israelis without authorization. General Tommy Franks called Feith, "the stupidest guy on the face of the Earth."
The Op-Ed page in today's New York Times illustrates the influence of Jews in the world today. One column, by Aharon Appelfeld, deals with the Holocaust; it was originally written in Jerusalem in Hebrew, and quotes "a doctor ... who sailed to Israel with us." It was an evocative peace that brings out that Jews believe God abandoned them; according to Appelfeld's doctor friend, "We didn't see God when we expected him, so we have no choice but to do what he was supposed to do: we will protect the weak, we will love, we will comfort. From now on, the responsibility is all ours."
The other column, "Read My Ears" datelined Berlin, is by Tom Friedman, also a Jew, who writes about the deep disdain Europeans feel for President Bush. Friedman says, "Mr. Bush is more widely and deeply disliked in Europe than any U.S. president in history. Some people here must have a good thing to say about him, but I haven't met them yet. In such an environment, the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen."
On the one hand, America's stature was destroyed in Europe by Jews, including Doug Feith, and sympathetic evangelical Christians who see Israel as some sort of sign of Armageddon. On the other we have a Jew, Tom Friedman, telling us that we need to listen to Europe's complaints. I wish Friedman had more influence with this administration than his neo-conservative Jewish colleagues.
He certainly bears a heavy responsibility for the failure of the war in Iraq. He and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz worked together closely on the war. Now if Wolfowitz would just leave, along with Rumsfeld. I particularly want Feith and Wolfowitz to leave because they are Jewish and, given the way they ran the war, I believe they ran it more for Israel's interest than for America's. They are part of the mostly Jewish "neo-conservatives," including Richard Perle, who favored war with Iraq. It's not surprising that there have been indications of disloyalty within the Pentagon, where some officials were sharing classified data with the Israelis without authorization. General Tommy Franks called Feith, "the stupidest guy on the face of the Earth."
The Op-Ed page in today's New York Times illustrates the influence of Jews in the world today. One column, by Aharon Appelfeld, deals with the Holocaust; it was originally written in Jerusalem in Hebrew, and quotes "a doctor ... who sailed to Israel with us." It was an evocative peace that brings out that Jews believe God abandoned them; according to Appelfeld's doctor friend, "We didn't see God when we expected him, so we have no choice but to do what he was supposed to do: we will protect the weak, we will love, we will comfort. From now on, the responsibility is all ours."
The other column, "Read My Ears" datelined Berlin, is by Tom Friedman, also a Jew, who writes about the deep disdain Europeans feel for President Bush. Friedman says, "Mr. Bush is more widely and deeply disliked in Europe than any U.S. president in history. Some people here must have a good thing to say about him, but I haven't met them yet. In such an environment, the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen."
On the one hand, America's stature was destroyed in Europe by Jews, including Doug Feith, and sympathetic evangelical Christians who see Israel as some sort of sign of Armageddon. On the other we have a Jew, Tom Friedman, telling us that we need to listen to Europe's complaints. I wish Friedman had more influence with this administration than his neo-conservative Jewish colleagues.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Not Everyone Suffered Equally in Holocaust
The New York Times reports on a meeting in London of former residents of the Lodz (pronounced wooj), Poland, Jewish ghetto to look at several thousand photos of ghetto life. The article says the photos are disconcerting because they show "scenes of the seemingly contented ghetto 'elite,' Jews who worked as ghetto supervisors and police officers or held coveted jobs." The existence of this elite, Jews who ruled other Jews under German supervision, was no secret and is depicted in the movie The Pianist, for example. According to something I found on the Internet, they were called "kapos," although that sounds to me more like a Mafia term.
For me, this goes along with my previous posting pointing out that there is a lot of "marketing" of the Holocaust, and that therefore this advertising does not give a totally accurate picture of what happened. There is no doubt that it was terrible, but there are questions about whether some of the much vaunted survivors survived because they cooperated with the Germans in oppressing (or worse) their Jewish compatriots.
The article continues:
"The photographs of the elite or the 'protected class,' as the survivors here called it, were the most striking in their departure from the stark pictures typically associated with the Holocaust. They featured smiling children in neatly pressed clothes, sitting around a table laden with food and drink for a party. A plump boy in a mini-policeman's uniform, marching with his young friends around the street. Revelers gathered on top of a horse-drawn carriage."
"For Mrs. Aronson, the photographs touch a more personal chord. She was indirectly a part of the elite, she said. Her father, who she said died after trying to save the children of her small town, knew Mr. Rumkowski and, because of that, Mrs. Aronson, her mother and brother were given good jobs. Hers was at an orphanage and later at a confectionary factory. She was in Lodz until the war ended.
"'To say that we were privileged and that we knew we were going to survive is a load of rubbish,' she said, adding that she, too, went hungry and feared for her life. 'We had the same rations as everyone else. My brother got from the Germans a bit of food now and again. Food was the most important thing to survive.'"
For me, this goes along with my previous posting pointing out that there is a lot of "marketing" of the Holocaust, and that therefore this advertising does not give a totally accurate picture of what happened. There is no doubt that it was terrible, but there are questions about whether some of the much vaunted survivors survived because they cooperated with the Germans in oppressing (or worse) their Jewish compatriots.
The article continues:
"The photographs of the elite or the 'protected class,' as the survivors here called it, were the most striking in their departure from the stark pictures typically associated with the Holocaust. They featured smiling children in neatly pressed clothes, sitting around a table laden with food and drink for a party. A plump boy in a mini-policeman's uniform, marching with his young friends around the street. Revelers gathered on top of a horse-drawn carriage."
"For Mrs. Aronson, the photographs touch a more personal chord. She was indirectly a part of the elite, she said. Her father, who she said died after trying to save the children of her small town, knew Mr. Rumkowski and, because of that, Mrs. Aronson, her mother and brother were given good jobs. Hers was at an orphanage and later at a confectionary factory. She was in Lodz until the war ended.
"'To say that we were privileged and that we knew we were going to survive is a load of rubbish,' she said, adding that she, too, went hungry and feared for her life. 'We had the same rations as everyone else. My brother got from the Germans a bit of food now and again. Food was the most important thing to survive.'"
Bush Needs Better Manners
The current issue of Foreign Affairs complains about one of Bush's failings that is seldom mentioned, but is very serious. The article by John Lewis Gaddis discusses US military interventions over the last decade or so and the problems that have made the Iraq intervention so much worse than the others. He states:
"Iraq has been the exception, not the rule, and there are lessons to be learned from the anomaly.
"One is the need for better manners."
How could Bush I be such a gentleman, and Bush II be so unpolished and uncouth? I don't know, but he is an embarrassment to the US, even if a majority of the voters don't realize it.
"Iraq has been the exception, not the rule, and there are lessons to be learned from the anomaly.
"One is the need for better manners."
How could Bush I be such a gentleman, and Bush II be so unpolished and uncouth? I don't know, but he is an embarrassment to the US, even if a majority of the voters don't realize it.
Israeli Banks Stiff Holocaust Heirs
What should be a shameful scandal involving Israel's poor treatment of Holocaust survivors and heirs of victims was at least reported on the front page of the New York Times, although the article concludes by saying, "This is only a committee report, a revelation of the scope of the problem. This is not the Knesset passing a law forcing the banks and the custodian to return the money. For that, there has to be political will."
According to the article, after Jews have demanded that European banks, especially in Switzerland and Austria, pay out assets held on behalf of Jews who were victims of the Holocaust, Jewish banks and even the Government of Israel, have failed to make equivalent payments for the moneys they hold. The article says there are about 9,000 names on the list of people owed, and 6,000 of them are listed as victims of the Holocaust. By one accounting, the Israeli Government owes $133 million, and the banks owe $73 million.
I am concerned that all the Jewish furor about the Holocaust is a marketing ploy. It's partly about the money. People like former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger and lawyers representing the victims have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their role in pressuring banks and governments in Europe to pay up, while the average Holocaust survivor or heir has gotten only a few thousand dollars. But more than the money, it has been a campaign to make people feel sorry for Jews, to give them and the State of Israel a break by not criticizing them too strongly for things like killing Palestinian children, or making millions on Wall Street through shady deals involving Enron, WorldCom, etc. I think that once again those poor Jews who actually were sent to Auschwitz and other death camps are the victims of the "marketing" of the Holocaust. They won't get much, but powerful Israeli politicians and rich Wall Street and Hollywood Jews, most of whom escaped the Holocaust, will get plenty of benefit.
According to the article, after Jews have demanded that European banks, especially in Switzerland and Austria, pay out assets held on behalf of Jews who were victims of the Holocaust, Jewish banks and even the Government of Israel, have failed to make equivalent payments for the moneys they hold. The article says there are about 9,000 names on the list of people owed, and 6,000 of them are listed as victims of the Holocaust. By one accounting, the Israeli Government owes $133 million, and the banks owe $73 million.
I am concerned that all the Jewish furor about the Holocaust is a marketing ploy. It's partly about the money. People like former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger and lawyers representing the victims have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their role in pressuring banks and governments in Europe to pay up, while the average Holocaust survivor or heir has gotten only a few thousand dollars. But more than the money, it has been a campaign to make people feel sorry for Jews, to give them and the State of Israel a break by not criticizing them too strongly for things like killing Palestinian children, or making millions on Wall Street through shady deals involving Enron, WorldCom, etc. I think that once again those poor Jews who actually were sent to Auschwitz and other death camps are the victims of the "marketing" of the Holocaust. They won't get much, but powerful Israeli politicians and rich Wall Street and Hollywood Jews, most of whom escaped the Holocaust, will get plenty of benefit.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Prince Harry Should Visit British World War II Graves
Wearing a Nazi arm band won Britain's Prince Harry criticism from Jewish groups the world over, but why should he put Jewish deaths in Germany and Poland ahead of British ones closer to home? I agree with this letter to the editor in the Toronto Star that if he is going to do some kind of penace, he should visit British cemeteries first.
Secondly, he should consider what the proper response is in a Christian nation. Jews reject the New Testament with Jesus' teachings about forgiveness and loving your enemies. George Bush has been talking lately about how much he has learned from the closeness between Japan and the US, despite World War II. In fact, had George been paying closer attention, he would have seen that the US and its allies, after punishing war criminals, almost immediately embarked on a path of forgiveness in Germany and Japan. Christian principles aside, the West saw that it's lack of forgiveness after World War I led inexorably to World War II.
Along this line, it was interesting that one commentator after Bush's inaugural speech today said that he had tried to evoke Woodrow Wilson (as well as Truman, Reagan, and others). Wilson virtually killed himself campaigning unsuccessfully for the League of Nations after World War I. The failure of the League of Nations, due in large part to the failure of the US to participate, was an important contributing factor toward World War II. Bush and his Administration seem to hate the League of Nations' successor, the United Nations, just as Wilson's opponents hated the League. It appears to me that Bush has rejected the lessons learned from both World War I (when we got it wrong) and World War II (when we got it right).
Hopefully Prince Harry will be a better student of world affairs than George W. Bush.
Secondly, he should consider what the proper response is in a Christian nation. Jews reject the New Testament with Jesus' teachings about forgiveness and loving your enemies. George Bush has been talking lately about how much he has learned from the closeness between Japan and the US, despite World War II. In fact, had George been paying closer attention, he would have seen that the US and its allies, after punishing war criminals, almost immediately embarked on a path of forgiveness in Germany and Japan. Christian principles aside, the West saw that it's lack of forgiveness after World War I led inexorably to World War II.
Along this line, it was interesting that one commentator after Bush's inaugural speech today said that he had tried to evoke Woodrow Wilson (as well as Truman, Reagan, and others). Wilson virtually killed himself campaigning unsuccessfully for the League of Nations after World War I. The failure of the League of Nations, due in large part to the failure of the US to participate, was an important contributing factor toward World War II. Bush and his Administration seem to hate the League of Nations' successor, the United Nations, just as Wilson's opponents hated the League. It appears to me that Bush has rejected the lessons learned from both World War I (when we got it wrong) and World War II (when we got it right).
Hopefully Prince Harry will be a better student of world affairs than George W. Bush.
The National Guard in War
One of the reasons that I dislike George W. Bush is that he escaped service in Vietnam by joining the National Guard in Texas. Sure, lots of other people did this, but I don't approve of anybody escaping military service while others are being sent off to die. That's why I went when my draft number came up (although not before it did).
Now, George says that nobody can escape service as he did back then. The National Guard is bearing a heavy burden of the fighting in Iraq. How hypocritical of him to send the National Guard to fight because he is afraid to increase the numbers of troops in the regular Army and other services! The National Guard was his hiding place, but he has made sure that it is no longer a hiding place for anyone else.
Another gripe is that Bush was trained as a fighter pilot. I have read that today it costs about a million dollars to train someone as a fighter pilot; presumably it cost the equivalent back when he trained. After the US invested all this money in him, he said, "I'm going to Harvard Business School. I'm outta here. A million taxpayer dollars? I spit on them. The government is here to serve me!" And so it is. It's here to serve George and all his rich friends, who just love spending on themselves all the tax money from those stupid, hard-working regular folks who ignorantly pay their fair share of taxes, and who are now about to lose their Social Security.
Now, George says that nobody can escape service as he did back then. The National Guard is bearing a heavy burden of the fighting in Iraq. How hypocritical of him to send the National Guard to fight because he is afraid to increase the numbers of troops in the regular Army and other services! The National Guard was his hiding place, but he has made sure that it is no longer a hiding place for anyone else.
Another gripe is that Bush was trained as a fighter pilot. I have read that today it costs about a million dollars to train someone as a fighter pilot; presumably it cost the equivalent back when he trained. After the US invested all this money in him, he said, "I'm going to Harvard Business School. I'm outta here. A million taxpayer dollars? I spit on them. The government is here to serve me!" And so it is. It's here to serve George and all his rich friends, who just love spending on themselves all the tax money from those stupid, hard-working regular folks who ignorantly pay their fair share of taxes, and who are now about to lose their Social Security.
Do We Need a War on Terrorism?
The fact that today's inaugural ceremonies were carried off without any terrorist incident raises the question whether a "war on terrorism" is justified. The original airplane highjackings and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon could probably have been avoided if there had been regulations that were strictly enforced barring the carrying of box cutters on to planes. It is very possible that our reaction to those attacks was overkill. In any case, our response in Afghanistan was certainly more appropriate than our response in Iraq.
Bush's inaugural address today tried to evoke the same response that our long rivalry with the Soviet Union evoked during the Cold War, especially as described by President Reagan. Bush said, "We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat." Scary words, but is there a "mortal threat"? During the Cold War the Soviet Union had millions of armed soldiers stationed across the border from Western Europe and many nuclear armed ICBMs targeted on the US. The terrorists have nothing like this. They can disrupt life in Iraq, where much of the population sympathizes with them, but they have been unable to do so in the US since 9/11. It's possible that Bush's national security team was just asleep at the switch on 9/11 and let a fairly amateurish attempt succeed because our guard was down.
If that's the case, then Bush's speech was much sound and fury, signifying nothing. We do need protection, but not at the cost that Bush demands. America wants the perfect safety that used to be guaranteed by our oceans' borders and the homogeneity of our population. Today, that guarantee is more difficult because we can rely on neither of those two old defenses. The war on terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security do little or nothing to make up that gap and add to our security. That's why it turns out to be relatively unimportant that the Department of Homeland Security is hopelessly incompetent.
Bush's inaugural address today tried to evoke the same response that our long rivalry with the Soviet Union evoked during the Cold War, especially as described by President Reagan. Bush said, "We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat." Scary words, but is there a "mortal threat"? During the Cold War the Soviet Union had millions of armed soldiers stationed across the border from Western Europe and many nuclear armed ICBMs targeted on the US. The terrorists have nothing like this. They can disrupt life in Iraq, where much of the population sympathizes with them, but they have been unable to do so in the US since 9/11. It's possible that Bush's national security team was just asleep at the switch on 9/11 and let a fairly amateurish attempt succeed because our guard was down.
If that's the case, then Bush's speech was much sound and fury, signifying nothing. We do need protection, but not at the cost that Bush demands. America wants the perfect safety that used to be guaranteed by our oceans' borders and the homogeneity of our population. Today, that guarantee is more difficult because we can rely on neither of those two old defenses. The war on terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security do little or nothing to make up that gap and add to our security. That's why it turns out to be relatively unimportant that the Department of Homeland Security is hopelessly incompetent.
Foreign Policy of Exporting Democracy is Focus of Bush's Inaugural
President Bush, who avoided foreign policy like the plague four years ago, made foreign policy the keynote of his inaugural speech today. He said, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Later he added, "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." It's somewhat ironic that Bush focused so strongly on human rights, which was first made a priority foreign policy issue by Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
At whom is this attack on undemocratic regimes directed? Iran? China? Russia? Zimbabwe? Burma? Belarus? He didn't say. But given the current state of the world, it would appear to be directed mainly at Arab and Muslim governments. What will we do to help democratic movements? Forcibly overthrow dictatorial governments, as we did in the second Iraq war? Simply say encouraging things to democratic activists, as we did to the Kurds and Shiites after the first Iraq war, before they were brutally put down by Saddam? On one hand, Bush said this is "the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy." On the other hand, he said, "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." When are arms necessary? We don't know. Maybe Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld know, although they are not saying. Cheney said just before the inaugural, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."
Tyrants of the world, be afraid, be very afraid!
At whom is this attack on undemocratic regimes directed? Iran? China? Russia? Zimbabwe? Burma? Belarus? He didn't say. But given the current state of the world, it would appear to be directed mainly at Arab and Muslim governments. What will we do to help democratic movements? Forcibly overthrow dictatorial governments, as we did in the second Iraq war? Simply say encouraging things to democratic activists, as we did to the Kurds and Shiites after the first Iraq war, before they were brutally put down by Saddam? On one hand, Bush said this is "the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy." On the other hand, he said, "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." When are arms necessary? We don't know. Maybe Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld know, although they are not saying. Cheney said just before the inaugural, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."
Tyrants of the world, be afraid, be very afraid!
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
New Yorker on War with Iran
An article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker reports that the Bush Administration is planning for a war with Iran, or at least attacks on some things within Iran. In preparation for that attack, the Pentagon has taken over clandestine intelligence activities that used to belong to the CIA. In return for Pakistan's help in infiltrating Iran, the US has agreed to let A.Q. Khan off the hook for his years of nuclear proliferation activities with Iran, North Korea, Libya, and perhaps other bad guys that we don't know about.
Kevin Drum Of Political Animal doesn't think most of these are worth worrying about, except for the lack of Congressional oversight, but I think he is too sanguine. The bargain struck with Pakistan raises the question whether the US is really serious about nuclear non-proliferation. As Hersh says:
"It's a deal -- a trade-off," the former high-level intelligence official explained. "'Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.' It's the neoconservatives' version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation."
The agreement comes at a time when Musharraf, according to a former high-level Pakistani diplomat, has authorized the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear-weapons arsenal. "Pakistan still needs parts and supplies, and needs to buy them in the clandestine market," the former diplomat said. "The U.S. has done nothing to stop it."
If the US has agreed to look the other way while Pakistan improves its nuclear arsenal, it's a bad signal to the rest of the world (Brazil, India, North Korea) and to the IAEA, which is charged with enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), about our seriousness in fighting proliferation. While we accuse the IAEA of being soft on proliferation, perhaps the US is the real softy.
An interesting note by Hersh is that "many Western intelligence agencies, including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads -- although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more advanced." The mention of missile delivery systems links to the sanctions on China, which may have been based on intelligence gleaned by US special ops infiltration into Iran.
I am particularly unhappy with Hersh's claim that "there has also been close, and largely unacknowledged, coöperation with Israel. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon said that the Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran." I have long believed that America's invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, was more a favor to Israel and American Jews than something required by America's national security. So, Israel was wrong about Iraq, but now it wants us to attack Iran, because Iran poses a potential nuclear threat to Israel, as it incorrectly thought Iraq did.
The claim that the US plans to overthrow the current leadership of Iran ("regime change") helps explain to me why we are not more concerned about Iran's role in Iraq in favoring the Shiites in the upcoming Iraqi election. We're not worried about what Iranian clerics might do in the future to control Iraq, because we plan to depose the Muslim leaders of Iran. I don't think that will work, but if we did succeed in Iran (unlike Iraq), we might face a situation where Iran would move to secular leadership, but Iraq would have democratically installed a religious leadership.
The above are serious national security issues, but Kevin Drum is right that replacing the CIA with the Defense Department for covert operations in order to avoid Congressional oversight is a disturbing and important development.
US Imposes Missile Sanctions on China
The New York Times noted that the Administration has quietly imposed sanctions on China for missile related dealings with Iran. The article contains no information about the technology or the missiles involved, but the transfers appear to deal with larger missiles that would be controlled under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) that I worked on while at the State Department.
The article surmises that the penalties may have been kept quiet to avoid embarrassing China, whose help we need to rein in the North Korean nuclear program. It also raises the question whether the intelligence about the transfers was uncovered by the clandestine raids into Iran conducted by Pentagon and reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker.
The article surmises that the penalties may have been kept quiet to avoid embarrassing China, whose help we need to rein in the North Korean nuclear program. It also raises the question whether the intelligence about the transfers was uncovered by the clandestine raids into Iran conducted by Pentagon and reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker.
Rice Is New Secretary of State
Just for the record, Rice was confirmed, as expected as Secretary of State. It's interesting that Reuters issued a report about the time of her confirmation saying that the rest of the world, with a few exceptions, is worried about what four more years of Bush will mean. It says the world fears that "the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good." Rice's confirmation as Secretary will not do anything to ease those fears. Keeping Colin Powell around would have.
I don't think Bush understands much about foreign affairs, but was forced into the arena by 9/11. Osama bin Laden probably didn't realize what a terrible thing he was inflicting on the whole world, not just the US, by drawing Bush into world affairs. Unfortunately the attack brought out Bush's nasty side, which otherwise might have been used only against his domestic opponents. It's surprising that "Christians" embrace such hatred.
I don't think Bush understands much about foreign affairs, but was forced into the arena by 9/11. Osama bin Laden probably didn't realize what a terrible thing he was inflicting on the whole world, not just the US, by drawing Bush into world affairs. Unfortunately the attack brought out Bush's nasty side, which otherwise might have been used only against his domestic opponents. It's surprising that "Christians" embrace such hatred.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Prince Harry and the Holocaust
There is no doubt that Prince Harry's wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party was in bad taste, but it was also not the end of the world. What I find offensive is that mainly the Jews are objecting to it because of the Holocaust. Granted, six million Jews died in the Holocaust, but what about World War II? Almost 400,000 Brits died in World War II; what are they, chopped liver? Eleven million Soviets died in World War II, but I haven't seen anything reporting that Putin called Blair to object to Prince Harry's costume.
There were many decent German soldiers who wore the swastika, ranging from Army privates who had no choice, to decent generals like Rommel, some of whom plotted to kill Hitler. I find it offensive that the Jews who were victims of race hatred in Germany 6o years ago, have raised race hatred to a new level today.
I was never very interested in the Holocaust until I was assigned to Warsaw, Poland, during the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It was all Holocaust, all the time. The Jews weren't the only ones who suffered during World War II, even in Auschwitz. Many Christian Poles died in Auschwitz, too.
You can even see the change in attitude here in America. I think one reason that we belatedly built a World War II memorial on the national mall in Washington, is that WW II veterans felt until recently that their work in winning the war would be all the memorial they would ever need. But I got a hint of the problem when I visited the Holocaust Memorial before I went to Poland, before it was even open to the public. Going through, I noticed several criticisms of President Roosevelt for being to slow or reluctant to act against the Holocaust. Roosevelt properly, was more concerned about the American troops fighting against the Nazis than about foreigners who were imprisoned in a foreign land. An earlier assault on the European continent might have cost many more thousands of American lives. But Jews make Roosevelt's concerns about American lives a bad thing. Sacrifices by American Christians in World War II count for nothing to Jews, who are only concerned about Jewish lives. So, Americans had to build a monument to help offset the Jewish attacks on WW II veterans. It's hard to find statistics, but I doubt that a very high percentage of Jews fought in World War II, compared the number of eligible Christians.
It's about the same today, with the war in Iraq. It turns out that Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to the US, but it was a threat to Israel. So, who is the main beneficiary of the war in Iraq? Israel. Who is doing most of the fighting there? Anglo Christians. This is partly because some fundamentalist Christians believe that Israel is crucial to the Rapture or endtime, and therefore, they are willing to die for Israel. But I think this is a minority of those who have actually given their lives in Iraq.
The most offensive way to put this is: Bush and company are sending Christian soldiers to die in Iraq for Jew money. Just as in World War II, when many Jews managed to stay behind, or at least out of the front lines, and get rich from the War.
It also irks me that most surviving Jews who were in the Holocaust will get some kind of payment from Germany, from insurance companies, or from some other source. So, all this Jewish consciousness raising publicity about the Holocaust does have a financial payoff for Jews. Meanwhile, the Americans, mostly Christians, who were in the Bataan death march and who worked in Japanese labor camps, under conditions similar to the German labor camps, get nothing.
There were many decent German soldiers who wore the swastika, ranging from Army privates who had no choice, to decent generals like Rommel, some of whom plotted to kill Hitler. I find it offensive that the Jews who were victims of race hatred in Germany 6o years ago, have raised race hatred to a new level today.
I was never very interested in the Holocaust until I was assigned to Warsaw, Poland, during the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It was all Holocaust, all the time. The Jews weren't the only ones who suffered during World War II, even in Auschwitz. Many Christian Poles died in Auschwitz, too.
You can even see the change in attitude here in America. I think one reason that we belatedly built a World War II memorial on the national mall in Washington, is that WW II veterans felt until recently that their work in winning the war would be all the memorial they would ever need. But I got a hint of the problem when I visited the Holocaust Memorial before I went to Poland, before it was even open to the public. Going through, I noticed several criticisms of President Roosevelt for being to slow or reluctant to act against the Holocaust. Roosevelt properly, was more concerned about the American troops fighting against the Nazis than about foreigners who were imprisoned in a foreign land. An earlier assault on the European continent might have cost many more thousands of American lives. But Jews make Roosevelt's concerns about American lives a bad thing. Sacrifices by American Christians in World War II count for nothing to Jews, who are only concerned about Jewish lives. So, Americans had to build a monument to help offset the Jewish attacks on WW II veterans. It's hard to find statistics, but I doubt that a very high percentage of Jews fought in World War II, compared the number of eligible Christians.
It's about the same today, with the war in Iraq. It turns out that Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to the US, but it was a threat to Israel. So, who is the main beneficiary of the war in Iraq? Israel. Who is doing most of the fighting there? Anglo Christians. This is partly because some fundamentalist Christians believe that Israel is crucial to the Rapture or endtime, and therefore, they are willing to die for Israel. But I think this is a minority of those who have actually given their lives in Iraq.
The most offensive way to put this is: Bush and company are sending Christian soldiers to die in Iraq for Jew money. Just as in World War II, when many Jews managed to stay behind, or at least out of the front lines, and get rich from the War.
It also irks me that most surviving Jews who were in the Holocaust will get some kind of payment from Germany, from insurance companies, or from some other source. So, all this Jewish consciousness raising publicity about the Holocaust does have a financial payoff for Jews. Meanwhile, the Americans, mostly Christians, who were in the Bataan death march and who worked in Japanese labor camps, under conditions similar to the German labor camps, get nothing.
The US Should Get Out of the Torture Business
Alberto Gonzales' hearing on his confirmation as Attorney General, along with several new reports of the use of torture in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan, resurrect some of the most despicable episodes in recent US history. Gonzales couldn't remember exactly what he did in the White House on the torture issue, but it's pretty clear from news reports that he said a little torture is okay, especially if the people tortured are Arabs or Muslims.
I don't buy it. I would not confirm Gonzales to be dog catcher. I don't think we should be drawing fine lines of distinction between what kind of torture is okay and what crosses some hazy line of morality.
We should shut down Guantanamo, which in retrospect was created to avoid applying both US and international law protecting prisoners. The prisoners there should be released, returned to their home countries, returned to the country where they were captured, or brought to the US and given treatment in accordance with the Constitution.
We should improve the supervision of prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and invite international observers to monitor conditions there continually, not just make periodic visits as the Red Cross does now. I want to be proud of America, not ashamed of her, as I am now.
While the conditions at these various prison facilities are clearly the result of decisions made at the very top of our government, those senior officials, such as Bush and Gonzales, have allowed the low level soldiers to take the rap for abuse. They claim to honor our servicemen, when in fact they are defaming them.
I don't buy it. I would not confirm Gonzales to be dog catcher. I don't think we should be drawing fine lines of distinction between what kind of torture is okay and what crosses some hazy line of morality.
We should shut down Guantanamo, which in retrospect was created to avoid applying both US and international law protecting prisoners. The prisoners there should be released, returned to their home countries, returned to the country where they were captured, or brought to the US and given treatment in accordance with the Constitution.
We should improve the supervision of prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and invite international observers to monitor conditions there continually, not just make periodic visits as the Red Cross does now. I want to be proud of America, not ashamed of her, as I am now.
While the conditions at these various prison facilities are clearly the result of decisions made at the very top of our government, those senior officials, such as Bush and Gonzales, have allowed the low level soldiers to take the rap for abuse. They claim to honor our servicemen, when in fact they are defaming them.
End of Search for WMD in Iraq
Just for the record, everybody notes that Washington has given up the search for WMD in Iraq. So, the original reason we invaded Iraq turns out to be invalid. But Bush and his henchmen say that's okay: Saddam was a bad man and needed to be deposed. Aren't there other bad men around the world, probably even worse? What about North Korea's Kim Jong Il? What about the military regime in Burma? What about Zimbabwe? What about the non-stop killing in Africa -- Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan, Somalia, etc.?
If Bush had not come up with his idea of pre-emptive war and snubbed his nose at the rest of the world, it wouldn't be so bad. Before the war, many of the responsible governments of the world thought as we did that Saddam had some kind of WMD. But officially, the UN said let us confirm that he does. If we had waited for them, we would have a lot more friends now. However, Bush replied that the UN inspectors were worthless incompetents and that the US would not wait for them. He was wrong.
Now, what do we do about Iran, which appears actually to be doing what we thought Saddam was doing. And what about North Korea, which may have surpassed Saddam and actually built a nuclear bomb or two?
Where are the men of character in this government? Diogenes would have to look for a long time in Washington to find an honest man.
If Bush had not come up with his idea of pre-emptive war and snubbed his nose at the rest of the world, it wouldn't be so bad. Before the war, many of the responsible governments of the world thought as we did that Saddam had some kind of WMD. But officially, the UN said let us confirm that he does. If we had waited for them, we would have a lot more friends now. However, Bush replied that the UN inspectors were worthless incompetents and that the US would not wait for them. He was wrong.
Now, what do we do about Iran, which appears actually to be doing what we thought Saddam was doing. And what about North Korea, which may have surpassed Saddam and actually built a nuclear bomb or two?
Where are the men of character in this government? Diogenes would have to look for a long time in Washington to find an honest man.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Zoellick As State Deputy Is Pretty Good News
The good news about the appointment of USTR Bob Zoellick as Deputy Secretary of the State Department is that he is not John Bolton, currently a State undersecretary for arms control. Bolton is a rabid neo-conservative. Zoellick is a good Republican, but not a madman. Pundits were saying that if Bolton moved up to Deputy Secretary, it would be a sign of increasing neo-con influence in Rice's State Department. By that standard, this is good news.
This is probably encouraging in looking toward Condi Rice's tenure at State. Zoellick will be able to work with career foreign service officers, many of whom will have worked with him under Secretary Jim Baker during Bush I's administration.
Even better news is the rumor in this Washington Post report that Undersecretary Bolton may be on his way out. I don't know anything about his rumored replacement, Robert G. Joseph, but I don't think he could be worse than Bolton. Bolton is an ideologue, but even worse, it's arguable that he has badly botched non-proliferation efforts aimed at Iran and North Korea, not to mention Iraq, which turned out not to be a non-proliferation threat.
This is probably encouraging in looking toward Condi Rice's tenure at State. Zoellick will be able to work with career foreign service officers, many of whom will have worked with him under Secretary Jim Baker during Bush I's administration.
Even better news is the rumor in this Washington Post report that Undersecretary Bolton may be on his way out. I don't know anything about his rumored replacement, Robert G. Joseph, but I don't think he could be worse than Bolton. Bolton is an ideologue, but even worse, it's arguable that he has badly botched non-proliferation efforts aimed at Iran and North Korea, not to mention Iraq, which turned out not to be a non-proliferation threat.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Libyan Nuclear Prize Smaller Than Initially Reported
The New York Times reported Sunday that the nuclear components turned over to the US by Libya were missing a key item, the centrifuge rotors for enriching uranium. This is like a car company saying we got a model of our competitor's car, and then finding out that the model they got has no motor. They got some worthwhile stuff, but they missed some of the most important stuff.
According to the article, we don't know what happened to some stuff. Thus, somebody in some Arab country could be sitting on the most valuable parts of the centrifuges.
Another disquieting fact in the article is the rivalry between the US and the IAEA, who should be cooperating.
According to the article, we don't know what happened to some stuff. Thus, somebody in some Arab country could be sitting on the most valuable parts of the centrifuges.
Another disquieting fact in the article is the rivalry between the US and the IAEA, who should be cooperating.
Where Is Burma (Myanmar)?
Reports of damage wrought by the tsunami have not mentioned Burma (Myanmar), but if the tsunami hit Bangladesh (to the west) and Thailand (to the east), it must have hit Burma. Why has there been so much attention to the damage in Thailand, which was much less than in Sri Lanka and Indonesia? Because there were reporters there. You can almost hear the editors or producers saying, get that reporter who is Phuket for vacation!
There are almost no reporters in Burma, because it is an almost closed society. If a tsunami hits and there is no one to report it, does it actually happen? Similarly, there has been little reporting from Ache, because Ache is in rebellion against the central Indonesia government, and access to reporters there has been limited. It's interesting that two of the hardest hit areas, Sri Lanka and Ache are engaged in civil wars. That certainly makes relief efforts more difficult.
The Australian press has mentioned Burma, with deaths there now estimated at 90. I'm guessing that this number would be much higher if the government of Burma were more cooperative.
There are almost no reporters in Burma, because it is an almost closed society. If a tsunami hits and there is no one to report it, does it actually happen? Similarly, there has been little reporting from Ache, because Ache is in rebellion against the central Indonesia government, and access to reporters there has been limited. It's interesting that two of the hardest hit areas, Sri Lanka and Ache are engaged in civil wars. That certainly makes relief efforts more difficult.
The Australian press has mentioned Burma, with deaths there now estimated at 90. I'm guessing that this number would be much higher if the government of Burma were more cooperative.
Monday, December 20, 2004
US Invites Iran into Iraq
The New York Times weighs in with an article pointing out a danger that has concerned me for some time: Our policy on elections in Iraq is likely to strengthen the Shiites there and their ties to Iran.
According to a National Geographic Desk Reference, the majority of Muslims are Sunnis. It says that 84 percent of Muslims are Sunni, but 90 percent of Iranians are Shiite, and 60 to 65 percent of Iraqis are Shiite. Since the bulk of the Shiites live in Iran and Iraq, it would seem only natural that if the Shiites do well in the Iraq elections, they will form a alliance of some kind with the Shiites in Iran. But because the Sunnis ruled Iraq under Saddam, and because they seem to form a major part of the current insurgency, we are throwing our lot in with the Shiites in Iraq, while we roundly condemn the Shiites who rule Iran. Our elections may have the perverse result of creating an Iraq that is even more opposed to US interests than it was under Saddam, and perhaps will be a greater danger. Don't forget that Iran may actually be developing nuclear weapons, whereas Iraq under Saddam was only pretending to be developing them in recent years.
According to a National Geographic Desk Reference, the majority of Muslims are Sunnis. It says that 84 percent of Muslims are Sunni, but 90 percent of Iranians are Shiite, and 60 to 65 percent of Iraqis are Shiite. Since the bulk of the Shiites live in Iran and Iraq, it would seem only natural that if the Shiites do well in the Iraq elections, they will form a alliance of some kind with the Shiites in Iran. But because the Sunnis ruled Iraq under Saddam, and because they seem to form a major part of the current insurgency, we are throwing our lot in with the Shiites in Iraq, while we roundly condemn the Shiites who rule Iran. Our elections may have the perverse result of creating an Iraq that is even more opposed to US interests than it was under Saddam, and perhaps will be a greater danger. Don't forget that Iran may actually be developing nuclear weapons, whereas Iraq under Saddam was only pretending to be developing them in recent years.
Brazil Accused of Nuclear Weapons Ambitions
InfoBrazil has published an article raising questions about whether Brazil might be developing some sort of nuclear weapon, based on its refusal to let the IAEA look at the centrifuges used to enrich uranium in Brazil. This is a touchy issue, because it is Iran's centrifuge program that has created the most controversial problems for its nuclear program.
One important difference is that Brazil probably does not pose a nuclear threat to anyone, even if it develops nuclear weapons, unlike Iran, which poses a threat to Israel, Iraq, and perhaps a few other neighbors. In the old days, when I served in Brazil dealing with the nuclear issue in the American embassy there, Argentina was a nuclear rival with Brazil. Argentina took the lead in defusing this rivalry. Nevertheless, if Brazil developed a bomb, Argentina might feel pressed to develop one, too.
Another important difference is the way safeguards imposed by the IAEA are handled in Brazil and Iran. It appears that Brazil has been much more forthcoming with the IAEA, only imposing the restriction that IAEA inspectors cannot look at the centrifuges. The IAEA can monitor what goes into and comes out of the centrifuges, thus assuring that no uranium is being "highly" enriched. Iran, on the other hand, has been much less cooperative, and the IAEA has had to be much more insistent to find out where the centrifuges are, and then to find out what they are doing.
One important difference is that Brazil probably does not pose a nuclear threat to anyone, even if it develops nuclear weapons, unlike Iran, which poses a threat to Israel, Iraq, and perhaps a few other neighbors. In the old days, when I served in Brazil dealing with the nuclear issue in the American embassy there, Argentina was a nuclear rival with Brazil. Argentina took the lead in defusing this rivalry. Nevertheless, if Brazil developed a bomb, Argentina might feel pressed to develop one, too.
Another important difference is the way safeguards imposed by the IAEA are handled in Brazil and Iran. It appears that Brazil has been much more forthcoming with the IAEA, only imposing the restriction that IAEA inspectors cannot look at the centrifuges. The IAEA can monitor what goes into and comes out of the centrifuges, thus assuring that no uranium is being "highly" enriched. Iran, on the other hand, has been much less cooperative, and the IAEA has had to be much more insistent to find out where the centrifuges are, and then to find out what they are doing.
Letter to Editor in Denver Post
The Denver Post published a letter to the editor about the India non-proliferation issue.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
DU Prof Downplays Indian Proliferation
University of Denver Professor Ved Nanda said in the Denver Post that India was pleased with George Bush's re-election, in part because Bush "is not seen as ideologically stuck on a non-proliferation agenda and, hence, India's nuclear status is likely to gain acceptance without its formally signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty." Later he said, "India has found U.S. cooperation in high technology, nuclear energy, space exploration and missile defense to be very positive steps."
Although our ignoring the fact that India became a nuclear power, despite the U.S. best efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear proliferation, is good for bilateral U.S.-India relations, it is not good for the worldwide non-proliferation regime. Other countries, Iran and North Korea in particular, will see India's flouting of the non-proliferation regime as evidence that they can do it, too. Already people are saying that the lesson of Iraq (which failed) and India (which succeeded) is that you have to build your atomic bomb before you challenge the U.S., and that this is what North Korea and Iran may be doing.
There are efforts to strengthen and reform the NPT and the IAEA, in particular to get rid of IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei. But these efforts ignore the fact that the NPT and similar treaties require the offending country to join voluntarily. If these countries perceive that the NPT or its successor is entirely one-sided, that it only requires sacrifices by non-nuclear countries and none by nuclear countries, like the U.S., then they will not join. The NPT requires the nuclear countries to negotiate disarmament, but there have been no serious, binding disarmament talks among the nuclear powers for years.
By removing any international opprobrium for going nuclear, and by making nuclear weapons a sign of great power status, the Bush Administration, Ved Nanda and other pro-Indian writers may be clearing the way for Iran, North Korea, and some other countries (Brazil or South Korea, for starters) to become nuclear powers in the near or mid-term future.
A recent interview, reported by AFP, given in South Korea by Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, in which he urged North and South Korea not to follow India's example by becoming nuclear powers, illustrates how confusing this situation has become. "Natwar's N-speak baffles New Delhi," said a front page headline in Thursday's Indian Express. The Express said Singh "virtually expressed regret over India's current nuclear status" and contradicted the stand taken by former Congress premier Rajiv Gandhi who sanctioned in 1989 pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. The newspaper quoted a senior unnamed Indian foreign ministry official as saying Singh's remarks reflected "his personal view."
A clarification issued about a day later, and reported in NewKerala.com said that the Foreign Minister had said (or meant to say) that the two Koreas should not go nuclear because they had signed the NPT, unlike India. India has refused to sign the NPT because it considers it unfairly discriminatory between countries that had nuclear weapons when the NPT was negotiated, like the U.S., and those that did not, like India, which went nuclear too late to be exempted by the treaty.
Although our ignoring the fact that India became a nuclear power, despite the U.S. best efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear proliferation, is good for bilateral U.S.-India relations, it is not good for the worldwide non-proliferation regime. Other countries, Iran and North Korea in particular, will see India's flouting of the non-proliferation regime as evidence that they can do it, too. Already people are saying that the lesson of Iraq (which failed) and India (which succeeded) is that you have to build your atomic bomb before you challenge the U.S., and that this is what North Korea and Iran may be doing.
There are efforts to strengthen and reform the NPT and the IAEA, in particular to get rid of IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei. But these efforts ignore the fact that the NPT and similar treaties require the offending country to join voluntarily. If these countries perceive that the NPT or its successor is entirely one-sided, that it only requires sacrifices by non-nuclear countries and none by nuclear countries, like the U.S., then they will not join. The NPT requires the nuclear countries to negotiate disarmament, but there have been no serious, binding disarmament talks among the nuclear powers for years.
By removing any international opprobrium for going nuclear, and by making nuclear weapons a sign of great power status, the Bush Administration, Ved Nanda and other pro-Indian writers may be clearing the way for Iran, North Korea, and some other countries (Brazil or South Korea, for starters) to become nuclear powers in the near or mid-term future.
A recent interview, reported by AFP, given in South Korea by Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, in which he urged North and South Korea not to follow India's example by becoming nuclear powers, illustrates how confusing this situation has become. "Natwar's N-speak baffles New Delhi," said a front page headline in Thursday's Indian Express. The Express said Singh "virtually expressed regret over India's current nuclear status" and contradicted the stand taken by former Congress premier Rajiv Gandhi who sanctioned in 1989 pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. The newspaper quoted a senior unnamed Indian foreign ministry official as saying Singh's remarks reflected "his personal view."
A clarification issued about a day later, and reported in NewKerala.com said that the Foreign Minister had said (or meant to say) that the two Koreas should not go nuclear because they had signed the NPT, unlike India. India has refused to sign the NPT because it considers it unfairly discriminatory between countries that had nuclear weapons when the NPT was negotiated, like the U.S., and those that did not, like India, which went nuclear too late to be exempted by the treaty.
FBI Steps Up Investigation of AIPAC
The Christian Science Monitor and the Middle East Times are both reporting that the FBI has stepped up its investigation of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), mentioned earlier here.
According to these reports, the FBI got mad when Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, who had been caught giving sensitive documents to AIPAC, stopped cooperating with the FBI, which has now initiated a grand jury investigation. On December 1, it raided AIPAC offices to search for incriminating information in the offices of several senior AIPAC officials: the FBI seized the hard drives and files of Steven Rosen, director of research, and Keith Weissman, deputy director of foreign policy issues; the FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr, managing director Richard Fishman, communications director Renee Rothstein and research director Raphael Danziger.
According to these reports, the FBI got mad when Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, who had been caught giving sensitive documents to AIPAC, stopped cooperating with the FBI, which has now initiated a grand jury investigation. On December 1, it raided AIPAC offices to search for incriminating information in the offices of several senior AIPAC officials: the FBI seized the hard drives and files of Steven Rosen, director of research, and Keith Weissman, deputy director of foreign policy issues; the FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr, managing director Richard Fishman, communications director Renee Rothstein and research director Raphael Danziger.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Did Pakistan Test a North Korean Bomb?
The Asia Times says that Pakistan may have tested a North Korean bomb in 1998, rather than a Pakistani bomb.
This would raise questions about both programs. It the bomb was North Korean, does Pakistan have a bomb that works? A Muslim bomb?
If it was North Korean, does that mean that North Korea has actually put its plutonium from reprocessing into bombs?
According to the Carnegie Endowment's book Deadly Arsenals, Pakistan claims to have conducted five tests on May 28, 1998; however, they produced only one seismic signal, which tends to indicate only one explosion, with an indicated yield of 6-13 kilotons. Another test on May 30, 1998, produced a seismic indication of a bomb with a yield of 2-8 kilotons.
The Asia Times article says that the "only" bomb A.Q. Khan exploded in Pakistan was a North Korean bomb, which tends to undercut its theory, since the Carnegie Endowment (and other sources) say Pakistan tested at least two bombs, if not more.
In any case, the allegation strengthens the article's claim that Pakistan's refusal to allow the US (or the IAEA, or some neutral organization) to interrogate A.Q. Khan leaves this issue murky, and the US acceptance of Pakistani stonewalling is a major failure of US non-proliferation policy.
This would raise questions about both programs. It the bomb was North Korean, does Pakistan have a bomb that works? A Muslim bomb?
If it was North Korean, does that mean that North Korea has actually put its plutonium from reprocessing into bombs?
According to the Carnegie Endowment's book Deadly Arsenals, Pakistan claims to have conducted five tests on May 28, 1998; however, they produced only one seismic signal, which tends to indicate only one explosion, with an indicated yield of 6-13 kilotons. Another test on May 30, 1998, produced a seismic indication of a bomb with a yield of 2-8 kilotons.
The Asia Times article says that the "only" bomb A.Q. Khan exploded in Pakistan was a North Korean bomb, which tends to undercut its theory, since the Carnegie Endowment (and other sources) say Pakistan tested at least two bombs, if not more.
In any case, the allegation strengthens the article's claim that Pakistan's refusal to allow the US (or the IAEA, or some neutral organization) to interrogate A.Q. Khan leaves this issue murky, and the US acceptance of Pakistani stonewalling is a major failure of US non-proliferation policy.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Unfriendly Takeover
When Bush was elected President in 2000, we had a federal budget surplus of around $200 billion. Now, after the first four years of the Bush Administration we have an annual deficit estimated at about $445 billion. If Clinton had not left Bush a huge surplus, Bush would not have been able to run up the huge deficits that he has with his tax cuts and Iraq War. Interestingly, the "War on Terrorism" has cost almost nothing compared to the War on Iraq, which has been enormously expensive, since we haven't done things like protecting our seaports, chemical plants or food supply, which would have been much more important to protecting America from a future terrorist attack than invading Iraq.
We have, however, used the Clinton surplus to make a large transfer of wealth to the most wealthy Americans through the Bush tax cuts, and we have given millions to defense contractors, such as Halliburton, for the Iraq War. Unfortunately, the lesson is, don't do the right thing. If you don't spend the Federal Government's money on your constituency, e.g., Clinton on Democratic welfare programs, then the Republicans will take that saved money and spend it on their constituency, i.e., the obscenely wealthy.
It's not unlike a corporate raider taking over a company and then destroying it by selling off its assets for more than he paid for the company. Watch the movie "Pretty Woman" for an elementary lesson in how this works. In the movie, Richard Gere develops a conscience and does the right thing. There is no sign that George Bush has a conscience to develop. He stands only for greed all the way to the bank. Laura Bush, who seems like a decent woman, appears to have less influence over George Bush than Julia Roberts, who plays a whore, has over Richard Gere in the movie.
The fact that evil trumps good in American politics is a bad sign for our future, sort of a Gresham's law of politics. (Note the reference to Aristophanes' "The Frogs" in the Wikipedia link: "So with men we know for upright, blameless lives and noble names. These we spurn for men of brass...." It is exactly the political reference intended here. Unfortunately, if Aristophanes saw it thousands of years ago, it's nothing new; just a bad aspect of human nature.)
We have, however, used the Clinton surplus to make a large transfer of wealth to the most wealthy Americans through the Bush tax cuts, and we have given millions to defense contractors, such as Halliburton, for the Iraq War. Unfortunately, the lesson is, don't do the right thing. If you don't spend the Federal Government's money on your constituency, e.g., Clinton on Democratic welfare programs, then the Republicans will take that saved money and spend it on their constituency, i.e., the obscenely wealthy.
It's not unlike a corporate raider taking over a company and then destroying it by selling off its assets for more than he paid for the company. Watch the movie "Pretty Woman" for an elementary lesson in how this works. In the movie, Richard Gere develops a conscience and does the right thing. There is no sign that George Bush has a conscience to develop. He stands only for greed all the way to the bank. Laura Bush, who seems like a decent woman, appears to have less influence over George Bush than Julia Roberts, who plays a whore, has over Richard Gere in the movie.
The fact that evil trumps good in American politics is a bad sign for our future, sort of a Gresham's law of politics. (Note the reference to Aristophanes' "The Frogs" in the Wikipedia link: "So with men we know for upright, blameless lives and noble names. These we spurn for men of brass...." It is exactly the political reference intended here. Unfortunately, if Aristophanes saw it thousands of years ago, it's nothing new; just a bad aspect of human nature.)
Monday, December 06, 2004
A Cabinet of Midgets: Cheney and Rumsfeld Clean House
Naming high school dropout Bernard Kerik as Secretary of Homeland Security confirms that Bush is creating a cabinet of midgets, people with no personal political base and little management experience. Gov. Tom Ridge was a failure as Homeland Security Secretary, but that was partly because he didn't have the background to be a mini-Defense secretary; that wasn't his strong point. Kerik has even fewer credentials for the job.
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson was less of a failure than Ridge. As a man with some ideas who did not like being jerked around, he probably felt frustrated in his job because he couldn't get any political support for things he thought were important. A hint of that tension with the White House came out in his resignation remarks about the possibility of an attack on the American food supply. It was a strange remark, but it probably was something he had tried unsuccessfully to get the White House to focus on. It may have been a place-holder for Social Security reform, an HHS issue on which Thompson, as an intelligent man, probably disagreed with the White House, but was told not to mention it in public.
Keeping Rumsfeld, who is not a political midget, in the cabinet indicates that he will rule the roost, with no competition from people with stature, like Colin Powell. It may be a portent of the future that Treasury Secretary Snow is on the way out. Snow came in as a midget to replace the outspoken Paul O'Neill, who had served in previous administrations as well as being CEO of Alcoa. Snow was not up to the job. It's doubtful that the new midgets, including Condi Rice, who is afraid to stand up to Rumsfeld, will do much better than Snow.
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson was less of a failure than Ridge. As a man with some ideas who did not like being jerked around, he probably felt frustrated in his job because he couldn't get any political support for things he thought were important. A hint of that tension with the White House came out in his resignation remarks about the possibility of an attack on the American food supply. It was a strange remark, but it probably was something he had tried unsuccessfully to get the White House to focus on. It may have been a place-holder for Social Security reform, an HHS issue on which Thompson, as an intelligent man, probably disagreed with the White House, but was told not to mention it in public.
Keeping Rumsfeld, who is not a political midget, in the cabinet indicates that he will rule the roost, with no competition from people with stature, like Colin Powell. It may be a portent of the future that Treasury Secretary Snow is on the way out. Snow came in as a midget to replace the outspoken Paul O'Neill, who had served in previous administrations as well as being CEO of Alcoa. Snow was not up to the job. It's doubtful that the new midgets, including Condi Rice, who is afraid to stand up to Rumsfeld, will do much better than Snow.
Bush Copies Hitler
The following is a quotation from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which unfortunately has a bearing on the current debate in the United States about the UN. Currently Senator Norm Coleman is making vitriolic attacks on Kofi Annan in a Republican attempt to destroy the UN.
In his speech to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939, Hitler said:
Later in the book, Shirer quotes Hitler as saying:
In his speech to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939, Hitler said:
Mr. Roosevelt declares that it is clear to him that all international problems can be solved at the council table.
As Hitler noted, attacks by powerful countries on the weakness of international institutions, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, are self-fulfilling prophecies.I would be very happy if these problems could really find their solution at the council table. My skepticism, however, is based on the fact that it was America herself who gave sharpest expression to her mistrust in the effectiveness of conferences. For the greatest conference of all time was League of Nations . . . representing all the peoples of the world, created in accordance with the will of an American President. The first State, however, that shrank from the endeavor was the United States . . . It was not until after years of purposeless participation that I resovled to follow the example of America. (Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 472-473.)
Later in the book, Shirer quotes Hitler as saying:
I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war -- never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory. (Ibid, p. 32.)Does that remind you of the Iraq War?
Friday, December 03, 2004
Trailer Park Trash and the Elite
Bill Clinton was trailer park trash from Arkansas who worked his way into the elite of the Democratic Party, and eventually into the elite of the world. Politically he appealed the better side of human nature. He was an accepted player on the world stage, despite his personal low standards involving relations with a number of women who lived (or should have lived) in or near trailer parks.
George Bush II was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, the child of an elite New England family, but he chose to align himself politically with trailer park trash. He is a pariah on the world stage because he appeals to the worst in his supporters. Certainly one of the worst things is his use of torture and other inhumane methods employed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist colleagues. You can't fight terrorism with terrorism and maintain high standards.
I think the nadir may have been the blood-bath slaughter of Uday and Qusay Hussein. Why should anyone cry over the death of such terrible people? Because someone has stand up for the morals and decency. When you compare what happened in Iraq to how the US handled the capture and trial of the Nazis who committed atrocities in World War II, there is no comparison. Eisenhower was a decent man, who respected human beings; the Germans struggled to surrender to the Western powers rather than to the Soviets. In Iraq it's questionable whether the Iraqis prefer the US to the Iranians, whom they have fought for generations. How did we sink so low? Mr. Bush, you're no Eisenhower.
George Bush II was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, the child of an elite New England family, but he chose to align himself politically with trailer park trash. He is a pariah on the world stage because he appeals to the worst in his supporters. Certainly one of the worst things is his use of torture and other inhumane methods employed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist colleagues. You can't fight terrorism with terrorism and maintain high standards.
I think the nadir may have been the blood-bath slaughter of Uday and Qusay Hussein. Why should anyone cry over the death of such terrible people? Because someone has stand up for the morals and decency. When you compare what happened in Iraq to how the US handled the capture and trial of the Nazis who committed atrocities in World War II, there is no comparison. Eisenhower was a decent man, who respected human beings; the Germans struggled to surrender to the Western powers rather than to the Soviets. In Iraq it's questionable whether the Iraqis prefer the US to the Iranians, whom they have fought for generations. How did we sink so low? Mr. Bush, you're no Eisenhower.
US Claims It Can Use Evidence Gained by Torture
According to an AP story, "Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government concedes.
"Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday."
America's embrace of torture is so disappointing, so horrendous, that it's difficult for me to deal with. As the bumper stickers say, "Shit happens," but we don't have to embrace it and approve it. Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle has earned a black place in history along side Hitler and the Third Reich. "The horror! The horror!" We are in the heart of darkness.
"Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday."
America's embrace of torture is so disappointing, so horrendous, that it's difficult for me to deal with. As the bumper stickers say, "Shit happens," but we don't have to embrace it and approve it. Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle has earned a black place in history along side Hitler and the Third Reich. "The horror! The horror!" We are in the heart of darkness.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
White House States It Is at War with Russia
If we thought that Bush was still getting along with Putin -- despite the claim of a new strategic missile, despite cracking down on the Yukos oil company and other oligarchs, despite centralizing Russian power after terrorist attacks, and despite interfering in the Ukrainian elections -- it's now clear that the Bush-Putin love affair is over. When Venezuela said it might buy MiG jets, a White House official traveling with Bush in Canada said, "Let me put it this way: We shoot down MiGs." So, Russia is the enemy again. America is out to destroy Russian military aircraft, whenever and wherever found.
However, the White House later backed away from its bellicose remarks. According to reports, "A White House National Security Council spokesman later sought to clarify the official's remarks. 'It's clearly an issue that we would monitor,' Sean McCormack said. 'He didn't mean to imply anything more or less.'"
I wonder who "he" is.
However, the White House later backed away from its bellicose remarks. According to reports, "A White House National Security Council spokesman later sought to clarify the official's remarks. 'It's clearly an issue that we would monitor,' Sean McCormack said. 'He didn't mean to imply anything more or less.'"
I wonder who "he" is.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Red Cross Finds Torture by Americans at Guantanamo
The International Committee of the Red Cross found that the American military has used methods "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, according to the New York Times. One of the biggest concerns of the Red Cross was the assistance of military doctors to interrogators in providing information on the physical condition of prisoners.
Of course, the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib did not occur in a vacuum. The Administration at the very highest levels has approved ignoring the Geneva Convention, which should protect prisoners of war. The Administration's culpability is documented in Seymour Hersh's book: Chain of Command, The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.
Of course, the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib did not occur in a vacuum. The Administration at the very highest levels has approved ignoring the Geneva Convention, which should protect prisoners of war. The Administration's culpability is documented in Seymour Hersh's book: Chain of Command, The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Killers of Intel Reform Prefer Death of Troops
The Congressmen who killed intelligence reform along the lines recommended by the 9/11 commission apparently prefer the continued deaths of American troops to intelligence reform that would cost some of their patrons money or power. Congressmen Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner were the two mainly responsible, aided by Congressman Gingrey (R-GA), Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Myers.
They claim they killed the bill because it would not allow sufficient military control over tactical military intelligence that the Pentagon needs, as opposed to big picture strategic intelligence that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA need. But recent news articles strongly refute that position. One strong argument against killing the bill was given by Congressman Gingrey, who apparently thought it supported his position. He said on the PBS Newshour on November 24:
A final example of how ignorant those Republicans are, and how uncaring for troops in the field, is an article in MIT's Technology Review for November 2004. The cover article shows Lt. Col. Ernest "Rock" Marcone with the title, "How Tech Failed Him." The article says:
This is the wonderful system that cannot be compromised in order to reform the intelligence community. I don't know how the people who make those arguments -- Hunter, Sensenbrenner, and Gingrey -- can look at themselves in the mirror, knowing that they are putting the lives of American fighting men and women at higher risk than necessary every day in Iraq.
They claim they killed the bill because it would not allow sufficient military control over tactical military intelligence that the Pentagon needs, as opposed to big picture strategic intelligence that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA need. But recent news articles strongly refute that position. One strong argument against killing the bill was given by Congressman Gingrey, who apparently thought it supported his position. He said on the PBS Newshour on November 24:
REP. PHIL GINGREY: Let me make it very personal. Tyler Brown, first lieutenant, killed in action. Georgia Tech graduate, president of the student body, 26 years old, was killed by a sniper three weeks after he arrived in Iraq from the DMZ. That young Marine, young soldier, Army first lieutenant, he needed information right away about where that sniper was, where that possible attack was coming from.
If we have to worry about that information going up the chain of command to an NID who is outside the Department of Defense, then we have some real concerns here.
Gingrey's example is of a man whose life was lost because the present Pentagon system did not work, not of a man whose life was saved by the current system. It is an argument for improvement, not for the status quo. In addition, today's New York Times says that in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other hot spots, the military increasingly relies on civilian, commercial satellite imagery, not military intelligence satellites. Ironically, the commercial imagery works well, but the difficulty is distributing it to the troops in the field, the very thing that is said to work so well by those who defeated the intelligence bill. The NYT article says:
The unclassified source of the photographs is also critical, because the commercial images can be shared not only with United States partners - troops from the Iraqi National Guard or aid groups - but also with United States Army soldiers who often do not have security clearance. An image from a government spy satellite can be declassified, but the process is time-consuming. Even Iraqi war prisoners were shown some commercial images last year in an effort to locate hidden weapons....
During the conflict in Afghanistan in late 2001 and 2002, the Air Force used the United States mail to send cartons filled with CD's to pilots. The Air Force Combat Support Office set up what it called the Pony Express, delivering the CD's in person. Delays in creating and distributing the maps resulted in many missions being flown without up-to-date information, Air Force officials acknowledge.The existing problems with distribution of intelligence described in the NYT article are exactly those which the Republicans who killed the intel bill claimed do not exist but would be created by the intelligence czar in the bill.Army officials cite similar difficulties. A brigade combat team in Iraq took 18 hours to move from Baquba to Najaf instead of the typical six hours, because maps had not been updated to reflect that a bridge had been knocked out, said Robert W. Burkhardt, director of the Army Corps office that is building the Urban Tactical Planner.
A final example of how ignorant those Republicans are, and how uncaring for troops in the field, is an article in MIT's Technology Review for November 2004. The cover article shows Lt. Col. Ernest "Rock" Marcone with the title, "How Tech Failed Him." The article says:
Later the article says, "Once the invasion[of Iraq] began, breakdowns quickly became the norm.... In three cases, U.S. vehicles were actually attacked while they stopped to receive intelligence data on enemy positions. 'A lot of guys said, "Enough of this shit," and turned it off,' says Perry, flicking his wrist as if clicking off a radio. 'We can't afford to wait for this.'"Marcone says no sensors, no network, conveyed the far more dangerous reality, which confronted him at 3:00 a.m. April 3. He faced not one brigade but three: between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. The Iraqi deployment was just the kind of conventional, massed force that's easiest to detect. Yet "We got nothing until they slammed into us," Marcone recalls.
This is the wonderful system that cannot be compromised in order to reform the intelligence community. I don't know how the people who make those arguments -- Hunter, Sensenbrenner, and Gingrey -- can look at themselves in the mirror, knowing that they are putting the lives of American fighting men and women at higher risk than necessary every day in Iraq.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Thanksgiving Day
In discussing George Washington's first Thanksgiving Day proclamation, his biographer James Flexner refers to Washington's first inaugural address. About the inaugural address, he says:
The most remarkable aspect of what Washington wrote is the depth of its religious tone. He had often in the past expressed gratitude for the assistance of Providence to the American cause and had expressed hope that the boon would be continued. But never before had he devoted so much -- more than a third -- of a complicated pronouncement to religious considerations. That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician might is revealed by the absence of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ or even use the world "God." Following phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to "the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men," to "the benign parent of the human race."Flexner adds in a footnote:
That Washington intentionally avoided the word "God" is strongly indicated by his first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Having quoted Congress's request that he establish a day for thanking "Almighty God," in the part of the proclamation he himself wrote he used other designations.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Do We Care About New Russian Missile?
Russia announced several days ago that it had developed a new type of strategic missile, according to the Washington Post. Although Putin's announcement was cryptic, it noted that the new missile would be better able to avoid missile defenses. The Administration claims no one cares about our developing missile defenses, but Putin's announcement is a sign that someone cares. The idea behind the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty was that it would help avoid an arms race. It was one of the first treaties that Bush renounced, along with Kyoto. Now it looks as if the arms race is back, albeit at a lower level than during the cold war.
It's true that a lot of the hype was probably Putin bragging for Russian consumption. But again, why bring the subject up unless there is something to it. Furthermore, what do we really know about the new missile? How good is our intelligence? It is possible that the new missile is really some kind of a breakthrough that would significantly increase the threat to the US of a missile attack by Russia? Bush claims that Putin is his good buddy, but Putin has been doing some stuff in Russian political and economic sectors that doesn't endear him to anybody except lovers of the cold war. Of course one of those cold war lovers is Donald Rumsfeld. He would love to dump this messed-up Iraq War and get back to things he really loves, like missile defense. Does he know whether his new missile defenses will work against Putin's new missiles?
It's true that a lot of the hype was probably Putin bragging for Russian consumption. But again, why bring the subject up unless there is something to it. Furthermore, what do we really know about the new missile? How good is our intelligence? It is possible that the new missile is really some kind of a breakthrough that would significantly increase the threat to the US of a missile attack by Russia? Bush claims that Putin is his good buddy, but Putin has been doing some stuff in Russian political and economic sectors that doesn't endear him to anybody except lovers of the cold war. Of course one of those cold war lovers is Donald Rumsfeld. He would love to dump this messed-up Iraq War and get back to things he really loves, like missile defense. Does he know whether his new missile defenses will work against Putin's new missiles?
Friday, November 19, 2004
Ignoring Geneva Convention Is an Idea Worthy of Goebbels
To show how immoral and despicable it was for Bush to decide to ignore the Geneva Convention, it is enough to look at William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Hitler did not make a conscious decision to ignore the Geneva Convention until the very end of World War II, when it was clear that he was going to lose as the Allies advanced across Europe, although there were certainly earlier examples of his ignoring the Convention without making a formal decision to do so. Describing Hitler in early 1945, Shirer says:
Hitler was in a fine fury. He sacked Rundstedt for the last time on March 10, replacing him with Field Marshall Kesselring, who had held out so stubbornly and long in Italy. Already in February the Fuehrer, in a fit of rage, had considered denouncing the Geneva Convention in order, he said at a conference on the nineteenth, “to make the enemy realize that we are determined to fight for our existence with all the means at our disposal.” He had been urged to take his step by Dr. Goebbels, the bloodthirsty noncombatant, who suggested that all captured airmen be shot summarily in reprisal for their terrible bombing of the German cities. When some of the officers present raised legal objections Hitler retorted angrily:
Shirer says that in the end, “there was no general massacre of captured flyers or other prisoners of war (except the Russians),” but “several were done to death and the civil population was incited to lynch Allied air crews who parachuted to the ground.”To hell with that!… If I make it clear that I show no consideration for prisoners but that I treat enemy prisoners without any consideration for their rights, regardless of reprisals, then quite a few [Germans] will think twice before they desert."This was one of the first indications to his followers that Hitler, his mission as a world conqueror having failed, was determined to go down, like Wotan at Valhalla, in a holocaust of blood — not only the enemy’s but that of his own people. At the close of the discussion he asked Admiral Doenitz “to consider the pros and cons of this step and to report as soon as possible.”
Doenitz cam back with his answer on the following day and it was typical of the man.
The disadvantages would outweigh the advantages . . . It would be better in any case to keep up outside appearances and carry out the measures believed necessary without announcing them beforehand.
It appears that Hitler’s officer corps had more moral integrity than the American officer corps has. The Germans officers sort of stood up to Hitler on this issue. They said even if you violate the Convention, don’t admit it. American officers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Cuba just rolled over and spit on the Geneva Convention, regardless of what that might mean for the future treatment of American soldiers who become prisoners.
Who was the American Goebbels in the Administration arguing for disregarding the Geneva Convention? It sounds as if it was future Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. However, this Administration is full of people, who like Goebbels, are bloodthirsty noncombatants.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
American James Bond Sings Soprano
After firing the senior CIA spy chief and his deputy, the new CIA Director Porter Goss has ordered all CIA employees to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' according to the New York Times. The Times story said that one former CIA official supported Goss' firings, but "A second former intelligence official said he was concerned that the memorandum and the changes represented an effort by Mr. Goss to stifle independence..... 'If Goss is asking people to color their views and be a team player, that's not what people at C.I.A. signed up for,' said the former intelligence official."
The commentators seem pretty united in saying that the main problem at CIA is not the spies, but the analysts. Goss claims he wants more CIA risk taking, but he has fired (or forced the resignation of) those officials on the spy side who are most inclined to risk taking. And he has told the analysts that their analysis had better support George Bush, i.e., that they had better say that everything in Iraq is perfect. There is no unrest. The Americans are in complete control. Iraqis love the Americans and their life under American rule. If he fires and intimidates enough people, those are certainly the reports that he will get.
He has already begun emasculating the James Bonds of the agency, and I'm sure he'll go after uppity women, too. He will certainly stifle all independent thought at the CIA.
I can't understand why Goss, who supposedly was a clandestine services officer, would want to destroy the clandestine services. The only reason I can think of is that he was a failure as a spook -- hence his leaving CIA and becoming a congressman -- and therefore is taking revenge on successful spooks. It's nice to have family money as Goss does. It may not be good for America, but it's good for Goss.
CNN is reporting that Goss denies that he ordered the CIA to color its intelligence in favor of the administration. It's not surprising that he would, since his order undercuts the whole purpose of the CIA. At the entrance to the CIA is the following Bible quotation, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." By making a mockery of that sentiment, Bush and Goss demonstrate that they apparently hate the truth and hate the Bible.
The commentators seem pretty united in saying that the main problem at CIA is not the spies, but the analysts. Goss claims he wants more CIA risk taking, but he has fired (or forced the resignation of) those officials on the spy side who are most inclined to risk taking. And he has told the analysts that their analysis had better support George Bush, i.e., that they had better say that everything in Iraq is perfect. There is no unrest. The Americans are in complete control. Iraqis love the Americans and their life under American rule. If he fires and intimidates enough people, those are certainly the reports that he will get.
He has already begun emasculating the James Bonds of the agency, and I'm sure he'll go after uppity women, too. He will certainly stifle all independent thought at the CIA.
I can't understand why Goss, who supposedly was a clandestine services officer, would want to destroy the clandestine services. The only reason I can think of is that he was a failure as a spook -- hence his leaving CIA and becoming a congressman -- and therefore is taking revenge on successful spooks. It's nice to have family money as Goss does. It may not be good for America, but it's good for Goss.
CNN is reporting that Goss denies that he ordered the CIA to color its intelligence in favor of the administration. It's not surprising that he would, since his order undercuts the whole purpose of the CIA. At the entrance to the CIA is the following Bible quotation, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." By making a mockery of that sentiment, Bush and Goss demonstrate that they apparently hate the truth and hate the Bible.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Secretary of State Changes from Protestant to Catholic
It appears that Colin Powell claims to be Episcopalian, or at least that's what one bio says. It was difficult to find a bio that lists his religion; so, it's probably not something he likes to talk about. Condi Rice comes from a Protestant background in Alabama, where her father was a Presbyterian minister, but in Colorado she attended a Catholic high school, St. Mary's Academy, and later Notre Dame University, as well as the nonsectarian University of Denver, according to the Denver Post. Powell's Episcopalian leanings indicate tolerance, as opposed to the rabid, hate-filled, born-again evangelicals in Bush's base. Rice's rejection of her Presbyterian upbringing seems to indicate that she shares the rigid, intolerant views that caused many conservative Catholic voters to vote against their fellow Catholic Kerry because of his views on abortion and other "moral" issues.
The ironic thing is that except for its Protestant north, Europe is mostly Catholic. Yet, because the Catholic Europeans are liberal (as opposed to the Catholic church itself), the Conservative Republicans hate them venomously, especially the French. Who would have thought that Henry VIII would be responsible for such a big difference in US foreign policy?
The ironic thing is that except for its Protestant north, Europe is mostly Catholic. Yet, because the Catholic Europeans are liberal (as opposed to the Catholic church itself), the Conservative Republicans hate them venomously, especially the French. Who would have thought that Henry VIII would be responsible for such a big difference in US foreign policy?
Monday, November 15, 2004
Safire Resigns from New York Times Column
In yet another resignation, William Safire is stepping down from writing his political column in the New York Times. Apparently he will be replaced. In the meantime, there will be no shortage of Jewish NYT columnists, including Tom Friedman and David Brooks. But, that's fine with me, because neither of them seems to be so wedded to the Zionist wing of Judaism as Safire. Safire's columns often read to me as if they had been dictated from Tel Aviv or the Knesset in Jerusalem.
Tom Friedman Points Out Void in US Foreign Policy
Tom Friedman's column in Sunday's New York Times, written before Colin Powell's resignation, points out why Powell would have been important had he stayed on. Friedman wrote:
- If only President Bush called in Colin Powell and said: "Colin, neither of us have much to show by way of diplomacy for the last four years. I want you to get on an airplane and go out to the Middle East. I want you to sit down with Israelis and Palestinians and forge a framework for a secure Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and progress toward a secure peace in the West Bank, and I don't want you to come back home until you've got that. Only this time I will stand with you.
- "As long as you're out there, I will not let Rummy or Cheney fire any more arrows into your back. So get going. It's time for you to stop sulking over at Foggy Bottom and time for me to make a psychological breakthrough with the Arab world that can also help us succeed in Iraq - by making it easier for Arabs and Muslims to stand with us. I don't want to see you back here until you've put our words into deeds."
One key phrase in this fictional dialogue is, "Only this time I will stand with you." It's not going to happen now. So, who's going to bring peace in the Middle East? Paul Wolfowitz? I don't think so. Bush is keeping his evangelical Christians and Zionist Jews for whom hatred is a way of life, and his moderates are jumping ship, or being pushed over the side.
CIA Officials Resign, Professionalism Dead
The Washington Post reported on Monday that the two senior CIA officials, one of whom I knew, resigned on Monday. I imagine that Powell's resignation was the final nail in the coffin, if there needed to be one. The Administration may not like the CIA, but it needs somebody who knows how it works. Apparently Goss thinks he knows enough from his service in the CIA a generation ago, or from his outsider-looking-in position in the House, to re-invent the CIA. It's a pretty big risk.
Of course, there might be some threat from terrorists, and it might be useful to know what's going on behind the scenes in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or a few other places. You can argue that the intelligence from these places wasn't very good under the old regime, although amazingly George Tenet left with little but praise from his boss. It appears that Tenet was brilliant, but was ill-served by everyone working for him.
I'm still not convinced that the "war" on terrorism is more like the war in Iraq or Vietnam than like the war on drugs or poverty. The war in Iraq is related to the "war" on terrorism mainly because of the hatred it has fomented against the US in the Muslim world. The number of foreign fighters killed in Falluja compared to the number of Iraqi fighters will give some indication of the importance of Iraq in killing terrorists. The more foreigners killed, the more successful the Iraq war is as part of the "war" on terrorism.
In any case, the CIA, like State, now goes to the ideologues. Will all of America's foreign policy now be as misguided as its Iraq policy has been?
Of course, there might be some threat from terrorists, and it might be useful to know what's going on behind the scenes in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or a few other places. You can argue that the intelligence from these places wasn't very good under the old regime, although amazingly George Tenet left with little but praise from his boss. It appears that Tenet was brilliant, but was ill-served by everyone working for him.
I'm still not convinced that the "war" on terrorism is more like the war in Iraq or Vietnam than like the war on drugs or poverty. The war in Iraq is related to the "war" on terrorism mainly because of the hatred it has fomented against the US in the Muslim world. The number of foreign fighters killed in Falluja compared to the number of Iraqi fighters will give some indication of the importance of Iraq in killing terrorists. The more foreigners killed, the more successful the Iraq war is as part of the "war" on terrorism.
In any case, the CIA, like State, now goes to the ideologues. Will all of America's foreign policy now be as misguided as its Iraq policy has been?
Powell Resigns, Hatemongers Win
Everybody is announcing that Secretary of State Powell is resigning. Andrea Kopple had it right over the weekend that he was leaving.
Powell was the voice of reason in the Administration. So, no more voice of reason. The wild men (and wild women, e.g., Condi Rice) are in charge. The CIA is in total disarray (see my previous post); so, forget foreign policy for a few months. Rummy and Wolfowitz will have to take care of it, and will no doubt be happy to do so.
The sad thing for the State Department is losing a leader who actually cared about the troops. Most Secretaries of State have been politicians or lawyers who love the policy issues and meeting and greeting all the heads of state, but who usually care less about the staffers who work for them. As a general who cared about his troops in the Army, Powell brought the same concern for his troops when he came to State. His attention has been great for State Department morale, even if he lost a lot of important policy debates with the White House. The new Bush Administration will definitely be poorer for his departure.
Maybe Bush will name someone moderate with high personal character to the position, but it seems unlikely. It's most likely to be another hate-filled weasel like the other advisers surrounding Bush.
Powell was the voice of reason in the Administration. So, no more voice of reason. The wild men (and wild women, e.g., Condi Rice) are in charge. The CIA is in total disarray (see my previous post); so, forget foreign policy for a few months. Rummy and Wolfowitz will have to take care of it, and will no doubt be happy to do so.
The sad thing for the State Department is losing a leader who actually cared about the troops. Most Secretaries of State have been politicians or lawyers who love the policy issues and meeting and greeting all the heads of state, but who usually care less about the staffers who work for them. As a general who cared about his troops in the Army, Powell brought the same concern for his troops when he came to State. His attention has been great for State Department morale, even if he lost a lot of important policy debates with the White House. The new Bush Administration will definitely be poorer for his departure.
Maybe Bush will name someone moderate with high personal character to the position, but it seems unlikely. It's most likely to be another hate-filled weasel like the other advisers surrounding Bush.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Total Disarray at the CIA
Two sides of a bitter partisan argument appeared in Saturday's Washington Post and the New York Times. The Washington Post reports that new CIA Director Porter Goss' deputy, Patrick Murray, has offended most of the senior officials at CIA, prompting the resignation and/or firing of the former deputy director and acting director John McLaughlin, along with the Deputy Director for Operations (spying) Stephen R. Kappes (more or less #3 at the agency), and Kappes' deputy, Mike Sulick. I served with Mike Sulick, but I've been retired so long that I didn't even know that Sulick was the #2 in the operations directorate, much less that he was one of the main players in this contratemps.
On the other side, David Brooks writes a vicious op-ed article in Saturday's NYT accusing the CIA of being disloyal to the President. The unusual venom in Brooks' column must mean that there is some serious hatred in this dispute. He said, "Langley was engaged in slowmotion, brazen insuborination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory.... If we lived in a primative age, the ground at Langley would be laid waste and salted, and there would be heads on spikes."
What is not clear is whether the CIA officers legitimately believe that they were misused by the Administration, starting with the intelligence used as a basis for the war with Iraq, and are now being fired for what the Administration did. Maybe the CIA was incompetent, or maybe the Administration misused intelligence information and then blamed the CIA when things went bad.
Both Nixon (with Watergate) and Reagan (with Iran-Contra) discovered to their shame that it's difficult to do dirty business with the CIA. Maybe the CIA will turn out to be a thorn in the side of Bush II's second term, too.
Another bad thing is that legislation on reforming the intelligence community per recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is pending in Congress. This dust-up promises to confuse that issue as well.
On the other side, David Brooks writes a vicious op-ed article in Saturday's NYT accusing the CIA of being disloyal to the President. The unusual venom in Brooks' column must mean that there is some serious hatred in this dispute. He said, "Langley was engaged in slowmotion, brazen insuborination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory.... If we lived in a primative age, the ground at Langley would be laid waste and salted, and there would be heads on spikes."
What is not clear is whether the CIA officers legitimately believe that they were misused by the Administration, starting with the intelligence used as a basis for the war with Iraq, and are now being fired for what the Administration did. Maybe the CIA was incompetent, or maybe the Administration misused intelligence information and then blamed the CIA when things went bad.
Both Nixon (with Watergate) and Reagan (with Iran-Contra) discovered to their shame that it's difficult to do dirty business with the CIA. Maybe the CIA will turn out to be a thorn in the side of Bush II's second term, too.
Another bad thing is that legislation on reforming the intelligence community per recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is pending in Congress. This dust-up promises to confuse that issue as well.
Will Powell Stay at State?
On CNN's "On the Story" program this morning, Andrea Koppel said that Secretary Powell had said something recently that hinted that he might be leaving. Since this interview with Maria Bartiromo is one of the most recent, this might be the line:
- MS. BARTIROMO: Are you planning to announce imminently that you're stepping down, sir.
- SECRETARY POWELL: Whenever something is to be announced, it will be announced, and it is a matter for the President and I to discuss and decide.
To construe that as saying he's leaving is reading a lot into it, although it is not a straightforward statement that he will stay.
Powell Says Troops Are Adequately Compensated
As if to reply to my post on November 9, Secretary of State Powell said in an interview with Maria Bartiromo for the Wall Street Journal on November 13 that he thought US troops were adequately compensated. The interview said:
- MS. BARTIROMO: Certainly the group of people who have really been paying the price for this war have been our soldiers on the front lines. We had Ben Stein, who is a supporter of yours, supporter of the Administration and a supporter of the war, on the program recently, and he was upset about what we -- at the way we compensate our soldiers.
Do you think that we pay them appropriately? - SECRETARY POWELL: Can you ever pay a soldier enough for putting his or her life at risk and perhaps losing his or her life? Can you ever compensate a family adequately for that kind of sacrifice? Not really. But we do a pretty good job. We have benefits available for our soldiers in case they are injured or lost in battle, and with respect to their salaries, it's a volunteer force so what we have to do is go out into the marketplace and recruit people and we have to pay them a salary that will cause them to volunteer to come into the Army. We're in a market system with respect to our military, and so the entry level salaries are competitive with what they might get in a similar capacity -- not quite identical but similar capacity -- in civilian life.
- And the fact of the matter is we're meeting our recruiting goals and we meet our reenlistment goals, so we are paying a wage that allows us to do that. Is it adequate? Would I like to see soldiers get paid more? All the time.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Osama bin Laden and Baptists Agree On Morals
Until I read comments by Oklahoma candidate for the US Senate Brad Carson in the New Republic, it didn't strike home to me how similar the moral attitudes of conservative Christians are to Osama bin Laden's. The article was recommended in the MyDD blog.
Carson says that after he addressed the congregation, "the pastor launched into an attack on the 'pro-choice terrorists,' who were, to his mind, far more dangerous than Al Qaida." While it has become something of a Democratic theme, it does somewhat appear that the conservatives espouse a viewpoint more like the pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages than current Western thinking. Carson says, "The culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself." Both the Baptists and bin Laden seem opposed to modernity.... The voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones."
Ironically, Bush's "moral values" base shares bin Laden's view that economics are unimportant, that moral values must be restored at any cost. Even more ironically, Bush takes advantage of this viewpoint by pandering to the other part of his base, the majority of the wealthy in this country by giving them tons of Federal Government largesse in the form of tax breaks, government subsidies, and government contracts.
Carson says that after he addressed the congregation, "the pastor launched into an attack on the 'pro-choice terrorists,' who were, to his mind, far more dangerous than Al Qaida." While it has become something of a Democratic theme, it does somewhat appear that the conservatives espouse a viewpoint more like the pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages than current Western thinking. Carson says, "The culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself." Both the Baptists and bin Laden seem opposed to modernity.... The voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones."
Ironically, Bush's "moral values" base shares bin Laden's view that economics are unimportant, that moral values must be restored at any cost. Even more ironically, Bush takes advantage of this viewpoint by pandering to the other part of his base, the majority of the wealthy in this country by giving them tons of Federal Government largesse in the form of tax breaks, government subsidies, and government contracts.
What Do We Get From Falluja Attack?
The L.A. Times today says that it is "unlikely that the United States can establish the stability needed for credible elections in January even if its forces succeed in Falluja." The good news is that no one who has watched the battle on TV can question the Marines' and the Army's courage, which was in question after they quit the attack on Falluja in April. The bad news is that it looks like it could be a Pyrrhic victory, because it will not help Iraq hold elections in January. There is a lot of talk about Falluja being a "ghost town." If the missing residents don't return, how can they vote? And if they don't vote, what's the point of this exercise? And if the rebellion just moves from Falluja to other towns, as it seemed to move to Mosul yesterday, what's the point of that?
It looks as if it all boils down to the US not being willing to commit enough troops to Iraq to make the invasion really successful. The New York Times reports that the military had to pull about one-third of its forces out of Falluja to respond to the violence in Mosul. We defeated Saddam Hussein, but we have not turned Iraq into a functioning democratic state, because so far we have not been willing to commit the forces necessary to do so.
It looks as if it all boils down to the US not being willing to commit enough troops to Iraq to make the invasion really successful. The New York Times reports that the military had to pull about one-third of its forces out of Falluja to respond to the violence in Mosul. We defeated Saddam Hussein, but we have not turned Iraq into a functioning democratic state, because so far we have not been willing to commit the forces necessary to do so.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Bin Laden Attacked US Because of US Support for Israel
I haven't heard any "experts" discuss Osama bin Laden's statement in his latest video (October 2004) that "after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the [World Trade] towers." (Translation by CNN.) According to bin Laden, it was America's unwavering support for Israel's often cruel treatment of the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, including a specific Israeli attack on buildings in Lebanon, that led to the attack on the twin towers in New York. Certainly bin Laden is playing a political game, but his statement must have some value in judging his motives.
Yet, Bush blames the 9/11 attack on Iraq, rather than viewing it as a response to his policies toward Israel. This doesn't mean that the US policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict is wrong, but it does mean that there are costs to that policy, possibly starting with 3,000 American lives. A cynical person might say that's why the settlements for the victims' families were so generous, as I noted they were in a previous post. Generous settlements helped assure that there would be less pressure from the victims' families to look at foreign policy. However, their pressure did bring about the 9/11 Commission report, including strong criticism of US security and intelligence capabilities. Bin Laden made his statement only after the 9/11 report had been issued.
Now that Arafat is gone, it will be interesting to see what happens to Bush's Mid-East foreign policy.
Yet, Bush blames the 9/11 attack on Iraq, rather than viewing it as a response to his policies toward Israel. This doesn't mean that the US policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict is wrong, but it does mean that there are costs to that policy, possibly starting with 3,000 American lives. A cynical person might say that's why the settlements for the victims' families were so generous, as I noted they were in a previous post. Generous settlements helped assure that there would be less pressure from the victims' families to look at foreign policy. However, their pressure did bring about the 9/11 Commission report, including strong criticism of US security and intelligence capabilities. Bin Laden made his statement only after the 9/11 report had been issued.
Now that Arafat is gone, it will be interesting to see what happens to Bush's Mid-East foreign policy.
Veterans Day
Just for the record, I served in the Army artillery in Vietnam from 1969 to 1970. My father served in World War II in Europe, where he earned a Combat Infantry Badge, and in the Pacific, and later in the Korean War, where he earned a Bronze Star. His father, who is buried in Arlington Cemetery, served in France in World War I and in the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. My mother's father's father, who was the subject of the book From That Terrible Field, served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War, including at the battles of Shiloh and Mobile Bay.
No one in my family was a career soldier. My father stayed in the National Guard after World War II, and was called up for Korea. His father left the Army after the Spanish-American War, but re-enlisted for World War I.
I don't know of any veterans in my family any farther back than these.
No one in my family was a career soldier. My father stayed in the National Guard after World War II, and was called up for Korea. His father left the Army after the Spanish-American War, but re-enlisted for World War I.
I don't know of any veterans in my family any farther back than these.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Why Are Police and Firemen Worth More Than Soldiers?
The New York Times reports today that the families of those who died in uniform as a result of the 9/11 attacks -- police and firemen -- received $4.2 million on average. What do soldiers get who are killed in combat in Iraq? Some thousands of dollars. One chart says the automatic amount of insurance for servicemen is $200,000, which costs $0.90 per $10,000 per month, plus a $6,000 immediate gratuity. Why is a New York policeman worth so much more than a soldier from Kansas? I don't get it.
Monday, November 08, 2004
More Thoughts on Abortion & Christian Politics
Thinking more about the passages in Exodus 21 mentioned in the last post, it seems unreasonable that the Biblical writer (Moses) would anticipate only a premature birth, given the medical treatment available hundreds of years before Christ. A premature birth would occur only in a few occasions when the woman was in her eighth or ninth month and if the injury from the striving men was not too serious. It is much more likely that in most cases the child would be still born, and that therefore the "mischief" that might "follow" would be the death of the woman from the assault and the consequent miscarriage, not the death of the infant who had been born prematurely. It is more likely that a woman in the early stages of pregnancy who miscarried would not die, than that a woman in advanced stages who miscarried as a result of injury would not die. To me the right-to-life interpretation is too strained to be the correct one. In addition, infant mortality was high in those old days, so that the death of an infant would not be as unusual as it is today. But the wording is ambiguous; I think my interpretation is the correct one, but it is impossible to be sure.
Another issue that bothers me is the self-righteousness of the evangelicals and their bragging about how much they pray. The self-righteousness was on display yesterday on ABC this week with the head of Focus on the Family. When George Stephanopoulis asked him whether he would like to apologize to Sen. Leahy for saying that Leahy hated God's people, he said no, that he stood by his statement accusing Leahy of hatred of God's people. When Stephanopoulis asked him if this was Christian, he said Stephanopoulis could not teach him about being a Christian.
I found the head of Focus on the Family to be very un-Christian. Today's op-ed in the New York Times by Gary Hart explains well why the so-called Christian conservatives are not Christian. He misses one point, however, from the Sermon on the Mount. The evangelical Christians talk about how much they pray. See, for example, yesterday's New York Times Magazine. Jesus said (Matthew 6:6):
Another issue that bothers me is the self-righteousness of the evangelicals and their bragging about how much they pray. The self-righteousness was on display yesterday on ABC this week with the head of Focus on the Family. When George Stephanopoulis asked him whether he would like to apologize to Sen. Leahy for saying that Leahy hated God's people, he said no, that he stood by his statement accusing Leahy of hatred of God's people. When Stephanopoulis asked him if this was Christian, he said Stephanopoulis could not teach him about being a Christian.
I found the head of Focus on the Family to be very un-Christian. Today's op-ed in the New York Times by Gary Hart explains well why the so-called Christian conservatives are not Christian. He misses one point, however, from the Sermon on the Mount. The evangelical Christians talk about how much they pray. See, for example, yesterday's New York Times Magazine. Jesus said (Matthew 6:6):
- But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
I really question whether any of these so-called evangelical Christians has read the New Testament.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
The Bible Seems To Say Abortion Is Not Murder
Exodus 21:22-23 says:
"22 If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
The most straightforward reading of these passages seems to mean that if a man causes a woman to lose the child she is carrying, then he must pay a penalty, but something short of the death penalty for taking a life. If the woman dies, then the death penalty applies. However, I see from looking around the Internet that the right to lifers interpret it to mean that if a man cause a woman to give birth prematurely, but the child survives, then there is no death penalty, but the child dies, then the death penalty applies.
I looked into this because the talking heads on TV are saying that "values" or "morality" were the most important factors in electing Bush, but that this really meant only two issues: abortion and gay marriage. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, has so much to say about loving your neighbor and caring for the poor that I would think loving your neighbor would be important to Christians of any type -- evangelical, born again, or traditional. If the abortion issue is so much more important than Jesus' sermon on the mount, it looks like it would have gotten more attention in the Bible, and that any mention of it would be clearer than Exodus 21.
"22 If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
The most straightforward reading of these passages seems to mean that if a man causes a woman to lose the child she is carrying, then he must pay a penalty, but something short of the death penalty for taking a life. If the woman dies, then the death penalty applies. However, I see from looking around the Internet that the right to lifers interpret it to mean that if a man cause a woman to give birth prematurely, but the child survives, then there is no death penalty, but the child dies, then the death penalty applies.
I looked into this because the talking heads on TV are saying that "values" or "morality" were the most important factors in electing Bush, but that this really meant only two issues: abortion and gay marriage. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, has so much to say about loving your neighbor and caring for the poor that I would think loving your neighbor would be important to Christians of any type -- evangelical, born again, or traditional. If the abortion issue is so much more important than Jesus' sermon on the mount, it looks like it would have gotten more attention in the Bible, and that any mention of it would be clearer than Exodus 21.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The World Joins Me in Not Cheering Bush Victory
According to the Washington Post, most of the world, except for Russia, Israel, and a few other countries, was disappointed by President Bush's re-election. The disappointed Canadians are a poignant example, since they share a lot with us, but apparently not many of our "values," which are supposed to be one of the main reasons for Bush's re-election. Most Canadians -- as well as the French and Germans -- come from Christan backgrounds. Martin Luther was German. But I guess they don't have the right kind of Christian morals for Bush and company.
One test for me will be what happens in Fallujah. If Bush is going to be the strong, brave leader that he was apparently elected to be, then he has to work out the future of Iraq, which in large part depends on what happens in Fallujah and other cities in the Sunni triangle. Iraqi elections scheduled for January will be virtually worthless if the Sunni triangle does not participate meaningfully.
If the Marines can't break the rebellion quickly by winning the Sunnis' hearts and minds, then they need to break it quickly with an iron fist, which may mean significant casualties. The question is whether Bush is willing to accept the casualties. The casualties may not come, because our other attacks, in the first Iraq war as in this one, have often been met by a stealthy melting away of the enemy, but you have to prepare for resistance if you attack.
The problem is highlighted by the headline of an article in the San Jose Mercury about the impending attack on Fallujah: "Marines' center symbolic of failed plans in Iraq." It says, "When the Marines arrived in Fallujah last March, they planned to win hearts and minds by learning Iraqi customs, sipping tea with local leaders and handing out candy and soccer balls while on foot patrol. But the liaison office is now more an outpost in enemy territory than the outreach center it was intended to be."
One test for me will be what happens in Fallujah. If Bush is going to be the strong, brave leader that he was apparently elected to be, then he has to work out the future of Iraq, which in large part depends on what happens in Fallujah and other cities in the Sunni triangle. Iraqi elections scheduled for January will be virtually worthless if the Sunni triangle does not participate meaningfully.
If the Marines can't break the rebellion quickly by winning the Sunnis' hearts and minds, then they need to break it quickly with an iron fist, which may mean significant casualties. The question is whether Bush is willing to accept the casualties. The casualties may not come, because our other attacks, in the first Iraq war as in this one, have often been met by a stealthy melting away of the enemy, but you have to prepare for resistance if you attack.
The problem is highlighted by the headline of an article in the San Jose Mercury about the impending attack on Fallujah: "Marines' center symbolic of failed plans in Iraq." It says, "When the Marines arrived in Fallujah last March, they planned to win hearts and minds by learning Iraqi customs, sipping tea with local leaders and handing out candy and soccer balls while on foot patrol. But the liaison office is now more an outpost in enemy territory than the outreach center it was intended to be."
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Richard Perle Being Sued for Millions
Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, is being sued for $22.6 million for his unscrupulous behavior as a director of Hollinger International, which owned the Jerusalem Post among other newspapers, according to the Washington Post. It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
Israeli's Set Record in Killing Palestinians
The New York Times reports that the Israeli army killed 165 Palestinians in October, 159 of them in the Gaza Strip. Fifty of the dead, about 30%, were civilians, including women, children, the elderly and males under 16.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Kerry and Bush Compete to Be Israel's Best Friend
One reason I am for Ralph Nader is that both Kerry and Bush are slavishly devoted to Ariel Sharon. The New York Times published an article headlined, "Kerry and Bush Compete for the Role of Israel's Best Friend." The article says, "One striking example of the consistency of views between the candidates is their responses to the plan by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to withdraw troops and settlements from Gaza...." It adds that campaign surrogates Condi Rice and Richard Holbrooke both addressed AIPAC in Florida a week ago.
One reason I am for Ralph Nader is that both Kerry and Bush are slavishly devoted to Ariel Sharon. The New York Times published an article headlined, "Kerry and Bush Compete for the Role of Israel's Best Friend." The article says, "One striking example of the consistency of views between the candidates is their responses to the plan by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to withdraw troops and settlements from Gaza...." It adds that campaign surrogates Condi Rice and Richard Holbrooke both addressed AIPAC in Florida a week ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)