Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Bush Speech to UN falls flat
The members of the United Nations listened politely today as George W Bush failed to make his case to them. There was no reaction during his speech, and he received a polite applause at the end. It was presumtious of this President to expect anything more when he has previously called them "irrelevant."
What Is Bush Hiding?
washingtonpost.com
What Is Bush Hiding?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004; Page A21
It is to be welcomed that President Bush wants to clear up questions about his National Guard service. He wants more details out there, and good for him. This story should be laid to rest, and the one person who can do it is named George W. Bush.
Up to now, Bush has been interested in a rather narrow aspect of the story. He wanted Dan Rather and CBS News to come clean about whether they used fake documents in reporting on the president's Guard service back in the 1970s.
"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader in Manchester, N.H., last week. "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."
I couldn't agree more. And apparently CBS came to the same view. CBS messed up, and yesterday, Rather fessed up. He said the network could no longer stand behind the documents. There will be much hand-wringing about the media in the coming days, and properly so.
But what's good for Dan Rather, who is not running for president, ought to be good for George Bush, who is. "There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered." Surely that presidential sentiment applies as much to Bush's Guard service as to Rather's journalistic methods.
The New York Times put the relevant questions on the table yesterday in a lengthy review of Bush's life in 1972, "the year George W. Bush dropped off the radar screen," as the Times called it. The issues about Bush's National Guard service, the Times wrote, include "why he failed to take his pilot's physical and whether he fulfilled his commitment to the guard."
Oh, I can hear the groaning: "But why are we still talking about Vietnam?" A fair question that has several compelling answers.
First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to have a front group spread untruths about John Kerry's Vietnam service in August and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the supposedly liberal media. The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise character questions about Kerry. But as soon as the questioning turned to Bush's character, we were supposed to call the whole thing off. Why? Because the media were supposed to question Kerry's character but not Bush's.
And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door" to the assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the Democratic National Convention. Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as "opening the door" to lies about his past. Besides, Vietnam veterans with Republican ties were going after Kerry's war record long before the Democratic convention.
But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.
Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of 2004. It would require only that the president take an hour or so with reporters to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard. He may have had good reasons for ducking that physical exam. Surely he can explain the gaps in his service and tell us honestly whether any pull was used to get him into the Guard.
But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?
I'm as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters -- Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into personal issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological zealots. But the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus on character and leadership. If character is the issue, the president's life, past and present, matters just as much as John Kerry's.
Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush's turn.
PBS Panders to Right With New Programming
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
PBS Panders to Right With New Programming
September 17, 2004
A new public television program called The Journal Editorial Report, featuring writers and editors from the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, will debut tonight on public television stations around the country. The show joins Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered, hosted by conservative CNN pundit Tucker Carlson, and a planned program featuring conservative commentator Michael Medved as part of what many see as politically motivated decisions to bring more right-wing voices to public television.
According to reports in the public broadcasting newspaper Current (1/19/04, 6/7/04) and in the New Yorker (6/7/04), conservative complaints about the alleged liberal bias of the program Now with Bill Moyers contributed to the momentum to "balance" the PBS lineup. The new programs seem to be the result of that pressure. In fact, Now will soon see its role on public television diminish, as the program is cut from one hour to 30 minutes when Moyers voluntarily leaves the program later this year. He will be replaced by co-anchor David Brancaccio, formerly of the public radio business show Marketplace, who expresses no obvious ideology. If Carlson, Medved and the staff of the Wall Street Journal editorial page are all necessary to balance the liberal Moyers, by 2005 there will be no one on PBS to balance them.
At the center of this controversy is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides significant federal funding for public broadcasting projects. Two Bush appointees to the board last year, Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines, are big donors to the Republican Party, and do not hide their political agenda. As Common Cause noted in December 2003, Gaines raised money for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), and chaired his political action committee, GOPAC: "At the same time that Gaines was raising money for Gingrich's GOPAC, Gingrich was pushing Congress to cut all federal funds to public TV."
At a confirmation hearing for Halperin, Sen. Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) criticized a commentary by Moyers as "the most blatantly partisan, irresponsible thing I've ever heard in my life," adding that "the CPB has not seemed to be willing to deal with Bill Moyers and that type of programming." Halperin responded: "The fact of the matter is, I agree," though she said at the time there was little the CPB could do about it.
But, evidently, there is something the CPB could do. According to Ken Auletta's investigation in the New Yorker, the calls for drafting right-wing voices were being heard at PBS. Auletta reported that PBS president Pat Mitchell met with Lynne Cheney and conservative television producer Michael Pack to discuss a possible PBS series about Cheney's children's books. Though the project seemed to stall, Pack was soon appointed senior vice-president for television programming at the CPB.
Auletta also reported that after Gingrich told Mitchell that there weren't enough conservatives on PBS, Mitchell "proposed to Gingrich that he co-host a PBS town-hall program," an idea that was frustrated by Gingrich's contract with Fox News Channel.
The notion that public broadcasting should find ways to balance itself is odd, and accepts at face value the right-wing critique that PBS is biased to the left. If anything, PBS (and public broadcasting in general) is theoretically designed to balance the voices that dominate the commercial media. As the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act proposed, public broadcasting should have "instructional, educational and cultural purposes" and should address "the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities."
Instead, public television has in practice largely been a home for elite viewpoints, dominated by long-running political shows hosted by conservatives (Firing Line, McLaughlin Group, One on One) and by business shows aimed at the investing class (Nightly Business Report, Adam Smith's Money World, Wall $treet Week). When this line-up wasn't enough to insulate public TV from right-wing complaints in the mid-1990s, programmers responded by creating more series for conservatives like Peggy Noonan (Peggy Noonan on Values) and Ben Wattenberg (Think Tank).
Now PBS seems once again to be trying to placate right-wing critics, in this case by bringing to public broadcasting voices already well-represented in the mainstream media. Tucker Carlson's take on world affairs, for example, is available at least five days a week on CNN; it's not clear that he would say anything different on PBS, though in a test show (L.A. Times, 6/18/04) he referred to the Democratic convention's diversity goals as "a new affirmative action plan for gays, lesbians and cross-dressers," and called Indian evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul a "spiritual advisor to the scum of the Earth." ("He's willfully non-P.C.," explained WETA programming chief Dalton Delan.)
And the Wall Street Journal editorial page, included in every edition of the nation's second-largest newspaper, is already widely available-- and widely read. Ironically, the Journal has long been hostile to the notion of publicly funded broadcasting: After it was discovered that some public TV stations were selling their donors lists to political parties, a 1999 Journal editorial advised: "In a better world all this would lead Congress to do what it should have done a long time ago: cut off the public tap, freeing Barney, Big Bird and the other wonderful PBS creations to find a profitable niche on cable without having to shill for public television's other, more politicized, offerings."
The Journal's Paul Gigot, who's hosting the new show, said that it was not hypocritical for the Journal to now get on the public tap, saying (Boston Globe, 8/30/04): "We're putting up an enormous amount of resources in terms of staff time and energy. I don't think this is a free lunch."
PBS president Mitchell defended the recent programming decisions, telling a meeting of TV reporters (Miami Herald, 7/10/04): ''I suppose that we're being accused on the one side of being too liberal and on the other of being too conservative probably means we're getting it mostly right."
Given that PBS is responding to conservative complaints by adding more conservative shows, and is not responding in any substantive way to progressive complaints, one can only conclude that if the network had been "getting it mostly right," it'll now just be getting mostly right-wing.
There is one audience that seems pleased: Republican senators who were among PBS's most vocal critics. Coincidentally or not, as these discussions about programming and political bias were heating up, the Senate Commerce Committee was discussing the re-authorization of the CPB's funding. The committee convened to discuss the matter in late July; though the subject of liberal bias came up, even Lott "noted progress" on that front (Public Broadcasting Report, 7/23/04).
CPB was initially intended to be a "heat shield" for public broadcasting, protecting programmers from political pressures from partisan lawmakers who control the purse strings. It's long since become a mechanism for transmitting Congress' ideological desires to public broadcasting, and the new shows announced for public TV show that it's very effective in that role.
ACTION: Please ask PBS's Pat Mitchell what new shows are planned to balance the new conservative-oriented public TV shows.
CONTACT:
PBS
Pat Mitchell, President and CEO
viewer@pbs.org
Phone: (703) 739-5000
Fax: (703) 739-5777
Or use the PBS comment form:
http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_emailform.html
You might also want to contact your local PBS affiliate about PBS's rightward lurch:
http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html
AFGHANISTAN -- VIOLENCE THREATENS VOTE
AFGHANISTAN -- VIOLENCE THREATENS VOTE: Referring to the upcoming
presidential elections in Afghanistan, President Bush said democracy in
Afghanistan was " unbelievable" and "powerful
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040920-17.html) ."
But, in part because of the Bush administration's underfunding of
reconstruction and security in the country, today's Washington Post reports
there are still serious obstacles to a successful election, including
"widespread fears of voter intimidation by local political or militia
bosses and of attacks on candidates and polling facilities by the Taliban
militia
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36002-2004Sep20.html)
and other groups that oppose the elections." In the last week, there
have been assassination attempts on both Vice President Nematullah
Shahrani and President Hamid Karzai. Both the U.S. and NATO have agreed to
send additional military forces to provide security for the election, but
"security conditions are considered so dangerous that European
countries have declined to send teams of election monitors; that could make the
vote harder to protect and guarantee."
IRAQ -- TRANSFER OF FUNDS THREATENS RECONSTRUCTION
IRAQ -- TRANSFER OF FUNDS THREATENS RECONSTRUCTION: The New York Times
reports that the Bush administration's plan to divert $3.46 billion
from reconstruction to security
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/international/middleeast/21rebuild.html?pagewanted=all)
in Iraq has come as a "grievous disappointment to Iraqi officials who
had already seen the billions once promised them tied up for months by
American regulations and planning committees, consumed by administrative
overhead and set aside for the enormous costs of ensuring safety for
the workers and engineers who will actually build the new sewers, water
plants and electrical generators." Officials in charge of rebuilding
their country's shattered infrastructure are warning that the Bush
administration's plan, which diverts funds from water, sewage and electricity
projects, "could leave many people without the crucial services that
generally form the backbone of a stable and functioning democracy." Of
the $18.4 billion that Congress approved last fall for Iraq's
reconstruction, only about $1 billion has been spent so far.
MILITARY -- DISCONTENT WITH COMMANDER IN CHIEF
MILITARY -- DISCONTENT WITH COMMANDER IN CHIEF: The Christian Science
Monitor reports a "discernible countercurrent among U.S. troops in Iraq
- those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see
as a misguided war
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html) ." Three factors working against Bush are "the Iraq war, Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tense relationship with the Army, and...Senator
Kerry's pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched
force."
PRISONER ABUSE -- COVER-UP IN AFGHANISTAN
PRISONER ABUSE -- COVER-UP IN AFGHANISTAN: Investigators have launched
a probe into allegations that Afghan detainees were abused while in
U.S. custody
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-detain21sep21,1,5680056.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
. The investigation will focus on "murder and torture involving an
18-year-old Afghan army recruit who died while in U.S. custody last year"
and "the alleged torture of seven other Afghan soldiers." The reported
abuse was as brutal as the more publicized atrocities at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. Detainees were subject to "repeated beatings, immersion in
cold water, electric shocks, being hung upside down and toenails being
torn off." Disturbingly, "Pentagon officials said they could find no
reports passed up the chain of command as required when a death occurs in
U.S. custody, raising questions about possible efforts by American
troops in Afghanistan to cover up the incident." The absence of
documentation relating to the abuse in Afghanistan appears to undermine early
findings by the Army inspector general that all abuse incidents were
properly reported through the chain of command. Read the full report
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-detain21sep21,1,5680056.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
in the Los Angeles Times.
ECONOMY -- BUSH HIKES TAXES ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
ECONOMY -- BUSH HIKES TAXES ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: According to a
new study by the Joint Economic Committee, the legislation currently
advocated by the Bush administration and Congress that would change the
threshold for the child tax credit could negatively affect about four
million working families
(http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/Documents/Releases/childtaxcredit20sep04.pdf)
and more than nine million kids. The legislation, says the Boston
Globe's Thomas Oliphant, which is being pushed as a way to help working
families, provides yet another "graphic illustration of how shoddy
legislation written by people who mostly focus on big-shot lobbyists can cause
ordinary Americans to plummet through the cracks
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/21/sticking_it_to_working_families/)
." Though the child tax credit was originally designed to help working
and middle-class families, Congress is moving to increase its
availability for those at the upper end of the income scale. The Washington Post
writes, " There's no justification for such a hike
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37118-2004Sep20.html) :
Well-off families don't need government subsidies to raise their
children... Now poor families get relatively little help from this bill."
Leonard Burman of the Urban Institute and John Karl Scholz of the
University of Wisconsin
(http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/CTCTHRESHOLD.PDF)
estimate 4.4 million lower-income households will receive a smaller tax
credit -- or none at all -- next year as a result of the new
legislation.
EXCLUDED EXPATRIOTS
EXCLUDED EXPATRIOTS: The Associated Press reports Americans abroad " are
being denied access
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-09-21-voterreg-block_x.htm)
to a U.S. Department of Defense Web site designed to make it easier for
them to cast absentee ballots." While the overall program ignores
legitimate ballot security issues
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/opinion/31tues1.html?ex=1095912000&en=8e35bde3f44ee06f&ei=5070)
-- including unprotected e-mailing and faxing of overseas ballots --
the Pentagon is now shutting down access to the program's website
(http://www.fvap.gov/) to Americans living in selected countries. The
Pentagon cites unspecified threats from hackers.
CLAMPING DOWN ON PROTESTS
CLAMPING DOWN ON PROTESTS: If citizens thought they had the ability to
freely protest these and other election controversies, they should
think again. The New York Times reports that the FBI "contacted" and
detained a number of people who have organized political demonstrations,
forcing some to appear before a grand jury
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/9430236.htm?1c) to
disclose what they know of protest plans. As former National Security
Council staffer Mark Brzezinski wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed, protestors
"were asked whether they planned any acts of violence, whether they
knew of anyone who had, and whether they realized it was a crime to
withhold such information. This action smacks of political harassment and
intimidation
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/18/extreme_security_mars_americas_image/)
of legitimate antiwar protesters." Meanwhile, the Washington Post
reported that the Secret Service, led by the president's top personal aide,
accosted peaceful AIDS demonstrators
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9703-2004Sep9?language=printer)
during a Bush speech last month. Demonstrators were "shoved and pulled
from the room -- some by their hair, one by her bra straps -- and then
arrested for disorderly conduct and detained." Reporters who tried to
cover the scene were told by the White House they would be punished if
they covered it. One Secret Service agent said there was a "different
set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.
MORE FLORIDA FOLLIES
MORE FLORIDA FOLLIES: Florida is already a hotbed of voting controversy
in 2004. In July, the Miami Herald found the Republican Party is
staking out naturalization ceremonies for new immigrants to trick them into
registering as Republicans. Specifically, GOP operatives have been
handing out voter registration forms to new citizens
(http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9220188.htm?1c) just
moments after being sworn in by the U.S. government with the party
affiliation box already checked Republican. A month later, Gov. Jeb Bush (R)
had his political appointee at a key county election board hire a law
firm with direct connections to the Bush-Cheney campaign
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180438131) . Though the
Broward County Elections Board is supposed to be nonpartisan, Bush's
official there hired the law firm Blosser & Sayfie. James Blosser is a top
fundraiser for the Bush-Cheney campaign, and Justin Sayfie is co-chairman
of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Broward County. The firm, which was
fired after public outrage, was to represent the county in legal challenges
should another election debacle occur.
ASHCROFT POLITICIZES JUSTICE DEPT. IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION
ASHCROFT POLITICIZES JUSTICE DEPT. IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION: The New
Yorker reports that "under Ashcroft, the Justice Department has changed
its method of hiring lawyers, who are supposed to be apolitical."
Specifically, he put a key hiring program under the purview of his political
appointees (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040920fa_fact) ,
instead of allowing career professionals to continue administering it.
Now, "lawyers inside and outside the department say that the change has
already had an effect -- especially in politically sensitive places like
the Voting Section." Ashcroft "disbanded the hiring committee and took
over all hiring," one lawyer told the magazine. "That was a huge deal.
Under previous Republican Administrations, that hadn't happened."
Big Brother is Watching
Exactly six weeks from the November 2 election, new evidence is
emerging about the Bush administration's efforts to suppress voter turnout.
The Washington Post reports Attorney General John Ashcroft has opened
"several criminal inquiries into alleged voter fraud" in "key presidential
battlegrounds, including Ohio and West Virginia." While voter fraud is
a concern, civil rights advocates "complain that the department is
putting too much emphasis on investigating new voter registrations in poor
and minority communities -- which tend to favor Democrats -- and not
enough on ensuring that those voters do not face discrimination at the
polls." New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron said, "This is
just an attempt to let people know that Big Brother is watching
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34109-2004Sep19.html) .
It may well be aimed at trying to keep people away from the polls."
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: White House Doesn't Play Well With Others
The Progress Report
September 21, 2004
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
White House Doesn't Play Well With Others
President Bush will make his annual address to the United Nations this
morning
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36954-2004Sep20.html) .
For the past four years, the president has alienated much of the
international community, blatantly squandering support offered to the United
States after the attacks of 9/11. His policies have alienated much of
the world, leaving the United States with few allies in the global war
on terrorism. On issue after issue, the White House has adhered to a
go-it-alone strategy, putting right-wing ideology ahead of health issues
and refusing to support international efforts to fight poverty, global
warming and AIDS. President Bush assails the United Nations, then
expects support for U.S. initiatives when he makes his once-a-year address.
What the Bush administration fails to realize: It isn't that the United
States is asking the U.N., or any nation, for a permission slip -- this
is about protecting U.S. interests and taxpayer dollars. Working with
the U.N. gives legitimacy to international efforts; it also is in the
nation's self-interest, as it means U.S. taxpayers aren't solely
responsible for the bill for global endeavors.
ARROGANCE SQUANDERS SUPPORT: President Bush went out of his way to
denigrate and alienate the United Nations and its member states in the
lead-up to the war in Iraq. (" International law?
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031211-1.html) "
joked Bush about the preemptive invasion of Iraq. "I better call my lawyer.
He didn't bring that up to me.") Addressing the United Nations two
years ago on 9/12/02, he taunted, "Will the United Nations serve the
purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) ?" On
2/13/03, Bush warned the United Nations was in danger of becoming "an
ineffective, irrelevant debating society
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030213-3.html) ." On
2/18/03, Bush questioned the U.N.'s " backbone and courage
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030218-1.html) ."
ALIENATING ALLIES IN IRAQ: The White House angered and alienated much
of the world with its single-minded push to invade Iraq. Showing the
depth of the alienation, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the
war last week as "illegal." The international community, deterred by the
ongoing violence and lack of support for the war at home, declined to
send support troops for the U.N. team helping to prepare for elections,
meaning the team has been confined to the heavily fortified "Green
Zone" in Baghdad, unable to reach many Iraqis. Even staunch supporters of
the war in Iraq are beginning to withdraw support: Great Britain "is to
start pulling troops out of Iraq
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307980,00.html) next
month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country."
Embracing the United Nations from the start would have prevented the
problems of legitimacy that have plagued the Coalition Provisional
Authority and the Interim Governing Council. Instead, the United States is
stuck with few allies and nearly 90 percent of the cost.
IRAN IGNORED: President Bush is expected to urge the UN and its agency,
the International Atomic Energy Agency, to take a hard line
(http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/09/21/us_turning_more_to_un_for_help_diplomats_say/)
on the growing nuclear challenge from Iran. What he won't say: after
famously labeling Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil, the White House
did nothing to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. By threatening Iran, in
fact, he emboldened Iranian hardliners
(http://nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+NJMAG-_-HOUSE_RACE_HOTLINE-_-POLL_TRACK-_-AD_SPOTLIGHT+7-njindex+1102102-REVERSE+0+1+544+F+2+24+1+stuart+AND+taylor+AND+iran)
and fed their desire to develop the ability to produce weapons-grade
nuclear material as quickly as possible. He abdicated all responsibility,
leaving the hard work to the Europeans
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/21diplo.html) ; today the
U.S. lacks almost any influence to keep the Iranian nuclear genie in the
bottle.
UNDERMINING GLOBAL EFFORTS: President Bush has also alienated U.N.
allies by terminating negotiations on the Kyoto
(http://www.progressive.org/april03/roth0403.html) and Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaties (http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-se0799.html) , not
supporting key international AIDS conferences
(http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/health/3884349.stm) and working on
behalf of the tobacco industry to undermine international efforts to
reduce smoking (http://www.no-smoking.org/nov01/11-20-01-3.html) . The White
House has also worked on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry to
undermine other countries' efforts
(http://allafrica.com/stories/200409201411.html) to make medicines more
affordable.
UNDERFUNDED MISSIONS: The Bush administration has failed to fund the
United Nations to execute missions the United States has voted to
authorize. Since February, President Bush has authorized four new peacekeeping
missions in Haiti, Cote D'Ivoire, Sudan and Burundi through the U.N.
Security Council. The U.S. share of the missions is estimated to be $600
million, but the administration failed to request these funds from
Congress. The failure to request funding for new operations approved by the
United States undermines our credibility abroad as a reliable and
trustworthy member of the Security Council.
SIDESTEPPING POVERTY: Leaders from more than 50 governments attended
two U.N. conferences yesterday on how to handle the problem of global
poverty
(http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V3704.AP-UN-Fighting-Pov.html)
. More than 100 countries adopted proposals aimed at fighting hunger
and poverty on an international scale. Notably absent? President Bush.
The United States declined to support the initiative, even though it was
nonbinding.
IGNORED SLAVERY: In his last address to the United Nations, President
Bush focused heavily on the issue of human trafficking. A new report,
however, shows international slavery is on the rise. "Right now the world
has a glut of human slaves - 27 million by conservative estimates and
more than at any time in human history
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0901/p16s01-wogi.html) ." Yet the
president has provided little more than rhetoric in combating the problem.
"For instance, between 14,000 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the
United States annually, according to the U.S. government, most forced
into the sex trade, domestic servitude, or agricultural labor. At any one
time, between 52,000 and 87,000 are in bondage." Yet "last year, only
nine trafficking cases were prosecuted in the U.S. with a total of 17
convictions - the smallest sliver of those working the new slave trade."
WITHDRAWN SUPPORT FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH: The White House has allowed
ideology to undermine crucial public health measures for women. The New York
Times reported recently that there has been little progress
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/gender/2004/0901inequality.htm)
in goals set by the International Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo, a plan of action which called for "universal access to
reproductive health care, and lower infant, child, and maternal mortality
rates." Today, the number of women who die during childbirth remains
high and the HIV epidemic is "exploding among women and children."
President Bush withdrew U.S. support
(http://www.fawco.org/fawcoweb/committees/womens_health/unfpapressrelease.html)
for the Cairo agreement and cut financing to international family
planning groups (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3885629.stm)
that provide information about abortion, letting the right-wing of his
conservative base dictate an ineffective global health strategy.
Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, stated: "In a
reversal of its historic role, my own country has emerged as one of the
most significant obstacles to progress...on issue after issue, the current
administration has placed ideology above evidence and bias over
science."
The Last Deception
NY Times
September 21, 2004
The Last Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's Ayad Allawi week. President Bush, starting with his address at the U.N. today, will try to present Mr. Allawi - a former Baathist who the BBC reports was chosen as prime minister because he was "equally mistrusted by everyone" - as the leader of a sovereign nation on the path to democracy. If the media play along, Mr. Bush may be able to keep the Iraq disaster under wraps for a few more weeks.
It may well work. In June, when the United States formally transferred sovereignty to Mr. Allawi's government, the media acted as if this empty gesture marked the end of the war. Even though American casualties continued to rise, stories about Iraq dropped off the evening news and the front pages. This gave the public the impression that things were improving and helped Mr. Bush recover in the polls.
Now Mr. Bush hopes that by pretending that Mr. Allawi is a real leader of a real government, he can conceal the fact that he has led America into a major strategic defeat.
That's a stark statement, but it's a view shared by almost all independent military and intelligence experts. Put it this way: it's hard to identify any major urban areas outside Kurdistan where the U.S. and its allies exercise effective control. Insurgents operate freely, even in the heart of Baghdad, while coalition forces, however many battles they win, rule only whatever ground they happen to stand on. And efforts to put an Iraqi face on the occupation are self-defeating: as the example of Mr. Allawi shows, any leader who is too closely associated with America becomes tainted in the eyes of the Iraqi public.
Mr. Bush's insistence that he is nonetheless "pleased with the progress" in Iraq - when his own National Intelligence Estimate echoes the grim views of independent experts - would be funny if the reality weren't so grim. Unfortunately, this is no joke: to the delight of Al Qaeda, America's overstretched armed forces are gradually getting chewed up in a losing struggle.
So what's the answer?
The Bush administration fostered the Iraq insurgency by botching the essential tasks of enlisting allies, rebuilding infrastructure, training and equipping local security forces, and preparing for elections. It's understandable, then, that John Kerry - whose speech yesterday was deadly accurate in its description of Mr. Bush's mistakes - proposes going back and doing the job right.
But I hope that Mr. Kerry won't allow himself to be trapped into trying to fulfill neocon fantasies. If there ever was a chance to turn Iraq into a pro-American beacon of democracy, that chance perished a long time ago.
Can the insurgency be crushed? It's widely believed that in November, a few days after the election, the Bush administration will launch an all-out offensive against insurgent-controlled areas. Such an offensive will, for all practical purposes, be an attempt to conquer Iraq all over again. But unlike Saddam's hapless commanders, the insurgents won't oblige us by taking up positions in the countryside, where they can be blasted by U.S. air power. And grinding urban warfare that leads to heavy American casualties and the death of large numbers of innocent civilians will simply enlarge the ranks of our enemies.
But if the chance to install a pro-American government has been lost, what's the alternative? Scaling back our aims. This means accepting the fact that an Iraqi leader, to have legitimacy, must be able to deliver an end to America's military presence. Unless we want this war to go on forever, we will have to abandon the 14 "enduring bases" the Bush administration has been building.
It also means accepting the likelihood that Iraq will not have a strong central government - and that local leaders will end up with a lot of autonomy. This doesn't have to mean creating havens for hostile forces: remember that for a year after Saddam's fall, moderate Shiite clerics effectively governed large areas of Iraq and kept them relatively peaceful. It was the continuing irritant of the U.S. occupation that empowered radicals like Moktada al-Sadr.
The point is that by winding down America's military presence, while promising aid to those who don't harbor anti-American terrorists and retaliation against those who do, the U.S. can probably leave behind an Iraq that isn't an American ally, but isn't a threat either. And that, at this point, is probably the best we can hope for.
Talking Sense on Iraq
NY Times
September 21, 2004
Talking Sense, at Last, on Iraq
After weeks of politically damaging delay, John Kerry finally seems to have found his voice on what ought to be the central issue of this year's election: the mismanaged war in Iraq and how to bring it to an acceptable conclusion. It was none too soon. While the fate of the Iraqi people, the success of the war on terrorism and America's international standing have all been teetering ominously in the balance, Mr. Kerry has allowed the presidential campaign to veer off into squabbles about events long past - like the candidates' 30-year-old war records - and about Mr. Kerry's confusing and sometimes contradictory recent statements on foreign policy.
Speaking in New York yesterday, Mr. Kerry laid out a well-grounded, intellectually straightforward and powerful critique of the Bush administration's past mistakes in Iraq. He gave a coherent explanation for his vote two years ago to authorize President Bush to use military force, making a clear distinction between how the White House should have used that authority to maximize international pressure against Saddam Hussein and the self-isolating course it actually followed. And, for the first time since becoming a presidential nominee, he explicitly said that he would never have supported the invasion of an Iraq that did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Even more important, he linked his criticisms to a set of alternative policies, which, while not entirely new to those who have closely followed his campaign statements, offer the best chance for retrieving a situation that daily grows more dangerous for Iraqis, Americans and a volatile region. As Mr. Kerry correctly noted, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."
This should signal the start of the kind of serious and useful debate the American people deserve. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush still declines to even acknowledge the disastrous condition the war has fallen into, preferring simply to assert over and over that the course there is now firmly set for a democratic and stable future. Democrats who question these Pollyannaish projections are almost instantly slapped down as unpatriotic underminers of military morale.
That was the president's reflexive response to Mr. Kerry yesterday, coupled with the preposterous claim that Mr. Kerry's plan for a much more broadly internationalized effort is no different from the administration's own American-fought, American-paid-for and American-directed approach. It is encouraging to see that Republican foreign policy heavyweights like Senators Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and John McCain are now also asking tough questions about the way the war is going. It is surely no service to America's brave fighting men and women, who know firsthand what they are facing, for Mr. Bush to pretend otherwise and to refuse to consider policy changes that might help them prevail and come home.
Turning things around at this late date will not be easy, but the president could make a beginning today, when he addresses an audience of world leaders at the United Nations. Mr. Kerry set the stage when he urged Mr. Bush to convene a summit meeting of those leaders to build a truly international effort to protect the elections, train Iraqi security forces and create a broader-based, more effective reconstruction effort.
Perhaps the presidential campaign is finally under way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
