SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (3165)3/7/2002 1:31:33 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
A Right to Know, Even in War
Los Angeles Times
March 5, 2002
EDITORIAL

Americans are dying in the snow-capped mountains
of Afghanistan, a reminder that the war there is far
from over--and a reminder that even in wartime,
information and debate are forces that make
democracy strong.

Yes, the initial phase was easier than most observers
expected and caused fewer American casualties
than feared. But when some Afghan allies proved
lackluster at searching Tora Bora's caves and at
stopping Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from slipping
off to Pakistan, it became clear that rooting out the
enemy would mean exposing more U.S. ground
troops to gunfire and missiles.

Now hundreds if not thousands of fighters are
thought to be holed up in labyrinthine caves in Paktia
province, and hundreds of regular Army soldiers have joined U.S. Special
Operations troops, Afghans and allied nations' fighters in attacking them. This
time U.S. and allied soldiers are closing off potential escape routes. Presumably
they will lead the post-battle search of the hide-outs. The security of the United
States is tied to the success of such operations. And the security of the U.S.
system of government is tied to the public receiving accurate, unvarnished
information about such actions, successful or not.

On Jan. 24, U.S. soldiers
conducted a predawn raid during which more than a dozen Afghans were killed
and 27 captured. The Pentagon at first said those captured were Al Qaeda or
Taliban soldiers or sympathizers but then admitted that was wrong. Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
called the deaths "unfortunate" but said the raid
was "no mistake" because Americans fired in self-defense. Rumsfeld should
have just called it what it was--a mistake.

Ultimately, such fudging, even in wartime, proves counterproductive. Even more
troubling are the White House's penchant for secrecy--which the war on
terrorism has only exacerbated--and Republican sympathizers' efforts to silence
debate. On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticized the
administration for not telling Congress it had created a shadow government of
100 senior civilian government managers (only executive branch members need
apply). Daschle also challenged the administration for limiting information about
its plans for the continued prosecution of the war.

In both cases, he was right. Neither Congress nor the American people can be
left out of the loop as President Bush vastly expands U.S. military commitments.
And Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott was way off base in demagoguing the
issue by asking "how dare" Daschle even raise such concerns.

In fact, Daschle has a duty to do just that.
And while no one expects the
Pentagon to broadcast its plans during wartime, Americans have a right to be
kept abreast of a war in which their sons are dying.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about
reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.

latimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (3165)3/7/2002 6:44:28 PM
From: Mr. Whist  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Suspected swindler donated big bucks to Ohio GOP

Donation to GOP raises concerns; contributor under probe

Associated Press

CLEVELAND - A Lehman Brothers Inc. investment banker suspected in a $277 million scam donated $50,000 to the GOP in Hamilton County, Ohio, just weeks before he became a fugitive, a newspaper reported.

The Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Republican Party, which was helping finance Ohio Treasurer Joseph Deters' campaign for state office, received the money from Frank Gruttadauria in December, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.

Gruttadauria, 44, of suburban Gates Mills, had previously done work for the treasurer's office, according to the paper.

Deters said he ''never, ever solicited a dime'' from Gruttadauria. The solicitation was made by Eric Sagun, a fund-raiser employed by both Deters' re-election campaign and the Hamilton County party.

Sagun said his fund-raising was legal. Deters, who defended Sagun as ''the most ethical fund-raiser I've dealt with,'' said he did not know Sagun had asked Gruttadauria for money.

''I have never discussed that with Gruttadauria in my life. Nothing like that,'' Deters said.

Gruttadauria wrote his personal check to the Hamilton County GOP just weeks before his Jan. 11 disappearance.

He surrendered Feb. 9 after spending a month as a fugitive. He is being held without bond on a charge of making false statements to a financial institution.

Gruttadauria allegedly swindled wealthy investors by diverting account statements to his post office box and replacing them with statements that falsified account information over a period of years.

Deters, when he learned about the Gruttadauria probe, said he directed the party to set aside the Gruttadauria donation and call the FBI. Deters said the state made millions on fixed-income deals Gruttadauria arranged. Deters said that, helped by recommendations from a GOP consultant and business leaders, Gruttadauria qualified for state work.

Since 1999, the SG Cowen Corp. and Lehman Brothers, where Gruttadauria worked in successive management jobs in Cleveland, completed a combined $5.9 billion in trades for the state treasurer's office.

Deters said his investment advisers found nothing improper in deals Gruttadauria arranged for the state.

Chip Gerhardt, executive director of the Hamilton County Republican Party, said his party ''is widely regarded as one of the most successful political fund-raising organizations in the state, if not beyond. It is not unusual for us to get donations from around the state.''

Deters was the primary beneficiary of the Hamilton County party's fund-raising efforts. Of the $284,262 raised by the party's state candidate fund last year, Deters received $203,622.

Publication date: 03-06-02

cincypost.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (3165)3/7/2002 11:20:35 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Where Fear Is Always on Sale-and the Truth Is Made to Order
Bush's Little Shop of Horrors by Geoffrey Gray

"Think of each [terrorist] alert like sex, just the morning after," Conley says. "The
afterglow is nice for awhile, but it quickly disappoints."


The Village Voice
March 5 - 11, 2002
by Geoffrey Gray

Pat and Susan Smith keep a getaway car. Actually, it's more like a truck, a four-wheel-drive Suburban ready and waiting in
the garage, with the 40-gallon tank filled with gasoline, just in case. Since the big attacks in September and the wave of
FBI-issued terror alerts that have followed, the Smiths have been planning escape routes.

"Everything has changed," says Susan, 39, from her home near the Pentagon. "We don't feel secure anymore."

The White House statement in Time this week-that the U.S. remains vulnerable to an attack possibly deadlier than anything
we've seen before-will do nothing to soothe a public expecting the worst. Down in the garage, next to 20 gallons of bottled
water, the Smiths now keep a box of supplies. Inside: canned green beans, corn, and carrots; a manual can opener;
crackers; first aid bandages and antibiotic ointment; iodine pills to ward off the effects of nuclear radiation; and a pocket
knife for hunting. "There are people out there that hate Americans," she says. "They want to kill us, and for no reason."

Susan and those like her suffer from Acute Prolonged Stress Syndrome, according to Dr. Rona Fields, a Washington, D.C.,
psychologist who specializes in trauma and terrorism. The cause is uncertainty. A feeling of helplessness. Inability to control
the future. The resulting symptoms of fear and anxiety are more common these days, according to Dr. Fields, who attributes
them in large part to the constant, occasionally confusing terror alerts issued by the FBI.

The threats are credible, but not specific, say the feds. And the warnings are serious, yet seemingly futile. Stimulus, with no
response. Every time John Ashcroft rings the terror bell, Fields says, more patients find their way into her office, and the
mental health of the nation suffers.

"It's a vicious cycle," she says. "We're put on a state of alert, like we're given an electric shock, but we're not given any way
to reduce the pain."

The FBI, so far, has issued a lot of shocks. Since September 11, there have been, count 'em, 43 terrorism alerts, according
to the Bureau. Some have shaken more nerves than others. In December, Ashcroft told the country to be on "high alert" until
early March, after the Olympics. But before the closing ceremonies, the FBI called for "the highest state of alert," reminding
citizens to be vigilant and releasing 13 fuzzy photos of men with dark skin and long last names. After so many vague alerts,
many based on uncorroborated evidence, it's fair to ask, What's the point? Why spook a country that's already spooked?

The FBI press office says agents acquire the information, analyze it, then huddle with other branches of government like the
CIA and the Office of Homeland Security to decide if it should be made public. That's all. "We're not trying to instill fear," says
a spokesperson. "Terrorism is a reality; that's the fear."

For those on the woolly left, however, and a few academics and Washington insiders, there's another force driving homeland
security: politics. "It's second nature for any system of power to try and inspire fear," Noam Chomsky, the noted linguist and
author of 9-11, tells the Voice. "Bush's managers realize they only have one card to play. Would you direct him to focus the
attention of the population on tax cuts or other gifts for the rich? Or on the Enron scandal, or the deliberate destruction of a
decent environment for our grandchildren? Or would it be preferable to construct the image of a noble hero driving evil from
the world while the population huddles in fear of monsters from whom our dauntless savior will rescue us? No choice."


Bush shows no sign of taking his foot off the nation's-and the world's-adrenal glands. In February, the Pentagon extended
its $100,000-a-month contract with the Rendon Group, a global PR firm hired on a no-bid basis to fight the psychological war
abroad. Details are classified, but in the past, the company has provided focus groups, Web sites, news leads for foreign
reporters, and government contacts for an exclusive, international client list that includes the CIA, Monsanto, and the trade
agencies of Bulgaria, Uzbekistan, and Russia.

During the Gulf War, Rendon furnished Kuwaiti citizens with American flags, and also boosted the CIA's effort to oust Saddam
Hussein from power, producing videos, radio skits mocking Hussein, and a traveling photo exhibit. The campaign urged Iraqi
officers to defect, according to PR Watch, a Washington nonprofit. Rendon also worked closely with the Iraqi National
Congress-they even crafted the anti-Hussein group's name-and according to a 1998 ABC News report, channeled it over
$12 million in covert CIA aid during Clinton's tenure.

Rendon is only one arm of the current administration's psychological war on terrorism. Another PR campaign, headed by
Charlotte Beers, the former Madison Avenue CEO turned State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public
affairs, aims to produce pro-American television shows, featuring celebrities and sports stars, with "emotional messages." Her
office "is a vital new arm that will combat terrorism over time," she told Advertising Age.


In the Arab world, however, media critics aren't convinced the ad campaign will stick. "The United States lost the public
relations war in the Middle East a long time ago," says Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News. "They could have
the Prophet Muhammad doing public relations and it wouldn't help."


Closer to home, an omnipresent enemy and a climate of fear have always served to unite fractured societies and reinvent
politicians' mandate for power.

"These terror alerts are just another way for us all to come together-in an albeit superficial way, and reaffirm our moral ties
to each other," says Dalton Conley, a sociology professor at NYU. "We are all closer together because we are not like the
Axis of Evil. It's public unity, an act of moral cohesion, but for a political end."

This phenomenon may explain why Shrub, a year after squeaking into the White House on a few hanging chads, is now being
considered next to Abe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy as the greatest American president, according to an ABC News poll. His
rise is fueled in part by a nation's fear, but he'll have to keep pumping out warnings in order for them to work."Think of each
alert like sex, just the morning after," Conley says. "The afterglow is nice for awhile, but it quickly disappoints.


The Bush administration likes to brand the fight against terrorism as a new kind of war, with new enemies and new rules, but
using fear to push policy has been an actual play in the White House book since the Truman administration began
commissioning behavioral studies on "emotion management" during the early days of Cold War hysteria.


In 1948, Truman oversaw a secret and unusual study, Project East River, which looked into ways of using paranoia to control
behavior. The results, according to political scientist Andrew Grossman, who uncovered reams of information for his book,
Neither Dead nor Red, were simple.

"Fear is good, panic is bad," Grossman says. "The Project found that fear could be used-channeled-to mobilize the people
and push Cold War policy. With panic, however, they figured the shoe might fall off."

To prevent hysteria, the Project suggested calibrating the unease of the public by performing "ritualized training behavior," or
civil defense. This meant duck-and-cover drills, bomb-shelter preparation, and asking citizens to keep a careful watch on
others. Such measures gave people a sense of control over their fate, just as Pat and Susan Smith's getaway Suburban helps
them believe the effects of doomsday catastrophe can at least be outrun.

Truman established agencies to oversee these programs-the U.S. Federal Civil Defense Administration (think Office of
Homeland Security) and the Civil Defense Corps (think Bush's Freedom Corps) to teach civic vigilance. "It was social control,"
says Grossman. "Much more powerful than propaganda."

Just as the Bush administration signed up with the Rendon Group-and briefly floated the idea of a media-twisting Office of
Strategic Influence-Truman's Civil Defense Administration kept its own PR team. Between 1952 and 1958, the agency
produced over 250 million pieces of literature, like flyers, pocket guides, and training manuals. The basic message: Through
civic vigilance comes nuclear salvation. The office also hit the road to sell civil defense with a traveling circus called Alert
America. With three motorized convoys-each boasting 10 specially painted 32-foot trailers-Alert America could travel into
82 cities in a year and reach over a million citizens. "SEE THE INSIDE STORY OF ATOMIC WAR," howls one of the Truman
posters, above a cute picture of a nuclear mushroom cloud.

The problem, however, isn't the propaganda messages hidden within these freaky relics of the Cold War, but in emergency
planning between federal and state agencies. In Truman's day, local agencies began to develop their own civil defense corps.
Soon the federal and state policies overlapped, and bureaucracy grew bloated. With friction between agencies, the
effectiveness of emergency response systems suffered.

Under Bush, local police have already begun complaining the FBI alerts make their jobs tougher. The means in place for public
warnings are patchwork, at best. In late February, to combat the confusion, homeland security director Tom Ridge
announced the development of a new terrorism alert system. Ridge gave few specifics, but public-warning experts say a
four-step program is under consideration, and alerts will be labeled with vocabulary the public can easily understand: Critical,
Serious, Alert, Ready. The catch, according to Ridge, is that each state's governor must sign off on the plan, or the scheme
won't work.

But in the minds of citizens, the long-term effects of numerous alerts, stacked on top of each other, will be either mass
anxiety or mental inoculation. "If the FBI's game is stimulus-response, they haven't followed through with the reward," says
Dr. Fields. "There could be serious psychiatric consequences."

She brings up the example of lab mice. If given an electric shock, the animals will do anything to reduce the pain. That's how
they learn, just classic conditioning. But if the mice are given no way to stop the shock-just as a citizen can do nothing to
prevent a terrorist attack with the FBI's information-the critters go crazy.

Humans interpret information differently from mice, Fields says, and some will simply shrug the alerts off. Others will
experience lasting anxiety.

The Smiths' oldest son started sleepwalking after September 11, and the family turned to Fields for help. They couldn't
eliminate the threat of terror, she told them, but they could calm their panicky nerves. Take precautions, she advised. Do
something, anything, besides panic. Be vigilant. Be prepared.

Susan, at first, could not sleep. The sound of fighter jets floating over the Capitol made her tense. Now she finds the sound
of the roaring engines soothing. "You can say George Bush is taking this too far," she says. "I don't think so. He has a
purpose. He really has a plan. And it doesn't hurt to become aware of the fact that there's evil out there. And that evil is
targeted at America. Don't let the anxiety take over. Empower yourself!"

villagevoice.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (3165)3/10/2002 4:41:01 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Why America isn't listening

The first in a new series of monthly columns on global
issues from one of Britain's leading foreign policy
thinkers: Tony Blair is attempting to win international
support for an American strategy which he can't
control. Its a dangerous strategy, but Europe needs
him to succeed.

Mark Leonard
The Guardian
Sunday March 10, 2002

At the end of Philadelphia Avenue in Washington a middle-aged
woman with a weather-beaten face and a brown wig sits on a
milk crate. Surrounded by placards calling for nuclear
disarmament, she hands out cheaply produced leaflets to
passers-by. This remarkable woman has been holding a vigil
outside the White House day and night for 21 years - sleeping,
in a sitting position, for just 3 hours a night, so as to avoid
breaking the stringent DC vagrancy laws. It is impossible not to
be moved by her conviction and moral rectitude; it is equally
impossible not to be depressed by the futility of a cause which
has robbed her of the best years of her life.

It does not take long for Americans to figure out that Concepcion
Picciotto is European. Like Concepcion's faith in world peace,
the European belief in multilateralism and the human rights of
prisoners seems weak and unworldly - a luxurious delusion
which post-9/11 America can no longer afford.

I went to Washington and New York last week to take the
temperature of American foreign policy. It there was one theme
that united policy-makers in the White House and State
Department with academics and analysts from a range of
think-tank and media perspectives, it was that America will only
listen to Europe if we can come up with new arguments or
strategies that will surprise and interest them.

The post-9/11 belief that Americans had learnt the necessity of
multilateralism has been reversed; Americans seem to have
learnt only the impatience and frustrations of a multilateral
approach. Even NATO - practically the leanest and most
targeted institution around - is seen as terminally bureaucratic.

A grizzled old hand like Marvin Kalb, a news anchor at NBC for
two decades, described the new impatient mood: "Up until 9/11
we were willing to stay up all night and talk through the issues.
Now people are not interested in your pious, well-intentioned
advice. 9/11 was an intellectual slap across the head".

So Americans seems as little inclined to listen to lectures from
European governments as from Concepcion's pavement
protestors. So what should Europe do?

Tony Blair's answer has been to be unflinching in his public
support for the United States. The left dismiss this as weak or
opportunistic, and believe Blair is deluded in believing that such
solid support will enable him to influence, or extract
concessions, later. Does he really think Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld will listen to him?

The latest dispute over steel shows that, though Condi Rice may
have been reduced to tears by the playing of the star-spangled
banner at Buckingham Palace, the Republicans' gooey
sentimentality does not infuse their political strategy or weigh
heavily when it comes to paying back domestic political
constituencies.


Many Americans compared Blair's plight to that of the
long-suffering Colin Powell - arguing about the detail and
reluctantly making concessions in the hope that more influence
can be exerted from the inside than by sniping from the
sidelines. By its nature, this form of influence cannot win
spectacular public victories. It seeks to work at the margins, in
the tactics and implementation of policy rather than at a
strategic level. But the complexity of US foreign policy-making,
and the continued importance of the State Department in
making and implementing this, has been understated in much
recent media commentary.

Francis Fukuyama became famous for his confident belief in the
global triumph of liberal democracy. He does not believe that the
events of 9/11 change this fundamental analysis. But he tells
me that the differences between us are about much more than
policy or interests, they are existential: "The US and Europe
come at international law from such different angles. Every
country in Europe has been busy divesting itself of sovereignty
with the Euro and Maastricht. Americans still have an abiding
belief in American exceptionalism and sovereignty. The
American government still thinks that sources of legitimacy are
national and that there are no higher sources of legitimacy. The
traditional concern is that a lot of international law has been
made by governments which are less democratic than the US".
In fact, Fukuyama claims that Americans are so suspicious of
international law that they don't even think that Europeans
themselves believe in it, "A lot of my friends think that
Europeans do not really take GMOs or global warming seriously
- they think these are just deliberate ploys to hobble America".

But other Americans cite examples of European influence.
Joseph Nye - who was in the Pentagon during the Clinton era
and now runs the Kennedy School at Harvard - thinks we need
to pick battles in areas where we have some influence: "There is
a tendency for Americans to think that Europeans don't matter.
But - on the extradition of suspects, bargaining on the trade
round, the fact that GE couldn't merge with Honeywell - they do.
Europeans should remind Americans every now and again that if
they want co-operation it is a two way street. There is a
tendency to think that Europe is controlled by a bunch of
whining lefties. So when criticism comes from unexpected
directions - such as Chris Patten's recent outburst - it is more
difficult to dismiss."

But Blair's apologia is not just aimed at the residents of the
White House. The primary audicence is the rest of the world. It
would be straightforward to stand aside with our principles intact
while the US acts in a unilateral way. But that could have an
even more corrosive effect on liberal internationalism than
explaining and supporting their actions (even if you have to
occasionally swallow hard). The idea of an international
community based on rights and responsibilities is a public good
- and one that Europe has more to gain from than anyone else.

The hard truth is that this international order, simply to exist, will
continue to depend heavily on American power. So the
legitimacy of this "European project" of creating a rule-based
world order will remain umbillically linked to America's standing
in the world. Blair is accused of simply supplying a multilateral
fig-leaf for US actions, but the alternative may be no international
legitimacy at all. This may be strategic tight-rope walking and
nobody can be confident that it will succeed. Many American
actions risk unpicking all the painfully extracted advances of the
late 20th century - from the International Criminal Court and
Kyoto to the WTO and Kosovo. But if the American
administration remains unintertested in framing its actions in
ways that appeal to wider audiences, it is safer for Blair to take
on this role than let no one do it at all.


The European perception that this makes him simply
cheerleader-in-chief is simplistic. This must be a three-pronged
strategy; not simply an ambassadorial role. And at least as
important as consultations on how to implement strategy is the
humanitarian aftercare role that Europe can supply for military
interventions. Some British diplomats and soldiers may bridle at
a role that could be caricatured as international social work. But
prevention and reconstruction is the vital part of the jigsaw which
bores the Americans. This is where Europe has the capacity to
make a meaningful contribution.

In many ways Europe's role in global society mirrors Germany's
role in the development of the European Union. While France
and Britain have asserted the national interest and bristled at the
idea of becoming net contributors to the EU, Germany has
made a long-term investment in the structures and quietly paid
for the EU's development and smoothed the disagreements
between its more nationalistic fellow member states.

Blair is riding sky-high in American opinion despite having
slipped a principled universalism into the coalition's rhetoric. The
necessary contradiction of his position - that he is supplying
legitimacy for actions and events over which he lacks ultimate
control - puts him in permanent danger of losing credibility. But
his energetic attempt to square this circle has to be a better bet
than principled irrelevance.


Mark Leonard is Director of The Foreign Policy Centre
(www.fpc.org.uk) and editor of the forthcoming collection
"Reordering the World: the long-term implications of September
11th".
This is the first in a series of monthly online columns for
Observer Worldview. You can email the author at
mark@fpc.org.uk.

To send your views on the piece or make suggestions about
Observer Worldview, email
observer.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

guardian.co.uk