IRAQ: THIS SURREAL PSY-WAR IN THE PRESS HAS REACHED A NEW LEVEL OF UNREALITY
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz thinks things are running off the track for King Georgie-Porkie and his merry band of Chickenhawks.......
Other absurdities abound. Alice-In-Wonderland considering a comeback..... "Curiouser and Curiouser"
washingtonpost.com
Message to Iraq: We're Coming (Maybe)
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; 8:03 AM
Why don't we just e-mail Saddam Hussein one of those Yahoo maps, showing the exact invasion route?
That is, if there is an invasion.
This surreal psy-war being carried on in the press has reached a new level of unreality.
One day the ink is barely dry on the American war plans. The next day someone's calling the whole thing off. The country, meanwhile, is paying more attention to the gyrating Dow.
If the Pentagon is indeed plotting how to topple Saddam, two questions arise:
Why are military sources leaking this stuff? Self-importance? Disinformation? Loose lips that sink ships?
And why is the press printing the stories in such detail, which is like sending the Iraqi leader a telegram?
What's prompted a whole lot of head-scratching -- at least among the Beltway types who ponder such things -- is the recent spate of seemingly contradictory pieces.
Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday:
"The Bush administration is moving forward aggressively with planning to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, laying the groundwork for a possible U.S.-led invasion early next year, according to senior U.S. officials and individuals involved in the planning. Under one scenario being discussed at the Pentagon, a force of 250,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops would invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein, backed by massive air strikes."
Have a nice day.
Along comes The Washington Post on Sunday with this never-mind piece:
"Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"The conclusion, which is based in part on intelligence assessments of the state of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and his missile delivery capabilities, is increasing tensions in the administration over Iraqi policy. The cautious approach -- held by some top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- is shaping the administration's consideration of war plans for Iraq, which are being drafted at the direction of Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."
By Monday it was back on, at least according to the New York Times:
"As the Bush administration considers its military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government.
"The 'inside-out' approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target. Those advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a strategy that would not require a full quarter-million American troops, yet hits hard enough to succeed. One important aim would be to disrupt Iraq's ability to order the use of weapons of mass destruction."
Confused? So are we.
Maybe this just reflects different factions fighting for the upper hand, and whispering to their favorite reporters as part of that strategy. But it is an absolutely bizarre spectacle.
Rumsfeld is pretty chatty on the subject too, the Washington Times reports:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that air strikes alone cannot destroy Saddam Hussein's buried and mobile sites for weapons of mass destruction.
"'The Iraqis have a great deal of what they do deeply buried,' Mr. Rumsfeld said after a tour of U.S. Joint Forces Command in the Norfolk area. The command is staging the military's largest exercise in history as it plans for new 21st-century threats. 'So the idea that it's easy to simply go do what you suggest ought to be done from the air -- the implication being from the air -- is a misunderstanding of the situation,' he said to a reporter who asked whether bombs and missiles alone could do the job."
The presidential Teflon is now officially scratched, says USA Today:
"The turmoil on Wall Street and corporate corruption scandals are eroding public confidence in President Bush's handling of the economy and improving Democratic chances of gaining seats in this year's congressional elections, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released yesterday shows. . . .
"The findings continue to show strong backing for Bush, who holds a 69% overall approval rating in the survey conducted Friday through Sunday. But approval of his handling of the economy, has dropped since early July, while disapproval has jumped to 43% from 36%.
"The shift in thinking on the administration's handling of the economy coincides with a change in attitudes toward which party would do a better job in Congress setting the right economic course. In the survey, 42% favored Democrats while 37% backed Republicans. In May, Republicans led Democrats 43-34%."
Here's an oddity: Bush fighting for a Clinton law, with the Democrats demanding changes.
"President Bush insisted on tougher work requirements for welfare recipients Monday, denouncing the Senate Democrats' welfare reform bill as 'a retreat from success' riddled with 'loopholes,'" says the Los Angeles Times.
"Bush all but threatened to veto that bill, which the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. His remarks set the stage for a potential end-of-session showdown with a looming deadline for Congress to extend the landmark 1996 law, which ended lifetime entitlements to welfare benefits. The current legislation expires Sept. 30. . . .
"While Republicans are declaring the 1996 reforms a resounding success and are clamoring for more stringent rules, many Democrats want to soften some of the policies that President Clinton signed into law six years ago. The Senate bill, for instance, would provide billions of dollars more for child care than the House version."
The Washington Post has the latest in Bush-bashing:
"Leading Democrats launched a series of stinging attacks on President Bush here today, challenging his handling of the economy, response to corporate accountability scandals and conduct of the war on terrorism while charging there is a 'leadership deficit' in Washington that they are prepared to fill.
"The across-the-board critique, including pointed questions about the war in Afghanistan, reflected a growing belief among Democrats that voter anxiety over the economy makes the president and the Republican Party more vulnerable than at any time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
"Chiding Republicans for trying to pin the economy's current problems on the 'binge' days of the 1990s, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) declared that the prosperity of the previous decade was 'not a fluke or a bubble' but the result of sound economic policy."
Should Hillary really be referring to "binge" days in discussing her husband's administration?
"'When it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, this administration is all blame and no game plan, all response and no responsibility,' she said at the summer meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
"Democrats sought to place the blame on Bush and his big tax cut for a return to federal budget deficits and a downturn in the economy, claiming that he is presiding over a 'jobless recovery' and stock market volatility that has left many Americans worried about their retirement security."
Sounds like a pretty good '02 preview.
Salon's Joe Conason scores John Kerry ahead of Joe Lieberman:
"Lieberman offered a rather safe, somewhat cliched homily about cracking down on corporate crime while remaining 'pro-business,' and ended with an appeal to faith. He evidently believes that if the corporate crooks had prayed more they would have stolen less. For some reason he finds such displays of piety irresistible.
"Kerry was more subdued in style but bolder in substance. He insisted that Democrats must not retreat from leadership on military and international policy because the Republican administration is so mediocre. He reiterated his earlier criticism of the operations in Afghanistan, which allowed al-Qaida leaders to escape from Tora Bora; then he outlined a critique of Bush's unilateralist approach, from Iraq to Russia to the Middle East to North Korea. . . . As a decorated veteran Kerry can speak this way without fear, unlike so many politicians in either party; he is bidding to become the Democrats' McCain."
<Edit>
The New Republic, which has called for Paul O'Neill to quit, unfavorably reviews the Treasury secretary's Sunday TV appearances:
"O'Neill had an easy enough time at 'Fox News Sunday.' But, of course, that had something to do with the kid-glove treatment he got from host Brit Hume. Hume began by airing two economic predictions, from 2001, that have since come true, using them as a flattering lead-in to elicit O'Neill's prognosis for the next year. . . .
"Unfortunately for O'Neill, things didn't go nearly as well over at 'Meet the Press.' Tim Russert has long been a stickler about balanced budgets and, like Hume, he raised the possibility of postponing or repealing part of the Bush tax cut. When O'Neill tried the same response -- that this was the equivalent of raising taxes -- Russert would have none of it. Instead, Russert simply became more aggressive, citing promises made during the campaign (not to mention his own show) that the Bush administration would not run deficits and dip into Social Security trust funds. Here's how one typical exchange went:
"Russert: You're not spending the Social Security surplus?
"O'Neill: I don't think, Tim, that the American fiscal position, that is to say, surplus or deficit, comes from raising taxes.
"Russert: But you're spending the Social Security surplus. The facts are important, Mr. Secretary.
"Soon, Russert had O'Neill fumbling for new rationales as to why the deficit had gone up. Now it wasn't congressional spending that had pushed the federal budget into the red. It was the response to 9/11."
ABC's Note jumps on a different aspect of O'Neill's performance:
"One couldn't help notice that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's long-term restraint in refusing to publicly (or even privately) criticize current Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's style or performance was met by a boomerang to the gut, when O'Neill on 'Meet the Press' virtually out of the blue attacked Rubin for being in Singapore while Citi was having troubles, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism for his own globe-trotting.
"When asked about Rubin's repeated call for canceling most of the (Bush) tax cut, O'Neill said, 'He's saying raising the taxes, Tim. I'm sorry. You know where he said it from? He said it from Singapore while his company was losing $50 billion worth of market capitalization.'
"The Wall Street Journal picked up on the O'Neill-slaps-Rubin remarks, and says simply that '[a] Citigroup spokesman didn't have any comment on Mr. O'Neill's remarks.' We wonder which of Rubin's many, many political advisers will tell him to fight back on this one, and if he does, what that might do to O'Neill."
<Continues...........> |
