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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (13757)3/1/2003 12:36:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Cowboys, Caution and Courage

By Farai Chideya
February 16, 2003
alternet.org

In a floor speech delivered Wednesday, Feb. 12, Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) questioned why the Senate was so "ominously, dreadfully silent" about debating a war that could change America's moral standing in the world.

"The doctrine of preemption – the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future – is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense," Sen. Byrd said. "It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our – or some other nation's – hit list."

President George W. Bush has taken the cowboy imagery that flows from John Wayne to "Lethal Weapon" and repurposed it in public policy. The lone gunman may work against international terrorists in "Die Hard." But the American people do not support the government fighting terrorism alone, in ways that make us more isolate and vulnerable and arouse opposition from the international community.

Even the cowboy ethos rejects fights that are, as every 6-year-old on the playground would put it, "just not fair." Most Americans think that going into Iraq when the nation isn't a direct threat is just plain stupid. A new New York Times/CBS News poll found that 59 percent of Americans favor delaying plans for war while the U.N. continues inspections. An even higher number, 63 percent, said America should not go to war without the support of our allies.

This marks a clear division between the rhetoric of the administration – which has claimed it speaks on behalf of the American people – and the will of the people itself. Despite pervasive terror warnings, Americans are more concerned about the economy than they are about Iraq. "The economy" is shorthand for quality of life: children who need help learning, parents who need jobs, communities that need improved relations with police. With our deficits, there's little money to allocate. Dealing with these issues will require at least as much strength from our government as fighting terror.

Why has it taken so long to unearth the feelings of the general public? The media, notably chastised for ignoring early anti-war protests, hasn't looked for responses that challenge the war effort. War is flashy, brilliant and bright. It plays well on television. In fact, most of the networks have already invested hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in overseas staffing and infrastructure to cover the war-that-might-be. If it doesn't happen, it'll be a financial loss.

According to the International Herald Tribune, CNN has allocated $30 to $35 million for coverage of a new Iraq war. The big three networks could spend more. Financially, war is a double-edged sword for television outlets, which build their reputations and viewer bases but often lose ad dollars in the short run.

In the words of Mark Twain, "It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare." Right now, Americans are displaying the courage to challenge their own government's recklessness. War on Iraq has been reported as a done deal, but the emergence of a thoughtful response to this historic challenge is just building. It's not too late for our government and our media to follow the citizens' lead.

Farai Chideya is the founder of PopAndPolitics.com.



To: Mannie who wrote (13757)3/3/2003 6:38:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Someone Please Give The President A Map

BY RICHARD REEVES
Universal Press Syndicate
February 28, 2003
richardreeves.com

WASHINGTON -- Stores here in the war capital have, rather helpfully, placed racks of Middle East maps alongside cash registers. For five or six dollars you get not only a 38-by-25-inch view of the world from from Libya to Pakistan -- with Iraq ominously exactly in the center -- but also a small American flag suitable for car windows, and a chronology of local events from 1932 to 2001.

To be more precise the events marked begin with Ibn Saud’s announcement that he controlled a new kingdom he called Saudi Arabia on September 23,1932. Exactly one month later, another desert king, Faisal, declared the independence of Iraq. The British, as you might suspect, had a hand in all this. The time-line ends with the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

We are about to add an event or two right now, as the mapmaker, Hammond, which is donating part of its profits to the American Red Cross, states in bold letters: "Today’s newspaper headlines continue to bring this area into focus. This detailed, up-to-date map of the region will help you make sense of the news and gain a clearer understanding of the events that continue to unfold."

I assume Hammond sent a free copy to the White House. Anyway, I hope so. Even a short chronology could be enormously helpful to President Bush, whose greatest flaw is his proud ignorance of history. He rarely makes a speech that does not do violence to the past, as he did literally last Wednesday in his big war talk before a friendly crowd at the American Enterprise Institute, a generally conservative think tank.

Declaring that he wanted to talk about "a crucial period in the history of the nation," he began with a war whoop: "Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us." Six sentences later, in full whoop, he offered this: "We have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda. Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning, and we’re showing them the definition of American justice."

"Otherwise dealing with," as we learned in the State of the Union message, is the president’s euphemism for assassination. Now he is defining that as American justice. Actually American justice is about the presumption of innocence and trial by peers. What the president was bragging about used to be called "lynching."

Ten paragraphs after that, Bush went from whoop to whopper, saying: "After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments."

The president, as we know, is no scholar -- and that is not necessarily an insult. But he does seem to be intent on dumbing down America.

Americans are a decent people with, except for lynching and such, a great history, a wonderful story to tell. We have been pretty good (and sensible) about avoiding colonialism and imperialism. But never occupying? Please. We did occupy Germany and Japan after World War II -- it would have been insane not to -- and we have occupied most every country in Central America, to say nothing of the Phillipines, Haiti, Cuba, Indian country and California. Some might add Texas to the list.

The president, as we know, is no scholar -- and that is not necessarily an insult. But he does seem to be intent on dumbing down America. The ignorance at the top has infected real scholars, beginning with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a brainy fellow who has lost his bearings promoting and defending war in Iraq. Last Thursday, Wolfowitz rebuked the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, who told Congress that occupation of Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

Wolfowitz then asserted that few troops would be needed because Iraq has never had the kind of ethnic strife that has characterized places like the Balkans.

What? All Iraq is divided into three parts: Kurds in the north; Saddam Hussein’s Sunni Muslims in center, and the poor (and brutalized) Shi’ites in the south. That’s what the "No-fly zones" were about. And, unless God is as kind as He is great, those people are going to try to chop each other into little pieces if they get half the chance. Sad but true, so send some maps to the Pentagon, too.
___________________________________

RICHARD REEVES is the author of 12 books, including President Nixon: Alone in the White House. He has written for the New York Times, the New Yorker, Esquire and dozens of other publications. E-mail him at rr@richardreeves.com.



To: Mannie who wrote (13757)3/6/2003 5:00:59 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
US Abstains in the War on Tobacco

By Derrick Z. Jackson
The Boston Globe
Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2003

THE UNITED NATIONS has voted to go war against the world's worst weapon of mass destruction. The United States is against the resolution.

This news passed by with little notice last week. In Geneva, about 170 nations met in an effort to agree on a global treaty on tobacco. Cigarettes, according to the World Health Organization, kill 4 million people a year and will kill 10 million a year by 2030 if current trends continue. Unless there is a war on tobacco, cigarettes will cut short the lives of 500 million of the 6 billion people on earth.

Most of the nations that gathered in Geneva agreed to a final text that will be presented to the WHO in May for adoption. The treaty, called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, requires nations to implement serious tobacco control programs. It would require cigarette companies to put a health warning that would take up at least 30 percent of the surface of a pack. It would eliminate labeling that misleads smokers to think that a particular ''light'' or ''mild'' cigarette is less harmful than others.

The pact would require signatories to move toward a ban on cigarette advertising within the limits of a nation's laws. Signatories would be required to fund tobacco control programs and consider taxes that reduce smoking. With most of the world ready to fight a chemical weapon that could be lethal for the equivalent of two United States of Americas, WHO's director general, Gro Harlem Brundtland, called the treaty a ''real milestone in the history of global public health.''

The treaty is a real millstone for the United States. The problem is that the evil dictator killing millions is not Saddam Hussein. It is an industry run by madmen holed up in New York skyscrapers and corporate bunkers in Virginia and North Carolina. They have paid handsomely to assure that President Bush will not launch an attack. In the 2002 election cycle, big tobacco gave $6.4 million of its $8.1 million in contributions to Republicans. Philip Morris, the world's biggest cigarette exporter, paid $3.4 million to buy influence, with 80 percent of its contributions going to Republicans or the Republican Party.

So the ink had not even dried on the treaty when the US delegates started making noise that the Bush administration might not sign it. The US health attache in Geneva, David Hohman, said the United States wants the treaty to allow a nation to opt out of provisions it finds objectionable. For the Bush administration, that means just about the whole treaty.

According to news reports, the administration is not happy with the idea of federal funding of antitobacco programs, a ban on free samples, or putting giant health warning on packs. Hohman said called the treaty's provisions a ''complication for our legislative process.''

A few other nations, among them China, Japan, and Germany, where cigarette production or advertising are rampant, have joined the United States in objecting to parts of the treaty. But Washington has been so singleminded in its attempt to sabotage the accord that it was called ''arrogant'' by Thai officials.

American tobacco control activists have even asked that the United States withdraw from Geneva rather than be such a drag on the negotiations. John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, said: ''At this critical juncture, the United States government is working methodically to weaken virtually every aspect of this treaty. We call on the US government to observe the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm.''

Last week, referring to Iraq, Bush said: ''The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. . . . A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them -- and use force if necessary.''

For the world's greatest weapon of mass destruction, Bush would leave the world alone. In a couple of months, the tobacco treaty will be presented to the World Health Assembly. If it is adopted, it will go out for ratification. Only 40 nations need to ratify it for it to go into effect in the countries that approve it. If the Bush administration does not get behind the treaty, it will be every bit as cynical on cigarettes as it accuses Saddam Hussein of being with weapons inspections.

When he needed the United Nations to put pressure on Iraq, Bush complained that UN resolutions ''are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.'' By subverting the global resolution against tobacco, the United States is telling the UN to get lost. The United States wants a UN resolution to go to war against a murderous dictator. When the UN wants war against the biggest killer on the planet, the US is AWOL.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company


commondreams.org