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: thames_sider who wrote (14510)3/13/2003 1:03:32 PM
From: abuelita  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
ts-

i just watched an interview on CBC in which
the chap being interviewed answered questions
as to how blair has found himself in this
muddle.

he compared it to a greek tragedy - where you
can see that the next ten steps will lead to
disaster, but there is absolutely nothing blair
can do to avoid taking those steps.

he suggested that in the beginning, after the
global pouring of support for the u.s. following
9-11, blair noticed that the new administration was
tearing up treaties and backing out of agreements
and feared that the world's only superpower was in
danger of becoming a "rogue power" and sought to
influence it somehow. i suspect there is some
political ego at play here.

then, of course, things went sour.

it was a very interesting interview and i've
probably totally screwed up the reporting of it,
but you get the jist in any case.

here's an interesting site.

informationclearinghouse.info

rose



To: thames_sider who wrote (14510)3/13/2003 1:22:58 PM
From: techguerrilla  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Tony Blair made his own bed .....

..... It's just a matter of time before the lapdog is history.

I remember when I first heard that the Texas executioner, George W. Bush, was going to run for president. I said to myself, "Is it possible for the moronic American public to elect an absolute idiot president of the United States? YES." I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of the American public.

Blair tied his future to Dubya, the guy who from one of the most important positions in the world uses immature expressions such as--"Wanted Dead or Alive" and "You're either with us or against us."

Dubya has locked arms with political/religious zealots. Such freaks don't engage in honest diplomatic procedures. ("We can't count on Libya, Cuba, and Germany.") They can't be statesmen. Blair's a good guy. But he's going to go soon because of horrendous associations.

/john



To: thames_sider who wrote (14510)3/13/2003 2:30:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Waiting for War—In White House

By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Wednesday 12 March 2003

Blame game could start soon

I’m waiting for war to break out—not in Iraq, but in the Bush administration. I’m wondering what’s going through Colin Powell’s mind. The secretary of State is looking pretty grim these days, like a man going through the motions. Might he bail out after a not-too-distant decent interval? Friends say no, he’s a team player. “But he’s not a happy camper,” one admits.

In the meantime, who’s going to be blamed for the Turkey screwup, or the U.N. screwups? Who’s going to leak the authoritative—and explosive—estimates of the true cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in Iraq for the indefinite future? (One general already has been whacked for piping up, but there will be others.) Who’s going to take the fall for the fact that we’ve lost the international moral high ground? The world is blaming the president, of course, but that’s not the way things work here. Someone else goes down. Who? The “neocons”? Donald Rumsfeld? The State Department? Dick Cheney? Condi Rice?

Maybe everything will go so swimmingly in Iraq that it’ll be one big happy family here at home. Maybe the war will last only a few days and Iraqis will be in the streets, joyfully greeting GIs as liberators. Maybe a world that now sees us as an imperial pariah will suddenly acknowledge the wisdom of our ways. But never has so much blood, treasure and destiny been gambled on the hope that folks will smile at us. It’s the War of the Happy Iraqis.

But few think it’s going to be that easy. And my guess is that team discipline inside the Bush administration is about to be fractured by the collateral damage that already is being caused by a war we have yet to fight. We are embarrassingly alone diplomatically, and State Department underlings (privately) blame Rumsfeld & Co. Inside the Pentagon—but outside of Rumsfeld’s offfice—I’m told that E-Ring brass have adopted what one source calls a “Vietnam mentality,” a sense of resignation about a policy (military occupation of Iraq) they seriously doubt will work. For their part, the neocons view Pentagon and State as hives of careerists wimps. No one dares take on Cheney; no one is sure Rice has the clout to keep it all together.

Blame games aren’t supposed to happen in and around George W. Bush. I’ve covered him since his days as a gubernatorial candidate in Texas a decade ago. I know that he and his team are extraordinarily focused, disciplined and tight-lipped. I know that he is stubborn and that once he decides on a course he generally sticks to it. I know that when John McCain clobbered him in New Hampshire in 2000—the kind of blow that can cause panic and recrimination inside any campaign—Bush and his lieutenants stayed calmly united.

The last round of open warfare within the Bush administration, last summer, was largely a stage-managed confrontation. The president at that time basically decided to put a war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein at the top of his antiterrorism “to do” list.

At the same time, he let the leading figures in his administration (and their various allies) tussle publicly about the wisdom of such a course, and about whether the United Nations should have a role. It was the Powellites versus the Rumsfeldians, but the decision had already been made.

This served everyone’s purposes. The president could look judicious and open-minded. Rumsfeld and Cheney could talk tough. And Powell could be suitably conflicted. He could play the good soldier, while still making it clear (primarily though Bob Woodward) that he had deep reservations about war.

This time around is a different story. The closer we get to the event, the less Bush is in control of events—and the greater the risk of a vicious blame game breaking out inside his own administration. Hardliners, never enamored of going the U.N. route, are saying “I told you so” in private, and soon will do it publicly. From the Powellites’ point of view, the bad guys are going out of their way to make things difficult. The latest example: Rumsfeld’s curt statement (later recanted) that the U.S. was prepared to go it alone without the British.

In fact, the U.S. has been humiliated, diplomatically and strategically. And just whose fault is that? The latest slap came the other day from Turkey’s soon-to-be-installed prime minister. Some 60,000 American soldiers are bobbing around on ships in the Eastern Mediterranean, denied permission to enter Turkey on their way to a northern front. Bush called the other day to see if there was a chance that the Turkish parliament would change its collective mind. Not only did Recap Tayyip Erdogan say no, he went further. He said that the U.S. couldn’t even use airbases for launching sorties into Iraq. That was a huge step backward: The U.S. had long assumed the right to use those airbases; indeed, we’ve been using them for years. Did Powell or Rice warn the president that he’d be rebuffed—at least—by Erdogan?

That’s just one example, but there are many others. Bush seemed to think that the French would play ball. They did: hardball. Who was responsible for figuring out the ways and wiles of the French? Who told the president that it was a good idea to go for a second U.N. resolution—that getting one would be a piece of cake? For that is the way the administration was reacting until a few days ago. We are reduced to begging Cameroon for a vote. Yes, they are a sovereign nation entitled to respect. But who did the whip count for the White House?

The key now is Powell. He could unhinge the Bush administration in a New York minute. He’s never been fully trusted by the Bush innermost circle. He wasn’t among the group of advisers who briefed Bush in Austin as he prepared for a presidential campaign in 1999. More important, Powell has too much of an independent political (and media) base to suit the president. Bush values loyalty above all, and he likes to dominate the room. He doesn’t like knowing that one critical word from Powell could cause chaos in Washington.

Is there one, and will we hear it?

truthout.org



To: thames_sider who wrote (14510)3/20/2003 3:52:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Antiwar thinking: Taking comfort in remarkable footholds gained

By Robert Muller
The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 20, 2003 edition

SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. – As unhappy as I am that war is upon us, I'm taking great comfort in what's going on in our world today.

The world community is waging peace

No matter what happens, history will record that this is a new era. The 21st century has begun with the world in a broad dialogue looking deeply, profoundly, and responsibly as a global community at the legitimacy of the actions of an administration that insists upon going to war.

This is a first - and it's part of the difficult work of effectively waging peace. It is a constant job, and we must not let up. It is working, and it is a historic milestone. This is the larger, long-term story, and the Iraq war is a chapter in it.

In this unprecedented public conversation, the world is asking: "Is war legitimate? Is it illegitimate? Is there enough evidence to warrant an attack? Is there not enough evidence to warrant killing masses of human brothers and sisters?

"What will be the consequences? The costs? What will happen after a war? Will this set off other conflicts? What might be peaceful alternatives?

"What kind of negotiations are we not thinking of? What are the real intentions for declaring war?"

All of this has taken place in the context of the UN, the body established in 1945 for exactly this purpose. It has taken more than 50 years of struggle to realize that true function. The UN has become in these past months and weeks the most important forum for the world's effort to wage peace rather than war.

No, it hasn't prevented the US from forging ahead with war in Iraq - but it has definitely succeeded in engaging the US in conversation and giving the rest of the world a place to be heard.

It is tense, it is tough, it is challenging, but this kind of global conversation has not happened before on this scale - not before World War I or World War II, not before Vietnam or Korea. This is a stunning new era of global listening, speaking, and responsibility. In the process, new alliances are being formed: Russia and China on the same side of an issue is an unprecedented outcome; France and Germany are working together to wake up the world to a new way of seeing the situation. The largest peace demonstrations in history have taken place.

Through these global peace-waging efforts, the US was delayed in its purpose for several months because it was being engaged in this dialogue. And the process allowed all nations to participate in the serious and horrific decision to go to war or not.

This is what waging peace looks like - it is not always clear and easy. It is difficult, hard work. It will henceforth require constant effort throughout the world. Since the cold war ended, there has been just one superpower - the US. That has created a kind of blindness in the vision of the US.

But now there are two superpowers: the US and the merging voice of the people of the world.

All around the world, people are waging peace. It is nothing short of a miracle, and it is working - despite what you may see unfolding right now in the news.

• Dr. Robert Muller, chancellor emeritus of the UN University for Peace in Costa Rica, was assistant secretary general of the UN from 1970 to 1985. He publishes a daily peace message at www.goodmorningworld.org.

csmonitor.com



To: thames_sider who wrote (14510)3/20/2003 3:57:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bin Laden's laughter echoes across the West

By Simon Jenkins
The Times Online
March 19, 2003

As of tomorrow, Britain will be at war with an Arab country that offers no threat to it or to anyone. British troops will be fighting an action which the UN would have declared unlawful if asked. Now we can only hope they win fast.

Yesterday the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made one of the most impressive speeches in defence of foreign intervention I can recall. He gathered into his oratorical grasp September 11, al-Qaeda, Hitler, President Saddam Hussein and the deterrence of dictators in general. He admitted that the link between all these was “loose”. But he was in full flight. He seemed galvanised by terrorism, mesmerised by weapons of mass destruction, obsessed with any and every chemical and biological threat. As for Iraq, the country was simply not to be tolerated. This was not the fireside-chat Mr Blair. It was the full Churchillian rig.

Mr Blair said he respected those who disagreed with him, but with little conviction. He demanded that all who believed in Iraqi weapons inspection should now admit it had failed, and that failure required war. His passion outstripped common sense. Inspection may not be perfect, but in the eyes of the world it has not failed so completely as to require Monday’s eviction of the inspectors. Yes, troops on the border instilled Iraqi compliance, but why not let them? The French position may be absurd — “no authority for any war any time” — but French absurdity does not validate war now.

For all his references to terrorism and September 11, Mr Blair has been starkly unable to establish Saddam as a terrorist threat. He may have been exasperated by the UN Security Council’s refusal to cow before his friends in Washington, but the fact is that despite fierce armtwisting it did not cow. One reason was sheer American ineptitude in daily deriding the UN, its inspectors and anyone seeking peaceful disarmament. This swung world opinion against the much-desired “second resolution”, boosting Saddam and undermining Mr Blair.

This destroyed the two pro-American coalitions forged after September 11, 2001 and again before last autumn’s Resolution 1441. Both were real achievements of British diplomacy, and Washington’s hamfisted wrecking of them will rank among the fiascos of international relations. Small wonder Mr Blair shuddered after condemning France when a backbencher referred to America’s 75 vetoes on Middle East resolutions. Washington received hardly a mention in his speech. This was suddenly a very British war.

UN backing for a war was perfectly possible with tact and with time. It received neither. Instead the hapless Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, was rushed forward on Monday to refute almost all legal opinion and invent an eccentric interplay between resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 to deny the fact that last year’s coalition was forged on the explicit understanding that war was for the Security Council to determine. Knowing America’s intent, the Government would have been more honest to leave the UN in the gutter from the start. Instead it is sustained only on the broken-backed morality of Clare Short.

The truth of this war emerged in Mr Blair’s most significant aside. He referred to Europe still needing to grasp the “psychological change” in America’s outlook since September 11. What he meant was that without it there would be no war. Yet he could not analyse the meaning of that change. The terrorist has been with us always, as have his bombs, agents, gases and plagues. What is eerily elusive is the true author of this new mayhem. Saddam is a mere proxy. As Mr Blair tacitly acknowledged, this is another bin Laden war.

Osama bin Laden hovers over events in the Gulf as he hovered over Mr Blair’s dispatch box. History will surely rate this stateless psychopath as potent beyond all imaginings. He did not just kill 3,000 people. His single act entered so deep into US psychology as to traumatise its sense of security and well-being. He devastated the economy of a city, New York, and a whole country. He turned Americans in on themselves, fortifying their houses, buying gas masks, fearing dark-skinned foreigners and screaming at the sight of powder. He bankrupted their airline companies. He emptied their office blocks. He made them suspend habeas corpus.

Bin Laden incited one war, of America against Afghanistan. He licensed another, the revived Palestinian suicide intifada and thus Israeli retaliation. He fuelled fundamentalist dissent in Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey. He made every American and Briton in the Middle East fear for his life.

Then early last year the unthinkable became thought, an all-out American war on the quiescent Saddam lest he “might” form an alliance with the Scarlet Pimpernel bin Laden. By an act of psychological transference, fear of bin Laden became fear of Iraq. Washington and London suddenly found themselves expecting attack from bin Laden and, by proxy, Saddam. Tanks raced back and forth to airports. Bunkers were built. Tourists were driven to stay at home. War became a matter of “self-defence”.

Britain and America have now allowed bin Laden to goad them to a conflict that has divided the West more fiercely than the Soviet Union ever did during the Cold War. Bin Laden has split Europe. He has reawakened “ugly American” diplomacy and reopened wounds between the New World and the Old. He has split Europe from America. He has split Russia from America. He has divided America within itself. He has made Iraq’s old friend, Jacques Chirac, a domestic hero unparalleled since de Gaulle.

Bin Laden has left Nato inert as an alliance supposedly under threat. He has destroyed, possibly for ever, the ambition of a common European Union foreign and defence policy. He has also destroyed Tony Blair’s dream of one day leading it. He induced the British to treat the UN first as a validator of war, then as a disposable comfort blanket.

Nor is that all. Nothing can be giving bin Laden greater pleasure than the spectacle of the West going to war to topple his hated foe, the “atheist Satan”, Saddam Hussein. Even in his wildest dreams, he cannot have imagined what has now come to pass, Saddam about to go and Islam radicalised against the West.

In truth we all let this happen. We all capitulated to the terror of September 11. We all stayed at home, sold shares and bought gas masks. We let politicians pass repressive laws and peddle mendacious dossiers. We showed democracy vulnerable to attack and capitalism frighteningly so. Eventually diplomacy could not hold back the tide of vengeance. First in Afghanistan, now in Iraq, it threw in the towel and left soldiers to do their worst.

It is a poor comment on the civilised West in the 21st century that its chief means of retaliation against terrorism is a declaration of war on whole peoples. I wondered if Mr Blair would yesterday resist the Hitler parallel. Sadly he could not. This is to be another war of analogies. Saddam’s arsenals are Hitler’s Holocaust. One day Mr Blair’s successors will doubtless cite September 11 as the basis for some new curb on civil liberties and free speech.

I cheered the Falklands task force. I cheered the eviction of Saddam from Kuwait. I backed ground troops in Kosovo (though not the bombing) to stop, too late, a patent humanitarian disaster. I thought the war on Kabul foolish because it would make harder the location and elimination of bin Laden, as it did. This new Gulf war, at this time and in this context, falls into none of these categories. The catalyst is a state of mind to which one madman has reduced half the free world.

Now Pandora’s box creaks open once again and out will jump the miseries, distempers and demons of war. We should remember what the ingenious Greeks left at the bottom of that box, a mistress called Hope. She did not escape. She remained “to assuage the lot of man”.

Hope now pleads for a quick victory. Hope pleads for no gratuitous bombing. Hope craves a swift rebuilding of Iraq. Hope prays for the Palestine “road map” to be sincere. Hope longs for the UN to pick itself up and play a full role in a reconstructed Middle East. Hope wants this war to purge once and for all America’s September 11 trauma and rejoin the world community. Hope believes in America as a force for good in the world. Hope wants this war turned to good account.

Hope hates the sound of bin Laden laughing.

sjenkins@thetimes.co.uk

timesonline.co.uk