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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/3/2003 9:10:56 PM
From: Condor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A trip to Texas

Howdy there Pardner! Goin to do any wranglin or cow punchin? Visit GWB at the ranch maybe?

Later pilgrim.



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/3/2003 11:19:10 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
A trip to Texas for a nephew's wedding.

A good thing I reminded you about "Dandy Don." Not being able to provide details on Meredeth in Texas could cause a lynching.



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/4/2003 2:00:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'

_____________________________________________

by Glen Johnson

Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by the Boston Globe

PETERBOROUGH, N.H. - Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.

By echoing the ''regime change'' line popular with hundreds of thousands of antiwar protesters who have demonstrated across the nation in recent weeks, the Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential contender seemed to be reaching out to a newly invigorated constituency as rival Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, closes in on Kerry in opinion polls.

Kerry said that he had spoken with foreign diplomats and several world leaders as recently as Monday while fund-raising in New York and that they told him they felt betrayed when Bush resorted to war in Iraq before they believed diplomacy had run its course.

He said the leaders, whom he did not identify, believed that Bush wanted to ''end-run around the UN.''

''I don't think they're going to trust this president, no matter what,'' Kerry said. ''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.''

With a dig at Bush's previous lack of foreign policy experience, Kerry said he would usher in a new US foreign policy if he stood before the United Nations as president.

''I believe we can have a golden age of American diplomacy,'' he said, outlining his own foreign policy credentials in the speech. ''But it will take a new president who is prepared to lead, and who has, frankly, a little more experience than visiting the sum total of two countries'' before taking office.

The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Kerry, who previously had been critical of Bush's efforts to reach out to the international community, was reluctant that day to answer when a television crew asked him whether the administration had handled its diplomatic efforts poorly.

''You know, we're beyond that now,'' the senator said after addressing the International Association of Fire Fighters. ''We have to come together as a country to get this done and heal the wounds.''

Kerry, a Navy veteran of Vietnam, said he strongly supported US troops. ''There will be plenty of time here to be critical about how we arrived here,'' he said at that time. In response to questions after his speech yesterday, Kerry reiterated his support for the troops.

He also joined the administration in blasting ''armchair generals'' who are criticizing the war plan.

''War is war,'' he said. ''It's tough, and I think there's a little too much armchair quarterbacking and Monday-morning reviewing going on. I think we need to trust in the process for a few days here. This is only [14] days old, and they've achieved quite a remarkable advance in that period of time.''

When asked to square his criticism with his pledge of restraint two weeks earlier, Kerry first said that he had tempered his criticism of the administration's diplomatic efforts.

Then he said: ''It is possible that the word `regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is.''

Finally, he said his overall criticism of the administration was part of ''the healthy democracy of the United States of America'' and no different from some of the war critiques published on the front page of major newspapers. ''Is that unpatriotic?'' he asked.

A top Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Kerry was ''free to express his beliefs, but if anyone should be aware of the sensitivities of how our leaders should be conducting themselves while we're at war, I would think Senator Kerry would.''

''The president doesn't have the luxury of a campaign timeline to address the crisis of terrorism and its manifestation in Saddam Hussein,'' the strategist said.

During his opening remarks and on several occasions as he answered questions from the audience of more than 100 people, Kerry said he was the most experienced candidate in either party in terms of foreign policy and national security background.

''We need a president of the United States who has a vision of the world that is very different from what these excessively ideological unilateralists want to thrust on us and the rest of the world,'' said the 18-year veteran of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Taking aim at Attorney General John D. Ashcroft at one point, the senator added: ''One of the reasons why I am running for president of the United States is that I look forward with pleasure and zeal for the opportunity to appoint an attorney general of the United States who believes and reads and abides by the Constitution.''

Kerry was equally critical of his rivals for the Democratic nomination.

''I believe that I have a better capacity than any other candidate running in the field to be able to stand up and address questions of national security and America's role in the world with credibility and history, and to be able to move us to those areas where we win, which is on the domestic agenda,'' he said.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company

commondreams.org



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/4/2003 6:35:53 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Your worst nightmare, John. "New York Times

Syrian-U.S. Ties Strained By Iraq War

>>>> In 1996, Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy and an architect of plans for a post-Hussein Iraq, co-authored an advisory paper with Richard Perle, a close Rumsfeld adviser, for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that called for a "clean break" from the traditional peace process approach between the Arabs and Israel. They advised replacing it with a stronger military approach and confrontation with Iraq and Syria for their support of terrorists.

This week, Perle wrote during an online exchange just published by Foreign Policy magazine: "Would you rather talk with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about terrorism before or after the liberation of Iraq?"<<<<<
washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/4/2003 6:44:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
And the Discussion by Perle in FP was short but good.

>>>Perle: The chances for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will improve as soon as Saddam is gone. Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi and his people have confirmed that they want a real peace process, and that they would recognize the state of Israel. There is no doubt about that if they come to power. We cannot expect the peace process to be any more promising than it is now as long as Saddam Hussein actively works against it, including raining rockets on Israel as he did during the 1991 Gulf War. President George W. Bush presented his vision for the Middle East on June 24, 2002. Yet his plan has not received the attention it deserves. Bush said, if the Palestinians establish themselves as interlocutors who operate without corruption and terrorism, then the United States will support the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the Europeans are supporting Arafat and sending checks from Brussels. We have reached a dead end. The checks are standing in the way of the kind of democratic reform needed in the Palestinian National Authority that can open the door for peace.<<<<
foreignpolicy.com



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/4/2003 11:05:43 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Chew on this when you get back. "New York Times"

April 5, 2003
Professors Protest as Students Debate
By KATE ZERNIKE

AMHERST, Mass., April 4, It is not easy being an old lefty on campus in this war.
At the University of Wisconsin at Madison, awash in antiwar protests in the Vietnam era, a columnist for a student newspaper took a professor to task for canceling classes to protest the war in Iraq, saying the university should reprimand her and refund tuition for the missed periods.
Irvine Valley College in Southern California sent faculty members a memo that warned them not to discuss the war unless it was specifically related to the course material. When professors cried censorship, the administration explained that the request had come from students.
Here at Amherst College, many students were vocally annoyed this semester when 40 professors paraded into the dining hall with antiwar signs. One student confronted a protesting professor and shoved him.
Some students here accuse professors of behaving inappropriately, of not knowing their place.
"It seems the professors are more vehement than the students," Jack Morgan, a sophomore, said. "There comes a point when you wonder are you fostering a discussion or are you promoting an opinion you want students to embrace or even parrot?"

Across the country, the war is disclosing role reversals, between professors shaped by Vietnam protests and a more conservative student body traumatized by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Prowar groups have sprung up at Brandeis and Yale and on other campuses. One group at Columbia, where last week an antiwar professor rhetorically called for "a million Mogadishus," is campaigning for the return of R.O.T.C. to Morningside Heights.
Even in antiwar bastions like Cambridge, Berkeley and Madison, the protests have been more town than gown. At Berkeley, where Vietnam protesters shouted, "Shut it down!" under clouds of tear gas, Sproul Plaza these days features mostly solo operators who hand out black armbands. The shutdown was in San Francisco, and the crowd was grayer.
All this dismays many professors.
"We used to like to offend people," Martha Saxton, a professor of women's studies at Amherst, said as she discussed the faculty protest with students this week. "We loved being bad, in the sense that we were making a statement. Why is there no joy now?"

Certainly not all students are pro-war or all faculty anti. But "there's a much higher percentage of liberal professors than there are liberal students," said Ben Falby, the student who organized the protest at Amherst only to find that it had more professors than students.
On campuses like Yale and Berkeley, professors say their colleagues are overwhelmingly against the war. By contrast, students polled by The Yale Daily News are 50-50. Interviews elsewhere find students' attitudes equally fractured. Some are solidly for the war. Some are against it, but not to the point of protest.
"Protesting is a niche activity," said Prof. Michael Kazin, co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960's." "There are some people who do drama, some people who do protest, other people who drink too much."
At Georgetown, where Professor Kazin teaches history, a handful of antiwar students had a sleep-in last weekend on Red Square, named for the color of the bricks, not the political sentiment of those who gather there. Other students expressed disgust, so much that Professor Kazin said to his students that they seemed more upset about the encampment than the war.

He hears similar accounts in academic e-mail chains across the country. One example was a campus protest that drew 40 students, maybe 60.
Amherst's history should make it predictably antiwar. The Vietnam protests were so spirited that in 1972 they swept up the college president, John William Ward, who was arrested in a sit-in at nearby Westover Air Force Base. The protest included 1,000 students, 20 faculty members and the president's wife.

Now, the departing president, Tom Gerety, is firmly antiwar, as are most professors. The students, however, have yet to be swept up. Last month, the Progressive Students Association asked the student government to ask the faculty to take 15 minutes in class to discuss the war. The government refused. Some professors chose to take the time anyway, but many did not, having seen the reaction to the dining hall protest.
"There was a sense this is a different world," said Austin Sarat, a professor of political science who was active in antiwar protests in 1970 as a graduate student in Madison, Wis.
Students opposed to the war say they appreciate the professors' sentiments.

"It's a lonely place to be an antiwar protester on the Amherst campus," said Beatriz Wallace, a junior. In the dining hall, students have set out baskets of ribbons, some yellow, some red, white and blue.
Prowar students say they feel just as alienated. "The faculty, and events, has a chilling effect on discussions for the prowar side," said David Chen, a sophomore.
In a discussion, Professor Sarat began with the proposition that if you love the United States, you must, as an act of patriotism, oppose the war. Students took exception.
"President Bush has taken an imperial position," Professor Sarat insisted.
Michael Valentine, a sophomore, replied: "I don't think it's the dominance of the United States. It's the security of the United States that's at issue. They're saying the only way we can ensure the security of our citizens is to go in there."
"And to make the Middle East safe for democracy," Professor Sarat interjected.
"Professor, that's only because a regime poses a security risk," Mr. Valentine said.
Professor Sarat said the change in tone reflected a larger shift.

"The notion that campuses are awash in political correctness," he said, "is given the lie every day in my classroom."
Still, he and others expressed wistfulness for days gone by.
"In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst," he said. "There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet."
The students' attitudes have many possible explanations. There is no draft this time. Students on small liberal arts campuses like this one are more diverse than those of the 60's and 70's. More receive financial aid, and many are more concerned about their careers than about protesting. But the students have also been pulled toward a more conservative mainstream than their parents.
"The most left president they know is Bill Clinton, running on, `I'm tough on crime,' " Professor Sarat said. "The Great Society is to them what the New Deal was to me."
John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of history at Yale, agreed, saying: "These are the kids of Reagan. When I lecture on Reagan, the kids love him. Their parents are horrified and appalled."
This generation is also shaped by Sept. 11. When Gary J. Bass, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, asked his class on "Causes of War" how many students were in R.O.T.C., two raised their hands. The rest applauded.
"I had asked the question before Sept. 11 and not gotten that response," Professor Bass said. "I definitely hadn't expected it."
A nationwide survey of freshmen by the University of California at Los Angeles over the last 37 years reflected other shifts from Sept. 11. This year, more students called themselves conservative than in other recent surveys, and 45 percent supported an increase in military spending, more than double the percentage in 1993.
At a teach-in at Yale, the president, Richard C. Levin, announced that although he was against the war, the speakers were chosen to represent a range of opinions.
At Amherst, Prof. Barry O'Connell, too, tries hard. As he sits in a discussion group with students, he patiently listens to those who argue in favor of the war, even though he remains adamantly against it. Across the hall, a mug shot of Henry A. Kissinger is posted outside his office with the heading "Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity."
"My job is not to get my students to agree with me," Professor O'Connell insisted.

Still, he conceded, `There is a second when I hear them, and my heart just falls."
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/8/2003 5:51:15 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 281500
 
Richard Cohen surprises the hell out of me. Good for him. Let's see. I think we have a Marine MEU available. Hmmmm.

Hollywood's Darling, Liberals' Blind Spot

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, April 8, 2003; Page A33

If the valiant Michael Kelly had not been killed in Iraq, he surely would have returned to whacking liberals and liberalism in his newspaper column. I would have read these columns -- it was hard not to read Kelly -- with some irritation but often with chagrin as well. When he said -- and I paraphrase him here -- that at the heart of American liberalism was a deep and inexplicable hole, I knew he was often right. Had he lived, he might have turned his attention to Cuba.

Just recently the government of Fidel Castro arrested about 80 dissidents and almost instantly brought them to trial -- if it can be called that. Foreign journalists and diplomats were excluded from the proceedings, in which 12 of the accused face life sentences. All of them are undoubtedly guilty of seeking greater freedom and on occasion meeting with visiting human rights activists. In Cuba, those are crimes.

Castro is probably relying on the fact that the United States is occupied elsewhere, and as usual, he needs scapegoats to blame for the dismal state of the Cuban economy. But he can rely also on the unswerving naivete and obtuseness of the American left, which consistently has managed to overlook what a goon he is. Instead, it concentrates on his willingness to meet with American intellectuals and chatter long into the night. He is, apparently, good company.

But he is also a tyrant. In its report on Cuba, Human Rights Watch came right to the point: "Over the last 40 years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression." What that means is almost no civil liberties and a penal system as medieval and barbaric as any in the world. That system was accurately portrayed in the 2001 movie "Before Night Falls," which was based on the memoir of the Cuban novelist Reinaldo Arenas. He had served time in Castro's jails for being a homosexual. Before killing himself, Arenas left a note: "There is only one person I hold responsible: Fidel Castro."

About the time that movie was released, I talked with someone who had just visited Castro as part of a Hollywood contingent. I had to listen once again to how erudite the Cuban dictator is and how, of course, he has established a first-class health system. No doubt Castro has read his Gabriel Garcia Marquez and no doubt he cares about medical treatment. But he also runs a regime a shade worse than China's, according to Freedom House.

If my Hollywood friend was some sort of aberration, I would not have given him a second thought. But he is fairly typical of many American liberals. They seem to think that any regime targeted by the United States is, ipso facto, an innocent victim. Some of that sentiment once attached to the Soviet Union -- remember how the Cold War was the fault of an insensitive America? -- and more recently to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. From some of what was said from the left, you would think that the current war is really about oil or imperialism or revenge -- and not for a moment about the sort of regime Hussein runs.

It's not that the left has no capacity for outrage. It's just that it's so inconsistent. It can vehemently protest the mistreatment of America's poor or its minorities and yet overlook the mistreatment of Iraqis or, as is now happening, Cubans. Conservatives, too, can be just as inconsistent, but they are not my crowd nor my concern at the moment.

So I would like to hear some moral outrage about Castro. I would like to see the vilification of Cuban Americans cease. They have as much right to lobby the government as do, say, Jewish Americans on behalf of Israel or Greek Americans on behalf of Greece. I'd like to see anyone interrupt one of Fidel's marathon soliloquies to ask about human rights violations.

Fidel Castro is a thug and a fool. Those are constants, unaffected by an inconsistent U.S. embargo -- why Cuba and not China? -- or by the fact that some of his American opponents are political troglodytes. To someone in a Cuban jail, it hardly matters that Castro reads books or that he gushes revolutionary rhetoric -- goop about "the people." The people are impoverished and oppressed.

In homage to Kelly, I'd have to say that we did not often agree. But when we did -- when I would grudgingly nod my head -- was when he roundhoused the left for something like its soft spot for certain tyrants. He was on to something -- and it is something that liberals will have to deal with, or else be dealt out of the game entirely.

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/10/2003 1:27:42 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Dances With Wolfowitz

__________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Columnist
The New York Times
April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON - There is an unforgettable scene in "Lawrence of Arabia" when an agonized Lawrence resists as a British commander in Cairo presses him to return to the desert to lead the Arabs revolting against the Ottoman Turks.

Lawrence: "I killed two people. One was yesterday. He was just a boy, and I led him into quicksand. The other was . . . well . . . before Aqaba. I had to execute him with my pistol, and there was something about it that I didn't like."

General Allenby: "That's to be expected."

Lawrence: "No, something else."

General Allenby: "Well, then let it be a lesson."

Lawrence: "No . . . something else."

General Allenby: "What then?"

Lawrence: "I enjoyed it."

We were always going to win the war with Iraq. We were always going to get to some triumphant moment, like the great one on Fox at 1:30 a.m. Eastern time on Monday morning, when two G.I.'s from Georgia held up a University of Georgia bulldog flag in front of Saddam's presidential palace in Baghdad, and others mischievously headed upstairs to try out Saddam's gold fixtures in the master bathroom.

The big question about the war was, How much blood could Americans bear?

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were determined to lead America out of its post-Vietnam, post-Mogadishu queasiness with force and casualties, to change the culture to accept war as a more natural part of a superpower's role in the world.

Their strategy might be described as Black Hawk Up.

Mr. Cheney's war guru, Victor Davis Hanson, writes in his book "An Autumn of War" that war can be good, and that sometimes nations are better off using devastation than suasion. Mr. Hanson cites Sherman's march through Georgia, the 19th century's great instance of shock and awe, as a positive role model.

Polls and interviews show that in their goal of making Americans less rattled by battle, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney have succeeded: most Americans are showing a stoic attitude about the dead and the wounded so far.

(Perhaps the American tolerance for pain is owed to the fact that much of the pain is not shown on television, embeddedness notwithstanding.)

Wolfowitz of Arabia and the other administration hawks are thrilled with U.S. hawkishness. When Mr. Wolfowitz was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday his aides sat in the green room watching the monitor and high-fiving their boss's performance.

As American forces made their first armored thrusts into Baghdad, visions of a JDAM strike on Damascus danced in the hawks' heads.

The former C.I.A. director James Woolsey, a Wolfie pal and a prospective administrator in occupied Iraq, bluntly told U.C.L.A. students last week that to reshape the Middle East, the U.S. would have to spend years and maybe decades waging World War IV. (He counted the cold war as World War III.)

He identified America's enemies as the Islamist Shia who run Iran, the Iranian-supported Hezbollah, the fascist Baathists in Iraq and Syria, and the Islamist Sunnis who run Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.

Mr. Wolfowitz, however, played the diplomat on Sunday, gliding past Tim Russert's probing on whether the neo-cons' dreams of other campaigns in Syria, Iran and North Korea would come true. Pressed, he said, "There's got to be change in Syria as well."

And the Times's David Sanger reported that when a Bush aide stepped into the Oval Office recently to tell the president that the hard-boiled Rummy had also been shaking a fist at Syria, Mr. Bush smiled and said one word: "Good."

The administration already sounds as triumphalist as Lawrence at his giddiest. Today's satirical Onion headline reads: "Bush Subconsciously Sizes Up Spain for Invasion."

The success of this war should not leave us infatuated with war. Americans' tolerance for these casualties should not be mistaken for a willingness to absorb endless American sacrifice on endless battlefields.

Victory in Iraq will be a truly historic event, but it will be exceedingly weird and dangerous if this administration turns America into Sparta.

There remains the unfinished business of Osama bin Laden. But the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom should not mark the beginning of Operation Eternal War.

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (89782)4/10/2003 7:28:00 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Here is an article that quotes some of the favorite people of our anti-war posters. By, "favorite," I mean people they love to hate. :>)

washingtonpost.com

Among the Hawks, Few Crow
Bush Partisans Are Restrained, While Voices of Dissent Still Sound

By Mark Leibovich and Roxanne Roberts
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 10, 2003; Page C01

As Baghdad fell, Tom DeLay's office in the Capitol was a model of restraint and quiet satisfaction. Staffers paused from a meeting to watch TV in a conference room. They clapped and cheered when Saddam Hussein's statue finally toppled. DeLay merely smiled. "Tens of millions of people just had the best day of their life," the House majority leader said later.

It was a good day for hawks, too. After a year of domestic and international debate -- and an uncertain few weeks on the battlefield -- they were relishing the televised giddiness that conveyed their vindication.

"I hope the Germans and the Frenchmen will now ask their governments why they opposed this effort," said Richard Perle, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and, until recently, the chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board. Perle, one of the war's most strenuous supporters, said yesterday felt similar to when the Berlin Wall came down and when the statues of Lenin were toppled in the former Soviet Union. "The images were reminiscent of that for me."

There was little boasting, few partisan sneers, not many I-told-you-so's. President Bush "remains very cautious because he knows there is great danger that could still lie ahead," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

"Perhaps I feel temporarily vindicated," said Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard. "But I'm still struck by the challenges ahead."

Indeed, yesterday's watchwords were caution and restraint. But it wasn't difficult to find breaches in the administration's preferred No Gloat Zone. Some red-meat Republicans were happy to distill yesterday's historic import to its partisan essence.

"The Democrats were on the wrong side of the Civil War, the Cold War and now the Iraq War," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an all-purpose chest-thumper on matters Right Wing. "Their batting average on these things is right up there with France."

REST AT:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1605-2003Apr9.html