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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (2476)6/17/2003 6:55:20 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 10965
 
Big Ketchup money buying the Beers...LOL



To: American Spirit who wrote (2476)6/18/2003 10:19:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Dereliction of Duty
_______________________________

By Paul Krugman
Columnist
The New York Times
Tuesday 17 June 2003

Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.

Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.

Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security — though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed.

But it's not just a matter of money. For one thing, it's hard to claim now that the Bush administration is trying to hold down domestic spending to make room for tax cuts. With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security wouldn't make much difference to the tax-cutting agenda. Moreover, Congress isn't pinching pennies across the board: last week the Senate voted to provide $15 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, even on the military front the administration has been weirdly reluctant to come to grips with terrorism. It refused to provide Afghanistan's new government with an adequate security umbrella, with the predictable result that warlords are running rampant and the Taliban are making a comeback. The squandered victory in Afghanistan was one reason people like myself had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq — and sure enough, the administration was bizarrely lackadaisical about providing postwar security. Even nuclear waste dumps were left unguarded for weeks.

So what's the explanation? The answer, one suspects, is that key figures — above all, Donald Rumsfeld — just didn't feel like dealing with the real problem. Real counterterrorism mainly involves police work and precautionary measures; it doesn't look impressive on TV, and it doesn't provide many occasions for victory celebrations.

A conventional war, on the other hand, is a lot more fun: you get stirring pictures of tanks rolling across the desert, and you get to do a victory landing on an aircraft carrier. And more and more it seems that that was what the war was all about. After all, the supposed reasons for fighting that war have turned out to be false — there were no links to Al Qaeda, there wasn't a big arsenal of W.M.D.'s.

But never mind — we won, didn't we? Maybe not. About half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now tied down in Iraq, facing what looks increasingly like a guerrilla war — and like a perfect recruiting device for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the real war on terror has been neglected, and we've antagonized the allies we need to fight that war. One of these days we'll end up paying the price.

truthout.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (2476)6/18/2003 4:56:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
WMDs And The Psychology Of Fanaticism
______________________________________

by Arianna Huffington
Syndicated Columnist
Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003
commondreams.org

By all accounts, the behind-the-scenes battle within the Bush administration over just what information should be used, or spun, or hidden, to make the case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America and the rest of the world was a knockdown, drag-out fight between the facts and a zealous, highly politicized, "who needs proof?" mindset. And, at the end of the day, the truth was left writhing on the floor.

Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good war?

This pathological pattern of disregarding inconvenient reality is not just troubling -- it's deadly. And it's threatening to drag us into a Sisyphean struggle against evildoers in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or whatever locale Karl Rove thinks would best advance "Operation Avoid 41's Fate."

Since I'm not a psychiatrist, I consulted the work of various experts in the field in order to get a better understanding of the fanatical mindset that is driving the Bush administration's agenda -- and scaring the living daylights out of a growing number of observers.

Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, has identified among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent, a doctrine that is riddled with contradictions, the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God, and the use of reinforcement techniques such as repetition to spread one's message.

Sound like anyone you know? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle... come on down!

According to Doidge, one of the essential features of fanatics is their certainty that not only is their cause good "but that it is the only good, an absolute good." Or as President Bush famously declared: "There is no in-between, as far as I'm concerned. Either you're with us, or you're against us."

This absolute intolerance of dissent, says Doidge, often extends beyond the fanatics’ enemies -- frequently leading to a "campaign of terror" against those within their own ranks. If you're wondering what this has to do with the Bush administration, you might want to give a call to Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich.

After having the temerity to question the wisdom of the president's massive tax cut plan, the senatorial pair became the targets of withering TV attack ads, sponsored by allies of the White House, that portrayed them as "so-called Republicans" and compared their opposition to the latest round of tax cuts to France's opposition to the war in Iraq. It was a Night of the Long Knives, GOP-style.

Another crucial element of a fanatic's faith, according to Professor Dixon Sutherland, who teaches religion at Stetson University, is that he "sees himself as acting for God... You have a circular logic that is very powerful that combines God’s authority -- through the Bible -- with a messenger who carries out that authority."

Tom DeLay, for example, saw the 2000 election as a choice between a "biblical worldview" and the worldview of "humanism, materialism, sexism, naturalism, post-modernism or any of the other -isms." And the Republican Party, of course, represented the biblical worldview, God and all things good.

Gustav le Bon, a social scientist known for his crowd psychology theories, has stressed the importance of repetition as a weapon in the fanatic's arsenal. Repetition breeds blind acceptance and contagion.

"Ideas, sentiments, emotions and beliefs," writes le Bon, "possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes." As James Moore, co-author of "Bush’s Brain," says, "If the president says it over and over enough, people will believe it, just as Karl Rove got him to say over and over that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."

The technique was so successful that a poll taken by the Pew Center in 2002 showed that 66 percent of Americans believed that Hussein and bin Laden were both behind the attacks. In the words of that giant banner that Rove had placed behind the president following his Top Gun landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln: "Mission Accomplished."

Wonder why the WMD are MIA? The answer may lie in the DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I know it can sound a bit cheap to call people you disagree with nuts, which is why I refer you to the psychiatric literature. And keep an open mind, something the Bushies stopped doing a long time ago.

Copyright © 1998-2003 Christabella, Inc



To: American Spirit who wrote (2476)6/18/2003 5:06:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Republican-Led International Relations Committee Failed To Exercise Congressional Oversight; Stonewalls Investigation IntoThe Truth

Republicans Defeat Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry In A Partisan Vote

CONTACT: U.S. Representative Kucinich
Doug Gordon (202) 225-5871

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 18, 2003
8:38 AM

WASHINGTON - June 18 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), today, rejected assertions by the Republicans on the House International Relations Committee that his Resolution of Inquiry should be dismissed due to an ongoing investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On June 5, Kucinich introduced a Resolution of Inquiry to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence that led to misleading and false claims made by Administration officials in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
"The Republicans on the International Relations Committee want to shun their congressional oversight responsibilities," stated Kucinich. "It is clear that the committee Republicans are stonewalling. They don't want the American people to know that the Administration may have lied to them. The proper place for an investigation into disinformation the Administration used to lead the US to war is the House International Relations Committee. It is Congress' responsibility to provide oversight. Today, the Republican-led committee failed to live up to this responsibility."

The resolution, signed by 40 Members of Congress, sought to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to substantiate claims by the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and the White House Press Secretary that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and therefore posed a threat to the United States.

The resolution was referred to the House International Relations Committee, which, today, rejected the resolution in a partisan vote.

"This Congress and the American people have a right to know if our nation was led to war based on misinformation, half-truths and possible lies," continued Kucinich. "Today, Congress had an opportunity to begin this process. But, instead of seeking the truth the Republican-led committee decided to take the path of obstruction. I will continue the fight in pursuit of the truth."

commondreams.org