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: American Spirit who wrote (22201)7/15/2003 1:51:14 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
AS,

Fuggedabot the weasel words. Kerry is too "Skull & Bones" to do what Dean is doing. Kerry may be the Democratic candidate, but it won't be because he represents the rank and file. It will be because the elites deign him to be in their ranks.

Let's not kid each other.



To: American Spirit who wrote (22201)7/15/2003 9:29:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Black Thursday For Bush

_________________________________________

By David S. Broder
Columnist
The Washington Post
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
washingtonpost.com

If President Bush is not reelected, we may look back on last Thursday, July 10, 2003, as the day the shadow of defeat first crossed his political horizon. To be sure, Bush looks strong. The CBS News poll released that evening had his approval rating at 60 percent, with solid support from his own party, a 26-point lead among independents and a near-even split among Democrats. Two-thirds of those surveyed could not name a single one of the nine Democrats vying for the right to oppose him.

But "The CBS Evening News" that night was like Karl Rove's worst nightmare, and the other network newscasts -- still the main source of information for a large number of Americans -- were not much better.

The headlines announced by John Roberts, substituting for Dan Rather on CBS, were: "President Bush's false claim about Iraqi weapons; he made it despite a CIA warning the intelligence was bad. More Americans say U.S. is losing control of Iraq. Also tonight, food lines in America; they're back and getting longer."

Brian Williams, filling in for Tom Brokaw on NBC, began: "War zone. Two more Americans dead in Iraq, and now the general who led the war says the troops could be there four more years."

Peter Jennings on ABC gave the administration a break, opening the broadcast with this: "The secretary of state says there was no attempt to deceive the American people about the case for war in Iraq." But then Jennings described Colin Powell's news conference as "damage control," an effort to explain "why the president used some false information in his State of the Union address to justify attacking Iraq."

All of them -- and cable news -- cited the dissonant voices from within the administration blaming one another for Bush's use of a report, which the CIA had long since discredited, claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program from the African country of Niger.

Even after CIA Director George Tenet tried to take responsibility for the foul-up, the White House faces a credibility gap that reaches down into the non-discovery of the weapons of mass destruction Bush and his top associates said Saddam Hussein was amassing to threaten the United States.

And the doubts don't stop there. Two and a half months after Bush proclaimed victory in Iraq -- "mission accomplished" -- CBS reported that only 45 percent of the public now believes the United States is in control of events there. On the question of credibility regarding weapons of mass destruction, 56 percent say Bush administration officials were hiding important elements of what they knew or were outright lying.

The next day a Washington Post-ABC News poll reported that while Bush's approval score was still at a healthy 59 percent, there had been a 9-point drop in less than three weeks both in his overall rating and on the question of confidence in his handling of Iraq. Ominously, the poll found a dramatic reversal in public tolerance of continuing casualties, with a majority saying for the first time that the losses are unacceptable when weighed against the goals of the war.

Eight out of 10 in the Post-ABC poll said they were very or somewhat concerned that the United States "will get bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission." And this was before the networks showed Gen. Tommy Franks telling Congress the troops would be in Iraq for years.

If Iraq looks increasingly worrisome on TV and in the polls, the economy is even worse. CBS found jobs and the economy dwarfing every other issue, cited by almost four times as many people as cited Iraq or the war on terrorism. On that black Thursday for the administration, first-time unemployment claims pushed the number of Americans on jobless relief to the highest level in 20 years.

And the most troubling pictures on any of the three broadcasts were those of a line of cars, stretching out of sight down a flat two-lane road in Logan, Ohio -- jobless and struggling families waiting for the twice-a-month distribution of free food by the local office of America's Second Harvest. The head of the agency said, "We are seeing a new phenomenon: Last year's food bank donors are now this year's food bank clients." Said CBS reporter Cynthia Bowers, "You could call it a line of the times, because in a growing number of American communities these days, making ends meet means waiting for a handout."

Some may say, "Well, it's one day's news," or dismiss it all as media bias. But that does not dissolve the shadow that now hangs over Bush's bright hopes for a second term.

David S. Broder will answer questions about this column during a Live Online discussion at 11 a.m. today at www.washingtonpost.com.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

_____Live Online_____

• Live, 11:00 a.m. ET: Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and columnist David S. Broder will be online Tuesday, July 15, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the president's political future and the fallout over Iraq and the economy



To: American Spirit who wrote (22201)7/15/2003 11:50:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bomb Before You Buy
________________________

An Interview With Naomi Klein

by Scott Harris and Naomi Klein; Between The Lines; July 15, 2003

The military occupation of Iraq has not gone according to the plan made in Washington long before the war was launched against Saddam Hussein's government. Since President Bush declared major hostilities over in Iraq on May 1, more than 30 U.S. and British troops have been killed in an intensifying series of guerrilla attacks. With an average 13 engagements each day between U.S. soldiers and armed Iraqis hostile to the occupation, American military leaders are still reluctant to characterize the resistance as an organized effort. Instead, Pentagon and Bush administration officials maintain that groups attacking U.S. forces are remnants of Saddam's Baathist party or terrorists sympathetic to al Qaeda.

Fueling hostility toward the U.S. in Iraq are the increasing number of civilians being shot by jittery and exhausted American soldiers; the delay in establishing an Iraqi transition government; and the spotty restoration of electrical and water services. Recent statements made by L. Paul Bremer III, President Bush's administrator in Iraq -- that the U.S. will work to privatize Baghdad's state-owned industries -- has further antagonized many Iraqis.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with author and columnist Naomi Klein, who discusses her view that the Bush administration's economic plan for Iraq is but one element of a broader strategy to expand the power and wealth of U.S. based multinational corporations across the globe.

Naomi Klein: I think what’s clear is that by the time Iraqis have some semblance of a democratic process -- and who knows when that’s going to be, maybe it will be a year from now, maybe it will be two years from now -- whenever it is, it’s clear that all of the key economic decisions that are going to affect the ability of that new government to act in meaningful ways -- those decisions will all have already been made and contracts will be locked in, multi, multi-year contracts. So this is essentially, this is about democracy, I mean, Bush has said that the war wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction, it was actually about freedom and democracy. Well, this whole issue of privatization taking place before there is a democracy is an incredibly flagrant assault on the basic principles of self-determination. I think we have to be really careful when we say, "Oh, the reconstruction has been a crisis or it's been a disaster." Well, it's been a disaster for the Iraqi people but it hasn't been a disaster for Bechtel. In fact, what's happened is they've bombed the country into a blank slate where they are rebuilding it in the image that is exactly prescribed by the so-called Washington consensus and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where all of the state industries, including oil, are going to be privatized.

At the same time, Paul Bremer, before he even had the lights back on in Baghdad declared that Iraq was "open for business," which meant that all of the foreign exports were pouring across the border. Iraqi companies that had been suffering under 13 years of sanctions and months of lootings and then blackouts because of a lack of electricity were told "welcome to the free market," now you can compete with these multinationals and of course, they're all closing down.

That's what I mean by a process that, say in the Soviet Union or Argentina took five years,. is happening in Iraq in two months. I think it's important I guess to look at such a naked exercise of so-called free market economics to see that they were never supposed to compete in the first place. I mean, the idea that they could have competed under these conditions is absolutely absurd and I think that it really does put the lie to the idea that there is a free market on the global scale.

Between The Lines: You have followed quite closely -- and in your most recent book -- wrote dispatches about the various forms that the movement that opposes corporate-led globalization has taken around the world. What can you tell us about the intersection between those groups opposing corporate-led globalization and the recent quite astonishing peace movement that took root on almost every continent of the world?

Naomi Klein: Well, I think there are lots of connections. I think that they aren't the same movement, but they're inseparable in so many ways. For instance, the coordinated peace demonstrations on Feb. 15 could never have happened without the networks that were created by the globalization movements, from the World Social Forums to Indy Media, which was really the voice of those demonstrations and allowed people to feel that they were part of something truly global, I think, in a really unique and unprecedented way.

But, I think the question of how do we deepen those connections through this period of ongoing wars and also occupation … and that's why I think it really is important to focus on what is actually happening with this so-called reconstruction or privatization disguised as reconstruction in Iraq. Because I think that Iraq is not a distraction or a sideline from the debate about the global economy and how it's progressing. I think it's the cutting edge of that debate in the sense that there is a global economic crisis, there is a recession and there is a growing skepticism and rejection of many of the policies that we've been talking about. In Latin America, for instance, there is huge opposition to the idea of a free trade agreement of the Americas but there has also been a steady stream of opposition to new privatizations. And what this means is that there's growing desperation from the companies that need growth to survive, which is every company, which is how capitalism works. Because of that we are seeing this phenomenon that I call, "bomb before you buy," which is a flip way of describing what happened in Iraq, but I think that we are frankly and sadly going to see more of it. So, I can't in my mind separate the debate about globalization or free trade from an analysis of war, because to me what we're actually seeing are wars being waged to pave the way for precisely the policies that we in the globalization movement have been opposing steadily for the past five years.

Between The Lines: Do you see the anti-globalization organizations and the peace groups focusing their attention now on the post-war situation in Iraq, the privatizations and the threat, as you say, that this could be the template -- the model for future engagements by the United States and their corporate sponsors?

Naomi Klein: I think it is starting to happen. But frankly if we're to be honest, I think we have to admit that we on the left are destabilized. I personally think more than anything else this is the Bush strategy, which is to behave so quixotically, so unpredictably -- basically to act like a crazy person (laughs) -- that basically all of your potential opposition is in a permanent state of destabilization, trying to figure out what the next move is going to be.

It's been really difficult to think strategically over the past year and a half. But I think that there's certainly consensus that we need to, that we need to somehow find our bearings and to understand that the fact that we're confused is not a coincidence, that it's a strategy.
______________

Naomi Klein is author of "Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate" published by Flamingo. Her previous bestselling book, "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" is published by Picador. Visit her website at www.nologo.org.

Scott Harris is the executive producer of Between The Lines. This interview excerpt was featured on the award-winning, nationally syndicated weekly radio newsmagazine, Between The Lines (http://www.btlonline.org), for the week ending July 18, 2003. AOL users: Click here!

zmag.org