Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (3605)	7/23/2003 10:39:20 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Gone AWOL on Leadership _____________________________ By Robert Kuttner The Boston Globe Wednesday 23 July 2003 After Sept. 11, even George W. Bush's harshest critics credited him for leading. Lately, Bush has been doing the opposite. What does it mean to lead? A real leader puts his own prestige on the line - to educate public opinion, to pursue necessary policies that are sometimes unpopular, and to take responsibility. Lyndon Johnson took huge risks to redeem the promise of Emancipation and to lead America into a dubious war. He might have survived the bruises of the former were it not for the latter. But in both cases the policies were his own. Richard Nixon, not America's most honorable president, took responsibility for controversial policies - opening to China, using temporary wage and price controls, attempting to convert welfare to a guaranteed annual income. He won some, lost some, and was reelected overwhelmingly in 1972. Bill Clinton put his presidency at risk to raise taxes on the rich and balance the budget, to end welfare as we knew it, and to get NAFTA enacted. When Clinton failed to get universal health insurance, he didn't blame Hillary. Now, consider Bush. He declared that he wants to expand Medicare to include (very) limited coverage of prescription drugs. His political Rasputin, Karl Rove, views this as a top priority to upstage a leading Democratic issue. The House Republicans want to use drug coverage as a wedge to begin privatizing Medicare. Senate Democrats consider that gimmick a deal breaker. A little presidential leadership is in order if Bush really wants a bill. Have you heard him say boo? Remember the child tax credit? Under the latest tax cut, refund checks go out July 25. But not to some 6 million kids in families where the breadwinner pays payroll tax but no income tax, including many GIs serving in Iraq. Bush pledged to fix this lapse. The Senate voted, 94- 2, to make the change. But the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, says no way. Where is Bush on this one? Who is setting the agenda, Bush or DeLay? How about Head Start? Candidate Bush pledged to expand it. The radical right wants to end Head Start as a federal entitlement and shift responsibility for the program to the states, where it can be converted to glorified day care (with for-profit and religious sponsors) rather than the effective child development program it has always been. Last week DeLay temporarily postponed a floor vote because he faced defeat. Which side is Bush on? Finally, there are the famous 16 words in the State of the Union Address. That piece of deliberate deception was blamed on CIA Director George Tenet - except that Tenet had warned the president against relying on the bogus Niger-uranium report as long ago as last October. It was New York's great mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, who famously said, "When I make a mistake, it's a beaut." George Bush's equivalent is, "When I make a mistake, it's Tenet's fault." (This habit seems to run in the Bush administration. When ground operations in Iraq bogged down, Defense Secretary Rumseld suddenly began describing the war blueprint as "Tommy Franks's plan.") Bush is becoming evader-in-chief. Even the electorate is starting to notice. There is a rule that a column is about one thing. Excuse me for violating it, but I really wanted to write three different columns today, so here is a sampler of the other two: Did you notice the groundswell of support in Congress for legalizing drug imports from Canada? This is an idiotic way to do the right thing. Drug prices are cheaper up north not because manufacturing costs are lower there but because the Canadian national health program controls drug company prices and profits. Congress doesn't need a detour via Canada. It just needs to do the right thing directly. Regulate drug prices, and Americans will save not just money on their prescriptions but on needless shipping charges, too. No need to punish the local drugstore just because Congress lacks the nerve to do this reform properly. Do you find it worrisome that the deficit is the biggest ever and interest rates the lowest in half a century - and the economy is still very soft? I do, and George Bush should. Were it not for the still-reverberating shocks from the deregulation orgy and the stock market bust, 5 percent mortgages and $500 billion deficits should be pushing the economy into the stratosphere. But not this time. Just imagine what a little imported inflation might do. This economy, and this presidency, are a lot shakier than they look. ____________________________ Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. truthout.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (3605)	7/23/2003 11:14:21 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

The Democrats' War Trap _______________________ by Harold Meyerson Published on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 by the Washington Post Dick Gephardt deserves Howard Dean. In a sense, he created him. If anyone has personified the failure of the Democratic establishment to provide the party with a distinct profile during the Bush presidency, it's Gephardt. As House Democratic leader, Gephardt clung to Bush's Iraq policy until it all but unraveled over the past month. Gephardt's endorsement last fall of the administration's war resolution effectively derailed a bipartisan effort in the Senate to require the White House to win more international backing. There was supposedly a method in this madness: By taking the war issue off the table, Gephardt argued, the Democrats could turn the midterm election campaign to questions of domestic policy, presumably their strong suit. We'll never know if this could have worked, because Gephardt and his fellow congressional leaders never developed a domestic message. To millions of die-hard Democrats, it looked as if their party had sacrificed its principles on the altar of pragmatism and then had nothing pragmatic to offer. Neither conscience nor opportunism was given its due, and the rank-and-file was mightily indignant. Howard Dean's genius was that he was the only serious Democratic presidential candidate to hear that rage and amplify it -- partly because he spent less time inside the Beltway and more on the road than any other candidate last year. Indignant himself about the Democrats' acquiescence in the war, he became the vehicle for the activists' indignation, too. Dean's critics have argued that his antiwar vehemence makes him unelectable in a general election; they may be right. Democratic Leadership Council stalwarts Al From and Bruce Reed have raised the specter of another McGovernesque debacle -- the liberals, like locusts, returning at 32-year intervals to devour their own party. But Democrats don't lose only when they move left as they did in 1972. In fact, Democrats also lose when liberals are so vexed with the party establishment and its nominee that they stay away from the polls, as they did in 1968 when the nomination went to Hubert Humphrey, who'd been the leading defender of Lyndon Johnson's war in Vietnam until just a few weeks before the November election. Besides, Dean is a poor facsimile of the forthrightly progressive George McGovern. On matters economic, he's often a model DLC centrist. Asked on "Meet The Press" last month about supporting a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, he answered, "I go back and forth on that one." If that's liberalism, Calvin Coolidge was a pinko. The candidate whom Dean more nearly resembles is the 1968 antiwar insurgent, Eugene McCarthy. Like McCarthy (and unlike McGovern), Dean directs much of his fire at fellow Democrats' backing for a questionable war. Like McCarthy, his supporters are overwhelmingly white middle-class professionals. Like McCarthy, he is more moderate than his supporters think he is, and surely more moderate than they are. And like McCarthy, he is likely not the strongest candidate the Democrats could put forth in November. But how much like Humphrey's candidacy are those of the current Democratic hawks, Gephardt and Joe Lieberman in particular? The radicalism of George W. Bush has concentrated Democratic minds, but are there liberals who would still hesitate to support a pro-war nominee even against Bush, as their forebears hesitated to support Humphrey even against Richard Nixon? A look at some numbers from last month's MoveOn "primary" suggests that might be the case. The left-leaning, antiwar online organization polled its members on their presidential preferences, and a clear plurality of voters favored Dean. Just as important, however, MoveOn also asked its voters which Democratic candidates they could enthusiastically support if those candidates won the nomination. Dean ran first here, too, with 86 percent backing, but the pro-war candidates fared notably less well. John Edwards came in fourth with 56 percent, Gephardt fifth with 53 percent and Lieberman eighth with 42 percent. (Al Sharpton ran ninth: MoveOn voters clearly thought him an implausible president, and Lieberman, an implausible Democrat.) The surprise was John Kerry, who ran a strong second with 75 percent. MoveOn voters -- a significant, if not necessarily representative, sample of liberal Democrats -- seem to have established a hierarchy of pro-war candidates. At the bottom is Lieberman, the most conservative candidate in the field; then Gephardt, the architect of the party's support for Bush's war; then Edwards, a not very critical supporter of that war; and finally, at the top, Kerry, who managed both to vote for the war and criticize it simultaneously. Some might call that incoherence, but of all the Democrats, Kerry is probably the best able to win support from all quadrants of the party. In message and manner, Kerry often still fails to connect with his listeners. But if he can put his own house in order, he's the candidate best positioned to unite a party that's not been this angry at itself since 1968. _____________________________ The writer is editor at large of the American Prospect. © 2003 The Washington Post Company commondreams.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (3605)	7/27/2003 8:05:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Email this to Senator Kerry... _____________________________________ Let's cut our losses in Iraq By HUBERT G. LOCKE SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER Friday, July 25, 2003 Since it started, I've avoided trying to write anything about our nation's war in Iraq, primarily because I find it immensely difficult to make much sense of what has taken place. But the nation's secretary of defense, I'm told, has written a book titled "Rumsfeld's Rules." I've not found occasion (or reason) to read it but, apparently, it contains such gems as "It's easier to get into a situation than to get out of one" or words to that effect. Clearly, it's a piece of advice he didn't share with his commander in chief before they decided to invade Iraq. It also goes a long way in helping me understand what has happened. It is now more than four months since that ill-fated adventure was launched and almost three since the announcement by President Bush that the military phase of the conquest was at an end. As the cover of the July 14 issue of Time magazine bluntly puts it: "Americans are still struggling to bring order out of chaos." An inside comment is even more candid: "Iraq is a mess" ... 146,000 U.S. soldiers, alongside the 600 civilians working for the Coalition Provisional Authority -- the United States' interim government for the country -- are "still struggling to police Iraq's streets, restore electricity, fix the economy, rebuild schools." All this in a nation that seems, for some strange reason, disinclined to show much gratitude for our having "liberated" it. The latest report from the Pentagon indicates the cost of this effort has doubled from its initial estimates -- to $3.9 billion a month. This sum, we are told, is only for military operations. It does not include the costs of reconstruction from the wreckage left by the military campaign. It also does not include the $950 million per month we're having to pay for operations in Afghanistan where, incidentally, conditions -- with the exception of those in that nation's capital -- seem to be about the same as they were before we went in there 18 months ago. So, while state and local governments across the nation totter on the verge of bankruptcy, vital federal programs from AmeriCorps to the National Weather Service have their budgets slashed and unemployment is at a new high, we're approaching a monthly outlay of close to $5 billion for two wars, neither of which seem to have accomplished their principal objectives. Now it seems we want to lessen the military burden on our country by persuading our allies to support the rebuilding effort in Iraq. Having gone out of our way to tick off a goodly number of other nations that might have come to our aid, it will be a remarkable achievement if this happens. According to Rumsfeld, 19 nations now have soldiers in Iraq and another 19 have promised to send troops. Rumsfeld states that the allied troops already committed together with those promised totals 30,000; if my math is correct, that averages less than 800 troops per country. That is hardly a display of hearty allied support. All of this might not be so disturbing were it not for another cost that these wars are incurring. Every day now the morning news brings word of another U.S. soldier's death -- one and sometimes two or more at a time our young men and women in uniform are having to make the ultimate sacrifice while in the prime of their lives for a cause that remains unclear to vast numbers of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world. This tragic situation is not likely to change anytime soon -- even the Pentagon acknowledges as much. Yet at some point, we will have to turn Iraq back to its citizens and, given the demographics of the country, inevitably this will mean a nation in which a Shiite majority holds the reins of political power. That reality likely will give us a nation that looks politically, and perhaps religiously, very much like its next-door neighbor -- Iran. We should get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Why not admit that we've accomplished little of what was our announced intent -- we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is more likely alive than dead and "democracy" in Iraq is likely to cause as many headaches for the United States as Saddam ostensibly did. Let's cut our losses, really support our troops and bring them home from the quagmire in Iraq. _______________________________________ Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington. seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (3605)	7/27/2003 8:39:57 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Impeaching George W. Bush ________________________________ By FRANCIS A. BOYLE Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law July 25, 2003 counterpunch.org With another Bush Family war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any Bill of Impeachment, convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested me and Ramsey Clark to come in to the meeting and argue the case for impeachment. Ramsey had launched his own campaign to impeach Bush Jr. et al. in mid-January 2003 at a peace rally held in Washington D.C. This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and me, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House. Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to International Executive Agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their Democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history! After two hours of most vigorous debate, the meeting adjourned with a second revised draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. Despite these efforts, President Bush Jr. started his war of aggression against Iraq on the evening of Wednesday 19 March 2003 with an attempt to assassinate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by means of a so-called "decapitation" strike, which was clearly illegal and criminal. Since then, Clark and I have accelerated our respective grassroots campaigns to impeach President Bush Jr. et al. Don Quixotes tilting at windmills?[ii] Not at all! In the run-up to his 1991 Gulf War, President Bush Sr. feared impeachment. Writing in his diary on 20 December 1990 about the impending war against Iraq, President Bush Sr recorded his fears of impeachment as follows: "But if it drags out, not only will I take the blame, but I will probably have impeachment proceedings filed against me."[iii] There are thus good grounds to believe that fear of impeachment compelled Bush Sr. to terminate the war early on 28 February 1991 with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still in power, thus avoiding innumerable and horrendous casualties for Americans and even more so for Iraqis. Thirteen years later, after President Bush Jr.'s invasion of Iraq, flush with "victory" and the arrogance of power, members of the Bush Jr. administration publicly threatened to attack Iran, Syria, and North Korea. In direct reaction to these threats, on 13 April 2003 former U.S. Secretary of State (under President Bush Sr., no less!) Lawrence Engleburger told the BBC:[iv] "If George Bush [Jnr] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes. In fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy." Almost immediately after Eagleburger's BBC broadside against them, the Bush Jr. warmongers cooled their public rhetoric and threats against Iran and Syria--but not North Korea. So the Bush Jr. administration has already stood down for the time-being from two further aggressions because of at least one public threat of impeachment. But as of this writing U.S. military, political and economic preparations are underway for a Bush Jr. war of aggression against North Korea. The American People and Congress must put the fear of impeachment into the highest levels of the Bush Jr. administration in order to prevent such a catastrophic war that could readily go nuclear.[v] Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. We need one Member of Congress with the courage, integrity, and principles of the late and great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. Otherwise, the alternative will be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. Police State at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain them--along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 (1949). Despite all of the serious flaws of the United States government that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today.[vi] We, the People of the United States, must fight to keep it that way![vii] And for the good of all humanity, we must terminate America's Imperial Presidency and subject it to the Rule of Law.[viii] Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution counterpunch.org Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU Notes . Ethan Wallison, Time to Impeach?, Roll Call, March 13, 2003, at 1. [ii]. Liz Halloran, Wartime Snapshots of American Life: Tilting at Presidents, Hartford Courant, March 30, 2003, at A3. [iii]. Laura Myers, Bush Describes Gulf War Quandary, Associated Press, Sept. 10, 1998, quoting from Bush's memoir A World Transformed (1998), which he co-authored with his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. See also Bush: Worried about Impeachment for Gulf War, The Hotline, Sept. 10, 1998; Institute for Public Accuracy, Bush Worried About Impeachment, Too, 28 Sept.1998 Press Release. [iv]. Ben Russell, U.S. Warns Syria Not to Provide Haven for Wanted Iraqis, The Independent (UK), April 14, 2003; Former Sec. Of State Lawrence Engleburger: Bush Should Be Impeached If He Invades Syria or Iran, Antiwar.com, April 14, 2003 (link to audio). [v]. Francis A. Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear War Deterrence: Could the U.S. War on Terrorism Go Nuclear? (2002). [vi]. See Akhil Reed Amar & Alan Hirsch, For the People (1998). [vii]. Francis A. Boyle, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law (1987; Special Paperback ed. 1988). [viii]. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency (1989). See also Michael Parenti, Against Empire (1995); John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (2003).

To: American Spirit who wrote (3605)	7/27/2003 10:33:55 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

'Are Neocons cooking their own goose?' Posted on Sunday, July 27 @ 09:50:07 EDT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Roger Patching, Sacramento Bee While many debate the wisdom of current efforts by neoconservatives in the Republican Party to create their vision of Pax Americana, I wonder if the historical outcome hasn't already been determined. That is, while Republicans on all sides worry about "containing" what was once considered a war behind closed doors between unilateralist hawks (the neocons) and multilateralist moderates in the party over a policy based upon U.S. hegemony -- world dominance -- I wonder if it isn't an already irreversibly failed policy simply because the American people were never seriously included by anyone, even the media, in the discussion. I wonder if the worldview of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, columnists William Kristol, Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Kagan and other members and leaders of the Defense Policy Board, American Enterprise Institute and The Project for a New American Century is already dead because not only did they not make a case for hegemony to the public, they never seriously attempted to even define the term or explain the concept. And, now, it is too late. Because the public has little understanding of the depth and breadth of their vision of global politics and is already growing weary of American involvement in Iraq, the neocons' grander plan seems destined to never come to fruition. By choosing to not present it directly to the public at large and thereby commence an examination and debate, they have unwittingly undermined it as a viable theory and now we are witnessing the manifestations of its slow and costly death. Their political penchant for cloaking their vision in immediate emotional (and presumably less complex) terms of righteously fighting terrorism and thwarting evil, instead of explaining their plan, has not served them well. People are confused, and the opportunity to teach hegemonic theory as a basis for American foreign policy has passed. Bush and the neocons are now viewed as not having a plan. Indeed, even as fragments of their worldview enter the public's consciousness, that they earlier chose to not share it with the public now taints it with suspicion and duplicity. Why has all this happened? Historians will have to sort it out. Certainly they will address whether the neocons were naïve and/or arrogant in believing that it was unnecessary to explain themselves to either the masses or dissidents in their own party. And, of course, it will be difficult to ignore the floundering of the Democrats. In addition, historians will surely need to examine the nature and quality of presidential leadership of both the GOP and public opinion. Bolstered by control of both houses of Congress, the moment was ripe for a clear public declaration of how an expensive and prolonged occupation of Iraq was but the first step in promoting world peace through global hegemony. Instead, the administration chose to create in the public mind the more appealing expectation that there would be no major American occupation, simply an invasion to liberate Iraqis. That the Bush people must now suffer the fallout from a bewildered and disillusioned public that still doesn't understand the endgame is due to how they chose to handle this issue. Why did these policy makers both in and out of government who refer to themselves affectionately as the "cabal" choose to neither explain nor build a case for the man on the street? After all, they have devoted years to formulating their program. The White House's "National Security Strategy of the U.S." released in September of 2002 is not greatly different from the plan Wolfowitz drafted in 1992 when he was undersecretary of defense for policy. Ironically, Kristol and Kagan wrote in a 1996 Foreign Affairs piece that one of the major conditions for the success of the neocons' plan for "Benevolent Global Hegemony" was that the public have a clear understanding of it in order to gain popular support. In this article, where they cast aside both the Wilsonian multilateralism of the Clinton administration and the neoisolationism of Buchananites while finding tepid the "realism" of Henry Kissinger and his disciples, they aggressively advanced their case for American unilateral global dominance and control. And, key to that, they cited "citizen involvement," along with an "increased defense budget" and "moral clarity." "Weak political leadership and a poor job of educating the citizenry to the responsibilities of global hegemony have created an increasingly distinct and alienated military culture. "It is foolish to imagine that the U.S. can lead the world effectively while the overwhelming majority of the population neither understands nor is involved with its international mission." They then proceed to attempt to dismantle arguments that Americans might not support such an ambitious policy. While they're right that they needed to mount a public relations campaign, it never occurred, and the public is consequently wondering what is going on. What's the plan for the future? The Third Army and their families wonder why they are still in Iraq, along with 150,000 other troops, with more preparing to rotate in. It is no longer unpatriotic to oppose what is going on. The deficit is skyrocketing and the supposed surplus (as if anyone actually has a surplus when they are deeply in debt) has vanished. Taxes that could be devoted to other things are needed now to service interest on the debt. Almost every state is in a budgetary crisis. Unemployment is at an all-time high. We have myriad problems at home and people are unclear about what we are doing abroad. Issues of both trust and credibility have loomed ever larger of late. And the rhetoric of the neocons isn't playing well anymore. So what is this hegemony theory all about and why is the public's general lack of awareness of it important? While my colleagues may dutifully criticize me for oversimplification, it isn't all that complicated. All governments conduct all policies based upon theories of what is happening, what ought to happen and why. Therein lies the endless debate that characterizes all democracies. The impetus for and nature of current American operations in Iraq and elsewhere are consistent with the theory of hegemony that drives the neocons in charge. While they were not able to sell it to Bush senior or Clinton, they were successful with Bush junior. Hegemony theory focuses on the rise and decline of global and regional superpowers, or "hegemons." From the Greek "hegemonia" (the predominance of one state over another), it examines the causes and effects, pros and cons, of the dominance of one state over a region or the world. The theory partly attempts to explain global stability and instability during the last few centuries and assumes that stable world order requires a dominant single leader to maintain order. The dominance of a single great power is necessary to keep peace, punish wrongdoers and prevent competition and conflict among rivals from spinning out of control, causing problems for commercial transactions and jeopardizing international military security. The dominance of Portugal followed by the Netherlands in the 16th and 17th century and then joined by the British later during the 18th and 19th centuries are often cited as examples. Modern usage of the word is generally traced to an Italian, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who discussed hegemony in terms of how a new elite class emerges and becomes ideologically and therefore politically dominant because the masses accept, if not adopt, its moral and intellectual leadership. The elite shapes public opinion to serve its interests, which are often contrary to that of the masses. The hegemonic class leads its nation-state to acquire unrivaled power to reshape the existing system by making and enforcing rules which they believe will preserve both world order and its own dominant position. Hegemonic control, of course, imposes great stress and expense on the population of the hegemon because it must bear the costs of global political and economic order while protecting itself and its empire. In time, so argue critics, this becomes increasingly burdensome, actually making the hegemon vulnerable. New rivals arise leading to the demise of one hegemon and the dominance of another, often through war or internal collapse. Hence, national and international understanding and support of the beliefs of the hegemon's elite class are essential to the longevity of hegemonic power. In opposition to this theory of unilateral control are those who argue that, in the modern world, multilateral problem solving is, by its very nature, more democratic in practice and therefore is more likely to build democratic institutions and cooperation in all forms of international relations. Putting Democrats completely aside, the division on this issue, both within and among departments and agencies of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, has silenced the clear articulation of the theory to the American public. Americans want to do the right thing and have their government do the right thing, but are becoming increasingly confused. They don't know that Iraq was targeted for our hegemonic expansion, along with other regions, well before Sept. 11, 2001. They don't know that Iraqi oil reserves were central to U.S. energy planning by this administration prior to the attack by mostly Saudis on the Twin Towers. They don't know that we invaded Iraq without an exit strategy because hegemons don't leave and that Iraqi sovereignty is not part of the agenda. They are not aware that there is a global theory at work and Iraq is just part of it. While Kristol and Kaplan in their book, "The War Over Iraq" (sponsored by The Project for a New American Century), explain that "the mission is more than Iraq" and elaborate how Iraq is just the beginning of the execution of the new role of the U.S. in the 21st century, the Bush administration has not connected the dots for Americans about this grander vision. The public has not been told that this hegemonic plan targets other significant nation-states all over the world for unilateral American domination. Foreign ruling elites, however, have read and studied the policy pieces written by the neocons in support of American hegemony. That is partly why we had and continue to have difficulty obtaining allies. There is no place in hegemonic theory for multilateral cooperation, only imposed cooperation. Americans wonder why they have to foot the roughly $4 billion to $5 billion a month bill for Iraq alone. They don't understand that much of the world does not want American hegemonic plans to succeed. It is philosophically difficult for neocons to dilute America's status as a hegemon by seeking assistance from other nations, and yet they are fully aware that many in and out of the administration want just that. This partly explains the administration's less than fervent effort to secure foreign assistance in the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the reluctance of those coaxed nations to participate without the involvement of a countervailing force such as the United Nations. While Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is on the multilateral side of the issue, can be considered earnest in his desire, along with many others, to share the burden and the control that accompanies the occupation of Iraq, the posture of the administration so far has been hegemonic. This awkward division fuels skeptics and undermines the credibility of both positions at home and abroad. Worse, in terms of credibility, is the advice provided by Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national security official and key neocon strategist. Author of a 1999 book entitled "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership," and a more recent publication, "The War Against the Terror Masters," he is quite comfortable advising that "lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." Such "strategic deception" is presumably morally justifiable as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. So, given this operational premise, how can one discern, here or abroad, the difference between governmental information and disinformation, truth and lies? While we shall clearly be deeply involved in Iraq for years to come, maybe the end of the necons' global vision is already a done deal. Given the litany of current problems at home and worries of an Iraqi quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam, this is not a good time to explain the true nature, plans and cost of world hegemony. The public has not been prepared for it and now wouldn't accept it. We are probably witnessing the beginning of the end of this experiment, and it will pass into history, as have many other grand schemes, with most Americans not having ever known anything about it at all. That is, of course, unless the Democrats somehow become united in their effort to recapture the White House and seize the opportunity to confront the administration and demand an explanation of the nature and basis of its muddled policy. The documents and articles are available. Many Republicans despise hegemonic theory. And, easy links to the status of the economy and uncertainty regarding the future can be drawn. Contrary to common rhetoric, it is not always necessary to have an alternative plan. While perhaps not fashionable, history is replete with successful negative campaigns against individuals, parties and issues at all levels of government. GOP leaders were so confident in 1920 that they could get anyone elected because of the lack of clarity from a badly divided Democratic Party, led by a crusading president incapacitated by a stroke, that they deliberately ran a dull-witted unknown, Warren Harding, to an easy victory. Their slogan: "Let us be done with the wiggle and the wobble." They promised only a return to "normalcy." FDR promised a "New Deal" and offered almost no specifics, but that was enough. If Bush wishes to stay in office, he may need to officially abandon, much to the chagrin of "the cabal," the unilateralism and expense that accompany global hegemony, or Americans may decide in 2004 that they want a different future. ____________________ Roger Patching is chairman of the History and Political Science Department of Cosumnes River College in Sacramento and director of the Cultural Socialization Research Studies Project. He specializes in international relations. Reprinted from The Sacramento Bee: sacbee.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (3605)	7/27/2003 12:01:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Dean to President Bush: "It's Time For The Truth." ___________________________________________ t r u t h o u t \| Statement Friday 25 July 2003 truthout.org Former Vermont governor says American people should know the true intentions behind Bush administration's agenda (July 25, 2003) Des Moines, IA--Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made the following statement today while campaigning in Iowa: "When George W. Bush ran for president three years ago, he promised us an era of responsibility in Washington--instead we've got an era of irresponsibility unparalleled in our history. A week after discovering that the cost of occupying Iraq will be double the original estimates, we found out that the nation's deficit is 50 percent higher than estimated just five months ago. In fact, during his two-and-a-half years in office, the President has misled us, the American people, on nearly every policy initiative his administration has put forth. "Trust and credibility are at the very heart of the relationship between a government and its people. And that trust demands that leaders level with the people about what they are doing, the reason they are doing it and the consequences of their actions. The very soul of democracy is at risk when leaders are not straight and truthful with the people. "By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent. "Last week I asked sixteen questions about the war in Iraq that must be answered if the American people are to understand the truth around the rush to war and the failure to plan for peace. "These questions are, however, only one piece of a far broader practice by this administration of misleading the American people and breaching the fundamental trust that they have placed in their elected leadership. This practice goes far beyond misleading the country and the world about the reasons for taking us to war in Iraq, this practice extends into the state of the nation's economy, its environment, its schools and beyond. "Mr. President, today I call on you to level with the American people not just about the situation in Iraq but about the true intentions behind the agenda your Administration is pursuing: · "You claimed that your tax cuts would create jobs. Instead we have three million fewer jobs in our economy than when you took office. · "You claimed that we would only run deficits that were small and temporary. Instead, we now face deficits in excess of $455 billion--the largest in history--and red ink as far as the eye can see. · "You claimed that your tax cuts would strengthen and stimulate the economy. Instead, we have record numbers of personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures, and an unemployment rate that is the highest in 9 years. · "You claimed that the deficits were caused by the costs of 9/11, the war on terror, and homeland security. In fact, the cost of your tax cuts is three times the amount of those items--and your deficit forecasts do not even include the costs of the Iraq war. · "You claimed that your education program would live up to its name and that No Child would be Left Behind. Instead, school districts all across the country, including in your home state of Texas, are dumbing down their tests to ensure that their schools are not labeled as needing improvement. No Child Left Behind turns out to be a huge unfunded mandate on local governments that now must raise property taxes or find other sources of revenue to meet their legal obligations under the Act. · "You named your environmental initiatives 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' when the truth is that Clear Skies allows more pollutants into the air and Healthy Forests is little more than a bill to reward the logging industry. · "You claimed that national and community service are central to your vision for the country. Instead, you have sat idly by while membership in the program is threatened to be cut by 80 percent. · "And you visited soldiers wounded in Afghanistan on January 17th and had the audacity to promise to 'provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way' when the previous day your Department of Veteran's Affairs cut off health care access to 164,000 veterans. "Mr. President, it is time for the truth. It is time for the truth on Iraq but, more importantly, it is time to level with the American people on the true intentions of your administration. It is time to end the empty rhetoric and false promises. The issues at stake are too serious: the lives of our soldiers; the livelihood of our families; the health of our children; the future of our world. "Let us instead work together to rebuild our national community-a community where we truly do not leave any child behind, where we preserve clean skies and healthy forests, and fulfill Harry Truman's dream of health care for all Americans. We must preserve the fiscal trust for our children and grandchildren and ensure that our seniors have access to the Social Security and Medicare that we promised them. "Let's give people a reason to care about their government and to engage in politics again-to believe that their opinions matter and that their leaders listen. Let us work together to take our country back and to restore our lost idealism-to restore our moral force in the world community and to make this a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. We can do this, and we will-one voter, one supporter at a time. We will end the empty rhetoric and make the American people believe again." The following information contrasts the administration's assertions with what the administration has actually done: ECONOMY Assertion: President Bush: "Government cannot manage or control the economy." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003) Truth: George W. Bush's administration cannot manage or control the economy. Assertion: "This budget . . . is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth [and] to generate jobs" (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002) Truth: Since January 2001, over three million jobs have been lost. (WSJ, 7/24/03) Assertion: ". . . [O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term." (President Bush, State of the Union address, 1/28/2003) Truth: "... by 2013 the deficit will reach $530 billion or 3.0 of Gross Domestic product, equivalent to $2,300 for each household in America. In addition, such a policy of amassing ever greater debt over the next decade will cause the cost of annual interest payments on the debt to soar to $425 billion a year by 2013. . ." (CBPP, $300 Billion Deficits, As Far as the Eye Can See, 7/8/2003) Assertion: "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage growth." (President Bush, Western Michigan University remarks, 3/27/2001) Truth: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% (NYT, 6/27/03) Assertion: "Now, you hear talk about deficits. And I'm concerned about deficits. I'm sure you are as well. But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003) Truth: The CBPP reports, "Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism--including the action in Afghanistan--are counted as 'war costs,' along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq." (Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 8 July 2003) Assertion: "The minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession. And that's why I went to Congress for a tax package." (President Bush, Canton, Ohio, remarks, 4/24/2003) Truth: Bush was inaugurated in January 2001; the recession began in March 2001. He did not inherit a recession. Moreover, the tax package he took to Congress was the same one on which he had campaigned. (National Bureau of Economic Research; Richard Kogan, "War, Tax Cuts, and the Deficit," CBPP, 7/8/2003) Assertion: "The growth and jobs plan I outlined earlier this year will provide critical momentum to our economic recovery. For every American paying income taxes, I propose speeding up the tax cuts already approved by the Congress." (President Bush's budget message, 2/3/2003) Truth: Ten recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science said Bush's plan would not provide a short-term boost and would create long-term budget deficits. Franco Modigliani (MIT), who received the Nobel in 1985, called Bush's plan "preposterous." Daniel McFadden, the 2000 recipient, described the plan as a "weapon of mass destruction aimed at the middle class." (Blanton, The Boston Globe, 2/12/2003) Assertion: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (President Bush, Radio Address, 4/26/2003) Truth: "Analysis shows that 8.1 million lower and middle-income taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes, will receive no tax reduction under the legislation." (Robert Greenstein, CBPP, 6/1/2003) Assertion: "We have priorities at home as well--restoring health to our economy above all. Our economy had begun to weaken over a year before September 11th, but the terrorist attack dealt it another severe blow. This budget advances a bipartisan economic recovery plan that provides much more than greater unemployment benefits: it is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth, to generate jobs, and to give unemployed Americans the dignity and security of a paycheck instead of an unemployment check." (President Bush's budget message, 2/4/2002) Truth: During the first quarter of this year, GDP rose at a sluggish rate of 1.4% and 1.2% of mortgages were in foreclosure, setting a record high. The unemployment rate climbed to a nine-year high of 6.4% in June. Setting a new record, 1.6 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy last year. (NYT, 6/27/03; USA Today, 7/10/03; WSJ 7/24/03; U.S. News & World Report; 7/21/03) Assertion: In his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said, "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations." Truth: The White House released a deficit projection in July, 2003 of $455 billion. (Source: "White House Sees a 455 Billion Gap in the 03 Budget" New York Times David E. Rosenbaum 7/16/03) EDUCATION Assertion: In January 2003, Bush defended No Child Left Behind: "The main reservations we've heard in the year since we passed the reform have come from some adults, not the children, who say the testing requirement is an unfunded mandate on the states. Well, that's not true. We put up $387 million to provide for testing ...We demanded excellence. We're going to pay for the accountability systems to make sure that we do get excellence." (Official statements, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1/13/03) Truth: The GAO released a report that the new testing will cost the states between $1.9 and $5.3 billion. (GAO Report, "Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, May 2003) The FY 2004 Bush budget request was only $387 million; Congress has already appropriated $771, which still leaves a shortfall of $742 million. (Congressional Press Release, 5/8/03) Assertion: President Bush: "You don't teach the test when it comes to literacy. We went to a Title 1 classroom -- or a classroom with Title 1 students in it, where the teacher was using some of the most advanced thought about teaching reading, a balanced approach including phonics. You teach a child to read and he or her (sic) will be able to pass a literacy test. I don't buy teaching the test as an excuse to have a system that doesn't hold people accountable for results." (Townsend Elementary School, Tennessee 2/21/2001) Truth: In Texas, the board voted to reduce the number of questions that students must answer correctly to pass third grade reading exams from 24 out of 36 to 20. In Michigan, officials lowered the percentage of students who must pass statewide tests to certify a school as making adequate yearly progress to 42% from 75% of high school students on English tests. And Colorado overhauled the grading system used on its tests, lumping students previously characterized on the basis of test scores as "partially proficient" with those called "proficient". ("States are Relaxing Education Standards to Avoid Sanctions from Federal Law," Sam Dillon, New York Times, 5/22/03) Assertion: In April 2002, Bush praised Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program: "One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important...And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you." Truth: Bush has since proposed cutting the Even Start budget by 20% (Associated Press, 2/4/2002) HOMELAND SECURITY Assertion: One program, the Container Security Initiative, which would screen cargo at foreign ports, was specifically endorsed by Bush last June. "The Customs Service," he told an audience in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, "is working with overseas ports and shippers to improve its knowledge of container shipments, assessing risk so that we have a better feel of who we ought to look at, what we ought to worry about." Truth: Bush's budget provides no new funding for the program. (New Republic, March 2003) HEALTH CARE Assertion: In March 2001, Bush pledged to support children's hospitals: "This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality...There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded." Truth: Bush's first budget proposed cutting grants to children's hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children's hospitals. ("Caught on Film: the Bush Credibility Gap," House Minority Appropriations Committee) ENVIRONMENT Assertion: On Earth Day, in April 2002, Bush said, "Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals." Truth: The Clear Skies plan would "generate millions more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and allow three times more mercury emissions than current law." And according to EPA estimates, "the plan would have the effect of raising the amount of coal burned by power companies... potentially generating 50 percent more sulfur emissions and delaying by up to 10 years major cuts in sulfur emissions required by the Clean Air Act." (League of Conservation Voters 2003 Presidential Report Card) Assertion: Pres. Bush: "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, within a reasonable period of time." (September 29, 2000 file footage, ABC News) Truth: Ted Koppel reported that "... the original pledge [to regulate carbon dioxide] was written off as sloppy work by a campaign speechwriter. The president was persuaded to drop a line restating the pledge from his speech to Congress. Two weeks later, it was officially dead."(Nightline, April 25, 2001) Assertion: President Bush: "I have sent you a healthy forest initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests. I urge you to pass these measures for the good of both our environment and our economy." (January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address) Truth: "Bush's 'Healthy Forests' initiative likewise suffers from Orwellian doublespeak, felling Western forests to save them. Disguised as a measure for curbing wildfires, the plan invites logging companies to cut healthy trees in national forests while reducing public oversight. Ironically, the probable cause of recent catastrophic fires is global warming, a problem that most Republicans deny." (By Glen Scherer for salon.com January 6, 2003) AMERICORPS AND NATIONAL SERVICE Assertion: In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush promised to expand AmeriCorps: "Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers." (State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003) Truth: The funding of AmeriCorps is currently in conference as part of the emergency supplemental bill. Although the Senate has moved to restore/increase funding, the House is resisting such attempts. As it now stands, membership in AmeriCorps would be slashed by 80%. Throughout the public debate on the subject, Bush has not taken any action to persuade the House to increase or restore the funding. (David Broder House Senate Feuds end up targeting innocent victims, Chicago Tribune- 7/22/03; "AmeriCorps May Still Win Extra Funding; Associated Press,7/22/03) Assertion: In January 2003, Bush praised the Boys and Girls Club: "I want to thank the Boys & Girls Clubs across the country...The Boys & Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys & Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help." ("George W. Bush Delivers Remarks on First Anniversary of the USA Freedom Corps," FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/30/02) Truth: In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed cutting all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club. Assertion: In January of 2002, Bush had praised Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp while visiting Booker T. Washington High School in Atlanta: Out of an idea came the desire to convince folks to teach in schools that are having trouble getting teachers. And she has succeeded way beyond what people thought a single person could do." ("Professional Educators, Politicians and Students Show Support for Teach for America Program in Atlanta," Minority Professional Network, 1/31/02) Truth: On July 11, 2003, Teach for America (TFA) was notified it would not receive any funding from the Corporation for National Community Service, the agency responsible for AmeriCorps funds. TFA expected $2 million in grants and leaves TFA short 2,700 education awards for its teachers out of 3,300 corps members who will be teaching this year. ("Teach for America Shut Out of Americorps National Funding Awards," TFA web site, 7/15/03) VETERANS AFFAIRS Assertion: On January 17, 2003, Bush visited 5 soldiers injured in Afghanistan at the Walter Reed Medical Center. He praised Army doctors and said, "We should and must provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way." ("Bush Visits Soldiers Mending from Afghanistan Wounds," Associated Press, 1/17/03) Truth: The previous day, Bush's Department of Veterans Affairs announced it was cutting off access to its health care system for 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll in the current fiscal year. ("VA Cuts Some Veterans Access to Health Care," Washington Post, 1/17/03) HOUSING Assertion: In June 2002, Bush visited an Atlanta housing project that used HUD's HOPE VI grants: "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." (Remarks by President George Bush re: Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership," Federal News Service, 6/17/02) Truth: The President's 2004 budget cut all HOPE VI funding. AGRICULTURE Assertion: In April 2002, at the South Dakota Ethanol Plant, Bush said, "I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy." Truth: The plant had received $602,000 in 2001 under Clinton's Bioenergy Program. Bush cut the plant's bioenergy program in his 2004 budget. ("Ag Department Biodiesel, Ethanol Program May Be Renewed," Associated Press, 4/22/02)