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: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 7:11:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Rove will NEVER be worried as long as you don't have to play by the rules. Yet, he helped drive this nation into a war where our President and his team used faulty intelligence to justify their decision. What about the American soldiers who die every week in Iraq...? What about the $5 billion U.S. tax dollars we have to spend each month in order to fund the adventure over in Iraq...? Rove NEVER wanted the Congress to have a thorough and effective debate on the wisdom of going to war with Iraq...He wanted to push hard with the imminent threat and patriotism themes...He did that too...Look at the quagmire we are in...Many respected Republicans (like Senator Richard Lugar) are not pleased either.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 7:36:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
The Old-style Tactics used in the 'War on Terror' Won't Work on Al-Qaida

Bumbling Bush may have Given Osama an Open Goal
by Simon Tisdall
Published on Monday, August 4, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

Fear of attack, rather than the attack itself, is the terrorist's most potent weapon. And despite all the declared successes of George Bush's "war on terror", fear of major new outrages by al-Qaida and its partners in mayhem is once again on the rise.

The immediate question, as ever, is how to prevent such attacks before they happen. The larger question is why, after Afghanistan and Iraq and everything else that has been said and done by western leaders since 9/11, this threat apparently remains so omnipresent - and so scary.

The past few days alone have brought fresh warnings whose non-specific nature only intensifies the vague, nagging sense of menace. In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security raised the specter of renewed suicide hijackings. Another 9/11-style attack "could be executed by the end of the summer 2003", it said. "Attack venues may include the United Kingdom ... or the east coast of the United States."

US opinion polls indicating falling confidence in Bush's conduct of the "war on terror" found an echo at the UN. Heraldo Munoz, chairman of the al-Qaida sanctions committee, said international collaboration was slipping.

Only 30% of UN members were meeting their obligation to report al-Qaida movements and financing, he said. "Individuals or entities associated with al-Qaida" were still able to acquire weapons and explosives where and when they needed them, as shown by several recent attacks.

Inocencio Arias, chief of the UN's counter-terrorism committee, was hardly more encouraging in a week when a Congressional inquiry criticized 9/11 intelligence failures. "After two years, a lot of people are sleeping again," Arias said. Withholding assistance would be a less tactful way of putting it.

In London, meanwhile, the Commons foreign affairs committee warned that Osama bin Laden still has the capability "to lead and guide the organization towards further atrocities". The committee also finally reached a conclusion that opponents of the Iraq invasion arrived at long ago: that "the war in Iraq might in fact have impeded the war against al-Qaida", in part by attracting recruits. In any event, threat levels had not been significantly reduced.

The reasons why al-Qaida and like-minded groups have survived the post-9/11 onslaught are discussed by Harvard's Jessica Stern in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. Al-Qaida has shown a surprising ability to adapt, she argues, by forging new local and regional alliances, embracing additional objectives, changing tactics and eschewing formal hierarchies to encourage "leaderless resistance".

If they are ever to defang and defuse the "totalitarian Islamist revivalism" that constitutes al-Qaida's main inspiration and appeal, Stern says, the US and its allies must exhibit similar adaptability and innovation and more imaginative remedies for east-west alienation.

It is at this point that the doubts about Bush's divisive and frequently crude leadership of the "war on terror" come more sharply into focus. Bush is accused of many things - but never of being imaginative. From the very start, and despite much spin and waffle about fighting a new kind of conflict by unconventional means, Bush has opted for the obvious.

In Afghanistan, nebulous al-Qaida networks posed a complex and subtle challenge. Bush's solution? Invade the country and overthrow its rulers. The Taliban may have had it coming; but that is hardly the point. This was the old-style "overwhelming force" approach long favored by US presidents, Daddy Bush included.

The Iraq campaign was conducted, for whatever reason (and many were given), on much the same principle: kick the door down, then charge in - and to hell with the wider consequences. While such behavior brings quick, short-term results and may be superficially gratifying, innovative or imaginative it definitely is not.

These tactics bear little relation to an effective defense against terrorism in the round, let alone to tackling its root causes. Many al-Qaida in Afghanistan were merely dispersed; now they are returning. As for Iraq, they were never there in the first place.

Deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz still insists that "Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror". In reality, he is now trying disingenuously to redefine all Iraqi opponents of US occupation as "terrorists" - as somehow one and the same as the people who blew up Manhattan. It won't wash.

The continuing cost of Iraq in terms of ruptured alliances, global tension, economic disruption, Muslim animosity and the daily grief of both occupiers and occupied surely gives great comfort to America's true ideological and cultural enemies. How they must gloat.

The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, tried in his usual calming way to put some pieces back together last week. He called for a new sense of common endeavor among nations repelled by Bush's policies in order to meet the challenges posed by global terrorism. Even as he spoke, Bush, discussing Palestine with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon by his side, was busy leading his terror crusade down its next blind alley.

Sharon has long sought to portray Israel's conflict with the Palestinians as part and parcel of the US-led "war on terror". Judging by his latest comments, Bush has entirely embraced this view. Terrorism was the issue that overrode all others, he suggested; and peace was conditional on the prior dismantling of all terrorist groups - Sharon's position exactly.

The fundamental flaw in this approach is that, unlike Bush and Sharon, most of the world does not regard Palestinian resistance to occupation in the same light as the activities of al-Qaida and allied transnational groups with their much broader, insurrectionary aims.

Palestinian grievances are specific, easily understood and well-rehearsed. The likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are utterly wrong to attack Israeli civilians. But by lumping together Palestinian hardliners with far more virulent international terrorist gangs, Bush confuses the two issues to the detriment of solutions to both.

This blurring of distinctions actually fans extremism and polarization and the sort of foreign meddling in Palestine by Iran, Syria and Lebanon's Hizbullah that the US so regularly decries. Crucially, by such simplistic analysis, Bush further discredits and undermines international support for his wider anti-terror campaign.

Here once again is Bush's unimaginative "for us or against us" approach, the "good guys v bad guys" routine. Once again he fails to see how daft - and how dangerous - this is. Little wonder that US senators worry that the administration has taken its eye off the ball. With the bumbling Bush as "war on terror" team captain, little wonder if the dread Osama believes he is again staring at an open goal.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

commondreams.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 8:04:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
TWO-OF-A-KIND DEPT.
______________________________________________

WAR GAME
The New Yorker
Issue of 2003-08-11
newyorker.com

With the recent deaths of the Baath Party’s prodigal sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, the number of active cards in the centcom-issued Iraqi “most wanted” decks has dwindled to sixteen; those with familiar names on them number just two—Saddam and Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. Chemical Ali. Not a four-of-a-kind remains intact, nor is there a single queen. So, as the search in Iraq narrows for the ace of spades himself, it seems only natural that a rival set of cards should emerge.

Last week, a complementary geopolitical deck of Bush Cards began circulating in these parts. Instead of the camouflage design recognizable from the backs of the Iraqi edition, the new cards feature a blue-on-white likeness of President Bush, set against a backdrop of small “W”s, missiles, pretzels, and oil rigs. On the flip side, in place of the various mustachioed Revolutionary Command Council ministers, are photos of fifty-two members and friends of the Bush Administration, from George (ace of spades, of course) to Jeb (six of clubs) and on down to Medicare administrator Tom Scully (two of clubs).

Selecting the proper roster took some care, it turns out, and many popular candidates, including Laura Bush and the twins, were ultimately nixed, as Zach Levy, the man behind the Bush Cards, explained the other day. “Barbara and Jenna, as silly and ridiculous as they are, haven’t killed as many people as the Hussein kids have,” he said. “We didn’t want to leave ourselves open to mudslinging.” Levy, a native New Yorker with a background in independent media, conceived the idea with his friends Ben Dailey and Ryan Deussing back in May, after President Bush had declared the war in Iraq over. “We spent the previous six months trying to get embedded, but no one would call us back,” Levy said. “So this project is the result of that.”

The deck, which is now available on the Web for five dollars, was arranged especially with poker in mind, such that it is possible to score big, for instance, with a unique “Enron pair” (Ken Lay, three of clubs, and Thomas White, three of hearts), or with an “environmental flush” (all spades): Christie Todd Whitman, the resigned E.P.A. chief; Gale Norton and J. Steven Griles, of the Department of the Interior; Energy Secretary Spencer (S.U.V.) Abraham; and John D. Graham, the so-called Regulations Czar. But it is also tempting to imagine playing a hand or two of Hearts with the cards, and dumping F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller (eight of spades) on an opponent in an attempt to shoot the moon, from Andrew (Yoda) Marshall, the octogenarian Pentagon strategist (and two of hearts), through King Wolfowitz and Ace Rumsfeld. “With the exception of Ari Fleischer”—a ten—“the hearts are all basically warriors,” Levy said.

A couple of card enthusiasts recently decided that, given the existence of both an Iraqi and an American deck, the most appropriate game might in fact be War. One of them armed himself with a set of Bush Cards, the other with centcom’s most wanted. At first, it seemed easy enough. Under-Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith (nine of hearts) scored an early victory over a Baath Party regional chairman (two of diamonds), but soon Tom Ridge (jack of hearts) got beat by a deputy Army commander (king of clubs). In the first major skirmish—a protracted battle began when the former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mercer Reynolds (two of spades), met the Baath representative from Maysan (two of clubs)—Saddam and Uday Hussein slipped away with an oil minister, untouched, as one of Saddam’s nephews (king of hearts) bested Lieutenant-General Jay Garner (four of hearts). John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, and John Negroponte were collateral losses.

The Bush team recovered, with decisive wins by Lewis Libby (king of clubs), Karl Rove (king of spades), and George Tenet (jack of clubs), and, at the conclusion of the first pass through the decks, the Americans appeared to be in good shape. Before long, though, it became difficult to determine who was on which side. One round dragged into the next with no clear resolution in sight. A much hoped for Bush-Saddam showdown never materialized. Meanwhile, a noncombatant who’d been observing the game offered his opinion: “Quagmire.”

Levy, for his part, had not anticipated such a use for the Bush Cards. He was more concerned about humorless conservatives. “Hopefully, people will laugh, at least, before they punch us,” he said.

After a while, the two warring opponents called a truce and began separating the decks again, so that they might each play solitaire.

— Ben McGrath



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 8:26:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
John Kerry announces that he will hold a series of discussions on the Economy

johnkerry.com

Wednesday July 30, 2003

Sets Goal to Restore the 2.7 Million Jobs Lost in the Bush Economy in the First 500 Days of His Presidency

Today in Conway, New Hampshire John Kerry announced that he is going to hold a series of discussions over the next several weeks on the economy, including stops at diners, union halls, living rooms and places of employment. Kerry will use these meetings as an opportunity to listen to ideas from workers around the country and to develop a comprehensive plan to restore the economy and create new jobs. He also announced a new goal to restore the more than 2 million jobs lost in the Bush economy in the first 500 days of his Presidency. Kerry outlined a series of issues his economic plan will focus on including:

Expanding Efforts to Train and Retrain Workers. A highly trained workforce is a vital resource and the only real economic advantage America can have in a fast moving international economy. John Kerry believes that we need to make it easier for workers to get the training they need with tax credits and loan programs and we need to assure that our large corporations are doing their part to invest in their workers.

Ending Policies That Starve States and Cause Them to Layoff Workers, Raise Taxes. States are struggling under the worst fiscal crisis in decades and are facing a cumulative budget gap of $90 billion next year. New York State alone is facing a $10 billion shortfall next year. Across the country critical education and health programs have been slashed, workers have been laid off and taxes have been raised in order to balance state budgets. John Kerry has made it a priority to get fiscal help to the states and was a champion of the recent effort to provide New York State with $2.2 billion in immediate relief, which he believes is just a down payment on further relief.

Make Investments in Homeland Security, Infrastructure, and Transportation. Kerry also believes that improvements in infrastructure are long overdue. It's how you create jobs. It's how you move products. It's how you make our cities work. This includes building high-speed rail where it makes sense, which can create jobs, reduce traffic and help people and products get where they need to go.

Replacing the Current Hodgepodge of College Savings Programs and Tax Credits with a Financing Plan that Means Every Student Can Afford to Go to College. Americans cannot get the skills they need in a 21st century economy in an education system that was based on the American economy at the start if World War II. The current patchwork of tax credits and grant programs to help pay for some of college expenses should be replaced by a comprehensive plan to make four years of college affordable for all.

Assuring That Every Worker Gets the Unemployment Insurance They Deserve. Nearly 9 million workers are currently unemployed. Kerry believes that providing unemployment benefits to all Americans who have lost their job is the right thing to do for workers and for America's economy. Unlike President Bush, Kerry also believes that the over one million workers who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits without finding a job should get relief. These workers, including 103,000 in New York State, are not eligible for President Bush's unemployment insurance extension, even though they would have been eligible during every other recession in the last 40 years. These workers are growing desperate because jobs are simply not available and they are especially likely to have fallen into poverty and into debt.

Helping Employer and Employees Alike By Stopping Spiraling Health Care Costs. Health care costs are increasing by double digits making it hard for employees and employers alike to afford health care. In fact, in some small businesses health care premiums are rising 20 times higher than wages. John Kerry has a comprehensive plan to stop spiraling health care costs that are strangling small businesses and making it hard for families to make ends meet. This includes allowing small businesses to buy into the same plan their member of Congress gets today, closing loopholes and unfair financial incentives that keep the cost of prescription drugs high, and cutting paperwork and reducing errors that saves costs.

Helping America's Small Businesses Become an Engine of Growth to Create New Jobs. John Kerry believes that small business can help create jobs and help revitalize the economy. He supports incentives to help businesses invest, expand, and create jobs. For example, he supports addressing the capital funding gap for those fast-growing small businesses by allowing them to defer tax liability if the funds are reinvested in the business. An independent economic analysis shows that this tax change alone would create more than 600,000 jobs in the first three years by facilitating business growth. He also supports a temporary job creation tax credit for employers who hire new employees or increase existing salaries.

Bolstering Parts of the Country Particularly Hard Hit By the Bush Economy. Kerry knows that particular parts of the country have been hit particularly hard, and will need special, focused attention: farm states, our inner cities, and smaller cities that were heavily dependent on manufacturing. Part of the goal of Kerry's town hall meetings on the economy is to hear these concerns and develop responses to them. For example, he has supported a tax credit for wages of up to $3,000 per employee, available to businesses that locate in communities experiencing population loss and low job growth rates similar to that of upstate New York.

Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil and Creating New Jobs With a Bold New Energy Policy. John Kerry believes that by promoting alternative sources of energy and developing smarter ways to use energy we can create thousands of well-paying new jobs in research, technology and manufacturing sectors. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, our economy will also be less vulnerable to supply interruptions and price instability.

Ending the Fiscal Recklessness of the Bush Administration. This Administration has the worst economic record of any modern President. No President since World War II has seen job losses during his tenure, but President Bush is poised to be the first.

Under his stewardship, more than 75,000 jobs have been lost per month. The economy grew at a rate of 0.3 percent in 2001 and 2.4 percent in 2002 -- the worst two years of economic growth since 1990-91. Yet this President's answer has been the same: cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and run up the deficit to starve the government. John Kerry believes we need to restore fiscal discipline and focus tax cuts on middle class Americans.

Cutting Reckless Government Spending and Closing Corporate Loopholes. John Kerry believes that we should start restoring fiscal discipline and our economy by cutting corporate welfare and closing corporate loopholes that allow large companies to avoid paying taxes. He also supports Senator McCain's idea to have a bipartisan commission to review and get rid of wasteful spending.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 8:36:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Disdain for Bush Simmers in Democratic Strongholds

By ROBIN TONER
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 4, 2003

DES MOINES, July 31 — While Democratic leaders in Washington debate strategy and demographics for the 2004 election — the wisdom of campaigning from the left, right or center — something far more visceral is at work in the first caucus state, and in other Democratic redoubts.

There is a powerful disdain for the Bush administration, stoked by the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the continuing lag in the economy. There is also a conviction that President Bush is eminently beatable and a hunger to hear their party's leaders and candidates make the case against him — straight up, from the heart rather than the polling data.

It is not simply a lurch to the left, many Democrats say; it could, in fact, lead caucus voters to more centrist candidates, if they seem most likely to defeat Mr. Bush in the general election.

Tom Rusk, a state welfare worker who turned out this week to see Senator John Kerry in Fort Dodge, Iowa, describes himself as "pretty liberal." He says he likes what he hears from former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and from Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, but he worries that both candidates could be "Dukakisized" in the general election.

What Mr. Rusk is looking for, he said, alluding to the infamous image that doomed that past Democratic nominee, is "someone who will look impressive enough at the helm of an M-1 tank."

Gordon Fischer, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said this week that he saw "an incredible amount of antipathy toward the Bush administration" in the party, much more than the Democratic hostility toward the first President Bush.

Geoff Garin, a pollster who is working for Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, said the Democratic anger toward Mr. Bush was "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling," and perhaps comes closest to the way many Democrats felt about President Richard M. Nixon.

Some compare it to the hostility conservatives long harbored toward President Bill Clinton. For the past two and a half years, after all, a fairly consistent 38 percent of respondents in The New York Times/CBS News Poll have said that Mr. Bush was not legitimately elected president.

But Mr. Fischer and others say this animosity is not entirely personal, more about the agenda than the man.

Stan Greenberg, a longtime Democratic pollster, argues, "It's more about how conservative this administration is, how it's taken the country in this direction without a mandate, and a frustration with Democratic leaders for not articulating it."

That frustration was apparent during the war with Iraq, and obviously helped fuel the rise of Dr. Dean, one of the few national Democrats speaking flatly and without apology against the war. But the anger is broader now, on issues of civil liberties, health care, Social Security and domestic security, and the candidates are increasingly responding to it, Democratic strategists say.

One way to measure it is by what generates applause on the campaign trail these days. On a recent steamy night in Fort Dodge, more than 100 Democrats crowded a local state representative's home to cheer on Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, who made a scathing case against the Bush record.

They burst into applause when Mr. Kerry described Mr. Bush's tax cuts and soaring deficits as "stealing from America's children to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America." They grimly nodded when he denounced the quality of intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq. They burst into applause again when he described Mr. Bush's management of the economy as "the worst record on jobs since the Great Depression," and added that the only jobs Mr. Bush had created were the nine candidacies for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was the reddest of meat for this issue-oriented crowd, and Iowa Democrats came back for more in their questions. Can Mr. Kerry take a punch, and "give as good as he gets?" one Democrat asked. Mr. Kerry replied, "I'm in a fighting mood," a theme he referred to again and again.

Lois Dencklau, retired from the accounting business, watched Mr. Kerry with an appraising eye. She, too, said she was looking "for someone who can beat Bush" and thought Mr. Kerry was that person. She had her own indictment of the Bush administration, and a conviction that the country was moving her way.

"People are going to wake up and see what's happening," she said. "People are losing their jobs, the economy's really bad."

The next day, at the union hall of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 33, another crowd turned out to hear Dr. Dean take on the Bush administration. Sandy Opstvedt, an electrical worker and president of the Iowa State Conference of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was in the audience. She said of Mr. Bush: "I've never felt comfortable with him. He almost seems to have a mission to attack working people."

When Dr. Dean entered the room, sleeves rolled up, looking as if he was ready to fight, he was greeted like a rock star. "It's time we stood up to this president and stopped being intimidated by the Rush Limbaughs on the radio," he said. "We can do better than that."

His speech was laced with scorn for "too many people in Washington" who are "too afraid to lose" to stand up for Democratic values. By the time Dr. Dean closed with his trademark line — "You have the power to take this country back" — Don Chamberlain, a retired steamfitter, seemed well satisfied. "It's time somebody stood up for the Democrats," Mr. Chamberlain said.

When asked if Mr. Bush could be beaten, Mr. Chamberlain replied with the edge of moral clarity, "Absolutely."

There was no abstract battle for the soul of the Democratic Party here, just an abiding anger at what Mr. Bush has done, and a conviction that a majority of Americans will eventually share it.

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said, "It's George Bush who will serve as the biggest unifying force for our party."

nytimes.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3809)8/4/2003 8:53:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
<<...For us, a new colonial humiliation, the like of which may well end the careers of George Bush and Tony Blair, is coming. Of far more consequence is that it is likely to end many innocent lives as well...>>

Iraq isn't working
by Robert Fisk
UK Independent
August 02, 2003

Paul Bremer's taste in clothes symbolises "the new Iraq" very well. He wears a business suit and combat boots. As the proconsul of Iraq, you might have thought he'd have more taste. But he is a famous "antiterrorism" expert who is supposed to be rebuilding the country with a vast army of international companies - most of them American, of course - and creating the first democracy in the Arab world. Since he seems to be a total failure at the "antiterrorist" game - 50 American soldiers killed in Iraq since President George Bush declared the war over is not exactly a blazing success - it is only fair to record that he is making a mess of the "reconstruction" bit as well.

In theory, the news is all great. Oil production is up to one million barrels a day; Baghdad airport is preparing to re-open; every university in Iraq is functioning again; the health services are recovering rapidly; and mobile phones have made their first appearance in Baghdad. There's an Iraqi Interim Council up and hobbling.

But there's a kind of looking-glass fantasy to all these announcements from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the weasel-worded title with which the American-led occupation powers cloak their decidedly undemocratic and right-wing credentials. Take the oil production figures. Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the US commander in Iraq, even chose to use these statistics in his "great day for Iraq" press conference last week, the one in which he triumphantly announced that 200 soldiers in Mosul had killed the sons of Saddam rather than take them prisoner. But Lt-Gen Sanchez was talking rubbish. Although oil production was indeed standing at 900,000 barrels per day in June (albeit 100,000bpd less than the Sanchez version), it fell this month to 750,000. The drop was caused by power cuts - which are going to continue for much of the year - and export smuggling. The result? Iraq, with the world's second-highest reserves of oil, is now importing fuel from other oil-producing countries to meet domestic demands.

Then comes Baghdad airport. Sure, it's going to re-open. But it just happens that the airport, with its huge American military base and brutal US prison camp, comes under nightly grenade and mortar attack. No major airline would dream of flying its aircraft into the facility in these circumstances. So weird things are happening. The Iraqis are told, for example, that the first flights will be run by "Transcontinental Airlines" (a name oddly similar to the CIA's transport airline in Vietnam), which is reported to be a subsidiary of "US Airlines" and the only flight will be between Baghdad and - wait for it - the old East Berlin airport of Schönefeld. A British outfit calling itself "Mayhill Aviation" has printed advertisements in the Iraqi press saying that it intends to fly a Boeing 747 once a week from Gatwick to Basra, a route which suggests that it is going to be British military personnel and their families who end up using the plane.

Open universities are good news. And few would blame Bremer for summarily firing the 436 professors who were members of the Baath party. In the same vein, the CPA annulled the academic system whereby student party members would automatically receive higher grades. This is real de-Baathification. But then it turned out that there wouldn't be enough qualified professors to go round. Quite a number of the 436 were party men in name only and received their degrees at foreign universities. So at Mustansiriyah University, for example, the very same purged professors were re-hired after filling out forms routinely denouncing the Baath party. Bremer seems to have a habit of reversing his own decisions; having triumphantly announced that he'd sacked the entire Iraqi army, he was humiliatingly forced to put them back on rations in case they all decided to attack US soldiers in Iraq.

Health services? Well, yes, the new Iraqi health service is being encouraged to rehabilitate the country's hospitals and clinics. But a mysterious American company called Abt Associates has turned up in Baghdad to give "Ministry of Health Technical Assistance" support to the US Agency for International Development (USAid) and "rapid response grants to address health needs in-country". It has decreed that all medical equipment must accord with US technical standards and modifications - which means that all new hospital equipment must come from America, not from Europe.

And then there's the mobile phones. Just over a week ago, my roaming Lebanese cellular pinged into life at midnight and, after a few hours of scrambled voice communication, picked up mobile companies in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain (depending on where you happened to be in Baghdad). Less than a week later, however, the Americans ordered the system shut down because the Bahrain operating company, by opening its service so early, was supposedly not giving other bidders a fair chance at the contract. Those other companies are largely American.

Of course, Iraqis protest at much of this. They protest in the streets, especially against the aggressive American military raids, and they protest in the press. Much good does it do them. When ex-Iraqi soldiers demonstrated outside Bremer's office at the former Presidential Palace, US troops shot two of them dead. When Falujah residents staged a protest as long ago as April, the American military shot 16 dead. Another 11 were later gunned down in Mosul. During two demonstrations against the presence of US troops near the shrine of Imam Hussein at Karbala last weekend, US soldiers shot dead another three. "What a wonderful thing it is to speak your own minds," Lt-Gen Sanchez said of the demonstrations in Iraq last week. Maybe he was exhibiting a black sense of humour.

All this might be incomprehensible if one forgot that the whole illegal Iraqi invasion had been hatched up by a bunch of right-wing and pro-Israeli ideologues in Washington, and that Bremer - though not a member of their group - fits squarely into the same bracket. Hence Paul Wolfowitz, one of the prime instigators of this war - he was among the loudest to beat the drum over the weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist - is now trying to deflect attention from his disastrous advice to the US administration by attacking the media, in particular that pesky, uncontrollable channel, Al-Jazeera. Its reports, he now meretriciously claims, amount to "incitement to violence" - knowing full well, of course, that Bremer has officially made "incitement to violence" an excuse to close down any newspaper or TV station he doesn't like.

Indeed, newspapers that have offended the Americans have been raided by US troops in the same way that the Americans have conducted raids on the offices of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leader, Ayatollah Mohammed al-Hakim, is a member of the famous Interim Council - not exactly a bright way to keep a prominent Shia cleric on board. But the council itself is already the subject of much humour in Baghdad, not least because its first acts included the purchase of cars for all its members; a decision to work out of a former presidential palace; and - this the lunatic brainchild of the Pentagon-supported and convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi - the declaring of a national holiday every 9 April to honour Iraq's "liberation" from Saddam.

This sounds fine in America and Britain. What could be more natural than celebrating the end of the Beast of Baghdad? But Iraqis, a proud people who have resisted centuries of invasions, realised that their new public holiday would mark the first day of their country's foreign occupation.

"From its very first decision," an Iraqi journalist told me with contempt, "the Interim Council de-legitimised itself." And so there has begun to grow the faint but sinister shadow of a different kind of "democracy" for Iraq, one in which a new ruler will have to use a paternalistic rule - moderation mixed with autocracy, à la Ataturk - to govern Iraq and allow the Americans to go home. Inevitably, it has been one of the American commentators from the same failed lunatic right as Wolfowitz - Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum think tank, which promotes American interests in the region - to express this in its most chilling form. He now argues that "democratic-minded autocrats can guide [Iraq] to full democracy better than snap elections". What Iraq needs, he says, is "a democratically-minded [sic] strongman who has real authority", who would be "politically moderate" but "operationally tough" (sic again).

Of course, it's difficult to resist a cynical smile at such double standards, although their meaning is frightening enough. What does "operationally tough" mean, other than secret policemen, interrogation rooms and torturers to keep the people in order - which is exactly what Saddam set up when he took power, supported as he was at the time by the US and Britain? What does "strongman" mean other than a total reversal of the promise of "democracy" which Bush and Tony Blair made to the Iraqi people?

Democracies are not led by autocrats, and autocrats are not led by anyone but themselves. The Pipes version of the strongman democracy, by the way, involves the withdrawal of American troops to "military bases away from population centres" where they "serve as the military partner of the new government [sic], guaranteeing its ultimate security..." In other words, US forces would hide in the desert to avoid further casualties unless it was necessary to storm back to Baghdad to get rid of the "str ongman" if he failed to obey American orders.

But today Bremer is the strongman, and under his rule US troops are losing hearts and minds by the bucketful with each new, blundering and often useless raid against the civilians of Iraq. Still obsessed with capturing - or, rather, killing - Saddam, they are destroying any residual affection for them among the population. On a recent operation in the town of Dhuluaya, for example, two innocent men were killed and the Americans' Iraqi informer - originally paraded before those he was to betray in a hood to keep his identity secret - was executed by his own father. The enterprising newspaper Iraq Today found that the "intelligence" officers of the 4th Infantry Division even left behind mug shots, aerial reconnaissance photographs and secret operational documents - complete with target houses and briefing notes - at the scene. The paper, in the true tradition of journalism, gleefully published the lot, including the comment of the father of Sabah Salem Kerbul, the young informer who worked for the Americans during "Operation Peninsula Strike". He shot his son first in the foot and then in the head. "I have killed him," he said. "But he is still a part of my heart."

Indeed, anarchic violence is now being embedded in Iraqi society in a way it never was under the genocidal Saddam. Scarcely a day goes by when I do not encounter the evidence of this in my daily reporting work in Baghdad. Visiting the Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad on Monday to seek the identity of civilians killed by American troops in Mansur the previous day, I came across four bodies lying out in the yard beside the building in the 50C heat. All had been shot. No one knew their identities. They were all young, save one who might have been a middle-aged man, with a hole in his sock. Three days earlier, on a visit to a local supermarket, I noticed that the woman cashier was wearing black. Yes, she said, because her brother had been murdered a week earlier. No one knew why.

In a conversation with my driver's father - who runs a photocopying shop near Bremer's palace headquarters - a young man suddenly launched into praise for Saddam Hussein. When I asked him why, he said that his father's new car had just been stolen by armed men. Trying to contact an ex-prisoner illegally held by the Americans at his home in a slum suburb of Baghdad, I drove to the mukhtar's house to find the correct address. The mukhtar is the local mayor. But I was greeted by a group of long-faced relatives who told me that I could not speak to the mukhtar - because he had been assassinated the previous night.

So if this is my experience in just the past four days, how many murders and thefts are occurring across Baghdad - or, indeed, across Iraq? Only two days ago, for example, five men accused of selling alcohol were reportedly murdered in Basra. Again, there was no publicity, no official statement, no death toll from the CPA. Only a few days ago, I sat in the conference hall that the occupation authorities use for their daily press briefings, follies that are used to condemn "irresponsible reporting", but which record only a fraction of the violence of the previous 24 hours - violence which, of course, is well known to the authorities.

And there was a disturbing moment when Charles Heatley, the British spokesman from the Foreign Office, appointed by Tony Blair at the behest of Alastair Campbell, talked about the reports of abduction and rape in Iraq. He acknowledged that there had been some cases, but then - I enjoyed the beautiful way in which he tried to destroy any journalistic interest in this terrible subject - talked about the number of "rumours" that turned out to be untrue when checked out. But this is not the experience of The Independent, which in just one day recently discovered the identity of one young woman who had been kidnapped, raped and then freed - only to attempt suicide three times at her home. Another family gave the paper a photograph of their abducted daughter in the hope that it might be printed in the Iraqi press.

Why don't the occupation authorities realise that Iraq cannot be "spun"? This country is living a tragedy of epic proportions, and now - after its descent into hell under Saddam - we are doomed to suffer its contagion. By our hubris and by our lies and by our fantasies - including the fantasies of Tony Blair - we are descending into the pit.

For the people of Iraq, the next stage in their long suffering is under way. For us, a new colonial humiliation, the like of which may well end the careers of George Bush and Tony Blair, is coming. Of far more consequence is that it is likely to end many innocent lives as well.