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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19693)12/14/2003 12:16:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
I have been following this story for a couple of years. The Cruise Line I was a Dance Host on here in the Islands went under in 2000. The Norwegian Cruise line has had to spend two days running down to a Foreign Island in order to cruise out of here. Now they won't have to. Will I "Dance Host" again? Maybe. It will be easy to do from here in Honolulu.

They have to play these games because the Shipbuilding and Maritime Unions have priced themselves out of the world market.

December 14, 2003
Political Savvy Gets U.S. Flags on Foreign Ship
By LESLIE WAYNE - New York Times

For the first time in 50 years, a cruise ship flying the American flag will soon be sailing the seas. There will be no mistaking it for anything but an all-American vessel. It will be named Pride of America. Red and white stripes, blue stars and a huge bald eagle will decorate its hull. Its public rooms will strike a patriotic theme: the Liberty restaurant, the Capitol Atrium, Jefferson's Bistro, the John Adams Coffee Bar.

As an American-flagged vessel in an industry dominated by foreign lines, Pride of America will qualify under United States law for a special privilege: permission to cruise lucrative routes solely between American ports, mainly in the Hawaiian islands, that are off limits to foreign vessels.

But the Pride of America is not what it seems. The ship is actually being built in a German shipyard and is owned by Norwegian Cruise Line, a subsidiary of Star Cruises, which has its headquarters in Hong Kong and is run out of its offices in Malaysia; Star Cruises is in turn a unit of Genting Berhad, a holding company in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

How this vessel and two sister cruise ships owned by the same company came to qualify as American is the story of one foreign company's growing sophistication in the ways of Washington, where American companies usually have the edge.

With platoons of lobbyists, including a former senator from Washington State, and contributions to important members of Congress, Norwegian Cruise persuaded Congress to approve its entry into a protected American market in the fine print of a big appropriations bill passed this year. The company's competitors, long eager for the privileges, are fuming.

The battle over the Pride of America is only the latest in a long tale of pork barrel politics that began with an unsuccessful effort by Congress to kick-start the American shipbuilding industry.

It started four years ago with a $1 billion federal program, called Project America, that was to have revived the American industry building cruise ships, at a shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. The project was spearheaded by Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican and, at the time, the Senate majority leader. His father once worked in the shipyard where the Project America ships were to be built.

But after costing the government $180 million, Project America failed. All that was left was the half-finished hull of one cruise liner and pieces of another. The project was over budget; the cruise ship company involved in it, American Classic Voyages, had gone bankrupt; and the government was left trying to sell unfinished goods that no one seemed to want.

No one, that is, except for Norwegian Cruise, which paid $24 million and hauled the half-finished hull that is to become Pride of America and 400 containers of parts for a second ship to a shipyard in Bremerhaven, Germany. The hull is now under final construction, and the ship is expected to sail in time for the Fourth of July 2004.

But the real work was in Washington. Congress had to be persuaded to allow the Pride of America and two other cruise ships to sail under the American flag. The other ships are the Pride of Aloha, a German-built ship that today is the Norwegian Sky but will soon be renamed, and the third ship, which Norwegian Cruise plans to build soon in Bremerhaven from the 400 containers of parts.

As American ships, these three vessels could benefit from a century-old law, the Jones Act, intended to protect the American shipbuilding industry by barring foreign carriers from cruising domestic routes. As a result, while Norwegian Cruise's rivals in the Hawaiian market have to touch base in a foreign port, generally Mexico or Canada, thousands of miles and five sailing days away, the Pride of America, Pride of Aloha and the third ship will be able to island-hop in the fast-growing Hawaiian market without having to put in at a foreign port.

In Congress, Norwegian Cruise's biggest friend was the Hawaiian delegation, drawn by the company's promise that it would create 10,000 jobs in Hawaii — on the ships and in the tourist trade. The lure of jobs was so great that Senator Daniel K. Inouye and Representative Neil Abercrombie, both Hawaii Democrats, became Norwegian Cruise's strongest Congressional allies and had a provision allowing the three ships to be designated American inserted into the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2003.

That provision allows Norwegian Cruise to put American flags on the two unfinished ships once they are completed as well as turning Norwegian Sky into the Pride of Aloha.

The provision was approved last February with little public discussion and no Congressional hearings.

"This caught the entire maritime industry by surprise," said Allen Walker, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, a trade group based in Washington. "We didn't like it, but we were not able to stop it. We don't think this was done correctly, without debate and virtually late at night. But it was done."

On Capitol Hill, Norwegian Cruise, whose American office is in Miami, was helped by a team of lobbyists, including a former three-term Republican senator from Washington, Slade Gorton. It cost the company $880,000 to lobby for the provision this year, according to federal lobbying records.

In addition, even though foreign companies are barred from making political contributions in the United States, the president of Norwegian Cruise, Colin Veitch, who is an American based in Miami, gave a total of $20,000 to the Democratic Party of Hawaii and to Representative Abercrombie, who led the fight for the company.

Senator Inouye also received $2,000 from Mr. Veitch and $4,000 from Lamar B. Cooler, the company's chief financial officer, also of Miami.

Another example of Norwegian Cruise's activity in the political world came a few weeks ago when the company offered one of its New York-based ships, the Norwegian Dawn, for use by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, and other Republicans as a floating entertainment center during next year's Republican convention.

Although that offer was withdrawn, it showed that Norwegian Cruise was able to play politics at the highest level.

"We're seeing a lot of foreign companies that are learning to play the political game," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group in Washington that collects campaign finance data. "The fact the Republicans pulled out of the deal because of local opposition doesn't reflect badly on N.C.L. N.C.L. was there when the Republicans needed them."

For critics of the cruise ship arrangement — the most vocal being Senator John McCain — this is just an example of one boondoggle program begetting another. Norwegian Cruise's competitors, too, are left grumbling, as well as having their Hawaiian passengers spend up to 10 days back and forth on open seas.

"This provides an unfair competitive advantage to N.C.L. at the expense of all other cruise ship operators," Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, said. "No other company will be allowed to operate foreign-built U.S. flag cruise vessels in the domestic market. It effectively creates a de facto monopoly for this one foreign company."

Stephen Moore, president of Club for Growth, a nonprofit group in Washington that advocates limited government, said: "The government is losing $180 million on a cruise ship that will ultimately be built in Germany and owned by a Malaysian-based Norwegian company. This is hardly a way that American taxpayers would want their dollars to be spent."

This is not the first time the Jones Act has been sidestepped. Nabors Industries, an American oil rig operator, reincorporated in Bermuda to escape United States taxes, but claims to be an American corporation for purposes of the Jones Act to run supply ships from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to the United States.

The Norwegian Cruise arrangement made sense to both the government and the company. The company was able to buy the half-finished hull — the ship will ultimately cost about $350 million to complete — for pennies on the dollar. And the deal gave Congress a face-saving way to end Project America.

"Our company is committed to establishing a U.S. flag company and hiring thousands of Americans to operate our U.S. flag ships to recoup Project America," said Susan Robison, a spokeswoman for Norwegian Cruise. "This was an attractive proposition for Congress, particularly during an economic slump and a time when many American companies are seeking to expatriate."

Norwegian Cruise also recently bought two aging American-made ships, the Independence and the United States, and plans to use them to develop a niche market of domestic cruises — for instance, between New York and Miami or along the California coast.

"We saw Project America as a business opportunity and a way of meeting our goal of building one ship a year and growing our fleet," Ms. Robison said. "So we approached Senator Inouye about it."

To carry the American flag, the Norwegian Cruise ships must hire American crews, pay American wages and taxes, and follow American environmental regulations. The deal also means that Norwegian Cruise's American flag ships will not have to stop at Fanning Island, in the Republic of Kiribati, about 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, as its other ships in the Hawaiian market have been required to do. This port of call was developed by Norwegian Cruise so that its Hawaiian-cruise passengers would not have to sail back to Canada or Mexico.

Norwegian Cruise's competitors are crying foul.

"Other cruise ship companies wanted to have the same opportunity to flag a U.S. ship," said Rose Abello, a spokeswoman for Holland-American Lines. "But the measure was passed, and it was exclusively to N.C.L."

Holland-American has 15-day cruises to the Hawaiian Islands — five days around the islands and 10 days on open seas to and from Mexico, Canada, or other foreign ports.

Hawaii's Congressional delegation could not be more delighted about the deal, mainly because of the 10,000 jobs they anticipate for Hawaiian residents on the ships and elsewhere in the tourist trade.

Moreover, in an industry where most cruise ship companies maintain foreign registry so they can hire employees from poor countries and pay them lower wages, Hawaii's Congressional delegation says Norwegian Cruise will have to play by American rules and, unlike other cruise ship companies, pay American taxes.

Representative Abercrombie, who was re-elected on the basis of his staunch support for the Jones Act, said this exemption made sense to him, though he says he still backs the Jones Act as strongly as ever.

"You have to start with the premise of whether we want to have an American cruise ship industry," Mr. Abercrombie said in an interview. "N.C.L. came to us. They said that if they wanted to make that jump into the Hawaiian market as a U.S. ship, they needed an exemption to finish the ships in Europe. I could see where there is money to be made in a genuine interisland cruise."
siliconinvestor.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19693)12/14/2003 12:47:20 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
Good luck with getting Jewish donations!




washingtonpost.com
Dean Working to Be Seen as Foreign Policy Centrist
He and Bush Differ Widely on Some Issues, Others Only in Tone

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 14, 2003; Page A01

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said he would offer a package deal to North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programs and he embraced an unofficial peace plan that establishes the borders of a Palestinian state -- breaking dramatically with the approaches of the Bush administration.

Dean, who has risen to the top of the Democratic field in part because of his early and vehement opposition to the war in Iraq, also said he favors immediate elections in Iraq to replace the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, which he said is viewed by the average Iraqi as "simply a council of American-chosen puppets." Dean further said he would end funding for the deployment of a missile defense system, a centerpiece of President Bush's presidential campaign four years ago.

But in a wide-ranging 50-minute interview on foreign policy, given as he flew from Burlington, Vt., to Omaha on Friday, Dean also indicated he agreed with a number of Bush's foreign policy stances. In a speech Monday, Dean will seek to counter his image as a darling of the left by positioning himself as a centrist Democrat on foreign policy. Dean portrayed himself as a realist, willing to use military force if necessary, and to maintain relationships and alliances, even if freedom and democracy in countries such as Russia and Pakistan are eroded.

Indeed, Dean suggested that on some issues, the difference between Bush and himself was more of tone and temperament. He said, for instance, he would not have warned Taiwan not to hold a referendum on Chinese missiles if the Chinese premier was at his side, as Bush did last week. "The president's policy is right, but the president's public slap [at Taiwan] wasn't necessary," Dean said.

"Nuance matters in foreign policy," Dean said. "Not only does this administration have a tin ear and want to push through whatever they want to do without regard to people's feelings or thoughts, I think nuance escapes this administration."

The interview, the first time Dean has been questioned in detail about his foreign policy views, appeared to be part of an effort to transform Dean from a candidate known largely for a single, defining issue -- opposition to the war in Iraq -- to someone with the gravitas to be president and deal with the complex foreign policy challenges of the age.

In March 2000, Dean told a Canadian public affairs program that 98 percent of the public does not vote based on a candidate's foreign policy views, "unless they are really a wacko." Now, he says, because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Iraq war, national security is the most important issue in this election after the economy. "This president has forfeited our moral leadership in the world because people dislike us so much," he said.

As part of this transition, Dean has begun to pull into his campaign a team of senior foreign policy advisers, many of whom served in the Clinton administration. His campaign will announce the members of this "kitchen cabinet" Monday when he makes his speech, which along with a planned economics speech is intended to lay out his major themes before the New Hampshire primary Jan. 27.

During the interview, the former governor of Vermont appeared at ease handling questions that hopscotched across global trouble spots. One of his foreign policy aides, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, sat at his side as he tackled back-to-back newspaper interviews on foreign policy. Dean and Daalder, a former Clinton aide, huddled for five minutes after The Washington Post interview to review Dean's comments before beginning the second session.

Questioned on foreign policy statements he made before he became a presidential candidate, Dean acknowledged a tendency to "say what I think" and that he may have "used undiplomatic language" in the past. But he said he realized that "as president you have to watch your words more carefully."

Though Dean has repeatedly criticized Bush for failing to win international support for the Iraq war, for instance, in June 1998 he defended Clinton's bombing of Iraq by arguing on the Canadian program, "I don't think we could have built an international coalition to invade or have a substantial bombing of Saddam."

During another 1998 appearance on the show, "The Editors," Dean said it was not worth trying to woo French support on foreign policy initiatives. "The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we're never going to have a consistent policy," he said.

Asked about the comment, Dean said he now thinks that because the French "have seen how bad things can get with the United States, they might respond to a new president who's willing to offer them respect again."

In addition to Daalder, campaign aides said, Dean's core foreign policy team includes former national security adviser Anthony Lake; retired Gen. Joseph Hoare, a former chief of U.S. Central Command; retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former chief of staff of the Air Force; two former assistant secretaries of defense, Ashton Carter and Frank Kramer; former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice; and political theorist Benjamin R. Barber. Danny E. Sebright, a former Defense Department civil servant who works for the consulting firm headed by Clinton defense secretary William Cohen, is Dean's foreign policy coordinator.

Dean has also reached out to leading members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment as he tries to fill in the gaps in his foreign policy approach. "Dean certainly represents continuity with the bipartisan centrist line that has characterized American foreign policy from 1948 until shortly after 9/11," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski reviewed a draft of Dean's speech but has not endorsed any candidate.

But others in the Democratic Party are troubled by what they see as Dean's inconsistency and a willingness to stake out positions for political gain.

"You can argue persuasively he's a centrist. You can also argue persuasively he is a liberal," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist think tank. "He's bounced around and not landed anywhere solid yet."

Marshall said he was put off by Dean's "stridently antiwar stance." During the debate over the congressional resolution on Iraq, Marshall said, "he made a critical vote a test of political manhood for Democratic aspirants. He seems to have been opposed to war for the reason that Bush was for it, choosing partisanship over national security."

Lake, President Bill Clinton's first national security adviser, said he has signed on as a key Dean adviser precisely because Dean has both core beliefs -- such as engagement, multilateralism when necessary and use of force when appropriate -- and a willingness to make decisions according to the facts at the moment. "One of the attractive things about him -- though it is also slightly worrisome -- is that it is very hard to characterize him," Lake said. "A more doctrinaire approach leads to error."

In the interview, Dean lavished praise on Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, saying he never understood why he was a Republican since "his advice is simply for the most part ignored." One Dean adviser said he has discussed with Dean the possibility of keeping Powell on as secretary of state. "That may or may not be in the cards," Dean said, emphasizing that it was too early for that kind of discussion. "We've put almost no time into that [discussing cabinet selections] whatsoever."

During the interview, Dean staked out new ground in several important areas. While Bush has tried to forge a five-nation coalition to confront the North Korean crisis -- and refused to hold direct talks with Pyongyang -- Dean said he would move immediately to bilateral negotiations with the communist nation. Dean's package deal would include economic aid, energy assistance and what he called a "nonaggression pact" in exchange for a dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program that was verified through "an intrusive inspection regime."

Pyongyang has called for such a package of incentives, including a nonaggression treaty. But Bush has rejected a treaty, offering instead written assurances of nonaggression. Bush also has been vague on what incentives, if any, he might offer once the nuclear programs are ended. "North Korea is an example of this president dawdling and dallying for 15 months because the hard-liners in his administration, of which apparently he is one, thought a small nation, a few tens of millions of people, could blackmail us," Dean said.

"Down the line," Dean said, North Korea "ought to be able to enter the community of nations. We have much better control over the rogue behavior of errant states if they are in the tent than not."

On the Mideast peace process, Dean said he agreed with Bush's decision to cut off relations with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. But he supported the concept behind what is called the Geneva Accord, which resolves border issues and other vexing matters before the negotiations envisioned in the U.S.-backed "road map" plan. "I think that's the right thing to do," he said, though he was not yet willing to "sign on to every last detail." The Bush administration has said it would not entertain such "shortcuts."

In Dean's speech Monday in Los Angeles, he will note that in the past dozen years, he supported four military interventions: the Persian Gulf War waged by Bush's father, Clinton's campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the invasion of Afghanistan. "As president, I will never hesitate to deploy our armed forces to defend our country and its allies and to protect our national interests," Dean will say, according to a draft of the speech provided by the campaign.

"People have equated his opposition to the war in Iraq to a peacenik approach to foreign policy," said Daalder, a National Security Council staffer under Clinton. "That's not where he comes from."

Dean plans to say he will put troops "in harm's way only when the stakes warrant," after postwar planning has been done, and after "we level with the American people about the relevant facts."

In the speech, Dean also will call for returning the National Guard to home-front duties and limiting its role in overseas conflicts. He will propose the creation of a new fund to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction, as well as spending $30 billion to fights AIDS and other infectious diseases.

During the interview, Dean outlined what could be called his doctrine on the use of force. He said it was appropriate in three instances: after an attack on the United States, when there is clear evidence of an imminent attack and in cases of genocide when other world bodies failed to act. But, he added, he did not favor military interventions in areas where there was no functioning government.

Thus, he said, he might have supported using force to prevent genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s, but would not have provided U.S. forces in Somalia or the Congo. As for the Iraq war, he said, "It is now very clear Saddam Hussein presented no threat to the United States whatsoever." He later amended that to "no imminent threat."

washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19693)12/14/2003 3:28:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
It's hard to believe that Wesley Clark said this. But it is all over Blogland.

The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.
msnbc.msn.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19693)12/14/2003 4:23:41 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793685
 
Payback time for the axis of weasels
By Mark Steyn
(News Telegraph

The soundbite of the week was George W Bush's response to Gerhard Schröder. The German Chancellor suggested that the Pentagon's decision to make the axis of weasels ineligible for Iraqi reconstruction contracts might be illegal under international law. "International law?" said the President. "I'd better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

We're not talking about frosting the French, Germans, Russians and Canadians out of Iraq entirely. If you're a Paris printing company and you wish to open a new plant in Tikrit to pump out paperbacks of the latest French bestseller claiming that Dick Cheney and Halliburton were behind 9/11, go ahead. If you're a German corporation that manufactures those giant puppets of Bush and Blair for anti-war protests and you'd like to outsource the work to a marionette factory in Karbala, I'm sure they'd appreciate the business.

What's at issue here is whether the American Defence Department should use American taxpayers' money to offer American government contracts in Iraq to companies from countries that actively obstructed and continue to obstruct American policy in Iraq. That's a legitimate national security interest, and no more "illegal" than, say, Belgium's refusal to sell Britain artillery shells during the Gulf War.

The snubbed Euro-weasels were not as pithy as Mr Bush. But the new Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is worth quoting. "This shouldn't be just about who gets contracts," he said. "It ought to be about what is the best thing for the people of Iraq."

Good point. The best thing for the people of Iraq was to get rid of Saddam, and back in the spring Mr Martin didn't want to be a part of that. The best thing for the people of Iraq, according to Mr Martin and , and Herr Schroder and M de Villepin, was that Saddam should be allowed to go on killing and torturing them for another decade or three. Reasonable people are prone to reasonableness, and the reasonable thing to do is, invariably, nothing.

The assumption was that there would be no price to pay: after the war things would revert to normal - ie, the autopilot bromides at which Mr Martin and co excel.

But it was the weasels who scuppered any return to business-as-usual. Messrs Chirac and de Villepin barely paused for breath before moving on from their pre-war sabotage programme to a revised post-war sabotage programme.

When Kofi Annan calls the Pentagon's action "not helpful for restoring transatlantic relations", what he means by "restoring transatlantic relations" is that America should move closer to the European position. The French have raised being "not helpful" to an art form, and generally that's fine by Kofi.

Whatever merits it might have had for conducting relations between 19th-century European courts, "diplomatic language" is now so unmoored from reality that it's an obstacle to honest discussion of the global scene.

On Iraq, France, is on the other side - Saddam was their man, to the end. Germany is in a state of semi-derangement - a third of Germans under 30 believe that America organised the 9/11 attacks, a statistic only a polling point or two behind the excitable young men of Pakistan's North-West Frontier.

Canada thinks that it can enjoy north American prosperity without contributing to north American defence. And Russia is already undermining the next American goal - under cover of the anodyne EU/IAEA position on Iran, it is continuing to assist the mullahs' nuclear programme.

So it's not (just) payback, it's also about the next round of problems. One can think of several terms for folks who behave in these various ways, but "allies" isn't one of them - unless "allies" is now a synonym for, respectively, saboteurs, poseurs, nutters and enemies.

telegraph.co.uk



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19693)12/14/2003 5:19:21 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
Callers got through to the "Times" on CSPAN. None of this would be happening without the Net and the Blogs. They must be cussing this kind of exposure that they can't refute. "Timeswatch"

Callers Grill Times on Baghdad Protest Blackout

C-SPAN's Washington Journal program aired live Friday morning from the Washington bureau of the New York Times, with five of the bureau's reporters and editors taking calls. Two callers wanted to know why the Times (along with all the other major dailies) had failed to cover Wednesday's anti-terrorist demonstration in Baghdad--a question Times Watch and others have asked as well.

Addressing Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman, a caller from Illinois asked "if he was aware that there was a pro-coalition demonstration in Baghdad two days ago. Being that it didn't get reported in his newspaper." (Editors note: The Times did mention the rally Thursday in the ninth paragraph of an unrelated page 19 story, as well as in the caption of a photo on page 18.)

Taubman's reply: "I was not aware of that, but that's something that you really should take up with the correspondents who work for the Times in Baghdad. I don't know what their decision-making was that day. But I can assure you that we make every effort every day to try to be fair and balanced in our coverage. And I know that there are accusations that somehow the Times has opposed the war in its news coverage. I don't think that's a fair statement. We have tried to be exceedingly careful in giving all sides, all points of view ample coverage in the newspaper."

Later in the show, Times chief diplomatic correspondent Steven Weisman had a caller from Virginia who noted: "I saw in a European paper, in a Spanish paper, where the day before yesterday, there was a manifestation in the streets of Baghdad of about 15,000 people, they calculated, in favor of the current government, the councilors there, and against Saddam Hussein and calling for the trials of Saddam Hussein. And there was nothing that I saw in the Post or any of the American papers about that manifestation. But I can't imagine that a manifestation against the United States and against the current efforts of the United States in Baghdad of 15,000 people would have gone unreported in American papers."

Weisman admitted the media does have a problem covering positive developments in Iraq: "That's a very thoughtful question. And it gets to a dilemma for the news media, which does tend to focus on problems and conflicts rather than where things are going right. And sometimes we're rightly criticized for that. But in defense of that, you know, I don't think that we can run stories saying, and with respect--I know this is an exaggeration--but we don't run stories saying, you know, '100,000 GIs were not killed yesterday.' I mean, the nature of news is to report on what's going wrong."

Weisman then noted things are returning to normal in much of Iraq. As for the anti-terror demonstration? Weisman apparently hadn't heard about it, either: "I'm not sure that I know about that specific episode, that demonstration that you just referred to. But I would say that we, the readers of the Times ought to be aware that many things are going well in Iraq, but the fact that the security situation is not going well is not something that we can ignore."
timeswatch.org