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 (24412)1/15/2004 12:52:01 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793707
 
Part three of Friedman's opus. I post, you comment.



January 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
War of Ideas, Part 3
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

uring the next six months, the world is going to be treated to two remarkable trials in Baghdad. It is going to be the mother of all split screens. On one side, you're going to see the trial of Saddam Hussein. On the other side, you're going to see the trial of the Iraqi people. That's right, the Iraqi people will also be on trial — for whether they can really live together without the iron fist of the man on the other side of the screen.

This may be apocryphal, but Saddam is supposed to have once remarked something like: Be careful, if you get rid of me, you will need seven presidents to rule Iraq. Which is why this split-screen trial is going to be so important. Either Saddam is going to be laughing at us and at Iraqis, saying "I told you so," as Iraqis are squabbling and murdering each other on the other side of the screen.

Or, we and the Iraqi people will be laughing at him by proving that it is possible to produce something the Arab world has rarely seen: a self-governing, multiethnic, representative Arab government that accepts minority rights and peaceful transfers of power — without a military dictator, monarch or mullah standing overhead with a stick.

You don't want to miss this show. This is pay-per-view history. If, somehow, Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, Turkmen, Christians, Assyrians and Shiites find a way to embrace pluralism, it will be a huge boost to moderates in the war of ideas all across the Muslim world. Those who scoff at the idea of a democratic domino theory in the Arab world don't know what they're talking about. But those who think this is a done deal don't know Iraq.

If Iraq is going to be made to work as a decent, pluralistic, self-governing entity, noted the Iraq expert Amatzia Baram of the United States Institute of Peace, all the key factions there will have to accept being "reasonably unhappy." All will have to settle for their second-best dream in order to avoid their first-class nightmare: chaos or a return to tyranny.

Islamists will have to accept being unhappy that the system does not mandate Sharia law as the constitution, but only "reasonably" unhappy, because Islam will be the official religion of the state and respected as an important basis for legislation and governance. Secularists will have to accept being unhappy that Iraq's new basic law gives Islam an important symbolic place in governance, but only "reasonably" unhappy, because this secular law and judges will still provide the basis for a new rule of law. Kurds will have to accept being very unhappy not to achieve their dream of an independent Kurdistan, but only "reasonably" unhappy, because the special autonomous status of the Kurdish region will be concretized in Iraqi law.

The Sunnis will have to accept being unhappy that they are no longer controlling Iraq and its oil wealth, but only "reasonably" unhappy, because they will discover that they still have a significant role in the parliament, and a share of the nation's oil wealth in their own provinces, thanks to the new Iraqi federalism. The Shiites will be unhappy that, now when their majority political status will finally be realized, power and resources are going to be diffused throughout a federal system and constraints are going to be placed on the power of the majority. But they will only have to be "reasonably" unhappy, because there will eventually be a Shiite head of government, and the very federalism that disperses power and resources will also enable Shiite provinces that wish to adopt a more Islamist form of government to do so.

"Let us put aside the literary phrase `We are brothers but others are dividing us,' " wrote the thoughtful Arab columnist Hazem Saghieh in Al Hayat. "We in Iraq and elsewhere are not brothers — there are problems we inherited from our own history and social makeup, which were not helped by oppressive modern regimes. . . . Let's be frank: the Shiites today scare the Sunnis; the Sunnis and the Shiites together scare the Kurds; and the Kurds scare the other minorities. . . . All the ethnic groups of Iraq have the responsibility of putting nation-building above their selfish and conflicting calculations."

In short, our most serious long-term enemy in Iraq may not be the Iraqi insurgents, but the Iraqi people. Can they live together reasonably unhappy at first, and then grow reasonably happy? If they can, we will be Iraq's temporary midwife, helping give birth to its democracy. If they can't, we will be Iraq's new, always unhappy, baby sitter, and the old one, Saddam Hussein, will be laughing at us all the way to the gallows.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (24412)1/15/2004 12:56:34 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793707
 
Even Dowd can't take the Deans. This is a separated couple, staying together to get him elected. The closer they get to the nomination, the more of this there will be.

January 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Doctor Is Out
By MAUREEN DOWD

DES MOINES — Not satisfied with colonizing the Moon, scouting for Martians and civilizing Iraq, President Bush is lavishing more gazillions on another audaciously quixotic plan.

He wants to become the national yenta.

As Robert Pear and David Kirkpatrick wrote in The Times, administration officials are planning an extensive election-year initiative to please conservatives in a swivet over gay marriage; their social engineering scheme will try to shore up traditional marriage, offering training to couples in the interpersonal skills needed to achieve and sustain "healthy marriages."

Before Mr. Bush ventures into the inner cities to practice his conjugal noblesse oblige, perhaps he should beeline to a more rural spot — a split-level ranch house with green shag carpeting and Grateful Dead albums in Burlington, Vt.

The doctors Dean seem to be in need of some tips on togetherness and building a healthy political marriage, if that's not an oxymoron.

Even by the transcendentally wacky standard for political unions set by Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Deans have an unusual relationship.

She is a ghost in his political career. She has never even been to Iowa, and most reporters who have covered Howard Dean's quest here the last two years would not recognize her if she walked in the door, which she is not likely to do, since she prefers examining patients to being cross-examined by voters and reporters.

The first hard evidence most people had that Howard Dean was actually married came with a startling picture of his wife on the front page of Tuesday's Times, accompanying a Jodi Wilgoren profile.

In worn jeans and old sneakers, the shy and retiring Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean looked like a crunchy Vermont hippie, blithely uncoiffed, unadorned, unstyled and unconcerned about not being at her husband's side — the anti-Laura. You could easily imagine the din of Rush Limbaugh and Co. demonizing her as a counterculture fem-lib role model for the blue states.

While Elizabeth Edwards gazes up at John from the front row of his events here, while Jane Gephardt cheerfully endures her husband's "Dick and Jane" jokes, while Teresa Heinz Kerry jets around for "conversations" with caucusgoers — yesterday she was at the Moo Moo Cafe in Keokuk at the southernmost tip of the state — Judith Steinberg has shunned the role of helpmeet.

Many women cheered Judy Steinberg as a relief and a breakthrough. Why should she have to feign subservience in 2003, or compromise as Hillary Rodham and Teresa Heinz did when they took their husbands' names? But many political analysts said that just as the remote technocrat Michael Dukakis needed Kitty around to warm him up, the emotionally chilly Howard Dean could benefit from the presence of someone who could illuminate his softer side. So far he has generated a lot of heat but little warmth.

And at a moment when he's under attack by Democratic rivals for reinventing his political persona and shifting positions, he could use a character witness on the road to vouch for his core values.

The couple did pose for a spread in the new People magazine, where they revealed that he gave her a flowering shrub for her 50th birthday. "Being practical," he said, "I wanted something to plant in the back lawn."

Even some who admired Dr. Steinberg's desire to stay focused on her own life, healing the sick, still thought it odd that she would be so thoroughly disengaged from her husband's wild political ride, missing the thrilling moments and the poignant ones, like the repatriation ceremony of his brother's remains in Hawaii.

Since the frugal, no-frills couple does not subscribe to cable TV, she has not even seen much of the virtual campaign, and has to go into his Vermont campaign headquarters if she wants to watch a debate.

"What will she tell their grandkids?" wondered one political reporter here. "Yeah, Grandpa was once a front-runner for president with crowds all over America cheering him but I was too busy to go see it?"

It will be interesting to see, if her husband falters, whether the exigencies of politics will require her to make a house call on his campaign.

Physician, heal thy spouse.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (24412)1/15/2004 1:08:55 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793707
 
I am going to post a "side by side" of the "Times" and the AJC story on Bush's visit to Atlanta. The AJC is a liberal paper, and if there was a huge uproar in Atlanta about Bush's visit, they would play it that way. It's obvious that either the Times reporter or their Editor decided to blow it up. First the AJC, with the Times story on the end.

Compromise worked out on Bush visit, MLK tribute

By CHARLES YOO
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Today's coverage
• Coretta Scott King: 'I feel really great'
• Compromise worked out on Bush visit, MLK tribute
• Ex-lieutenants: MLK still would be fighting
• King celebration events




After some spirited haggling, a compromise has been reached that will allow both a visit today by President Bush and a long-planned tribute to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on what would have been his 75th birthday.

As of Wednesday, whether such a feat was possible was anybody's call.

Bush recently contacted the King Center to say he'd be in Atlanta today and wanted to pay his respects to the late civil rights leader and his family by placing at wreath at King's crypt. But a presidential visit requires tight security and in this case threatened to force the cancellation of a long-planned tribute to King next door at historic Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Members of the MLK March Committee, who worked with King and planned the tribute, complained that Bush invited himself to their party and might end up ruining the event. They said the daylong tribute with a focus on human rights was supposed to go from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., but that Secret Service agents told them they'd have to empty the church early in the afternoon to allow a security sweep before Bush's 3:45 p.m. visit. Organizers, including the Rev. James Orange, said they weren't leaving the church.

But diplomacy has prevailed. On Wednesday members of the Atlanta Police Department, the National Park Service, which oversees operation of some Atlanta King memorials, and the Secret Service showed up at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference headquarters on Auburn Avenue to meet with the MLK March Committee.

Four Secret Service agents explained they had no intention of disrupting the festival. "We don't want to infringe on your program," said an agent, adding the church "is not going to be shut down."

Both sides of the argument gave a little. Bush will visit. The committee's tribute will go on. The twist is that no one can enter the church after 2 p.m. Guests may, however, leave the church. Some organizers were a little frustrated that attendees couldn't come and go, but said being able to continue the program during the president's visit was some consolation.

"That's a compromise," said Helen Butler, the main tribute organizer. "We really don't want to prohibit people from participating. I think Dr. King was available to all people, so our event should be the same."

But not not everyone was happy. Outside the King Center on Wednesday members of Concerned Black Clergy protested the president's visit.

"Tomorrow, the biggest hypocrisy will be perpetuated here in Atlanta," said the Rev. Tim McDonald, president of the group and pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church.

Today, general traffic inconveniences await near the King Center and for those who park along Auburn Avenue from the King Center to near Centennial Olympic Park.

As part of security, parking is prohibited from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Auburn Avenue from Boulevard to Luckie Street and on Luckie Street to Centennial Olympic Park. Cars parked there will be towed.

From 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. portions of streets surrounding the King Center will be closed for Bush's visit.

Find this article at:
ajc.com

January 15, 2004 - New York Times
Bush Plan to Honor Dr. King Stirs Criticism
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN and ARIEL HART

ATLANTA, Jan. 15 — When President Bill Clinton came to town on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, crowds poured into the streets to watch him lay a wreath at the foot of Dr. King's grave.

On Thursday, President Bush is coming to town. And the streets may be full again.

Many of Atlanta's civil rights leaders are outraged about Mr. Bush's planned visit to commemorate Dr. King's 75th birthday and are using the occasion for protests. Already, they have marched with bullhorns, signs and thumping drums, shouting for the president to stay away.

"His administration has never supported anything to help the poor, education, or children," said the Rev. Raphael Allen, vice president of programs at Concerned Black Clergy. "It's all about isolationism and greed for the upper class. That's not promoting the legacy of Dr. King."

Many demonstrators asked how Mr. Bush, who pushed for war in Iraq, could champion Dr. King, who stood for nonviolent resistance.

"It's hypocritical," said Minister Mmoja Ajabu of Providence Missionary Baptist Church.

Pointing to Dr. King's tomb, a slab of white marble overlooking a reflecting pool, Mr. Ajabu added, "It's quite possible that Dr. King will get up out of his grave there and say, `What's going on here? You're killing so many people?' "

Civil rights leaders said the hastily planned presidential visit, to be followed by a $2,000-a-person fund-raiser in Atlanta, is interfering with birthday plans. They also said coupling a visit to honor Dr. King with a political fund-raiser was in poor taste.

"It's the epitome of insult," said the Rev. Timothy McDonald, an organizer of the birthday celebrations. "He's really coming here for the fund-raiser. The King wreath was an afterthought."

Because of all the tight security, access to a historic black church near the memorial site will be limited. The church will be the site of a civil rights symposium, and initially, the Secret Service told organizers they would have to cut it short. But after discussions and threats by black leaders to lock themselves in the church, the Secret Service agreed to keep the church open.

Every president since Ronald Reagan has come to Atlanta, the birthplace of Dr. King, to lay a wreath at his grave. When President Clinton came in 1996, he received a standing ovation. But this presidential visit will be different. It seems to have lifted the lid on long-simmering anger many blacks feel toward Mr. Bush. Some Bush policies, including tax cuts mainly benefiting those with higher incomes and cutting back on welfare-type programs, have alienated black voters, analysts say.

"Certainly there's a great deal of hostility among African-Americans," said William Boone, a professor at Clark Atlanta University. "But this event is a very symbolic event in the black community." Dr. Boone added that in the minds of some, Mr. Bush is "trying to co-opt it for his political benefit."

Several civil rights leaders said they felt ambushed by the president's visit because they did not know about it until Saturday, when they read about it in the newspaper. The official holiday is Monday.

"I feel disrespected by the administration and the Secret Service," said the Rev. James Orange, a 61-year-old colleague of Dr. King.

Mr. Orange went on: "On Dr. King's birthday last year, his administration initiated plans to gut affirmative action. Here we are a year later, and the same person who tried to turn back the clock on me wants to use Dr. King's birthday because it's an election year."

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Bush had invited himself, but it is often the case that the White House calls a group and says the president would like to participate in an event.

"My understanding is that we contacted the King Center and specifically asked if it would in any way be disruptive if the president came to honor Dr. King and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony," Mr. McClellan said. "And the King Center indicated that it would not."

The King Center is the official guardian of Dr. King's legacy, and a spokesman at the center said the president's visit was welcome.

"We don't have any problems with this," said the spokesman, Robert Vickers. He called the security arrangements a "minor inconvenience."

Those on the streets may disagree. This morning, a stream of civil rights activists marched through Dr. King's old neighborhood, singing spirituals while Buddhist monks banged on drums.

Ghoshu Utsumi, a monk who regularly visits Dr. King's tomb, said: "Dr. King's message is against war and violence. This is the richest country in the world, and there are homeless people everywhere. It is sad that $87 billion is going to war. It is very, very sad."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (24412)1/15/2004 1:32:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793707
 
This is what you get when a Time's "hard Left" critic reviews the Frum/Perle book. she is really "frothing at the mouth." I look forward to Frum's rebuttal at NRO.



BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'AN END TO EVIL'
A Confident Prescription for Foiling the Terrorists
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
AN END TO EVIL
How to Win the War on Terror
By David Frum and Richard Perle
284 pages. Random House. $25.95.

The title of this new book by David Frum and Richard Perle, "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror," says it all. It captures the authors' absolutist, Manichaean language and worldview; their cocky know-it-all tone; their swaggering insinuation that they know "how to win the war on terror" and that readers, the Bush administration and the rest of the world had better listen to them.

The book takes the instructive, prescriptive stance assumed by many conservative theorists in recent books, but it turns out to be less a reasoned effort to convince the unconvinced than a furious manifesto aimed at true believers. It is a screed that expends as much energy denouncing the State Department, Europe, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., Democrats, the foreign-policy establishment and even former President George H. W. Bush (the authors accuse him of trying "to prevent the Soviet Union from disintegrating"), as it does on denouncing terrorists and terror-minded states.

Making its points with all the subtlety of a pit bull on steroids, "An End to Evil" is smug, shrill and deliberately provocative. Which might not be so surprising given the authors' track records. Mr. Frum, a former White House speechwriter who helped coin the "axis of evil" phrase that President George W. Bush used in his 2002 State of the Union address, adopted a similarly bellicose manner in his 2003 book "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush." Mr. Perle, a hawkish member of the Defense Policy Board and an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, acquired the Washington nicknames Prince of Darkness and Darth Vader in the 1980's for his combative, take-no-prisoners pronouncements.

The authors make some persuasive points about the disturbing role the Saudis have played in fomenting radical Islamist doctrine, the persecution of women in some Muslim countries and the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. But these points tend to be drowned out by their triumphalist boasts ("the United States has become the greatest of all great powers in world history"), their macho posturing and their willful, flame-throwing language. "There is no middle way for Americans," they write in the opening chapter. "It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory."

Discussing rulers like Fidel Castro and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, they declare that "when it is in our power and our interest, we should toss dictators aside with no more compunction than a police sharpshooter feels when he downs a hostage-taker." Of the United Nations, another one of their nemeses, they write, "The U.N. regularly broadcasts a spectacle as dishonest and morally deadening as a Stalinist show trial, a televised ritual of condemnation that inflames hatreds and sustains quarrels that might otherwise fade away."

Mr. Perle and Mr. Frum argue that America "should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," and they assert that Iran is "the world's least trustworthy regime," ominously adding, "The regime must go."

Throughout "An End to Evil" they purvey a worldview of us-versus-them, all-or-nothing, either-or, and this outlook results in a refusal to countenance the possibility that people who do not share the authors' views about the war in Iraq or their faith in a pre-emptive, unilateralist foreign policy might have legitimate reasons for doing so. Instead, Mr. Frum and Mr. Perle accuse those who differ with their foreign-policy beliefs of failing to support the war against terrorism: of being cowardly, delusional or defeatist.

They write, "The determination of the State Department to reconcile the irreconcilable, to negotiate the unnegotiable, and to appease the unappeasable is an obstacle to victory." They argue that the C.I.A. is "an agency with very strong, mostly liberal policy views," and that those views have "again and again distorted its analysis and presentation of its own information." Of critics of the Patriot Act, they warn, "We may be so eager to protect the right to dissent that we lose sight of the difference between dissent and subversion; so determined to defend the right of privacy that we refuse to acknowledge even the most blatant warnings of danger."

In some cases the authors serve up questionable assertions with little or no effort to back them up. They write, for instance, that "a visitor who walked through Baghdad in June would scarcely know that the city had been bombed in March."

Neither the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that might have posed an imminent threat to America, nor the failure to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 seems to have given the authors pause. They argue that "even in the absence of stockpiles of weapons Saddam was known to have created, the threat from his programs was undeniable." And they claim that "Saddam expected to share" in Osama bin Laden's success in hitting the World Trade Center. In other cases the authors use selective anecdotes or redacted illustrations to try to make their points. The myriad problems America continues to face in Iraq — as well as a mounting death toll — are conveniently skirted, as are the continuing difficulties in Afghanistan.

The authors' canned summary of recent Middle East history barely mentions the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and later in the book they cavalierly dismiss suggestions that the creation of a Palestinian state might help calm passions in the Muslim world and strengthen friendly Arab governments. "This thinking is not completely wrong," they sarcastically comment. "If the United States were to denounce Israel as an illegal occupier of Muslim land, attack it, deport the Jewish population, and turn over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians, we might well enjoy some of the benefits listed above."

The Palestinian state envisioned by President Bush, they suggest, would be undermined by extremists, who "will denounce the ministate as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause" or "find some other pretext for refusing ever to make peace with Israel."

But while Mr. Perle and Mr. Frum are unrelentingly pessimistic about a prospective Palestinian state, they are downright Pollyanna-ish about the prospects for a democratic Iraq: "We liberated an entire nation, opening the way to a humane, decent civil society in Iraq — and to reform of the ideological and moral climate of the whole Middle East."

Such contradictions, combined with the volume's bullying tone and often specious reasoning, make for a strident, sophistical book, one unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already share the authors' super-hawkish views and self-righteous braggadocio.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company