Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (42438)	4/13/2004 12:17:47 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

"Today's Special: Chicken Hawk w. Side of Condi Rice" by Douglas O'Rourke OpEdNews.Com Have you noticed the Bush Bandwagon has thundered right past "Wag the Dog," and is headed straight on toward "Screw the Pooch?" The White House image folks can usually out "Riefenstahl" any reality, but a rush of 'good news' from Iraq has them re-reading "Sun Tzu for Dummies." The Bush "Truth on the Cheap" policy is still evolving. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice spent a few reluctant hours Thursday under oath before the members of the independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Dr. Rice's Republican version of 9/11 is so utterly compelling she makes you wish the Bush Administration had been in office when the Twin Towers fell so they could have protected us. Dr. Rice was all smiles, but fought the appearance to the last. She began with a dry, wistful 20 minute academic briefing that was equally evasive and patronizing, like Omarosa on the "The Apprentice" doing a fair Henry Kissinger imitation. How can Amnesty International allow rhetoric to be so tortured right there live on Fox News? A dozen macho staff Chicken Hawks who sold us the Iraq War are hiding behind this dapper 49 year old woman's answers. These are the same warriors scared to call on veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas. She didn't really 'answer' most Commission questions, she 'addressed' them. 'Condi Time' was pretty tense, but they really never laid a glove on her. Dr. Rice's carefully pre-rehearsed lyrics flowed from her moving lips, in the same way Britney Spears sings, 'LIVE!' Apparently what killed all those poor 9/11 folks wasn't hijacked planes at all; it was "structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies." Welcome to National Security-Lite. Less filling. Less bothersome. Hey, just go put a hundred bucks worth of gas in your new SUV. Sleep well. Everything is Fair and Balanced. Stay the course! Feel the PRIDE!!! When Candidate Bush first ran, he said he wouldn't be a 'nation builder,' and he's sure proved that in Iraq. Polls taken since Dr. Rice spoke indicate a large majority of Americans think the Bush people are lying. As political theater, the Dr. Rice's testimony was stodgy, but as political farce, it was priceless. Reality was spun, fluffed, and fully redacted for daytime TV. She's a crafty insider who landed in the second S-3B Viking aboard the carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, 2003, to help declare 'Mission Accomplished.' She owns a big chunk of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' Her Commission performance was a perfect wonk-murmur, a skillful verbal disappearing act that made nervous Republicans swoon. Ask Dr. Rice for a simple one-word answer, and she'll give you the history of anvils starting in 3206 B.C., v-e-r-y slowly. It's as if she almost 'meant' to run down the Commissioner's question time. Almost forgotten were the 9/11 families present who are still trying to find out why the Feds let everybody die. Many applauded openly when tough questions were asked. The proud 9/11 survivors who made Mr. Bush seat this Commission are some of the few, that unhappy few, that band of brothers and sisters now bonded forever by an act of madness on a crystal clear Indian Summer day. They won't be put off. They demand serious answers, and the Bush people seem to really fear them. The Sons of Nixon have come a long way since the old man did the 'Checkers Speech.' Given Bush-era ethics, is anything really a 'lie' anymore? The Neocons 'own' the White House, both sides of Congress, the law firm of Scalia & Thomas, PLC, and can easily intimidate 90% of the working press. 1st Lt. Bush will explain it all for you, or maybe not. We decide. You Report. August 6, 2001 - "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." April 8, 2004 - "Rice Determined to Clear Bush of All Possible Responsibility" Per Dr. Rice, on 9/11/01 and before and after, the Bush people were fully in charge, but blameless. They underestimated but could not have known. Clear terror warnings were 'historic.' They did everything, but nothing could have helped. They've cooperated fully, but they will decide what's relevant. They look forward to a full, honest, and impartial hearing...which they've quietly stonewalled at every turn. To put Dr. Rice's testimony in exact perspective, imagine this Commission were looking into the attack on Pearl Harbor, and FDR defiantly wouldn't share a file marked: November 12, 1941 - "Japan Determined to Attack United States Possessions." Let's put aside the media distraction of the evolving Iraq Civil War as Dr. Rice spoke, and admit she's obviously very studious and we ARE judging her with 20/20 hindsight. Give the administration full credit for finding a high post for a woman of color. Note that the Republicans had to be shamed into approving an honest, bi-partisan 9/11 investigation, and they continue playing games by not releasing public documents. The Bush people even brokered 'creative control' and will vet the 'final' Commission report. This most secretive Administration EVER, is still dancing around the full release of the Presidential Briefing material "Bin Laden Determined..." It must be really bad. They also won't release the full draft of Dr. Rice's National Security talk scheduled for the evening of 9/11. Journalist Robin Wright broke the 'speech' story last week in the Washington Post and the White House confirmed the published text excerpts. The speech reportedly sells the flawed Bush anti-missile defense, with slight mention of terrorism. It's said to be a good snapshot of their thinking in the days just before the attack. The stark world Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have secretly created for us all, is a very noisy, dangerous, and unforgiving place. A lot of very bad people hate us. A lot of good people who liked us, have stopped. Watching Dr. Rice on TV, it's hard to know what she really thinks, but it's painfully clear what she believes. The White House has openly mocked the Commission, the 9/11 survivors, and the country. Over at Fox News, they're all tap dancing as fast as they can. The terrified Neocons are starting to scare even the Republicans. ...Bush to Rapture, "Bring it on!" Maybe it's just a plot to get us nostalgic for Watergate. At least Watergate didn't get anybody killed. You have to wonder what else they're sitting on. Why can't any of them ever just admit they were terribly wrong? Republican Spin Doctors got angry when Iraq was compared to Vietnam this week. We agree. Compared to this Old Time Neocon Traveling Revival Tent Show now playing in Iraq, Vietnam was a walk in the sun. The good work of the 9/11 Commission continues next week with the FBI and CIA. You can check in on them at 9-11commission.gov. There's probably quite a story behind all this Bushwa; pity we won't know for about fifty years. If all this 'good news' from Washington and Iraq has you down, just relax, have some wine or warm tea, turn on Fox News, dump their audio, and play some Gilbert and Sullivan real loud on the Victrola. ----------------------------------------------------------- Douglas O'Rourke is a writer in California and can be reached via www.columnleft.com opednews.com

To: lurqer who wrote (42438)	4/13/2004 12:19:28 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

While our troops remain on Iraq's streets there is no hope The occupation must first become invisible, then end Jonathan Steele One thing is even clearer at the end of the heaviest week of American casualties in Iraq since the invasion was launched. The current combat is nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. His hollow regime did not have the muscle or the loyalty to summon up the urban guerrilla resistance that we have seen over the past seven days. His conscript army split and ran. In its place a year later thousands of volunteers, Shia and Sunni, are fighting to regain the honour they feel they lost when their ancient capital and the rest of the country fell to foreign invaders with relatively few successful shots fired against them. Where does that leave the occupation forces, or the coalition as it prefers to be called? The opposite ends of the spectrum are stark enough: cut and run, or go in even harder with more guns blazing and more bloodshed. But is there a middle way? Can the coalition find a path back to stability and acceptance? Regaining national and individual pride is not the only motive for the sudden explosion of discontent. There are other causes, and they vary from person to person, including the millions who were happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein. But unless the coalition's leaders understand that almost every Iraqi resents the presence of foreign troops, they will never be able to recoup. Colin Powell was still talking last week of "remnants of the old regime". Sitting in Bermuda, Tony Blair penned cliches about "extremists" whose "thirst will not be slaked" if the troops are brought home. "Dictators would rejoice, fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. We are locked in an historic struggle in Iraq," he thundered. Actually, it is much less global, and for Iraqis very local. I wish the prime minister had sat with the congregation of 200,000 ordinary Sunnis and Shias at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque last Friday, which pulsated with anger over the agony of Falluja. If only the middle-aged man who politely said "welcome" when he learned I was English and handed me a piece of paper could have given it to Tony Blair. Its short message, written in English, was: "No dignity with occupation." Paul Bremer, the top US administrator, has met enough Iraqis to know this. But he brushes it off as "underlying resentment". As a teenager, he went to school in France. "The French have never forgiven us for liberating them," he is known to have told visitors, as though it is no more than a psychological irritant. If all else is going well, perhaps it can be massaged away. But Iraq is not France. It is a country of mass unemployment and poverty (in spite of potential oil wealth). This is the second lesson the coalition must learn. In Basra and Amara, where there have been several marches for jobs, the British routinely comment: "They are not political. These protests are not about the occupation." But if little is done about the economy month after month, frustration becomes political. Moqtada al-Sadr's following comes mainly from jobless young men. The third issue is the coalition's excessive use of force. Falluja captured the world's headlines, but all over the Sunni areas there have been mini-Fallujas for months. US troops respond to attacks with artillery fire and air strikes, clumsy house-to-house searches, and mass arrests. In the process they create more enemies and provoke a desire for revenge. "We have even lost our right to get undressed for bed," a businessman in the town of Muqdadiya told me. Startled, I asked what he meant. He recounted how American troops had burst into his home after dark, handcuffed him in his night clothes in front of his terrified wife and children, and taken him away. Head of the local branch of the Iraqi Islamic party, he is a member of the town's US-approved council. His colleagues protested and got him released the next day. His ordeal was short compared with the torture he suffered during five detentions under Saddam when his party had to work underground. But he said it left a deeper wound. "Under Saddam they summoned you to the security police headquarters, and that was where the torture began. They didn't humiliate you in sight of your family," he explained. His experience illustrates the fourth key problem of the occupation - the dilemma it poses for every Iraqi leader. How does one work with the coalition without losing one's fellow citizens' respect? Is there a bridge between collaboration and resistance, or only a wall? The Muqdadiya businessman was detained by the Americans on suspicion of links with the people who attack US convoys. He denied it, though he is clearly well-known in the local villages and he sent a party member to escort us through the countryside to meet victims of US counter-insurgency operations. Many of the coalition's political officers know the difficult role that Iraqi politicians and tribal leaders have to play. The town councils it appointed around Iraq kept the peace until last week's explosion by representing a broad range of different local interests. When necessary, the coalition turned a blind eye to their ideologies and affiliations. The difficulty comes with the US military, and its Bushian philosophy of "You're either with us or against", which forces Iraqi leaders into a corner. How can the position be salvaged? The most hopeful recent event was the outspoken criticism of the Falluja overkill by members of the governing council, and their threat to resign. Iraqis say they are beginning to respect them at last. If the council can get the US marines to leave Falluja, they will have done a great deal. Secondly, coalition money must be spent fast to generate jobs. Offering foreign corporations long-term reconstruction contracts is less urgent than simple public works. Rebuilding looted offices, fixing the traffic lights, removing the mounds of rubbish, regular cleaning of schools and hospitals would spread income quickly, but when, for example, the city of Nassiriya and its province has a budget of £1m, how can the governor even begin? The key task is to make the occupation invisible. The transfer of sovereignty on June 30 will mean nothing if coalition troops remain on city streets. "They behave as though it is their country and we are all terrorists," said one Falluja resident, angry that US troops almost invariably point their guns at people. Put foreign forces under an unambiguous UN mandate, name an early date for their full withdrawal that Iraqis can believe, and immediately reduce the US contingent, which has shown it lacks the training and enough commanders who are able to conduct intelligent peace-keeping. If Falluja has not made that obvious, nothing will. guardian.co.uk lurqer