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


To: JohnM who wrote (53096)8/10/2004 7:57:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Purchase of US assets by Asian central banks comes under scrutiny
_____________________________

Sunday August 8, 10:10 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Voracious purchases of US Treasury bills by Asian central banks are coming under scrutiny ahead of presidential elections amid concerns over national security and a ballooning current account deficit.

Led by Japan and China, Asian economies have been gobbling up US dollar based assets, particularly US Treasuries running into hundreds of billions of dollars, over the last two years.

By investing in US securities, the Asian economies stash away proceeds from selling their own currencies in an attempt to prevent them from rising against the dollar and so making their exports cheaper and more appealing to American consumers.

Some say that while the massive Asian holdings may keep US interest rates low and help bankroll America's debts, they are propping up the US record 541.8 billion dollar current account deficit -- the balance of goods and services between US and the rest of the world.

Others fear that such immense US wealth in foreign hands could boomerang if, for example, the assets are unloaded abruptly in a deliberate attempt to destroy the American economy.

Lawrence Summers, Harvard University President and US Treasury Secretary under ex-President Bill Clinton, likened the Asian purchases to hoarding of gold by European states centuries ago.

"Much has been made of US dependence on foreign energy, but the country's dependence on foreign cash is even more distressing," Summers said in the latest issue of the US magazine, Foreign Policy.

"In a real sense, the countries that hold US currency and securities in their banks also hold US prosperity in their hands," he said. "That prospect should make Americans uncomfortable."

Foreigners already hold almost 40 percent of marketable US Treasury debt. The Asian central banks have increased their holdings of US assets to about one trillion dollars, according to market estimates.

At the recent Democratic party convention that endorsed John Kerry as the party's flag bearer against Republican President George W. Bush in November polls, Clinton took a swipe at the Bush administration for allowing foreigners to have a potential financial lever on the US economy.

Clinton said the government was effectively "borrowing from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China" to make up for the burgeoning budget deficit, forecast to reach a record 445 billion dollars this year.

"Sure, they're competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?," he asked.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledged concerns in a speech in March about any impact of a sudden bail out by Asian central banks from the US Treasury market but felt the possible effects would be small.

Asian central bank reserves are heavily concentrated in short-term maturities and the size of their asset holdings is small compared to the overall market in short-term dollar assets, Greenspan said.

Morris Goldstein, a senior fellow of the Washington-based Institute of International Economics, said the root of the problem was the rising US current account deficit.

"The concern about official holders, particularly in East Asia, is part of the problem that the US current account deficit is just too large and that's what give rise to financing and that's what give rise as it gets larger and larger to official holders," he told AFP.

Goldstein also highlighted what he called the problem of Asian countries refusing to adjust their exchange rates upwards in line with the market.

"That's another problem why they are accumulating (US assets) because the rates are undervalued and, in some cases, the countries are using prolonged one way exchange market intervention to defend them -- which is inappropriate and manipulation and ought to stop," he said.

Both Bush and Kerry have accused Beijing of seeking to boost exports by keeping its currency artificially low, highlighting China's 124 billion dollar trade surplus with the United States last year.

The US government says growing participation of foreign investors, including by Asian central banks, in the US Treasury market lowers borrowing costs and reflects confidence of external lenders in the United States.

But some members of a high level market advisory panel have proposed that Washington prod Asian central banks which are large holders of US Treasuries to participate in repo markets, officials said.

Repo is an agreement in which one party sells a security to another party and agrees to repurchase it on a specified date for a specified price.

"These members expressed concerns that the markets could potentially be disrupted without this important change in foreign investor participation," said Mark Werner, the chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.

The panel advises Treasury Secretary John Snow on the financing and management of the Federal debt.

uk.biz.yahoo.com



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)8/11/2004 11:56:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
BUSH LOSES HIS BASE.
__________________________

White Flight
by John B. Judis & Ruy Teixeira
The New Republic
Issue date 08.02.04
tnr.com

Martinsburg, West Virginia

Sweat streams down Terry's face as he pushes a lawnmower up the street toward his home in Martinsburg, a small town in West Virginia's eastern panhandle. Middle-aged, balding, and paunchy, Terry used to work in a local factory but is now on disability because of an accident. Asked his opinion of President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, he says he used to like Bush and, at first, he thought it was a "good idea" to invade Iraq. But he has now changed his mind. "They shouldn't have gone over there," he says. "They are killing a whole lot of innocent people. It isn't worth it. They already caught the guy. They should have gotten the troops out then."

Christine, who works for a government agency, is sitting in her front yard, overseeing a garage sale. Like others on her block, she has a pride in the United States flag prominently displayed. But her support for the troops in Iraq doesn't extend to the war itself. "I don't think it's been worth it," she says. "I don't know why we blow someplace up and then spend so much to rebuild it when we have our own issues over here. I did support it when we went over. But now I don't think we had any reason to go over there." She says she hasn't decided who to vote for but is leaning toward John Kerry.

Terry and Christine are members of the white working class--comprising people, ranging from clerks to factory workers to technicians, without four-year college degrees. Since 1968, Republican presidential candidates have relied heavily on these voters to win elections. In 2004, Bush will need to win them decisively to carry battleground states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Missouri. But he may not, thanks in large measure to growing dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. Perhaps no other group's views have changed so dramatically since the U.S. invasion, and perhaps no other group's mounting opposition to the war is as ominous for Bush's reelection hopes.



Alienated by the civil rights movement, and later by antiwar protesters and feminists, white, working-class voters began transferring their loyalty from New Deal Democrats to conservative Republicans in the 1960s. They gave large majorities to Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and George H.W. Bush in 1988--more than making up for rising Democratic support among professionals and minorities. Bill Clinton, with his mix of economic populism, New Democrat social philosophy, and folksiness, narrowly carried these voters in 1992 and 1996, but Al Gore lost them by 17 percent in 2000. That's a big reason Gore failed to carry Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia--all states Clinton had won. The shift to the GOP was even more dramatic among what one might call the working-class elite--skilled, white workers who had some specialized training after high school. Gore lost these voters by 20 percent in 2000, and Democratic congressional candidates lost them by a whopping 24 percent in 2002.

White, working-class voters make up the bulk of voters in many battleground states. In West Virginia, for example, they comprise 74 percent of the electorate; in Missouri, 64 percent; in Ohio and Pennsylvania, just over 60 percent. If Bush wins white, working-class voters in the battleground states by more than ten points, he should carry most of them. But, if his advantage falls below this margin, he will be in trouble. And that's what seems to be happening.

In late May and early June, Gallup polls showed white, working-class voters, who had favored Bush over Gore by 17 percent in 2000, favoring him over Kerry by an average of only 50 to 42 percent. Moreover, Bush led among workers with some college by only 49 to 44 percent--a difference of 15 points from the 2000 election. Since these are national figures and since white workers in battleground states are substantially more Democratic than white workers elsewhere, one has to assume Bush's margins are even smaller--and perhaps nonexistent--in West Virginia and other Midwestern battlegrounds.

There are many reasons for this shift, but one stands out: a change in white, working-class perceptions of the Iraq war. These voters usually favor Democrats on economics, health care, and Social Security but strongly favor Republicans on national security and cultural issues. As they have grown disillusioned with the war in Iraq, however, they have lost their confidence in Bush and the GOP.

In June 2003, according to Gallup, 65 percent of white, working-class voters thought it was "worth going to war" in Iraq, while only 33 percent disagreed. By late May 2004, only 52 percent thought the war was worth fighting, and 46 percent thought it was not. The change among workers with some college was even more dramatic. They went from 70 to 30 percent in favor of the war to only 52 to 46 percent, a 34-point swing.

Other groups, including senior citizens, minorities, young voters, and voters with postgraduate education, have also become disillusioned with the war, but they were not as supportive to begin with. White, working-class voters were the bastion of pro-war sentiment. And, unlike minority voters or postgrads, they were also thoroughly supportive of Bush's presidency. So, while the war probably hasn't reduced Bush's already slim support among minority voters, it is undermining his support among the white working class, perhaps his most crucial voting bloc.



In 1968, some white, working-class voters deserted Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey over their opposition to the Vietnam War. But their reasons for opposing the war were different from those of the antiwar protesters. They didn't object to the war's immorality, but to its futility, the waste of lives and resources on a battle that could not be won, at least not in the manner in which it was being fought.

The same distinction prevails today. Many voters in Martinsburg don't object to the invasion but to the occupation. Like Terry, they think the military should have gone in, captured Saddam Hussein, then left. They don't like the idea of sending troops and funds to rebuild Iraq. Don, a construction worker wearing a Chicago Bears cap, says, "I don't think it is helping us at all. We are sending all our resources and money out there."

But, as these West Virginians have learned that the Iraqis didn't possess weapons of mass destruction and were not allied with Al Qaeda, they have also begun to wonder whether the war was necessary at all. That has created a special kind of resentment in a state that has the third highest percentage of National Guard troops mobilized for the war and where almost everyone knows someone serving in Iraq. Asked about Bush and the war, Shirley, a housewife holding a garage sale in front of the Moose Lodge, responds, "I have just one thing to say: Bring my son home."

Still, Bush is not getting routed in Martinsburg. In a Saturday walk around the town's blue-collar neighborhoods, about one-third of those interviewed expressed support for the president and the war. Their support seemed to hinge on the belief that, by invading Iraq, the military was also fighting Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Richard, a landscaper, says, "They are all tied to the same string. That's why the Iraqis are fighting us."

One person was critical of the war but still supportive of Bush. "I think we have another Vietnam getting started," says Jim, who runs a lawnmower repair business out of his yard. "We should have done it and gotten out of there." But he still prefers Bush to Kerry. "At least I know where George stands," he says. "You listen to Kerry, and you don't know which side of the fence he stands on."

For the most part, however, people in Martinsburg seem to reflect the national polls, which show a close correlation between support or opposition to the war and support or opposition to Bush's presidency. Says Brenda, who, as a hair stylist at J.C. Penney, hears political arguments all day and who opposes the war herself, "Nobody is in the middle on this issue." This division among white, working-class voters is bad news for Bush. With the rest of the nation closely divided, Bush needs to win big with this demographic. If support for the war among the white working class continues to erode, so will Bush's chances of reelection.
________________________________

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ruy Teixeira is senior fellow at The Century Foundation.



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)8/15/2004 5:36:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq
____________________________

By Fareed Zakaria*

Newsweek / Aug. 23 issue

msnbc.msn.com

<<...John Kerry isn't being entirely honest about his views on Iraq. But neither is President George W. Bush. "Knowing what we know now," Bush asked, "would [Kerry] have supported going into Iraq?" The real answer is, of course, "no." But that's just as true for Bush as for Kerry. We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Is Bush suggesting that despite this knowledge, he would still have concluded that Iraq constituted a "grave and gathering threat" that required an immediate, preventive war? Please. Even if Bush had come to this strange conclusion, no one would have listened to him. Without the threat of those weapons, there would have been no case to make to the American people or the world community. There were good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but it was the threat of those weapons that created the international, legal, strategic and urgent rationale for a war. There were good reasons why intelligence agencies all over the world—including those of Arab governments—believed that Saddam had these weapons. But he didn't.

The more intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject...>>

*Fareed Zakaria is The Editor of Newsweek International and his complete Bio is available at:

msnbc.com



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)8/15/2004 6:02:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Kerry and Bush on The Iraq War
____________________________

by Juan Cole*

published by Informed Comment

progressivetrail.org

<<...Bush got Kerry to say "yes, but . . ." and in a world of media soundbites, it is easy to lop off the "but . . ." Here's how I would have handled it:

"Mr. President, the question of whether we should have gone to war is water under the bridge. We are in Iraq now, and are on the way to spending $500 billion on it at a time when many of our own people don't have insurance or cannot afford the drugs they need, or cannot build a needed new school. You have posed a counterfactual question, an imaginary question. There is no way to answer a question about an imaginary situation. Why don't you keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds, and look what is happening to our troops in Iraq? What I can tell you is that the way you fought the war in Iraq has made Americans less safe, not more safe. You have diverted resources from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions to bombarding Muslim holy sites in Iraq. You have allowed the poppy trade to come back, to the tune of over $2 billion a year, in Afghanistan, creating a powerful threat of narco-terrorism. Do we really want the remanants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda to get hold of that kind of drug money? You have thrown Iraq into political and military chaos, creating an unstable situation that could well breed terrorism against the United States. Your supporters are fond of calling you the "commander in chief" even with reference to your civilian role. But you are the commander in chief of the US armed forces, and you have not served them well by sending in a force too small to provide security to post-war Iraq."...>>

*Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)10/2/2004 9:04:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush's first term scores last

_____________________________

By WALTER WILLIAMS
GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Friday, October 1, 2004

Based on my assessment of George W. Bush's presidency in columns over the past five days, I have concluded that his first term should rate near the bottom among all the presidents since 1789:

President Bush's economic record -- the worst in the postwar years -- has put the broad middle class in serious economic jeopardy.

His administration's gross incompetence in Iraq has left the United States bogged down in a Vietnam-like quagmire while increasing world terrorism.

By favoring big-money interests, Bush has entrenched plutocratic governance and diminished democracy.

Bush retains a far better image than his record warrants by repeatedly duping the public through the suppression of contradictory information and the employment of deceptive statements and lies. Douglas Jehl in the Sept. 16 New York Times wrote:

"A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment for Iraq, government officials said. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms."

Once the government's own estimate was uncovered after being suppressed for nearly two months, Bush on the campaign trail ignored his own government's pessimistic evaluation of Iraq and said: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."

The administration has not simply put a better spin on bad news; it has constructed a lie out of whole cloth. Bush and his minions hammer it into believability by repetition and a relentless defense of the claim.

The propaganda works so well because it plays to the public's two big fears. First is the threat of a terrorist attack that the administration stokes with the horrible images of Sept. 11. Second is the danger of their comfortable myths being shattered. Just like Ronald Reagan, the Bush administration has employed the politics of unreality with great success.

The optimistic Reagan restored confidence during the 1981-82 recession by depicting an America he believed in wholeheartedly, but in fact no longer existed -- an America without limits.

Bush propagandists operated more cynically, based on their confidence that Americans will embrace an optimistic unreality rather than a myth -- challenging truth, no matter how hard the evidence. When critics point to the actual reality, Bush spinners tarnish them with the sin of pessimism.

If the politics of unreality prevails and the American people cling to the administration's deception and lies, Bush will be re-elected. What can be expected in Bush's second term?

One part of the answer is more of the same because true believers are undeterred by reality. Worse, winning a second term can be read as a mandate to press on even more vigorously toward the Bush objectives.

The Bush propagandists will continue to paint Iraq as a success, as it moves toward a quagmire worse than Vietnam. While in the United States, plutocracy likely will become more entrenched and democracy becomes more myth than reality.

Bush's tax policies threaten the economic security of more and more of the broad middle class. A Sept.14 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report indicates that the average tax reductions in 2004 from the earlier Bush tax legislation were $123,592 for millionaires; $34,992, for the top 1 percent of the population; and $647 for the middle 20 percent of the population.

It also pointed out that, measured as a share of the total economy, federal tax revenues this year drop to their 1959 level and individual income tax revenues, to their 1943 level. The CBPP report concluded that "we cannot run today's government on these revenue levels" because most of the current social and environment programs did not exist in 1959.

I confess to pessimism. Bush's tax policies have put ordinary citizens at great economic risk. I fear that the American government will not maintain democracy and will fail the great bulk of its citizens in their quest for a secure middle-class status at work and in retirement.

The overriding need is a full dose of hard facts about the real problems of a nation with severe limits now and in the future. Then, the electorate must accept this uncomfortable reality and the politicians act on it.

My closing admonition is: Demand the facts and vote in your family's real interests. If you ignore the clear dangers by opting for a glowing unreality, welcome aboard for a calamitous second term. Finally, just be clear that Cassandras are not always wrong. And Bush's Trojan horse is at the gate.

_________________________________________

Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs and is the author of "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)11/16/2004 6:47:34 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
After Day of Cabinet Resignations, Many Fear a Shift to the Right

____________________________________________

by Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

Published on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 by Knight-Ridder

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell's resignation and a flood of high-level departures at the State Department and CIA remove the cautionary voices that had often acted as a brake on President Bush's aggressive foreign policy.

U.S. officials and foreign policy analysts said Monday that by agreeing to Powell's departure and approving a purge by new CIA chief Porter Goss, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appear to be eliminating the few independent centers of power in the U.S. national security apparatus and cementing the system under their personal control.

Powell and his State Department team - quietly backed by the intelligence community - argued often for a foreign policy that was more inclusive of allies and that relied on diplomacy and coercion rather than on force to deal with adversaries.

They lost more battles than they won.

Powell, who friends said had hoped to stay on a little longer, will be replaced at the State Department by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, said a senior administration official. Rice is far closer personally to Bush.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a major architect of the Iraq war along with Bush and Cheney, appears to be staying for now, signaling that the White House believes its much-criticized Iraq policies are on the right track.

"Letting him go would be an admission of failure," said one senior administration official who, like others, requested anonymity because of the White House's distaste for dissent.

"Now," the official said, "they've got no one left to blame but themselves if things don't go right."

"We are seeing the consummation of the revolution," said Ivo Daalder, a scholar at the Washington-based Brookings Institution and author of a book on Bush's foreign policy.

"Anybody who thought that a `Bush 2' foreign policy would be a more moderate, multilateral, (John) Kerry-like foreign policy just doesn't understand this president, or this election," Daalder said.

Powell's resignation was the most prominent of a string of resignations that were announced or are in the works.

At the CIA Monday morning, Goss announced the resignations of Deputy Director for Operations Stephen Kappes, who heads the clandestine service, and his deputy Michael Sulick. Both had clashed with Goss over suggestions that CIA counterintelligence officers should investigate leaks to the media, intelligence officials said.

Goss, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and a team of four aides he brought from the House Intelligence Committee, have begun a post-election purge of the Operations Directorate that's infuriated and alarmed current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

Many officials believe that the CIA, particularly the DO, as the Operations Directorate is known, is in dire need of reform. The agency was largely unable to penetrate either al-Qaida or Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and critics charge that it's become too risk-averse and bureaucratic.

But, they said, the way Goss and his aides have proceeded has caused turmoil during heightened intelligence-gathering challenges. It smacks of partisanship and retaliation for the agency's production of analysis that doesn't support White House policy, they said.

"There is no doubt that changes needed to take place at the CIA, and people should be held accountable for past failures," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "However, the departure of highly respected and competent individuals at such a crucial time is a grave concern."

"Goss must take immediate steps to stabilize the situation at the CIA," he said.

"What Goss has done with his four minions is just appalling because it strikes at the heart of morale, which was not good to begin with," said Stanley Bedlington, a counterterrorism expert who spent 17 years at the CIA. "To upset the intelligence machine to the extent that it has been upset is the height of foolishness."

Others said that the CIA is in need of shock therapy.

"The more turmoil, the better. The place is dysfunctional," said one former CIA officer, who requested anonymity. "I'm not too sure there is a right way (to institute change). You are going into a hornets' nest."

Goss said Kappes and Sulick "honorably served their nation and this agency with distinction for many years."

"There will be no gap in our operations fighting the global war on terror, nor in any of our other vital activities," Goss added. He said he asked the current head of the Counterterrorist Center to take Kappes' place. Knight Ridder is withholding his name because he was a covert operative.

Three senior administration officials charged that Goss and his aides are carrying out a "White House-directed purge." One said it appears to be directed at "everybody who said there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida and everybody who they think leaked information that undercut what the administration was claiming."

Many intelligence and other officials questioned the administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida, claims that subsequent investigations have found to be erroneous. They also challenged White House assessments about political and economic progress in Iraq.

Cheney, they said, was particularly angered by reports, first carried by Knight Ridder, that the CIA had been unable to find any conclusive evidence tying Saddam's regime to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Cheney had ordered the CIA to take another look at possible links among Saddam, Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, the official said, and was angered when a CIA briefer told him the results of the inquiry.

"This is a classic case of shooting the messenger," said one senior official. "Unfortunately, they're the same messengers we're counting on to warn us of the next al-Qaida attack."

At the State Department, officials said, Powell is expected to be accompanied out the door by virtually his entire management team: Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage; Undersecretary for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, the department's No. 3 official; Undersecretary for Management Grant Green; and several others.

"They're going to purge the State Department," said one of the senior officials, adding that he'd heard White House officials say: "The State Department doesn't get it. They're not on the president's message."

Powell will be sorely missed among career employees, not so much for his policy successes, but because he made personnel a priority and used his political clout to wrest much-needed funds and hiring authority from Congress.

Powell imbued "a sense of self-worth that's a rare commodity for the civil service and the foreign service that works here," a mid-level official said. "It hasn't sunk into folks around here that we're about to lose our lord and protector."

One female officer said she will be forever endeared to Powell's team for a minor, but telling, change. At the State Department, historically a male bastion, the female bathrooms still had urinals. Now, two on the first floor of the department's main building do not.

© 2004 Knight Ridder

commondreams.org



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)1/21/2005 11:03:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Shadows
_______________

The Moose suggests that the Democrats follow a British model.

With Republicans controlling both the executive and legislative branches, oversight is virtually nonexistent. Don't expect most Republican Chairman to seriously pursue any monitoring of the Bushies over the next four years. And as we have learned in scandals ranging from Abu Graihb to Armstrong Williams, the Administration probably has much to hide.

That is why Democrats should perhaps follow the British model and assign various members of the appropriate committees to serve as de-facto Shadow Secretaries of the Executive Branch. These tasks would primarily, but not exclusively, be assumed by the ranking members of the committees. Sometimes non elected officials might fit the bill. For instance, there is already an outside de-facto Commissioner of Social Security - the incomparable and indefatigable, Josh Marshall.

While the Shadow Secretaries would not have subpoena power, they could hold investigative hearings with other Democratic members. These types of hearings are already held on a de facto basis, but it could be more formalized. The press could be a useful asset in both shining a spotlight on the agencies and echoing the message.

Democrats must be creative in the coming years. They are confronted with a cunning adversary with unlimited resources. Time for outside the box thinking.

bullmooseblog.com



To: JohnM who wrote (53096)2/24/2005 10:43:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Downside of Democracy
_____________________________

By Juan Cole
Editorial
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 24 February 2005

What if the U.S. doesn't like what the voters like in the Mideast and beyond?

With the emergence of Shiite physician Ibrahim Jafari as the leading candidate for Iraqi prime minister earlier this week, the contradictions of Bush administration policy in the Middle East have become even clearer than they were before.

President Bush says he is committed to democratizing the region, yet he also wants governments to emerge that are friendly to the U.S., benevolent to their own people, secular, capitalist and willing to stand up and fight against anti-American radicals.

But what if democratic elections do not produce such governments? What if the newly elected regimes are friendly to states and groups that Washington considers enemies? What if the spread of democracy through the region empowers elements that don't share American values and goals?

The recent election in Iraq is a case in point. The two major parties in the victorious Shiite alliance are Jafari's party, the Dawa, founded in the late 1950s to work for an Islamic republic, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, the goal of which can be guessed from its name. To be fair, both have backed away from their more radical stances of earlier decades. But both parties - and Jafari himself - were sheltered in Tehran in the 1980s by Washington's archenemy, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and both acknowledge that they want to move Iraq toward Islamic law and values.

The victorious Shiite fundamentalists have already taken steps that may be making the Bush administration nervous. They made it clear that they would attempt to incorporate their paramilitaries into the new Iraqi army. SCIRI has the Badr Corps, made up of about 15,000 men under arms trained originally by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Dawa has its own paramilitary.

The two parties also announced that they would try to bring into the government's armed forces members of the Al Mahdi militia of Shiite nationalist Muqtada Sadr, which have fought hard battles against the U.S. military in Najaf and elsewhere. Jafari has previously said that he hoped to bring Sadr into the Iraqi government. Jafari likewise has protested U.S. military action in Fallouja.

In interviews, Jafari has warned against deliberate attempts to undermine Iraq's relations with neighboring Iran, which he has visited on several occasions for consultations since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

To be fair, Jafari has emerged as a moderate and skillful politician, and his devotion to his faith should in principle be no more objectionable than Bush's own devotion to Christianity. Yet it certainly seems that his new government will adopt policies far less welcome in Washington than those of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

In the current struggle over whether the fundamentalist Lebanese Shiite party, Hezbollah, should be designated a terrorist organization, it seems clear that both the Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq will side with Hezbollah.

The fact is, democracy is an unruly process; it doesn't always yield the results we want or expect. Bush likes to talk in terms of good versus evil, to suggest that the forces of freedom and democracy are doing battle with the defenders of tyranny - but he should be aware that the world isn't always that simple.

He should remember, for instance, the 2002 elections in Pakistan, pushed for by Washington, which produced an unexpectedly good showing for the United Action Council, a coalition of hard-line fundamentalist parties. Some of them had helped train the Taliban. They won 17% of the federal parliament seats, won outright in the Northwest Frontier Province and now govern Baluchistan in coalition. Their leaders argued that Al Qaeda was merely a figment of the U.S. imagination.

A full disaster was averted in Pakistan only because the federal government was still dominated by military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Nevertheless, the United Action Council has attempted to impose a draconian version of Islamic law in the provinces it controls and has not been helpful to the U.S. in tracking down Al Qaeda operatives.

Pakistan and Iraq are not the only countries where elections have had mixed results. Although the Palestinian elections in January were widely viewed as a success - producing a pragmatic prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas - remember that the radical fundamentalist party, Hamas, boycotted those elections. Then, less than three weeks later, local elections were held - and Hamas won decisively in the Gaza Strip, leaving it more influential than before and poised for even bigger wins in next July's legislative elections.

And in recent years, democratization has also put Hezbollah in the Lebanese parliament. Serbian nationalists have won seats in Belgrade.

Are such outcomes acceptable to the Bush administration? If not, how will it respond? Given the war on terror, it is unlikely to simply take these electoral setbacks lying down.

But if Washington falls back on its traditional responses - covert operations, attempts to interfere in parliamentary votes with threats or bribes, or dependence on strong men like Musharraf - the people of the Middle East might well explode, because the only thing worse than living under a dictatorship is being promised a democracy and then not really getting it.
______________________________

Juan Cole is professor of modern Middle Eastern and North African studies at the University of Michigan. He maintains a weblog on Middle East affairs, Informed Comment.

truthout.org