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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (33493)8/19/2005 12:57:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362761
 
A Glimpse of Forces Confronting Saudi Rule

By WILLIAM GRIMES
August 17, 2005
nytimes.com

Western reporting on Saudi Arabia has been in attack mode ever since Sept. 11. Not since the Borgias has a ruling family received such bad press as the House of Saud, and the United States-Saudi connection is probably the one that Americans would most like to sever, if it could be done without raising gasoline prices.

In "Saudi Arabia Exposed," John R. Bradley, a British journalist who spent two and a half years as a newspaper editor and reporter in Saudi Arabia, will not make Americans feel any better about the Saudi royals, whom he calls "perhaps the most corrupt family the world has ever known." But he does provide a highly informed, temperate and understanding account of a country that, he maintains, is an enigma to other Arabs, and even to the Saudis themselves.

The book's accusatory tabloid title does not reflect its tone. "Inside Saudi Arabia" might have been better. Mr. Bradley, although based in Jedda, traveled far and wide throughout the country in an effort to map the regional tensions and cultural distinctions that make Saudi Arabia much more diverse and complicated than the smooth propaganda of its government would allow.

The House of Saud and the religious establishment, fired by the puritanical form of Islam known as Wahhabism , hold sway in the central region, al-Najd; elsewhere rifts and tensions abound. Mr. Bradley's heart is in the Hijaz, and the lingering cosmopolitanism of Jeddah, whose great merchant families tend to take a much more worldly view of politics and religion, including (with one notable exception) the bin Ladens. When the Saudi religious police objected to the use of a plus sign instead of an ampersand in a company's name because it resembled a Christian cross, a writer for the region's main newspaper, Al-Medina, suggested that perhaps the symbol should be replaced with a "tasteful Islamic crescent" in the country's math books.

In the 1920's and 1930's, Ibn Saud created a unified state from the disparate tribes of present-day Saudi Arabia by force, imposing a brand of Islam that, in many areas of the country, is regarded as alien. In Asir, on the border with Yemen in southeastern Saudi Arabia, Wahabbism has been accepted only reluctantly. Mr. Bradley sees women driving pick-up trucks, and in the remote hills he encounters a strange sect known as the flower men, who wear garlands of flowers and herbs and douse themselves in perfume.

In the southwest, Shiites, who constitute a majority, chafe under religious oppression and an official policy intended to convert them to Wahabbism. One official put the matter starkly: "We don't eat their food, we don't intermarry with them, we should not pray for their dead or allow them to be buried in our cemeteries." In April 2000, armed Shiites in Najran rose up against Saudi security forces, and their co-religionists in the Eastern Province, site of huge oil reserves, are also restive.

Saudi Arabia's young people make up another worrying constituency. Mr. Bradley strolls the malls and sits in secluded bedrooms with many disaffected Saudis. Those who travel to the West seem to bring back little more than a degree and a pile of consumer goods. Those who do not travel sit and fester. Waited on hand and foot, they watch satellite television or, using illegal computer cards to bypass the censors, log on to X-rated chat rooms on the Internet. Parents, Mr. Bradley writes, have delegated traditional responsibilities to a despised class of mostly Asian drivers, servants and nannies. As never before, young Saudis have been left to their own devices and easily fall prey to jihadist recruiters.

It comes as a shock to find that Saudi Arabia has something like a gay scene and a nascent feminist movement. In severely repressing all forms of interaction between men and women, the country leaves a large social space open to men, who are free to pursue relations with one another. "I don't feel oppressed at all," one gay man tells the author. "We have more freedom here than straight couples. After all, they can't kiss in public like we can, or stroll down the street holding one another's hands."

Half inch by half inch, the government has been opening the professions to women, who can now obtain commercial licenses and who now account for more than half of the kingdom's university graduates. Since liberal arguments have failed to move the clerical establishment, a new wave of Saudi women have turned to Islam, and Muhammad's earliest teachings, to develop legal ideas that are, so to speak, more fundamental than Wahabbi fundamentalism.

Mr. Bradley tends to leap at the merest glimmer of light. His liberals and reformers, however attractive, hold very weak cards, and the regime has shown itself extraordinarily resistant to change. But modern communications, and the government's grudging baby steps toward democratic reform, he argues, may be the first cracks that, spreading inexorably, could bring down the House of Saud.

Saudis and their tribal leaders have been changed by the oil money that bought their loyalty in the 1970's. Expectations have risen, as well as disillusionment that so few benefited from oil revenues. The war in Iraq, Mr. Bradley argues, "will come back to haunt the Al-Saud." Already, home-grown terrorists have adopted the insurgent tactics being used in Iraq, and battle-hardened Saudi volunteers will eventually return home. Prince Turki bin Khalid, a member of the ruling family, recently bought two apartments in the Time-Warner Center on Columbus Circle in Manhattan for a reported $8.1 million. One is for friends; the other he plans to keep empty. Mr. Bradley has a strong suspicion that he may need it.



To: American Spirit who wrote (33493)8/19/2005 1:20:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362761
 
Message 21616224



To: American Spirit who wrote (33493)8/19/2005 5:51:45 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362761
 
Ohio governor is charged as scandal grows
__________________________________________________

By Tim Jones
Chicago Tribune national correspondent
August 18, 2005

chicagotribune.com

Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, the great-grandson of President William Howard Taft and scion of a distinguished Republican political family, was charged Wednesday with four criminal misdemeanor counts for not reporting personal golf outings and other favors that lobbyists, friends and businessmen paid for.

Although the likelihood of Taft going to jail is considered slim--he faces a $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail on each count, if convicted--the charges represent a stunning development in a mushrooming political scandal in Ohio and a stain on a family whose prominence stretches back more than a century.

A Taft spokesman said the 63-year-old Republican governor will not resign from office. Taft will publicly address the charges against him, filed in Franklin County Municipal Court, on Thursday, when he is expected to appear in court, the spokesman said.

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien and Columbus City Prosecutor Stephen McIntosh said the charges stem from omissions in Taft's financial disclosure statements from 2002 to 2005. The gifts were worth about $5,800, they said.

Taft allegedly failed to list golf outings and last weekend publicly said he was responsible for failing to report the outings on the disclosure forms; state law says officials must report gifts valued at more than $75 if the donor was not reimbursed. O'Brien said Taft also did not report his attendance at a pro hockey game in Columbus.

Taft is the state's first sitting governor to be charged with a crime and is the highest-ranking state official to face charges in an investment and cronyism scandal that has rocked the state's Republican Party. State auditors discovered early this year that up to $13 million was missing from a state investment fund handled by Thomas Noe, a well-connected Republican fundraiser who was chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in northwest Ohio. Noe has been accused of stealing $4 million from the fund.

Noe had strong connections to high-ranking elected Republicans in the state, and multiple investigations--state, federal and three special grand juries--spread to financial disclosure statements that officials are required to file annually. The Ohio Ethics Commission completed its review of Taft's filings last week and forwarded its findings to prosecutors. Two of Taft's golf outings, prosecutors said, were paid for by Noe.

"It's an enormous embarrassment, partly because the Taft family, until recently, had a very strong reputation for integrity," said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron. Taft's former chief of staff was convicted of an ethics violation in July.

Taft's great-grandfather was president and chief justice of the United States. The governor's grandfather, Sen. Robert Taft, was known as "Mr. Republican" and three times sought the GOP presidential nomination. Robert Taft Jr., the governor's father, served three terms in the U.S. House and one in the Senate.

When Bob Taft took over as Ohio's governor in 1999, he made ethics a priority, requiring his appointees to undergo ethics training, Green said.

"This is quite an embarrassment and quite a fall," he said. It isn't embezzlement or bribery or sexual harassment," Green said, "but this is [a failure to] file an ethics report, which is a pretty simple thing to do."

Because of tax decisions and a stumbling Ohio economy, Taft's public approval ratings have been in a free fall for more than a year. Fewer than 1 in 5 voters approve of his performance, according to a recent poll.

Serving his second term, Taft is prohibited from seeking re-election. If he does not leave office before his term expires at the end of next year, he almost certainly will come under pressure from members of the Republican Party to resign because the scandal could be a major issue in the 2006 governor's race, Green and others said.

The charges against Taft come three months after the governor declared in a speech that public employees "can enjoy entertainment, such as golf or dining out, with persons working for a regulated company, or one doing business with the state, only if they fully pay their own way."

----------



To: American Spirit who wrote (33493)8/21/2005 10:52:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362761
 
Progressives Take a Page from Conservative Networks

npr.org

Listen to this story... by Peter Overby

Morning Edition, August 18, 2005 · Progressives are taking a page from conservative politicians and are creating and supporting progressive think tanks, training young activists, and building a progressive network.



To: American Spirit who wrote (33493)8/25/2005 1:16:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 362761
 
Republicans Are Unlikely To Jump War Ship
___________________________________________

Bucking Bush on Iraq Policy Could Alienate
Party and Supporters of Presidential Hopefuls

POLITICS AND POLICY
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- In a summer of angst over Iraq, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has invoked a powerful image by comparing the fighting there to the Vietnam quagmire a generation ago.

Mr. Hagel's decorated Vietnam service and his status as a potential 2008 presidential candidate brought even greater attention to his intraparty blast at President Bush's policy. It also raised the question of whether the lame-duck president's bulwark of Republican support is about to crumble over the Iraq war's mounting toll.

The answer: not likely. National security remains a potent unifying issue for Mr. Bush's political coalition, he retains overwhelming personal popularity among Republicans, and the party's leading candidate to succeed him strongly backs the nation's continued presence in Iraq.

"We can't afford to lose," says Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a maverick on other issues, but a Bush ally on Iraq. While "there's nervousness" among Republicans, he says "I do not see any significant erosion or inclination to jump ship."

Mr. McCain has supported the war as in the interests of American security -- and has a political incentive to keep backing it despite the slip in Mr. Bush's national poll numbers. The former Vietnam prisoner of war, who tangled with conservative Christians in the 2000 campaign and has been an irritant to Mr. Bush on domestic issues since, can ill afford to further antagonize the Republican regulars who will dominate party primaries in 2008.

Those on the ballot in the 2006 midterm elections also know they risk alienating core supporters by bucking Mr. Bush on the security issue that is widely credited with delivering Republican gains in 2002 and 2004. Consider the results of last month's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll: 75% of Republicans called the Iraq war worth its costs and 84% approved of Mr. Bush's job performance, while strong majorities of Democrats and independents took the opposite view.

Even in such a polarized political environment, anxiety over the insurgency in Iraq is buffeting Mr. Bush's allies. Pessimism about the course of the war has crept up among Republicans and the general public, as the hopeful mood following January's Iraqi election has faded.

Amid the insurgent attacks, some party strategists say the president needs to provide more political cover for fellow Republicans by specifying additional benchmarks for progress in the attempt to build a secure, democratic Iraq. "Casualties in the context of drift is not good," says pollster David Winston, an adviser to House Republicans.

Mr. Bush began doing so this week by interrupting his Texas vacation for a series of speeches defending his policy. In Salt Lake City on Monday, he hailed efforts to draft a constitution in Iraq as a landmark in that nation's reconstruction.

Yesterday in Idaho, he vowed "we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terrorism." Defending his policy, he said, "An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations."
[graphic on bush support]

White House aides are bracing for intraparty flak as members of Congress return to Washington next month. "Maybe there will be a member or two" who breaks with Mr. Bush, says Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the House Republicans' campaign committee. Calls for troop withdrawals may increase as the 2006 elections draw closer; the Pentagon has held out the prospect of significant withdrawals next year if Iraq makes progress on political and security issues.

But few Republicans are echoing Mr. Hagel, who said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that the war has destabilized the Middle East and "stay the course is not a policy." Most Republican members of Congress who have criticized the administration have done so gently.

Sen. George Allen of Virginia, another 2008 Republican hopeful, chided the president for declining to meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has become a leader among war protestors. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, under fire from a Democratic opponent for sticking too close to Mr. Bush on Iraq, told the Philadelphia Inquirer this week that he backs administration policy "but not necessarily all of the tactics" in fighting the war.

Mr. McCain expresses a lack of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the Arizona senator rejects the comparison to Vietnam as ill-considered, calling the U.S. stake in success in Iraq "a thousand times higher."

During Vietnam, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson suffered a critical intraparty defection when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright broke with him over the war. Today's committee Chairman Richard Lugar, though he has criticized the administration's postwar planning for Iraq, plans no such break in the panel's scheduled September hearings on Iraq featuring Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"Rather than getting into pointing fingers, let's try to find a solution" to the insurgency, says committee aide Mark Helmke.

The war has been more internally divisive for Democrats, whose activist wing is demanding stronger condemnation of Mr. Bush's policies than most senior Democratic elected officials have been willing to provide. A wide array of leading Democratic office holders -- from 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry to 2008 front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton -- voted to authorize the war in 2002, which has limited their room for maneuver since then.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee, says Americans want "a new direction and a new set of priorities" for the country. But he emphasizes the issues of ethics, health care and budget deficits more than the war.

Memories of the political repercussions of Vietnam help embolden Republican strategists as they seek to withstand today's war woes. Democratic splits over the Southeast Asian war helped Richard Nixon win the presidency in 1968 and 1972.

"I see cuts but no large-scale bleeding" for Mr. Bush over Iraq, says Ken Khachigian, a former aide to Mr. Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He says Mr. Bush can head off more serious damage if he will "play hardball with ... the cut-and-run crowd" -- including fellow Republicans.