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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (66475)7/30/2006 5:19:46 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
listen to replay of MTP or read below..........http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back, and so is Tom Friedman. Just back from Israel and Syria.

Welcome home.

MR. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: Great to be here, Tim. Thanks.

MR. RUSSERT: Tom, let me read from your column on Wednesday and share it with our viewers as well.

“We need to get real on Lebanon. Hezbollah made a reckless mistake in provoking Israel. Shame on Hezbollah for bringing this disaster upon Lebanon by embedding its ‘heroic’ forces amid civilians. ... But Hezbollah’s militia ... can’t be wiped out at a price that Israel, or America’s Arab allies, can sustain - if at all. ... Despite Hezbollah’s bravado, Israel has hurt it and its supporters badly, in a way they will never forget. Point made. It is now time to wind down this war and pull together a deal - a cease-fire, a prisoner exchange, a resumption of the peace effort and an international force to help the Lebanese Army secure the border with Israel - before things spin out of control. Whoever goes for a knockout blow will knock themselves out instead.” That’s what you found.

MR. FRIEDMAN: That’s what I found and that’s what I believe, Tim. Israel didn’t court this war. It was brought on by Hezbollah, I believe partly inspired by Iran to draw attention away from the Security Council action, pending action, to curb Iran’s nuclear program. And partly, I think, by Hezbollah, trying to elevate its importance, a little power play within Lebanese politics.

That said, I think that the Israeli reaction at this point has demonstrated to Hezbollah the huge costs and the recklessness of this action. To press on now—you know, Tim, I think it was Bob Shrum or someone who said about the Iraq war, “It’s all over but the killing.” To go on now is just going to be more killing for no purpose whatsoever.

And I believe, from the Israeli point of view, from the Lebanese point of view, from the regional point of view, the time right now is to shut this thing down, let Hezbollah be able to say, “OK, we held the Israelis back,” let Israel be able to say, “We inflicted a terrible, punishing blow for this reckless action.” Precisely when you have people in that mode, that’s the best time for diplomacy.

MR. RUSSERT: We have noticed a change of opinion throughout the Arab nations. Initially, Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia criticizing Hezbollah. The Israelis thought, perhaps, even winking at them to go-go-go.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: And now, because of what these leaders are hearing on the Arab street, Mubarak of Egypt and others, have been somewhat critical of the U.S.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. You know, I, I was really in the Middle East when this shift happened. When I went out there, you had Saudi Arabia issuing a remarkable statement, first time ever, just blaming Hezbollah for a reckless action in initiating this war, without even the ritual condemnation of Israel. What was that about? That was the Sunni-Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—looking at this war in pure historical Shiite/Sunni terms. They see this war as the Shiite-Iranians, through Hezbollah, making a power play, basically, not only to dominate Lebanon but to take the Palestinian issue away from the Sunni-Arab world. So that was how they reacted.

But then, as I went around from Jordan to Damascus, one of the things you really feel when you’re in that part of the world, Tim, are all the Arab satellite TV stations—Al-Arabiya, Al Jazeera, they’re on everywhere. They’re the Muzak of the Arab world. And everywhere you turn, you see images of Israeli planes and bombs destroying Arab and Lebanese homes in Lebanon. The impact of that has “inflamed,” as always, the Arab street, and it’s made these regimes—our closest friends—these regimes—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—enormously uncomfortable. And you’re now seeing the blowback from that.

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about the Bush administration and a quote from your column on Friday. And here’s what Tom Friedman wrote: “America should be galvanizing the forces of order - Europe, Russia, China and India - into a coalition against these trends. But we can’t. Why? In part, it’s because our president and our secretary of state, although they speak with great moral clarity, have no moral authority. That’s been shattered by their performance in Iraq.

“The world hates George Bush more than any U.S. president in my lifetime. He is radioactive - and so caught up in his own ideological bubble that he is incapable of imagining or forging alternative strategies.” Pretty strong.

MR. FRIEDMAN: It was strong. It’s meant to be strong. Look at the situation we’re now in. You can’t go anywhere in the world right now—and I travel a lot—without getting that feeling from people thrown in your face. Why is that? You know, I’ve been asking myself that a lot. Some of it’s excessive, this dislike, this distaste, this hatred of George Bush. But what’s it about? Whenever you see something that excessive, you know?

And the way I explain it is this way: Foreigners love to make fun of Americans. Our naivete, our crazy thought that every problem has a solution, that silly American notion, that silly American optimism. But you know what, Tim? Deep down, the world really envies that American optimism and naivete. And the world needs that American optimism and naivete.

And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.

MR. RUSSERT: There’s a debate within the administration, across our country, around the world, about who we should talk to. You feel very strongly that the U.S. should try to pry Syria away from Iran. One country, Syria, which is Sunni and secular, Iran being more Shiite. Is it possible to pry those countries apart? Or is it worth trying?

MR. FRIEDMAN: That’s why I went to Damascus, really to answer that question. Because look at the map. Tim, you’ve got Iran over here, you’ve got Hezbollah over here, and in between, the bridge, both ideological and physical and material, is Syria. Hezbollah can’t do what it does if that Syrian bridge is broken. And I basically went to Damascus to ask that question. What I found were, were, were several things. Number one—but the Syrians are feeling very confident right now because they know the street is with them and they—the regime there knows that the street with them and they’re looking at the Saudis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians and saying, “You guys are—you look awful uncomfortable over there. The street’s with us.” Number one, so they’re feeling confident.

Number two, though, what I really found, Syrian officials stressed to me over and over again, “Our marriage with Iran is a marriage of convenience.” This is a secular Sunni country. It’s got an Alawite regime, but it’s a secular Sunni country, Syria. And being in a car driven by two Shiite radicals—Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and Nasrallah from, from Lebanon—that’s not so comfortable for the Syrians. Particularly because in this car, Tim, they’re in the back seat and the guys in the front got no brakes. So I think that there is a possibility—I wouldn’t exaggerate this, but I think there is a possibility if we—if we sat down with the Syrians and said, “What do you need? Here’s what we need. Let’s have a rational, long-term dialogue,” not one of these Condi Rice specials of, you know, 20 minutes in the Middle East, “I touched the base and went back,” but a serious, rational dialogue.

Do you know how many times I went with Jim Baker to Syria when he was preparing the Gulf War coalition and the Madrid Peace Conference? I believe it was 15 times. And you know what I remember most about those trips, Tim? That I think on 14 of them, the lead of my story was “Secretary of State James A. Baker III Failed Today.” Failed in his effort to, to draw Syria in. But guess what? On trip 15, he brought the Syrians into the Madrid Peace Conference. Those are the same Syrians, by the way, who were behind the attacks on the Americans in Beirut in 1982. They haven’t changed. This is a tough, brutal and mean regime, but they also can be done business with with the right, I think, administration approach.

MR. RUSSERT: I remember 16 years ago reading “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” still a road map for understanding that area, and you talked extensively about what goes on in the Arab mind, in the Arab heart. And I was reminded of it in your column on Friday you had in The New York Times. You were on a rooftop in Syria talking to young writers, and Tom Friedman wrote this, “There will be no new Middle East - not as long as the New Middle Easterners, like Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, get gunned down; not as long as Old Middle Easterners, like Nasrallah, use all their wits and resources to start a new Arab-Israeli war rather than build a new Arab university; and not as long as Arab media and intellectuals refuse to speak out clearly against those who encourage their youth to embrace martyrdom with religious zeal rather than meld modernity with Arab culture.” Talk about that meeting on that rooftop.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, it was, it was a dinner with a group of Syrian writers arranged by some friends of mine. Say, you know, one woman was saying how she’s just really—believes Israel should be, you know, eliminated, and another Arab journalist was saying how much pride—how much pride he gets by seeing Hezbollah fight the Israelis to a standstill and inflict these casualties. And a third, very interesting, was saying, “This Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, he’s a disaster for us.”

But there are too many people, Tim, outside of Lebanon, in the Arab world, getting their buzz, frankly, off seeing Hezbollah stand up to Israel while Lebanon gets decimated. Lebanon, the first Arab democracy. And I, I real—I have a real problem with that because it’s time for the Arab world to stop getting their buzz, OK, off fighting Israel and to overcome their humiliation that way. It’s time to start building something.

You know, you ever ask yourself, Tim, what’s the second largest Muslim country in the world? It’s India. It’s not Pakistan or Iran. What do we see in India? Just a couple of weeks ago, 350 Indians killed in what is widely suspected an attack by Muslim extremists in Mumbai in a train station. But the Indian reaction was incredibly restrained. Why is that? You know, why don’t Indian Muslims, you know, get their buzz this way? Could it be because the richest man in India is a Muslim software entrepreneur? Could it be because the president of India is a Muslim? Could it be because there’s an Indian Muslim woman on the Indian Supreme Court? Could it be because the leading female movie star in India is a Muslim woman? You know, when people get their dignity from building things rather than confronting other people, it’s amazing what politics flows from that. And I think that’s something the Arab world also needs to be reflecting on now.

MR. RUSSERT: How to convince these young men and women that there’s more to life than trying to destroy Israel?

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, these are people who, who hate others more than they love their own kids, more than they love their own future. And that’s crazy, and that’s part of the pathology of that part of the world. But one thing I know for sure, you know, what we’re doing right now, what Israel’s doing right now—smashing things in Gaza again, smashing things in Lebanon—I understand it. I understand the anger and the rage. You’re minding your own business, and one day these guys, you know, come across the border. But it’s not working. It’s just not working. You know, Israel destroyed the PLO, and it got Hamas. Now it’s destroying Hamas, and it’s going to get chaos. And you can’t repeat the same thing in Lebanon. And the role of America is to be the guiding light there, not to fly air cover so more of this violence can continue indefinitely. If I thought it was going to work, I, I’d feel different. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to work for them, and it’s not going to work for us, and it’s not going to work for Lebanon or the Palestinians. We’ve got to find another way.

And you know, part of just showing up, Tim, you know, why did I go to Syria? I haven’t been to Syria in a long time. But, you know, listening. If I found one thing as a reporter—worked in the Arab world for 25 years, as a Jewish-American reporter—here’s what I found. I found that listening is a sign of respect. You know, if you just go over and listen to people, and what they have to say, it’s amazing what they’ll allow you to say back. But when you just say, “We’re not going to go to Damascus, we’re not going to listen to the Syrians,” we—you’re never going to get anywhere that way. I’m not guaranteeing you you’re going to get somewhere the other way, but all I know, you sure increase the odds if you sit down and just listen.

MR. RUSSERT: Tom Friedman, we thank you for joining us, and your report on your trip. “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” and also “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century,” which is now out as well. Thank you for joining us.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Great pleasure, thanks, Tim.



To: American Spirit who wrote (66475)7/30/2006 9:02:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 93284
 
The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq

By Frank Rich /
Columnist
The New York Times
July 30, 2006

As America fell into the quagmire of Vietnam, the comedian Milton Berle joked that the fastest way to end the war would be to put it on the last-place network, ABC, where it was certain to be canceled. Berle's gallows humor lives on in the quagmire in Iraq. Americans want this war canceled too, and first- and last-place networks alike are more than happy to oblige.

CNN will surely remind us today that it is Day 19 of the Israel-Hezbollah war - now branded as Crisis in the Middle East - but you won't catch anyone saying it's Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq. On the Big Three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq has fallen 60 percent between 2003 and this spring, as clocked by the television monitor, the Tyndall Report. On Thursday, Brian Williams of NBC read aloud a “shame on you” e-mail complaint from the parents of two military sons anguished that his broadcast had so little news about the war.

This is happening even as the casualties in Iraq, averaging more than 100 a day, easily surpass those in Israel and Lebanon combined. When Nouri al-Maliki, the latest Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington last week to address Congress, he too got short TV shrift - a mere five sentences about the speech on ABC's “World News.” The networks know a rerun when they see it. Only 22 months earlier, one of Mr. Maliki's short-lived predecessors, Ayad Allawi, had come to town during the 2004 campaign to give a similarly empty Congressional address laced with White House-scripted talking points about the war's progress. Propaganda stunts, unlike “Law & Order” episodes, don't hold up on a second viewing.

The steady falloff in Iraq coverage isn't happenstance. It's a barometer of the scope of the tragedy. For reporters, the already apocalyptic security situation in Baghdad keeps getting worse, simply making the war more difficult to cover than ever. The audience has its own phobia: Iraq is a bummer. “It is depressing to pay attention to this war on terror,” said Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on July 18. “I mean, it's summertime.” Americans don't like to lose, whatever the season. They know defeat when they see it, no matter how many new plans for victory are trotted out to obscure that reality.

The specter of defeat is not the only reason Americans have switched off Iraq. The larger issue is that we don't know what we - or, more specifically, 135,000 brave and vulnerable American troops - are fighting for. In contrast to the Israel-Hezbollah war, where the stakes for the combatants and American interests are clear, the war in Iraq has no rationale to keep it afloat on television or anywhere else. It's a big, nightmarish story, all right, but one that lacks the thread of a coherent plot.

Certainly there has been no shortage of retrofitted explanations for the war in the three-plus years since the administration's initial casus belli, to fend off Saddam's mushroom clouds and vanquish Al Qaeda, proved to be frauds. We've been told that the war would promote democracy in the Arab world. And make the region safer for Israel. And secure the flow of cheap oil. If any of these justifications retained any credibility, they have been obliterated by Crisis in the Middle East. The new war is a grueling daily object lesson in just how much the American blunders in Iraq have undermined the one robust democracy that already existed in the region, Israel, while emboldening terrorists and strengthening the hand of Iran.

But it's the collapse of the one remaining (and unassailable) motivation that still might justify staying the course in Iraq - as a humanitarian mission on behalf of the Iraqi people - that is most revealing of what a moral catastrophe this misadventure has been for our country. The sad truth is that the war's architects always cared more about their own grandiose political and ideological ambitions than they did about the Iraqis, and they communicated that indifference from the start to Iraqis and Americans alike. The legacy of that attitude is that the American public cannot be rallied to the Iraqi cause today, as the war reaches its treacherous endgame.

The Bush administration constantly congratulates itself for liberating Iraq from Saddam's genocidal regime. But regime change was never billed as a primary motivation for the war; the White House instead appealed to American fears and narcissism - we had to be saved from Saddam's W.M.D. From “Shock and Awe” on, the fate of Iraqis was an afterthought. They would greet our troops with flowers and go about their business.

Donald Rumsfeld boasted that “the care” and “the humanity” that went into our precision assaults on military targets would minimize any civilian deaths. Such casualties were merely “collateral damage,” unworthy of quantification. “We don't do body counts,” said Gen. Tommy Franks. President Bush at last started counting those Iraqi bodies publicly - with an estimate of 30,000 - some seven months ago. (More recently, The Los Angeles Times put the figure at, conservatively, 50,000.) By then, Americans had tuned out.

The contempt our government showed for Iraqis was not just to be found in our cavalier stance toward their casualties, or in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There was a cultural condescension toward the Iraqi people from the get-go as well, as if they were schoolchildren in a compassionate-conservatism campaign ad. This attitude was epitomized by Mr. Rumsfeld's “stuff happens” response to the looting of Baghdad at the dawn of the American occupation. In “Fiasco,” his stunning new book about the American failure in Iraq, Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post's senior Pentagon correspondent, captures the meaning of that pivotal moment perfectly: “The message sent to Iraqis was far more troubling than Americans understood. It was that the U.S. government didn't care - or, even more troubling for the future security of Iraq, that it did care but was incapable of acting effectively.”

As it turned out, it was the worst of both worlds: we didn't care, and we were incapable of acting effectively. Nowhere is this seen more explicitly than in the subsequent American failure to follow through on our promise to reconstruct the Iraqi infrastructure we helped to smash. “There's some little part of my brain that simply doesn't understand how the most powerful country on earth just can't get electricity back in Baghdad,” said Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi exile and prominent proponent of the war, in a recent Washington Post interview.

The simple answer is that the war planners didn't care enough to provide the number of troops needed to secure the country so that reconstruction could proceed. The coalition authority isolated in its Green Zone bubble didn't care enough to police the cronyism and corruption that squandered billions of dollars on abandoned projects. The latest monument to this humanitarian disaster was reported by James Glanz of The New York Times on Friday: a high-tech children's hospital planned for Basra, repeatedly publicized by Laura Bush and Condi Rice, is now in serious jeopardy because of cost overruns and delays.

This history can't be undone; there's neither the American money nor the manpower to fulfill the mission left unaccomplished. The Iraqi people, whose collateral damage was so successfully hidden for so long by the Rumsfeld war plan, remain a sentimental abstraction to most Americans. Whether they are seen in agony after another Baghdad bombing or waving their inked fingers after an election or being used as props to frame Mrs. Bush during the State of the Union address, they have little more specificity than movie extras. Chalabi, Allawi, Jaafari, Maliki come and go, all graced with the same indistinguishable praise from the American president, all blurring into an endless loop of instability and crisis. We feel badly ... and change the channel.

Given that the violence in Iraq has only increased in the weeks since the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist portrayed by the White House as the fount of Iraqi troubles, any Americans still paying attention to the war must now confront the reality that the administration is desperately trying to hide. “The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists,” President Bush said in December when branding Zarqawi Public Enemy No. 1. But Iraq's exploding sectarian warfare cannot be pinned on Al Qaeda or Baathist dead-enders.

The most dangerous figure in Iraq, the home-grown radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, is an acolyte of neither Osama bin Laden nor Saddam but an ally of Iran who has sworn solidarity to both Hezbollah and Hamas. He commands more than 30 seats in Mr. Maliki's governing coalition in Parliament and 5 cabinet positions. He is also linked to death squads that have slaughtered Iraqis and Americans with impunity since the April 2004 uprising that killed, among others, Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey. Since then, Mr. Sadr's power has only grown, enabled by Iraqi “democracy.”

That the latest American plan for victory is to reposition our forces by putting more of them in the crossfire of Baghdad's civil war is tantamount to treating our troops as if they were deck chairs on the Titanic. Even if the networks led with the story every night, what Americans would have the stomach to watch?



To: American Spirit who wrote (66475)7/30/2006 10:56:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
WAYNE MADSEN REPORT: July 30, 2006 -- LATE EDITION -- WMR's sources in Lebanon report that civilian deaths in Lebanon from incessant Israeli attacks are far more than what is being reported by the corporate media. Over 850 civilians, forty percent of them children, have been killed by the Israelis. Many more are unaccounted for because Israeli forces attack any heavy equipment and rescue teams sent south to clear away rubble from destroyed buildings.

We have also been told by Lebanese intelligence sources that U.S. and Israeli agents are attempting to foment strife among displaced internal Lebanese refugees against the central Lebanese government in an attempt to further destabilize Lebanese society. Much of this U.S. and Israeli-sponsored provocation among the internal refugees is being carried out by ex-Lebanese Forces militias loyal to convicted right-wing Phalangist war criminal Samir Geagea, a follower of pro-Israeli Gen. Michel Aoun. Geagea was freed from prison last year after a general amnesty and he moved to the Lebanese mountains, where he reportedly is now receiving direct CIA and Mossad support in his efforts to stir up violence among refugees. Among other crimes, Geagea was jailed for his role in the assassinations of Lebanese Prime Minister Rashid Karami; Tony Franjieh, the son of Lebanese President Suleiman Franjieh; and former President Camille Chamoun's son Danny, his wife, and two young sons. The destabilization of Lebanon is designed to spill violence across the border into Syria, thus justifying an Israeli-U.S. strike on that country.

U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman, a neo-con ally of John Bolton, was confined to his embassy today as angry crowds demonstrating the Israeli massacre in Qana demonstrated in front of the embassy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled her trip to Beirut since her safety could not be assured by either the U.S embassy or the Lebanese government.

waynemadsenreport.com