Elaine Cassel is an attorney practicing in Virginia and Washington, DC. She teaches law and psychology, and is the author of "The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Dismantled the Bill of Rights" (Lawrence Hill, 2004,) and "Criminal Behavior," a textbook in criminal psychology. She is a frequent contributor to such journals as FindLaw and Counterpunch. This article is reproduced with the author’s permission.
By Elaine Cassel
In the past almost four years, I have come to fear almost everything the Bush administration does. In one way or the other, it has harmed, perhaps irreparably, virtually every aspect of American life. From raising the acceptable arsenic levels in water (a little arsenic is good for us all) to logging and snowmobiling in America’s formerly treasured parks, to ripping apart the bill of rights and trampling it underfoot, to using the threat of “terrorist” attacks for political gain, to going to war on a lie and not just spending our money outrageously but being responsible for—and proud of—the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, the maiming of thousands more (a deep and dirty secret) and the slaying of thousands (but who’s counting?) Iraqi civilians. All of this and much, much more literally keeps me awake at night, sick with fear and worry.
But nothing disturbs me more than the case of Ahmed Abu Ali. Abu Ali is an American citizen, born in Texas in 1981. He is a resident of Falls Church, Virginia, where he lives with his parents. He was valedictorian of his 1999 graduating class in a northern Virginia high school. He attends a Saudi university where he is studying for a degree.
Last June, Ahmed was taking an exam at the International University of Medina. In stormed Saudi police who took him away to a Saudi prison where he has been since that day. It has taken a year for the story to make any sense, and during this time his family and lawyer have kept me informed about the case. However, they asked me not to write about it, for fear that it may jeopardize his potential for release.
Now that it appears their son may never come home, at least not if the Bush administration can help it, they have filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking that their son be given the same rights as the Supreme Court recently gave Guantanamo prisoners and American citizen Yaser Hamdi—the right to, at a minimum, challenge his detention. They have also given me permission, through their attorney, to write about their son’s case.
Here is the abbreviated version of the undisputed facts, according to court records and discussions with the family and attorney: Ahmed was acquainted with some of the men charged in the notorious case of the Alexandria 11, men who pled guilty or were convicted (all but one of them, and that is important, as you will see) of conspiring to fight for the Muslim cause in the constant battle between India and Pakistan over the territory of Kashmir. The interest in fighting for Kashmir is one that is promoted by many Muslims. The men were friends, and in the course of their friendship play paintball and shoot at targets with guns, all perfectly legal in Northern Virginia. In fact, gun use is so legal in Virginia that the legislature recently passed a law affirmatively making it acceptable (indeed promoting) the carrying of weapons into bars and restaurants.
Initially charged under the seldom-used Neutrality Act, which forbids an American from taking sides with an “enemy” of the United States, those who pled to conspiring to aid Muslims were given sentences of four to ten years in exchange for testifying against the others; the men who did not pled guilty were indicted with aiding and abetting terrorism, upping the ante to life prison terms.
Of the four men who did not plead guilty to the new charges, three were convicted by Judge Leonie Brinkema and sentenced to 85 to 115 years in prison. These were men who were not a threat to the U.S., who were not anti-American, who never took up arms against any one, but who, it is true, were sympathetic to the Muslim cause. They would have fought for the Muslim cause in Kashmir, if the occasion presented itself (India and Pakistan declared a cease fire early in 2004).
One of the men who pled not guilty had been in Saudi Arabia at the same time that Abu Ali was “detained.” He was extradited to the United States, and Judge Brinkema found him not guilty. Though he is free at the moment, he expects to be harassed by prosecutors. Surely, he will be arrested and charged with something—anything to avenge his acquittal by Judge Brinkema.
Abu Ali has been visited in Saudi Arabia by the FBI and perhaps by Alexandria prosecutors. From what little we know (he has been denied an attorney, and the State Department and the Saudi government have conspired to insure that he receives no mail or visits), he was urged to confess to being part of the Alexandria 11, he refused, likely being tortured and mentally and physically abused. He was urged to renounce his U.S. citizenship, in exchange for the promise of being taken to Sweden. (He was smart not to do that; last week it was reported in the Washington Post that the U.S. government aided Swedish officials in “rendering” Saudi citizens back to Saudi Arabia where they were “tried” for “terrorism” crimes and are serving lengthy prison terms. Both maintain their innocence. )
If prosecutors had any case at all against Abu Ali, they would surely have had him extradited at the same time as Sabri Benkhala, who was acquitted by Judge Brinkema. Abu Ali has been threatened with being named an enemy combatant, but that would also mean that he would be brought to the U.S., held like Americans Padilla and Hamdi and, now, entitled to an attorney and the right to file a habeas corpus petition challenging his relief.
But that is not going to happen. The day Abu Ali’s parents filed a petition for habeas corpus and other relief, the U.S. State Department informed them that the Saudis were going to charge Abu Ali with unspecified crimes of “terror.” Days before the case was filed, the Saudis told the family that they were ready to release Abu Ali, but had to have approval from the U.S. to do so. The Saudis said they had no interest in him. The State Department, at that time, it was up to the Saudis.
Clearly, no one is telling the truth. The State Department now says it cannot comment on anything, because Abu Ali never signed “privacy” forms, forms that the Saudis refused to give him (no doubt told to refuse to deliver them by the same State Department that claims they can’t obtain them from their detainee).
Here is why I am scared to death of this administration: Abu Ali will surely never come home. There is no way the U.S. government is going to let a man live to tell the tale of his capture by Saudis at the request of the U.S., his incarceration without a charge, without a lawyer, without access to his family, and, no doubt, his being subject to torture during long periods of interrogation. Maybe Kromberg wanted him at some time, found there was nothing to get him on, then told the Saudis to torture him into confession of anything that would make him extraditable. For the present time, it still takes an actual criminal charge to indict someone.
But it takes nothing but the whims of the government, to “render” an American citizen to another country and demand that that country imprison the American until it says to release him or her. But then the U.S. cannot tolerate the word getting out about the whole story, so it will have to silence Abu Ali by keeping him locked up forever (or worse) in a Saudi jail.
Let’s be clear about this—the Saudis insist that they are holding him only because the U.S. demands it.
Remember Nicholas Berg, who was beheaded shortly after his release by the U.S. government in Iraq? Remember how the U.S. insisted that it never had him in custody but that that “Iraqi police” held him? Forget for a time that the Iraqi police did nothing without the permission of and payment by the U.S. government—the police said that they had seized Berg at the demand of the U.S. and they released Berg to its custody. Finally, after Berg died, the State Department admitted the U.S. had detained him. When Berg refused the request of the U.S. government that it take him out of Iraq, when Berg insisted that he was going to leave Iraq on his own, he was murdered.
You connect the dots. Or not. But don’t turn away from the frightening truth of what your government is up to—successfully, without accountability, violating every right and privilege Americans have under U.S. and international law.
Even if the federal court orders that Abu Ali be brought to the U.S. to have a hearing, don’t expect it to happen. Accidents happen in prison, don’t they? Especially in foreign prisons. The Pentagon is even now making it near impossible for attorneys for the Guantanamo prisoners to meet their clients and file the petitions the Supreme Court gave them the right to file.
Face it. Our government is imprisoning its citizens without cause and without process. Welcome to George Bush’s America.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004
SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE IN RUSSIA
By William Fisher
The popular image of Russia in the West these days is of a land of post-Soviet oligarchs, oil company billionaires languishing in jail, President Putin ruthlessly centralizing his power by replacing provincial governors, civil liberties being abused, and of course of the 10-year war in Chechnya with the resulting unthinkable murder of hundreds of Beslan children.
But there are other, more hopeful, crosscurrents in this vast and complicated country. One is a realization by Russia’s entrepreneurs that they must unite to reduce the endemic corruption that has impeded the development of small businesses in Russia since the fall of the USSR.
This new grassroots movement is being led by the Association of Entrepreneurs for Honest Business. Its mission is to unite and educate entrepreneurs across Russia, raise public awareness of the costs of corruption, draft anti-corruption legislation, engage power structures, and force changes in the business environment by running for and getting elected to public office.
This effort is an offshoot of the Productivity Enhancement Program (PEP), the private not-for-profit brainchild of an indefatigable San Francisco grandmother, Sharon Tennison. Tennison founded the Center for Citizen Initiatives (CCI) in 1983 in an attempt to break through barriers between the two superpowers. When the USSR imploded, she continued creating programs like PEP to help democratize Russia.
PEP is an out-of-country business management training program, adapted from the historic Marshall Plan's "Productivity Tours" which brought 24,000 foreigners to US plants after WWII. To date, the PEP program has exposed some 4,000 non-English speaking Russians to the “how to” of American management in more than 10,000 American companies in 500 US cities in 45 states. Another thousand English-speaking Russian entrepreneurs trained in CCI’s Economic Development Program (EDP) from 1989 to 1997. The US has used the EDP model in other former states of the USSR.
CCI’s 5,000 alumni form the nucleus of the new Association of Entrepreneurs for Honest Business – an effort several years in the making. Tennison says: “I've been obsessed with bribe-taking from Russia’s grassroots businesses, because it is suffocating the normal development of small business. Small business owners bemoan this plague endlessly, but have felt totally helpless to address it openly, since their businesses could be shut down overnight by local authorities.”
She adds, “It’s been every Russian entrepreneur for themselves, unlike in other countries with different histories. Complicating the situation is the fact that there is no history of uniting for effecting change in Russia. Those who tried in the past paid for it in the gulags or with their lives. A second complication is that during those times, Russians developed deep fear of one another, not knowing if their next-door neighbor would inform on them. This lack of trust among Russian citizens, combined with their lack of experience with uniting, casts a long shadow into Russia’s Business Life Today”
Transparency International, a highly respected non-governmental organization, reported that in 2002 companies in Russia were more likely to pay bribes to officials than in any other emerging market country in the world. According to Russian entrepreneurs, last year corruption cost businesses US$ 36 billion, or between 10 and 12% of gross domestic product. Bribes made up about 10 percent of the cost of all business transactions in Russia. Individuals paid about $2.8 billion in bribes, generally in order to procure "free" government services such as health care or access to education. The Moscow Times says small business disproportionately bears the brunt of red tape and corrupt officialdom. For big business, the paper says, “corruption may be an irritant, but for (small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) it´s a matter of life or death.”
But now, Tennison says, “The years of fearful compliance with forces beyond their control have begun to give way to a modicum of hope. Russia’s small business owners say they can ‘feel the wind blowing from the top’’. President Putin, whom most of them trust, has come out on their side, warning bureaucrats that corruption can’t coexist with a healthy economy and if they don’t change, then change will come from above.”
Earlier this year, CCI arranged for 100 of its 5,000 alumni to study the world’s experience in reducing corruption. In Washington DC, they held 55 meetings with the world’s experts in this field. Thirteen Embassies of countries with the best anti-corruption records trained the Russians, and international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided methodologies successfully used by other countries.
The alumni’s ‘Recommendations to President’ were delivered to Putin’s Economic Advisor, Andre Illarionov, in the Kremlin. Illaronov spent 2.5 hours with these regional entrepreneurs and assured them he would discuss their 33 recommendations with the President. Then he urged them to go back to their regions, unite, create a bold website and use their voices to enlist other entrepreneurs in their struggle.
Bolstered by this high-level moral support, the CCI alumni returned to their regions, organized press conferences with local journalists, held roundtables with district and regional officials, and began the work of uniting themselves locally. In June they convened a second brainstorm to determine their nationwide work, and on September 25, had their Bylaws ready to legalize and register as a new non-commercial association.
The director of the new association is Nonna Barkhatova, a woman who founded and operates a successful small business development center in Novosibirsk, and is the city's best-known supporter of small business development. The new Chair of the Board is Andrei Davidovich, an entrepreneur who built a marketing company from scratch, and now has affiliates in several Russian cities. Tennison describes him as “a highly respected entrepreneur who advocates refusing to pay bribes in all circumstances. Just say NO, is his watchword”, she says. The new association is buttressed by several strong supporters, including John Pepper, recently retired CEO of Procter & Gamble, who is the Honorary Co-chair of the Association.
The Association’s immediate next steps are: creating public awareness, drafting legislation, engaging local officials on these issues, spearheading a national membership campaign, and lobbying all levels of officialdom for change
Tennison is optimistic about the association’s future. “These dynamic young entrepreneurs have trained in business sectors throughout the US, and have seen for themselves the market advantages of uniting for change. Now they are adapting it to Russia’s environment. An uphill climb is ahead, but this association is already a movement in motion. Its volunteers are unstoppable,” she says.
The value of volunteers is underscored by Dr. Jack N. Behrman, emeritus professor of International Business and Ethics at the University of North Carolina School of Business -- and founder and former Chairman of the volunteer MBA Enterprise Corps. Behrman says his studies “show that volunteer action is one of the most effective means of curtailing corruption in both government and business.” Volunteer action “demonstrates that there is grass-roots concern and that the damage is pervasive. Countries where corruption is rife remain on the lower rungs of development, and begin to progress to the degree that they curtail or eliminate it.”
A study by Marek Hessel and Ken Murphy for Transparency International concludes: “Corruption frequently ‘works’ only for those who receive bribes... Corruption breeds on itself: it gives the bureaucrats powerful incentives not only to keep inefficient rules in place (so that they can take more bribes and pass them about the office) but to multiply such rules.”
The new association hopes to turn the tide.
The popular image of Russia in the West these days is of a land of post-Soviet oligarchs, oil company billionaires languishing in jail, President Putin ruthlessly centralizing his power by replacing provincial governors, civil liberties being abused, and of course of the 10-year war in Chechnya with the resulting unthinkable murder of hundreds of Beslan children.
But there are other, more hopeful, crosscurrents in this vast and complicated country. One is a realization by Russia’s entrepreneurs that they must unite to reduce the endemic corruption that has impeded the development of small businesses in Russia since the fall of the USSR.
This new grassroots movement is being led by the Association of Entrepreneurs for Honest Business. Its mission is to unite and educate entrepreneurs across Russia, raise public awareness of the costs of corruption, draft anti-corruption legislation, engage power structures, and force changes in the business environment by running for and getting elected to public office.
This effort is an offshoot of the Productivity Enhancement Program (PEP), the private not-for-profit brainchild of an indefatigable San Francisco grandmother, Sharon Tennison. Tennison founded the Center for Citizen Initiatives (CCI) in 1983 in an attempt to break through barriers between the two superpowers. When the USSR imploded, she continued creating programs like PEP to help democratize Russia.
PEP is an out-of-country business management training program, adapted from the historic Marshall Plan's "Productivity Tours" which brought 24,000 foreigners to US plants after WWII. To date, the PEP program has exposed some 4,000 non-English speaking Russians to the “how to” of American management in more than 10,000 American companies in 500 US cities in 45 states. Another thousand English-speaking Russian entrepreneurs trained in CCI’s Economic Development Program (EDP) from 1989 to 1997. The US has used the EDP model in other former states of the USSR.
CCI’s 5,000 alumni form the nucleus of the new Association of Entrepreneurs for Honest Business – an effort several years in the making. Tennison says: “I've been obsessed with bribe-taking from Russia’s grassroots businesses, because it is suffocating the normal development of small business. Small business owners bemoan this plague endlessly, but have felt totally helpless to address it openly, since their businesses could be shut down overnight by local authorities.”
She adds, “It’s been every Russian entrepreneur for themselves, unlike in other countries with different histories. Complicating the situation is the fact that there is no history of uniting for effecting change in Russia. Those who tried in the past paid for it in the gulags or with their lives. A second complication is that during those times, Russians developed deep fear of one another, not knowing if their next-door neighbor would inform on them. This lack of trust among Russian citizens, combined with their lack of experience with uniting, casts a long shadow into Russia’s Business Life Today”
Transparency International, a highly respected non-governmental organization, reported that in 2002 companies in Russia were more likely to pay bribes to officials than in any other emerging market country in the world. According to Russian entrepreneurs, last year corruption cost businesses US$ 36 billion, or between 10 and 12% of gross domestic product. Bribes made up about 10 percent of the cost of all business transactions in Russia. Individuals paid about $2.8 billion in bribes, generally in order to procure "free" government services such as health care or access to education. The Moscow Times says small business disproportionately bears the brunt of red tape and corrupt officialdom. For big business, the paper says, “corruption may be an irritant, but for (small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) it´s a matter of life or death.”
But now, Tennison says, “The years of fearful compliance with forces beyond their control have begun to give way to a modicum of hope. Russia’s small business owners say they can ‘feel the wind blowing from the top’’. President Putin, whom most of them trust, has come out on their side, warning bureaucrats that corruption can’t coexist with a healthy economy and if they don’t change, then change will come from above.”
Earlier this year, CCI arranged for 100 of its 5,000 alumni to study the world’s experience in reducing corruption. In Washington DC, they held 55 meetings with the world’s experts in this field. Thirteen Embassies of countries with the best anti-corruption records trained the Russians, and international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided methodologies successfully used by other countries.
The alumni’s ‘Recommendations to President’ were delivered to Putin’s Economic Advisor, Andre Illarionov, in the Kremlin. Illaronov spent 2.5 hours with these regional entrepreneurs and assured them he would discuss their 33 recommendations with the President. Then he urged them to go back to their regions, unite, create a bold website and use their voices to enlist other entrepreneurs in their struggle.
Bolstered by this high-level moral support, the CCI alumni returned to their regions, organized press conferences with local journalists, held roundtables with district and regional officials, and began the work of uniting themselves locally. In June they convened a second brainstorm to determine their nationwide work, and on September 25, had their Bylaws ready to legalize and register as a new non-commercial association.
The director of the new association is Nonna Barkhatova, a woman who founded and operates a successful small business development center in Novosibirsk, and is the city's best-known supporter of small business development. The new Chair of the Board is Andrei Davidovich, an entrepreneur who built a marketing company from scratch, and now has affiliates in several Russian cities. Tennison describes him as “a highly respected entrepreneur who advocates refusing to pay bribes in all circumstances. Just say NO, is his watchword”, she says. The new association is buttressed by several strong supporters, including John Pepper, recently retired CEO of Procter & Gamble, who is the Honorary Co-chair of the Association.
The Association’s immediate next steps are: creating public awareness, drafting legislation, engaging local officials on these issues, spearheading a national membership campaign, and lobbying all levels of officialdom for change
Tennison is optimistic about the association’s future. “These dynamic young entrepreneurs have trained in business sectors throughout the US, and have seen for themselves the market advantages of uniting for change. Now they are adapting it to Russia’s environment. An uphill climb is ahead, but this association is already a movement in motion. Its volunteers are unstoppable,” she says.
The value of volunteers is underscored by Dr. Jack N. Behrman, emeritus professor of International Business and Ethics at the University of North Carolina School of Business -- and founder and former Chairman of the volunteer MBA Enterprise Corps. Behrman says his studies “show that volunteer action is one of the most effective means of curtailing corruption in both government and business.” Volunteer action “demonstrates that there is grass-roots concern and that the damage is pervasive. Countries where corruption is rife remain on the lower rungs of development, and begin to progress to the degree that they curtail or eliminate it.”
A study by Marek Hessel and Ken Murphy for Transparency International concludes: “Corruption frequently ‘works’ only for those who receive bribes... Corruption breeds on itself: it gives the bureaucrats powerful incentives not only to keep inefficient rules in place (so that they can take more bribes and pass them about the office) but to multiply such rules.”
The new association hopes to turn the tide.
Friday, October 29, 2004
After Arafat, Upheaval
By David Ignatius
Washington Post
Friday, October 29
For more than 30 years, Yasser Arafat has symbolized the Age of Immobilism in Arab politics. The goal of leaders from Rabat to Baghdad was survival, and whatever their nominal ideology, their real object was to maintain the status quo. And until Sept. 11, the United States -- as adept as the Arabs at status-quo politics -- fit right in.
This week's news that Arafat is seriously ill is a reminder that Arabs are entering a new era. The icebergs that have frozen Arab political life are breaking up. That melting of the status quo may sound liberating, but a turbulent passage lies ahead. Even Arafat, for all his iconic status as a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, hasn't been able to cope with the forces of change.
I first interviewed Arafat in 1981 at his headquarters in Beirut. He arrived after 1 a.m., as was his habit, surrounded by gun-toting aides. Looking back, what's striking is how much of the conversation could have taken place this year. Arafat had spent that day juggling political pressures from different Arab regimes; he talked with me about peace plans, but always with caveats; he sought to woo U.S. support, rather than negotiate openly with Israel. "We are not the red Indians," he told me, using a phrase he has probably repeated a thousand times since.
Summarizing that interview, I wrote that Arafat had learned an unfortunate lesson: "It is much easier to stand still than to try to move forward." That could be the epitaph for a whole generation of Arab leaders. With the connivance of the United States, and with the permanent excuse of the Arab-Israeli conflict, they clung to the status quo year after year, decade after decade.
America's invasion of Iraq shattered the status quo -- toppling Saddam Hussein, the cruelest symbol of the Age of Immobilism. The Bush administration had concluded that the status quo was deadly -- for Americans and Israelis, and most of all for the Arab people. The idea was to open the door to what I described optimistically in my prewar columns as "the Arab future."
The past 20 months have been a painful education in how violent and unpredictable those forces of change can be. But the turmoil sweeping Iraq is driven by forces much deeper and more powerful than a hatred of America. We have become an object of that rage for change, but we didn't create it. Nor should we necessarily want to stop it.
Hussein, like Arafat, was a cap on a bottle that was ready to explode. Because the United States chose to pry it off in Iraq, it has gotten caught by the percussion. President Bush's decision to force open the bottle may prove as unwise as kicking over a bee's nest. But Sept. 11 showed that the violence of the Islamic world was coming to America anyway.
What will follow the politics of immobilism? The only certainty is that it will be messy. The Arab world is in a period of revolutionary turmoil; the best analogy I've heard recently is to 1848 -- the year that Europe was swept by a vortex of revolution and rage. The anarchy was contained, mostly from a distance, by the leading status-quo power of the time, Britain. But what really stabilized Europe was that revolutionary France, the nation that had set the turmoil in motion, gradually came of age and became a status-quo power itself.
That may be the best we can hope for in the Arab world: It is finally living its own history. The process of change will be violent and will almost certainly be accompanied by a virulent anti-Americanism. The United States, unfortunately, will remain a target for decades. But if America and its allies are sensible, the Muslim world could evolve as 19th-century Europe did, toward modern and democratic nations.
Americans will vote Tuesday as if their decisions could alter this violent history. It's an important election, to be sure, because it could determine whether the United States struggles alone to contain the Islamic volcano or does so in concert with its European allies. But it's a mistake to think that either candidate can change the forces that are loose in the Islamic world. We are on the roller coaster of history now; there's no easy exit.
Arafat has been a symbolic figure of the era that is passing, because he managed to stay so long on the lip of the volcano. But even he could not contain the eruption. It's coming, and the job for wise leaders is to channel the flow and avoid getting burned.
Washington Post
Friday, October 29
For more than 30 years, Yasser Arafat has symbolized the Age of Immobilism in Arab politics. The goal of leaders from Rabat to Baghdad was survival, and whatever their nominal ideology, their real object was to maintain the status quo. And until Sept. 11, the United States -- as adept as the Arabs at status-quo politics -- fit right in.
This week's news that Arafat is seriously ill is a reminder that Arabs are entering a new era. The icebergs that have frozen Arab political life are breaking up. That melting of the status quo may sound liberating, but a turbulent passage lies ahead. Even Arafat, for all his iconic status as a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, hasn't been able to cope with the forces of change.
I first interviewed Arafat in 1981 at his headquarters in Beirut. He arrived after 1 a.m., as was his habit, surrounded by gun-toting aides. Looking back, what's striking is how much of the conversation could have taken place this year. Arafat had spent that day juggling political pressures from different Arab regimes; he talked with me about peace plans, but always with caveats; he sought to woo U.S. support, rather than negotiate openly with Israel. "We are not the red Indians," he told me, using a phrase he has probably repeated a thousand times since.
Summarizing that interview, I wrote that Arafat had learned an unfortunate lesson: "It is much easier to stand still than to try to move forward." That could be the epitaph for a whole generation of Arab leaders. With the connivance of the United States, and with the permanent excuse of the Arab-Israeli conflict, they clung to the status quo year after year, decade after decade.
America's invasion of Iraq shattered the status quo -- toppling Saddam Hussein, the cruelest symbol of the Age of Immobilism. The Bush administration had concluded that the status quo was deadly -- for Americans and Israelis, and most of all for the Arab people. The idea was to open the door to what I described optimistically in my prewar columns as "the Arab future."
The past 20 months have been a painful education in how violent and unpredictable those forces of change can be. But the turmoil sweeping Iraq is driven by forces much deeper and more powerful than a hatred of America. We have become an object of that rage for change, but we didn't create it. Nor should we necessarily want to stop it.
Hussein, like Arafat, was a cap on a bottle that was ready to explode. Because the United States chose to pry it off in Iraq, it has gotten caught by the percussion. President Bush's decision to force open the bottle may prove as unwise as kicking over a bee's nest. But Sept. 11 showed that the violence of the Islamic world was coming to America anyway.
What will follow the politics of immobilism? The only certainty is that it will be messy. The Arab world is in a period of revolutionary turmoil; the best analogy I've heard recently is to 1848 -- the year that Europe was swept by a vortex of revolution and rage. The anarchy was contained, mostly from a distance, by the leading status-quo power of the time, Britain. But what really stabilized Europe was that revolutionary France, the nation that had set the turmoil in motion, gradually came of age and became a status-quo power itself.
That may be the best we can hope for in the Arab world: It is finally living its own history. The process of change will be violent and will almost certainly be accompanied by a virulent anti-Americanism. The United States, unfortunately, will remain a target for decades. But if America and its allies are sensible, the Muslim world could evolve as 19th-century Europe did, toward modern and democratic nations.
Americans will vote Tuesday as if their decisions could alter this violent history. It's an important election, to be sure, because it could determine whether the United States struggles alone to contain the Islamic volcano or does so in concert with its European allies. But it's a mistake to think that either candidate can change the forces that are loose in the Islamic world. We are on the roller coaster of history now; there's no easy exit.
Arafat has been a symbolic figure of the era that is passing, because he managed to stay so long on the lip of the volcano. But even he could not contain the eruption. It's coming, and the job for wise leaders is to channel the flow and avoid getting burned.
Friday, October 22, 2004
FAILURES OF BUSH'S IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
The article below was written by an old friend and colleague, Jack N. Behrman. Dr. Behrman served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Domestic and International Business during the Kennedy Administration. He is Luther Hodges Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina Business School, and the author of more than a score of books and articles.
By Jack N. Behrman
A sage once said: "Be careful who you choose for your enemy, for you will become like them." George W. Bush has almost completely copied the very aspects of the "Axis of Evil" that he has most forcefully criticized and asserted that he would eradicate. The list includes at a minimum the following orientations, actions, and policies:
Bush has sought to extend the influence and control of the U.S. into and over foreign countries -- just as he has criticized others for seeking to impose their will abroad.
For example, criticism of Putin in Chechnya.
As Emperors have in the past, he brooks no criticism, avers that he is following God's will, states that he makes decisions by "instinct", and demands complete and unfailing loyalty from all--"if you are not with me, you are against me"; "criticism is unpatriotic".
His Administration is the most secretive and undemocratic of any in the history of the country -- while he criticizes the lack of public information in other countries.
He has protected his "cronies" and "loyal followers" from oversight and prosecution and extended benefits and favors to them directly and indirectly --while criticizing other national leaders for doing the same.
His policies are the most divisive we have seen in the past century -- setting rich against the poor and middle class, the "have mores" against the "have less or none", and religious (fundamentalists) against the moderates and secularists.
He has injected religious "faith" into politics and government policy, while demanding that the religious leaders abroad accept "democracy".
He has, despite his criticism of others, sought to change the culture of peoples by force -- as did Stalin, Mao, and Saddam -- and worse, in foreign countries, where his leadership (authority) has no legitimacy.
He has followed the Dictators of the past (and present) in becoming arrogant, repressive, and protective of corruption. These qualities brought down the Shah of Iran; Iranians averred that they could accept two but not all three.
He has relaxed environmental and business regulation through little funding support while claiming to be in favor of environmental protection.
He has permitted those who countenanced torture of prisoners -- acts which he has criticized in the "Axis of Evil" -- to remain in office while urging Human Rights worldwide.
He has weakened the value of the dollar by extensive borrowing and permitting vast expansion of credit in the country -- similar to Russia, Mexico, and Argentina, which he has criticized.
He manipulated the past presidential election and is seeking to do the same by various means in the present election -- similar to the tactics criticized as undemocratic and fraudulent in other countries.
He has isolated himself and his Administration--as Castro, Mao, Kim Il-jung, Stalin (et al) have done--from traditional allies and become a pariah in intergovernmental organizations.
He has practiced deception by claiming to offer "compassionate conservatism" and to heal the divisions in the country while doing the opposite.
He has claimed to be supportive of the aged but has provided bonanzas to the pharmaceutical industry while letting the cost of health assistance rise and coverage fall.
He has sought to cow the media and the Congress -- as in Russia, China, and other authoritarian governments -- again insisting on unthinking loyalty to his positions, rejecting and silencing critical assessments by others.
He claims to be seeking freedom for others while damping it in the U.S., expecting citizens to be non-critical. Yet, as another sage said: "The only thing that freedom-loving people have to do to lose their freedom is to keep silent." The U.S. is losing its freedom rapidly as Bush seeks to run over and silence criticism at home and abroad.
By Jack N. Behrman
A sage once said: "Be careful who you choose for your enemy, for you will become like them." George W. Bush has almost completely copied the very aspects of the "Axis of Evil" that he has most forcefully criticized and asserted that he would eradicate. The list includes at a minimum the following orientations, actions, and policies:
Bush has sought to extend the influence and control of the U.S. into and over foreign countries -- just as he has criticized others for seeking to impose their will abroad.
For example, criticism of Putin in Chechnya.
As Emperors have in the past, he brooks no criticism, avers that he is following God's will, states that he makes decisions by "instinct", and demands complete and unfailing loyalty from all--"if you are not with me, you are against me"; "criticism is unpatriotic".
His Administration is the most secretive and undemocratic of any in the history of the country -- while he criticizes the lack of public information in other countries.
He has protected his "cronies" and "loyal followers" from oversight and prosecution and extended benefits and favors to them directly and indirectly --while criticizing other national leaders for doing the same.
His policies are the most divisive we have seen in the past century -- setting rich against the poor and middle class, the "have mores" against the "have less or none", and religious (fundamentalists) against the moderates and secularists.
He has injected religious "faith" into politics and government policy, while demanding that the religious leaders abroad accept "democracy".
He has, despite his criticism of others, sought to change the culture of peoples by force -- as did Stalin, Mao, and Saddam -- and worse, in foreign countries, where his leadership (authority) has no legitimacy.
He has followed the Dictators of the past (and present) in becoming arrogant, repressive, and protective of corruption. These qualities brought down the Shah of Iran; Iranians averred that they could accept two but not all three.
He has relaxed environmental and business regulation through little funding support while claiming to be in favor of environmental protection.
He has permitted those who countenanced torture of prisoners -- acts which he has criticized in the "Axis of Evil" -- to remain in office while urging Human Rights worldwide.
He has weakened the value of the dollar by extensive borrowing and permitting vast expansion of credit in the country -- similar to Russia, Mexico, and Argentina, which he has criticized.
He manipulated the past presidential election and is seeking to do the same by various means in the present election -- similar to the tactics criticized as undemocratic and fraudulent in other countries.
He has isolated himself and his Administration--as Castro, Mao, Kim Il-jung, Stalin (et al) have done--from traditional allies and become a pariah in intergovernmental organizations.
He has practiced deception by claiming to offer "compassionate conservatism" and to heal the divisions in the country while doing the opposite.
He has claimed to be supportive of the aged but has provided bonanzas to the pharmaceutical industry while letting the cost of health assistance rise and coverage fall.
He has sought to cow the media and the Congress -- as in Russia, China, and other authoritarian governments -- again insisting on unthinking loyalty to his positions, rejecting and silencing critical assessments by others.
He claims to be seeking freedom for others while damping it in the U.S., expecting citizens to be non-critical. Yet, as another sage said: "The only thing that freedom-loving people have to do to lose their freedom is to keep silent." The U.S. is losing its freedom rapidly as Bush seeks to run over and silence criticism at home and abroad.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
WMD
Jeff Merriam is a friend and a fellow international development professional. He sends a daily e-letter to a group of his friends. This is what he wrote on the subject of WMDs.
By Jeff Merriam
Did anyone watch the debate? Score another win for the challenger. It’s nice to know that the president is not worried about Osama; that would explain why he concentrated his efforts in fighting terrorism in a country that had no terrorist ties to Osama. Clarity on that topic proves less than reassuring.
So let’s ask the hypothetical question, just to expand our minds and sensibilities, what if Bush had continued to track Osama using the full power of our military? Let’s say we had 100,000 troops in Wazieristan and Afghanistan combing through every cave complex and cattle yard. Would the junior Senator from the great state of Minnesota being telling his staff to stay away from Capital Hill between now and the election? Would we have caught the slime ball? Maybe not, but I bet you that people would be feeling a hell of lot more faith in the whole homeland security apparatus. I’ll bet Al Quaeda would be considerably less organized. I bet Bush would look better in the polls.
And what if, just what if there had been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Let’s just say we found big juicy missiles full of bio-toxins and an active nuclear program. What if the idiots in the White House actually knew what they were talking about on that score? Would the still blow the occupation with their arrogance? Would they get and destroy all the WMD before the bad guys found a way to use it against our troops or Israel? Think about it, if the Iraqis had WMD wouldn’t they have used them? Wouldn’t more American kids be dead and dying than the horrible numbers we have now?
There were caches of conventional arms found all over Iraq by our troops, but they were so busy racing to Baghdad to get the bad guys that they failed to destroy those caches. Now the bad guys are using those left behind rocket launchers and AK-47s. Can you imagine what a mess the region might be if there really were WMD? Think about Israel getting hit by nerve gas and maybe a small nuclear device in central Tel Aviv? Would our attack tactics have been different? Would we have stopped and destroyed the WMD before we moved on?
What difference would finding WMD meant to the occupation and post war mess? Little or no difference at all. Bush would be vindicated for his attack, but the administration still totally blew the occupation, and, by the way continues to blow it. I think the major difference is that the insurgents would have some nasty weapons that they do not now have. Numbers of deaths from car and suicide bombing would be in the hundreds and not in the tens. In other words, even if Bush was right about WMD we would be up to our neck in dead bodies. I don’t even think Bush would have the time to smugly tell the world, “You see, I told you Iraq was a threat.” He would have to add, “Heck it still is.” Think about it: what if the insurgents had missiles that could travel 1000 miles. They would be falling on Haifa, Rijad, Adana, and who knows where else.
Now the super leap in logic: what would happen if the neo-conservatives actually listened to the people that new piddly-squat about the Middle East and a) put in enough troops, b) put together a sufficient international coalition, c) recognized the need for nation building and made plans to do it, d) did not make Sadr into a martyr, e) retained the good offices of civil servants and members of the military to help run the country and maintain the peace, and f) put Chalabi behind bars where he belongs? What are the chances that someone would have gotten all of these things right you ask? Actually very high, because a number of people suggested these elements be included in the strategy. But that doesn’t answer the question. Assume also that they actually understood what they were doing. Would there still be an insurgency? Yes, there would, but it would be considerably smaller and less effective. It would probably be contained in Baghdad and Fuluja and the acts would have a frequency of a couple a week instead of five to ten a day.
What if instead of an American force there had been a legitimate multi-national, UN sanctioned peacekeeping force on the ground headed by the US? Would we need as many troops? Would frustrated unemployed youth see the US as the big invader, or would they recognize the multinational force as a liberator? I suspect they would resent anyone that came in to “keep the peace.”
So what exactly does all this mean? It means the fundamental mistake in this whole situation was going to war in the first place. Had there been weapons of mass destruction, the casualty levels would be ten fold what they are now. Had there been an international coalition, there still would have been some form of insurgency. The resentment in the Muslim world towards the US and the West would be only marginally less pronounced. Bottom line: this was a stupid war from day one. Even if everything were done right we still would be in the midst of a quagmire. That the Bush Administration bollixed the situation so badly can only be judged the carnage that rains down on the country every day.
We should have stuck around Afghanistan and found the bad guys there. The world supported us in doing that. Instead we have a possible Code Orange, or even Code Red time up for us in the next week or so because of the elections correlating with the Bush Administrations poor record on both homeland security (look at the budget numbers) and fight against international terrorism. What if we caught Osama? I suspect that it wouldn’t bring Al Quaeda toppling down, and I would be willing to bet cash money that there would be reprisals during the first couple of weeks until the system either created a new leader or simply petered out. But we don’t know because we shifted resources to a pet project of a bunch of arrogant, poorly informed, misguided, partisan, true believers.
Why did we go into Iraq? What the hell motivated such a stupid departure from the actual war on terrorism? If the presence of WMD would have just made the situation worse, what the hell were we thinking?
That’s right Dude, I got to thinking. Why should we settle for a measly 20,000 when we can have the whole million?
It comes back to Bush’s fervent belief that God, of all entities, put him on earth for a purpose and that purpose was to make the Middle East democratic. God did put Bush on this earth for a purpose, in fact there were two purposes; first, to take the mantle of the worst US President from the shoulders of Millard Fillmore, and second, to get John Kerry elected.
.
By Jeff Merriam
Did anyone watch the debate? Score another win for the challenger. It’s nice to know that the president is not worried about Osama; that would explain why he concentrated his efforts in fighting terrorism in a country that had no terrorist ties to Osama. Clarity on that topic proves less than reassuring.
So let’s ask the hypothetical question, just to expand our minds and sensibilities, what if Bush had continued to track Osama using the full power of our military? Let’s say we had 100,000 troops in Wazieristan and Afghanistan combing through every cave complex and cattle yard. Would the junior Senator from the great state of Minnesota being telling his staff to stay away from Capital Hill between now and the election? Would we have caught the slime ball? Maybe not, but I bet you that people would be feeling a hell of lot more faith in the whole homeland security apparatus. I’ll bet Al Quaeda would be considerably less organized. I bet Bush would look better in the polls.
And what if, just what if there had been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Let’s just say we found big juicy missiles full of bio-toxins and an active nuclear program. What if the idiots in the White House actually knew what they were talking about on that score? Would the still blow the occupation with their arrogance? Would they get and destroy all the WMD before the bad guys found a way to use it against our troops or Israel? Think about it, if the Iraqis had WMD wouldn’t they have used them? Wouldn’t more American kids be dead and dying than the horrible numbers we have now?
There were caches of conventional arms found all over Iraq by our troops, but they were so busy racing to Baghdad to get the bad guys that they failed to destroy those caches. Now the bad guys are using those left behind rocket launchers and AK-47s. Can you imagine what a mess the region might be if there really were WMD? Think about Israel getting hit by nerve gas and maybe a small nuclear device in central Tel Aviv? Would our attack tactics have been different? Would we have stopped and destroyed the WMD before we moved on?
What difference would finding WMD meant to the occupation and post war mess? Little or no difference at all. Bush would be vindicated for his attack, but the administration still totally blew the occupation, and, by the way continues to blow it. I think the major difference is that the insurgents would have some nasty weapons that they do not now have. Numbers of deaths from car and suicide bombing would be in the hundreds and not in the tens. In other words, even if Bush was right about WMD we would be up to our neck in dead bodies. I don’t even think Bush would have the time to smugly tell the world, “You see, I told you Iraq was a threat.” He would have to add, “Heck it still is.” Think about it: what if the insurgents had missiles that could travel 1000 miles. They would be falling on Haifa, Rijad, Adana, and who knows where else.
Now the super leap in logic: what would happen if the neo-conservatives actually listened to the people that new piddly-squat about the Middle East and a) put in enough troops, b) put together a sufficient international coalition, c) recognized the need for nation building and made plans to do it, d) did not make Sadr into a martyr, e) retained the good offices of civil servants and members of the military to help run the country and maintain the peace, and f) put Chalabi behind bars where he belongs? What are the chances that someone would have gotten all of these things right you ask? Actually very high, because a number of people suggested these elements be included in the strategy. But that doesn’t answer the question. Assume also that they actually understood what they were doing. Would there still be an insurgency? Yes, there would, but it would be considerably smaller and less effective. It would probably be contained in Baghdad and Fuluja and the acts would have a frequency of a couple a week instead of five to ten a day.
What if instead of an American force there had been a legitimate multi-national, UN sanctioned peacekeeping force on the ground headed by the US? Would we need as many troops? Would frustrated unemployed youth see the US as the big invader, or would they recognize the multinational force as a liberator? I suspect they would resent anyone that came in to “keep the peace.”
So what exactly does all this mean? It means the fundamental mistake in this whole situation was going to war in the first place. Had there been weapons of mass destruction, the casualty levels would be ten fold what they are now. Had there been an international coalition, there still would have been some form of insurgency. The resentment in the Muslim world towards the US and the West would be only marginally less pronounced. Bottom line: this was a stupid war from day one. Even if everything were done right we still would be in the midst of a quagmire. That the Bush Administration bollixed the situation so badly can only be judged the carnage that rains down on the country every day.
We should have stuck around Afghanistan and found the bad guys there. The world supported us in doing that. Instead we have a possible Code Orange, or even Code Red time up for us in the next week or so because of the elections correlating with the Bush Administrations poor record on both homeland security (look at the budget numbers) and fight against international terrorism. What if we caught Osama? I suspect that it wouldn’t bring Al Quaeda toppling down, and I would be willing to bet cash money that there would be reprisals during the first couple of weeks until the system either created a new leader or simply petered out. But we don’t know because we shifted resources to a pet project of a bunch of arrogant, poorly informed, misguided, partisan, true believers.
Why did we go into Iraq? What the hell motivated such a stupid departure from the actual war on terrorism? If the presence of WMD would have just made the situation worse, what the hell were we thinking?
That’s right Dude, I got to thinking. Why should we settle for a measly 20,000 when we can have the whole million?
It comes back to Bush’s fervent belief that God, of all entities, put him on earth for a purpose and that purpose was to make the Middle East democratic. God did put Bush on this earth for a purpose, in fact there were two purposes; first, to take the mantle of the worst US President from the shoulders of Millard Fillmore, and second, to get John Kerry elected.
.
Bush's Re-Election Would Doom Moderate Republicans
The article below was written by Michael Cudahy (strtfocus@earthlink.net). Mr. Cudahy is a political writer and analyst from Massachusetts. He was a former national campaign staff member for President George H.W. Bush, Executive Director for Elliot Richardson's Committee for Responsible Government, and National Communications Director for the Republican Coalition for Choice. His article is reproduced with his permission.
By Michael Cudahy
If President George W. Bush is reelected, the direction of the Republican Party is likely to undergo a massive and fundamental shift. Long-held principles of liberty, integrity and respect for human rights -- established by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower -- could be relegated to the pages of history books.
Should the president win reelection we could see national identity cards, a continuation of irresponsible fiscal policies, and a foreign policy that rejects a decades long respect for multilateralism. These are positions that have defined the party for the better part of the 20th century and are deserving of this president’s consideration.
Ironically, the decision rests in the hands of the centrist or “moderate” wing of the Republican Party -- the very people whose values will be devalued if this administration is permitted another four years in office. Representing only 18-20% of registered Republicans nationwide, they are in a position to supply Democrat John Kerry with the 3-5% points he needs to win an extremely close presidential election.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush mesmerized many of his party’s centrist members with talk of “compassionate conservatism,” and a desire for bipartisanship cooperation.
“President Bush’s rhetoric during the 2000 campaign held the promise for a significant change of direction,” said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). “There was a strong bipartisan desire for mutual respect and cooperation -- for the good of the country. We were exhausted by the bitter partisan infighting, but this administration’s behavior has only made the problem worse.”
“We are seeing policy initiatives that are diametrically opposed to the promises we heard four years ago,” Chafee says. “The president is advancing an extreme agenda that rejects everything from worldwide environmental cooperation to the banning of access to abortions for service members overseas."
“Moderates were in a position to provide significant assistance to this president,” says Chafee. "Sadly, he chose a different direction."
The question that needs to be addressed is the commitment and courage of rank and file Republican centrists. Are they prepared to overthrow the neo-conservative Republicans that betrayed President George H.W. Bush in 1992, or has their will been broken by the strong-arm tactics of the last 12 years?
“The problem with moderates,” says Ann Stone Chairman of Republicans for Choice, “is that they are so moderate, so civil, and generally so silent. Nonetheless,” Stone says, “only 38% of her membership will be supporting President Bush.”
In talking with Republican activists who have consistently supported moderate positions for decades, I discovered that none were willing to speak on the record. To a person they are intimidated by the extremely personal and well organized attacks by members of the Bush administration’s political operation.
"When I talk anecdotally to moderate Republicans, it's very hard to find one who is going to vote for Bush,” said John Zogby, president and CEO of the polling firm Zogby International, in an interview with Salon.com. "On the other hand, it's not showing up in our polling." In fact, Zogby's latest polls show 87 percent of Republicans backing Bush. "I'm just watching and waiting and saying to myself maybe there's something going on here, because I'm hearing it."
Consequently, it is hard to understand why respected and visible moderate Republican leaders like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator John McCain, and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani went to such lengths at the Republican Convention in New York to provide President Bush with important political cover. It is particularly difficult to understand when this administration has done virtually nothing to support their concerns.
While some political analysts suggest it is a strategy to reestablish influence for the centrist Republican agenda, other observers question whether the benefits will be worth the price.
“A second Bush term would be a disaster for American women,” said, Evelyn Becker Deputy Communications Director at NARAL. “We would see an effort to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with ultraconservative justices in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, as well as continued and aggressive legislative moves to limit women’s access to birth control, proper family planning and health care services,” she said.
The November election will also decide other major legislative battles critical to party moderates. We are certain to see the Bush administration set new standards in partisan politics. This extreme behavior could precipitate a serious economic crisis, as a result of irresponsible tax policies and out of control government spending, while threatening the American tradition of free speech with measures such as the USA Patriot Act.
We will find out in a few short weeks whether Republican moderates can be bought off by the occasional bone and a seat at the children’s table, or whether they will regain their voice and become major players in setting the party’s political agenda for future generations.
By Michael Cudahy
If President George W. Bush is reelected, the direction of the Republican Party is likely to undergo a massive and fundamental shift. Long-held principles of liberty, integrity and respect for human rights -- established by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower -- could be relegated to the pages of history books.
Should the president win reelection we could see national identity cards, a continuation of irresponsible fiscal policies, and a foreign policy that rejects a decades long respect for multilateralism. These are positions that have defined the party for the better part of the 20th century and are deserving of this president’s consideration.
Ironically, the decision rests in the hands of the centrist or “moderate” wing of the Republican Party -- the very people whose values will be devalued if this administration is permitted another four years in office. Representing only 18-20% of registered Republicans nationwide, they are in a position to supply Democrat John Kerry with the 3-5% points he needs to win an extremely close presidential election.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush mesmerized many of his party’s centrist members with talk of “compassionate conservatism,” and a desire for bipartisanship cooperation.
“President Bush’s rhetoric during the 2000 campaign held the promise for a significant change of direction,” said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). “There was a strong bipartisan desire for mutual respect and cooperation -- for the good of the country. We were exhausted by the bitter partisan infighting, but this administration’s behavior has only made the problem worse.”
“We are seeing policy initiatives that are diametrically opposed to the promises we heard four years ago,” Chafee says. “The president is advancing an extreme agenda that rejects everything from worldwide environmental cooperation to the banning of access to abortions for service members overseas."
“Moderates were in a position to provide significant assistance to this president,” says Chafee. "Sadly, he chose a different direction."
The question that needs to be addressed is the commitment and courage of rank and file Republican centrists. Are they prepared to overthrow the neo-conservative Republicans that betrayed President George H.W. Bush in 1992, or has their will been broken by the strong-arm tactics of the last 12 years?
“The problem with moderates,” says Ann Stone Chairman of Republicans for Choice, “is that they are so moderate, so civil, and generally so silent. Nonetheless,” Stone says, “only 38% of her membership will be supporting President Bush.”
In talking with Republican activists who have consistently supported moderate positions for decades, I discovered that none were willing to speak on the record. To a person they are intimidated by the extremely personal and well organized attacks by members of the Bush administration’s political operation.
"When I talk anecdotally to moderate Republicans, it's very hard to find one who is going to vote for Bush,” said John Zogby, president and CEO of the polling firm Zogby International, in an interview with Salon.com. "On the other hand, it's not showing up in our polling." In fact, Zogby's latest polls show 87 percent of Republicans backing Bush. "I'm just watching and waiting and saying to myself maybe there's something going on here, because I'm hearing it."
Consequently, it is hard to understand why respected and visible moderate Republican leaders like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator John McCain, and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani went to such lengths at the Republican Convention in New York to provide President Bush with important political cover. It is particularly difficult to understand when this administration has done virtually nothing to support their concerns.
While some political analysts suggest it is a strategy to reestablish influence for the centrist Republican agenda, other observers question whether the benefits will be worth the price.
“A second Bush term would be a disaster for American women,” said, Evelyn Becker Deputy Communications Director at NARAL. “We would see an effort to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with ultraconservative justices in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, as well as continued and aggressive legislative moves to limit women’s access to birth control, proper family planning and health care services,” she said.
The November election will also decide other major legislative battles critical to party moderates. We are certain to see the Bush administration set new standards in partisan politics. This extreme behavior could precipitate a serious economic crisis, as a result of irresponsible tax policies and out of control government spending, while threatening the American tradition of free speech with measures such as the USA Patriot Act.
We will find out in a few short weeks whether Republican moderates can be bought off by the occasional bone and a seat at the children’s table, or whether they will regain their voice and become major players in setting the party’s political agenda for future generations.
THE DEBATES: WHAT WE DIDN’T HEAR
By William Fisher
Margaret Carlson of TIME magazine, who describes herself as “a product of the (Catholic) School of the Good Shepherd outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania”, writes in the Los Angeles Times that she finds it “jarring” that “the word ‘lesbian’ still leaps out in the middle of a presidential debate.”
It may be “jarring” to Ms. Carlson, but the more important point is that it is totally irrelevant to one’s choice for president.
Meanwhile, an editorial in the Raleigh (North Carolina) News and Observer congratulates Messrs. Bush and Kerry for giving the American people “a series of informative and energetic dialogues”. The paper concludes that “if all Americans were to case their votes for president based on what they had an opportunity to learn in the three presidential debates, that final choice would represent the consensus of an educated, enlightened electorate – something that would be healthy, indeed.”
Allow me to demur. The exquisitely negotiated minuet as to format and ground rules for these debates virtually guaranteed the triumph of sound bites over substance. These ensured that voters would never hear enough about any single issue to be even minimally informed.
Worse, in two of the three debates, the questions put to the candidates were written by the debate moderators. In the middle debate, the so-called Town Hall format, voters submitted the questions and the moderators selected which ones to ask.
So, while we now know what the moderators think is important, the debates and the debaters remained silent on some of the most important issues facing the US. One such issue is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, only briefly mentioned in passing; a second is Abu Ghraib and related prisoner abuses issues – not mentioned at all; a third is reform of our intelligence community, counter-terrorism policy, homeland security and the impact of these issues on American civil liberties.
John Kerry well knows – and has said so on other occasions – that the road to peace in the Middle East runs not through Baghdad but through Jerusalem. It can only be viewed as a lesson in Pandering 101 that he never mentioned – and the president never had to defend -- his outrageous and unproductive positions on this issue. The President needed to be held accountable for abdicating responsibility for addressing this issue with energy, consistency and imagination, and personal involvement. And candidate Kerry failed to do so.
Mr. Kerry also failed to mention the prisoner abuse scandal and the role it has played in the collapse of American credibility around the world. He knows that, contrary to the President’s unconscionable spin on this issue, these bestial acts were far from the work of ‘a few bad apples’. He knows that the CIA is being investigated for, as a Washington Post editorial put it, “introducing abusive interrogation techniques into Iraq and illegally hiding prisoners from the International Red Cross.” He knows that a major Pentagon investigation of how US interrogation policies spread through Afghanistan and Iraq was to be released by the end of September, but has yet to appear. And he knows that a panel appointed by the Pentagon found responsibility for prisoner abuse at senior levels of the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, and that no one in the Bush Administration has yet been held accountable.
In the final debate, Mr. Kerry excoriated the president for failing to inspect 95% of the millions of freight containers that enter US ports each year, and for inspecting airline luggage but not airfreight. But he left unaddressed the issues of a gigantic, under-funded mega-bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security; an intelligence community whose long-overdue reform was initially opposed by the president; a Justice Department that took 5,000 people into custody and convicted no one; and a truly sinister piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would facilitate even more secretive detentions and deportations – including deportations of asylum-seekers to countries where they would likely face torture. If less draconian and more effective legislation is to emerge, the thanks will go not to Senator Kerry, or to the president, but to the 9/11 Commission and to the boundless energy and determination of the 9/11 survivors’ families.
That the candidates shared the same stage was good. That what we saw and heard could be called ‘debates’ is arguable. That the result was likely to produce anything like “an educated, enlightened electorate” is delusional.
Margaret Carlson of TIME magazine, who describes herself as “a product of the (Catholic) School of the Good Shepherd outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania”, writes in the Los Angeles Times that she finds it “jarring” that “the word ‘lesbian’ still leaps out in the middle of a presidential debate.”
It may be “jarring” to Ms. Carlson, but the more important point is that it is totally irrelevant to one’s choice for president.
Meanwhile, an editorial in the Raleigh (North Carolina) News and Observer congratulates Messrs. Bush and Kerry for giving the American people “a series of informative and energetic dialogues”. The paper concludes that “if all Americans were to case their votes for president based on what they had an opportunity to learn in the three presidential debates, that final choice would represent the consensus of an educated, enlightened electorate – something that would be healthy, indeed.”
Allow me to demur. The exquisitely negotiated minuet as to format and ground rules for these debates virtually guaranteed the triumph of sound bites over substance. These ensured that voters would never hear enough about any single issue to be even minimally informed.
Worse, in two of the three debates, the questions put to the candidates were written by the debate moderators. In the middle debate, the so-called Town Hall format, voters submitted the questions and the moderators selected which ones to ask.
So, while we now know what the moderators think is important, the debates and the debaters remained silent on some of the most important issues facing the US. One such issue is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, only briefly mentioned in passing; a second is Abu Ghraib and related prisoner abuses issues – not mentioned at all; a third is reform of our intelligence community, counter-terrorism policy, homeland security and the impact of these issues on American civil liberties.
John Kerry well knows – and has said so on other occasions – that the road to peace in the Middle East runs not through Baghdad but through Jerusalem. It can only be viewed as a lesson in Pandering 101 that he never mentioned – and the president never had to defend -- his outrageous and unproductive positions on this issue. The President needed to be held accountable for abdicating responsibility for addressing this issue with energy, consistency and imagination, and personal involvement. And candidate Kerry failed to do so.
Mr. Kerry also failed to mention the prisoner abuse scandal and the role it has played in the collapse of American credibility around the world. He knows that, contrary to the President’s unconscionable spin on this issue, these bestial acts were far from the work of ‘a few bad apples’. He knows that the CIA is being investigated for, as a Washington Post editorial put it, “introducing abusive interrogation techniques into Iraq and illegally hiding prisoners from the International Red Cross.” He knows that a major Pentagon investigation of how US interrogation policies spread through Afghanistan and Iraq was to be released by the end of September, but has yet to appear. And he knows that a panel appointed by the Pentagon found responsibility for prisoner abuse at senior levels of the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, and that no one in the Bush Administration has yet been held accountable.
In the final debate, Mr. Kerry excoriated the president for failing to inspect 95% of the millions of freight containers that enter US ports each year, and for inspecting airline luggage but not airfreight. But he left unaddressed the issues of a gigantic, under-funded mega-bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security; an intelligence community whose long-overdue reform was initially opposed by the president; a Justice Department that took 5,000 people into custody and convicted no one; and a truly sinister piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would facilitate even more secretive detentions and deportations – including deportations of asylum-seekers to countries where they would likely face torture. If less draconian and more effective legislation is to emerge, the thanks will go not to Senator Kerry, or to the president, but to the 9/11 Commission and to the boundless energy and determination of the 9/11 survivors’ families.
That the candidates shared the same stage was good. That what we saw and heard could be called ‘debates’ is arguable. That the result was likely to produce anything like “an educated, enlightened electorate” is delusional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
