Friday, April 23, 2004

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 6:53:42 PM     Seems like a good portrait of the way the bush administration works. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0404230174apr23,1,4947323.story They repeatedly tell us, in only slightly different ways, that this leadership group--or, better said, "court"--is one of "irregulars." At every opportunity, they went around our official government, around our institutions, and likely enough around the law. Across their history from the 1970s until today, this Bush neo-conservative group, backed by elements of the radical right and American supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, created alternate power centers to bypass traditional American ones. In short, they are true radicals. Think "Robespierre." To step back for a moment, we need to realize that it is almost impossible to run the government. Everything that is happening and everything that you might do is felt to undermine somebody's business or power. Every hint of what you're thinking becomes caricatured and amplified by some part of the press somewhere . Today I watched the senate and house hearings on Iraq . While it is easy to fall into criticism of the government it was clear that answers were plausible and wear week often reflect a kind of American style . The senators and house members seemed for the very most part very well prepared and articulate (though their tendency to speak well leads them to give speeches rather than ask good questions , which lets the witnesses off the hook .). The reality of government at work, even including these public areas, is more civil and more interesting and more complex than the public picture in the press would indicate . the basic tendency for those in authority , and I agree that ours is an oligarchy, is to hide what they're doing , not because they are afraid of the reality of exposure , but because exposure leads to caricature . Human beings a deal in stories , and as Garrison Keillor once said, "sometimes a reality just does not go far enough." This seems to be a great dilemma for government .   ********

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 5:26:12 PM     Watch the issue of sovereignty: Does the new government in Iraq have to honor the interim agreement which leaves US troops in place. This is not comfortable. ********

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 4:52:55 PM     Nuclear program Our Hidden WMD Program Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons. By Fred Kaplan Posted Friday, April 23, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT http://slate.msn.com/?id=2099425&;notification_id=21561797&message_id=0 The budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads. Several possible explanations. One might be Bush's desire to turn towards nuclear power, and this gives some research leverage. Another is that it is part of the go it alone defense posture, assuming that much of the world turns against us. Other possibilities? One simple one is to reward friends who are in the nuclear industry doldrums. In any case, the issue is serious and deserves lots of debate. ********

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 2:15:03 PM     Wolfowitz: "our friends and our enemies.." "For people overseas, note that the American debate is between using the solders we have, or having more, not about leaving Iraq." Analyzing these simple pieces of language is not completely easy. ********

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 10:18:52 AM     from Slate From NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" via Reuters: "On '60 Minutes' last Sunday night, Bob Woodward suggested the main reason President Bush took the country to war was that he thinks he's on a mission from God; but the problem with that is that's also Osama bin Laden's reason." - By Dan Froomkin ********

Posted here Friday, April 23, 2004 at 9:52:58 AM     New facts for me. Iraq as parliamentary monarchy means that there is the memory of a ploitical culture from Juan cole today http://www.juancole.com/ I would say, with regard to the issue of holding elections, it should be remembered that Iraq was a constitutional monarchy from the 1920s through the 1950s. There were occasionally military coups in that period. But, on the whole and by and large, they had elections and parties came to power and prime ministers were elected. And so this is not an unprecedented thing to happen in Iraq. And it ended in part because that was a game of large landlords in that period and didn't have popular support. I think there are already now city councils and provincial governing councils in place. They haven't been exactly democratically put in place, but they are there. There are people who would be in charge of voter registration. The voter registration can be kept honest in some ways because it can be compared to the food ration roles that the U.N. had prepared. ********