Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Posted here Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 6:17:56 PM     Some interesting developments. Bush's Lost Year at http://www.cpe-sf.com/ruthgroup/downloads/FallowsAtlantic.htm By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost by James Fallows ..... remember distinctly the way 2002 began in Washington. New Year's Day was below freezing and blustery. The next day was worse. That day, January 2, I trudged several hundred yards across the vast parking lots of the Pentagon. I was being pulled apart by the wind and was ready to feel sorry for myself, until I was shamed by the sight of miserable, frozen Army sentries at the numerous outdoor security posts that had been manned non-stop since the September 11 attacks. I was going for an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. At the time, Wolfowitz's name and face were not yet familiar worldwide. He was known in Washington for offering big-picture explanations of the Administration's foreign-policy goals—a task for which the President was unsuited, the Vice President was unavailable, and most other senior Administration officials were, for various reasons, inappropriate. The National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was still playing a background role; the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was mainly dealing with immediate operational questions in his daily briefings about the war in Afghanistan; the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was already known to be on the losing side of most internal policy struggles. After the interview I wrote a short article about Wolfowitz and his views for the March 2002 issue of this magazine. In some ways the outlook and choices he described then still fit the world situation two and a half years later. Even at the time, the possibility that the Administration's next move in the war on terror would be against Iraq, whether or not Iraq proved to be involved in the 9/11 hijackings, was under active discussion. When talking with me Wolfowitz touched briefly on the case for removing Saddam Hussein, in the context of the general need to reduce tyranny in the Arab-Islamic world. more on fallows at http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/cl-ca-shaw12sep12.column and more at WHAT IF WE HAD NOT GONE INTO IRAQ? Mon Sep 13,12:08 PM ET By Richard Reeves http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&;cid=123&u=/ucrr/20040913/cm_ucrr/whatifwehadnotgoneintoiraq&printer=1 WASHINGTON -- I have thought for a long time that communism would have collapsed in the 1970s rather than at the end of the 1980s if the United States had not chosen to go to war in Vietnam. We squandered years of moral, political, financial and military capital in jungles and rice paddies we could not name, much less "conquer" or "liberate." and some explicit advice Time to Leave Iraq September 13, 2004 The U.S. media momentarily focused on Iraq when the toll of Americans killed passed 1,000, but that only means that they won’t pay attention again until it reached 2,000. Meanwhile, Iraqis continue to die by the thousands. Time to leave. The Chicago Tribune says that 1,000 Iraqis, many of them civilians, died in the battle of Najaf: “Three weeks of urban warfare killed at least 1,000 Iraqi rebels and civilians, the governor of this battle-weary city said Saturday in his first estimate of the death toll since the standoff ended two weeks ago.” and Time to consider Iraq withdrawal Published: September 10 2004 03:00 | Last updated: September 10 2004 03:00 http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/ft6.htm This week a macabre milestone was passed in Iraq. More than 1,000 American soldiers have now been killed since the US-led invasion of the country began nearly 18 months ago. The overwhelming majority lost their lives after President George W. Bush declared major combat operations over in his now infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo-opportunity in May last year. In that time, an unknown number of mostly civilian Iraqis, certainly not less than 10,000 and possibly three times that number, have perished, and hundreds more are dying each week. After an invasion and occupation that promised them freedom, Iraqis have seen their security evaporate, their state smashed and their country fragment into a lawless archipelago ruled by militias, bandits and kidnappers.   ********

Posted here Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 12:59:05 PM     The psychology of the president and the voters is increasingly interesting. If both are into denail and projection, and doing so because there is no obvious path to a more nuanced reality, then we are in trouble. In a schoolyard fight, the one winning usually gets the approval of the onlookers. In a complex world, being the bully is probaably not a good response. I say "probably" because sometimes "winning" is essential. Is the current situation of the west, the US, the ME and Islam such a situation?  Much on my mond. So, pieces.... The political scientist David Barber (Strong Democracy) has died. Unfortunate. Too young. James D. Barber Remembered Margalit Fox writes James D. Barber's obituary in the New York Times today. "Dr. Barber's best-known book, 'The Presidential Character,' published in 1972, argued that a president's psychological makeup, established early in life, could predict his performance in office. " 'The lives of presidents past and of the one still with us show, I think, how a start from character makes possible a realistic estimate of what will endure into a man's White House years,' Dr. Barber wrote. . . . "Analyzing presidential character, Dr. Barber focused on two criteria: whether a president was active or passive, and whether he viewed his job in positive or negative terms. "In combination, the criteria formed four distinct personality types. Active-positive presidents, who brought energy and enjoyment to their work, included Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, Dr. Barber wrote. Passive-positives, like William Howard Taft, were compliant and superficially cheerful. Passive-negatives, like Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower, were sullen and withdrawn, viewing the office as a burden. "The most dangerous type, Dr. Barber wrote, was the active-negative. Though energetic, such men were also joyless, inflexible, compulsive and domineering, with 'a strong bent for digging their own graves.' In this category he listed Lyndon B. Johnson and [Richard] Nixon." from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15barber.html ********

Posted here Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 11:48:53 AM     the picture tells a story.. at http://www.counterpunch.org/ for today. The educational system, not unlike other sectors, is on the verge of collapse. This is usually what happens when you take a viable community and surround it with walls. But this is exactly what the Sharon government wants. Think of Ar-ram as an upside down triangular (see map). A wall is being constructed on both legs of this triangular, cutting Ar-Ram from the adjacent neighborhood of Beit Hanina on the West, and from its land, which has now been confiscated, on the East. To the North, the base of this triangular is a road which will become a Jews-only road, serving the nearby settlements (the military is likely to build some kind of barrier between the road and Ar-Ram). As a result, the neighborhood will be surrounded on all sides, with only one entrance (at the notorious Qalandiya checkpoint). A ghetto. ********

Posted here Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 9:45:57 AM     An amazing experience, being away for a week. The world churns, shifts, mixes, emerges, clarity arises, and along with it new murkiness. As of now it looks like there is no good option in Iraq (or the middle east , considering Israel and Iran). I would chose to call a large middle east conference, and a european conference, for long conversations about what to do. Let all the positions come out, let exploration happen. A mood piece, this from dailykos diaries http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/15/13557/8296 I struggle against the suspicion that so many of my fellow Americans are conceptually challenged. I want to reason with my neighbors, I want to engage these lost Americans. What makes you angry, neighbor? What arouses your suspicions? Does it bother you that this administration made terrorism a low priority, dismissed key intelligence that might have prevented the 9-11 catastrophe, then exploited it to justify the pre-planned destruction of Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with al Qaeda? All this is no longer conjecture, but direct reportage from cabinet-level meetings by the turncoat insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. (snip) I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a state governed by the president's brother, a once-proud country has been delivered into the hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves. The world pities or despises us, even as it fears us. What this election will test is the power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, most cynical, most sophisticated political campaign in human history will be out trolling for fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you.   these are quoted from http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-05-12/news.html   which I suggest reading. ********