|
Editors
note on Wikipedia Problems:
We have received a growing number of communications
from viewers concerning ‘Wikipedia’ which advertises itself as
an ‘online information service’, a sort of free Internet
encyclopedia. The complaints are that the service is filled with
articles obviously cribbed from other publications and not
attributed but worse, many are obviously the work of spiteful
contributors who publish reams of incorrect, and in some cases,
libelous material.
Apparently the strange “volunteers” who run
Wikipedia welcome all manner of input from unknown sources, input
which is posted by them without any kind of verification.
Some of the raucous attacks on religious groups, political figures
and historical events sound like the Daily Kos at full cry. Having
some background in various historical subjects, we looked up
specific subjects and
discovered a porridge of fiction, prevarications and material that
was to all intents and purposes, included for the purpose of
disiniformation. Much of this is unsourced and as reference
material, what we saw was completely worthless.
Although
the internet can be a priceless source of information, there is also
a serious problem of self-interest and deliberate disinformation
which can be found on almost all blogs and which has crept into
search engines. Lonely, frustrated individuals who wallow in
feelings of failure and towering inadequacy are drawn to the
internet like moths to a candle and their prevarications and
bleatings are matched
entirely by the worthlessness of their observations and diminished
opinions.
In
earlier times, these pathetic types would write 30 page letters to
their local newspapers or stand on street corners with misspelled
signs, waving at passing cars. Now, they only have to sit down at
their computers and let everyone know how badly their childhood
needed to have been prevented.
Inaccuracy
and mendacity is not the main problem with Wikipedia. In a number of
cases, persons who availed themselves of this service were
immediately inundated with hundreds of emails on the topic they had
just accessed.
In
one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian
Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious
notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of
these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical
Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over
700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000.
Even
more obnoxious were problems encountered by a woman whose 14 year
old daughter had consulted Wikipedia on the subject of abortion,
information which she
needed for a school paper on that subject. She had a similar
experience to the first person cited. Within minutes of closing down
the Wikipedia site, this girl had received over 200 emails, mostly
from religious, anti-abortion organizations and by the end of the
month, the total had swelled to 3000 emails!
Needless
to say, the mail boxes of both parties were jammed to the point that
they were unable to receive any other emails. Both parties tried to
contact Wikipedia personnel to complain but to date, there has been
no response of any kind. This lack of concern is apparently
standard.
The
question arises, obviously, as to how the spammers obtained the
email addresses of the victims. In the two cases cited above,
neither had ventured into the fields of interest before. Perhaps the
proprietors of the site have found a way to make a profit from their
“free site.”
For
those seeking accurate and sane information on diverse subjects, we
heartily recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica site. Their
reputation is quite beyond reproach and no one of our acquaintance
has ever received hundreds of obnoxious spam messages because of
their search for information there.
Editor
Note:
Brian Harring is currently preparing an article on this interesting
subject.
Report from Secrecy News on weird new Wikipedia game
January
3, 2007
WIKILEAKS
AND UNTRACEABLE DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE
A
new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good
government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and
publication of confidential government records.
"WikiLeaks
is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable
mass document leaking and analysis," according to the project
web site.
"Our
primary targets are highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia,
central eurasia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, but we also
expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal
unethical
behavior in their own governments and corporations."
"A
system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience is
the most cost effective means of promoting good government – in
health and medicine, in food supply, in human rights, in arms
control and democratic institutions."
Wikileaks
says that it has already acquired over one million documents that it
is now preparing for publication.
The
project web site is not yet fully "live." But an initial
offering -- a document purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir
Aweys of Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union -- is posted in a
zipped file here:
http://www.wikileaks.org/som.zip
An
analysis of the document's authenticity and implications is posted
here:
http://www.wikileaks.org/inside_somalia_v9.html
Wikileaks
invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board. We
explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate
publication of confidential records.
In
the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can more
easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence, not
to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste.
So
we disagree on first principles? No problem, replied Wikileaks:
"Advisory
positions are just that -- advisory! If you want to advise us to
censor, then by all means do so."
See
Wikileaks here:
http://www.wikileaks.org
While
Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized disclosures technologically
immune to government control, an opposing school of thought proposes
to expand U.S. government authority to seize control of information
that is already in the public domain when its continued availability
is deemed unacceptably dangerous.
"Although
existing authorities do not directly address the subject, it appears
that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and dissemination
of catastrophically dangerous information can be constitutionally
implemented," suggests Stewart Harris of the Appalachian School
of Law.
See
"Restrictions are justifiable," National Law Journal,
December 11, 2006:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1165501509178
The Voice of the White House
Washington,
D.C., January 5, 2007: “Working in the White House is like working
in the monkey house in a zoo when all the primates are loaded with
uppers.
A
number of lower staffers have abruptly quit, Harriet Myers has quit
and others are going the same way. Now why is this? Because it is
now very obvious that Bush has lost his marbles, if he ever had any,
and we are headed into a major governmental crisis.
Bush
has absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq. Any general officer who
disagrees with his stupid “surge” is promptly fired and others
warned that Bush will fire them if they open their mouths. The brass
at the Pentagon and the troops in the field are approaching open
mutiny.
There
are very serious rumors that National Guard and reserve units will
not show up for shipment to the slaughterhouse. Bush has told
Congress that they will do what he tells them and if they do not, he
will refuse to sign any of their bills he does not approve of and
refuse to implement anything they try to pass over his head.
He
has deliberately antagonized the new Congress and when he is told
that the people want an end to the Iraq horrors, he claims the
public still want him to “stay the course.”
Hate
mail and death threats are pouring in here in unprecedented numbers
and the Secret Service can’t begin to keep up with them. There is
no question that very soon, there will be a major confrontation
between Bush on one side and the military and Congress on the other.
And be sure Bush will lose.
No
one seems to know what to do about Bush. He will listen to no one
and could care less what the American public wants. What he
wants is to hang the remaining Saddam crew, launch a huge military
attack in Baghdad, level parts of that city that he personally feels
should be leveled, kill off anything that moves, replace the current
Iraqi government with a pliable military dictator like Saddam and
then come home in what he considers will be a great triumph.
A
Republican Senator recently said that what Bush was doing was
criminal. It is and now both Congress, the military and a growing
segment of the American public are beginning to realize that Bush
has to be removed, by force if necessary, from his high office.
I
have talked with some of the staff members who are in his presence
on a regular basis and all of them say, without reservation, that he
has gone around the bend. The Pentagon brass have nicknamed him
Caligula and there is a very strong possibility of open revolt from
that sector. Troops in the field are seriously talking about mutiny
but if Bush knows about this, he could care less.
The
plain and simple truth, children, is that our President is a fanatic
nut and has absolutely no business running a war. Whatever happens
to him will be entirely his fault and I am looking for another job
starting this afternoon.”
Letters to the Editor
From: Wianmichael@aol.com
To: tbrnews@hotmail.com
Subject: Contacting Mr Burnett.
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:23:02 EST
Dear Sir,
I've
just tried to email Mr Burnett with regard to publications that can
be obtained from him, and the email got bounced back, any idea how I
can forward a request to him via another route, I'm registered with
AOL, I hope this is not the problem, bearing in mind your articles
on the company, I'm regular visitor to your excellent web site, so
any reports, etc. I try to obtain them when published.
Yours Sincerely,
Michael Wood.
Response:
This has nothing to do with
AOL. It has basically collapsed and now deals in cell phones. The
Burnett site was shut down two days ago, according to the site
people, at the formal request of the Department of State. Why?
Because the Finnegan Report on rampant pedophilia in various U.S.
diplomatic missions that was available at this site has infuriated,
and frightened the DoS to a remarkable degree. WS
Congress set to resume with Democrats in
charge
January
4, 2007
AFP
Democrats take control of Congress on
Thursday for the first time in 12 years, vowing to hold President
George W. Bush's administration accountable for its handling of
Iraq.
A new class of nearly 500 lawmakers --
a third of the 100-seat US Senate and the entire 435-seat House --
was to be sworn in Thursday, in the aftermath of November's historic
election that saw public discontent with the Iraq war lead to heavy
Republican losses.
Hearings on ending the raging sectarian
strife in Iraq and perceived administration mistakes in getting into
the war are among the top agenda items for the new Democratic
majority, as Bush prepares to announce a major policy shift there
that would enable the Iraqi government to gain full control over its
affairs.
The handover of power also marks the
first time a woman will hold the top post in the House, when
Democrat Nancy Pelosi takes over from Republican Speaker Dennis
Hastert.
Bush called for better collaboration
with the new Congress on Wednesday, saying: "We've all been
entrusted with public office at a momentous time in our nation's
history, and together we have important things to do. It's time to
set aside politics and focus on the future."
The president also said he would unveil
a five-year budget next month that would make his tax cuts permanent
yet balance the US government's budget by 2012.
"We've got to make sure we spend
the people's money wisely," Bush said.
In a column published in Wednesday's
Wall Street Journal, Bush said he was ready to work with Democrats,
and warned that partisanship could lead to a "stalemate."
"We can't play politics as
usual," he wrote in the column appearing one day before
lawmakers take their oaths of office.
"Democrats will control the House
and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we
achieve," wrote the president, who was to host Democratic and
Republican leaders at the White House later for receptions one day
before the Democrats officially take over the US Congress.
But Democrats said that if Bush wants
to get anything done in his last two years in office, he will have
to compromise.
"Democrats ran on a message of
compromise and we certainly want to work with the president. We hope
that when the president says compromise, it means more than 'do it
my way,' which is what he's meant in the past," Democratic
Senator Charles Schumer said.
Still, indications are the Democrats,
who regained control of both houses of Congress after 12 years of
near-domination by the Republican Party, plan to fully use their
newfound clout.
Incoming Senate Foreign Relations
Committee chairman Joe Biden is organizing up to a dozen hearings on
the Iraq war, with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called to
testify. And Carl Levin, his counterpart on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, has said he plans to summon new Defense
Secretary Robert Gates and other officials.
The financing of the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars will also be debated in the new Congress, as will
Bush's overall policies.
The war in Iraq is costing an estimated
eight billion dollars a month, sapping Bush's approval rating and
setting the stage for confrontation with Congress.
Key among the proposals the president
is expected to announce as part of his rethink of US Iraq policy is
a "surge" of thousands of additional troops there.
Biden, however, has said he would
oppose any effort by Bush to increase US troop levels in Iraq as
part of a new war strategy.
"We don't get to make foreign
policy in the US Congress," Biden said last month, adding
however that he and other Democrats would attempt to "shape a
consensus that will put pressure on the president."
Despite Democrats' new authority in
Congress, the president can still curtail their ambitions with a
veto. Internal divisions within the party could also be harmful,
making some degree of cooperation likely between the two sides.
Democrats in the Senate were reminded
last month of the fragility of their one-seat majority when Senator
Tim Johnson suffered a sudden brain hemorrhage and underwent
emergency surgery.
If Johnson were to die or resign from
the Senate for health reasons, control of the Senate would revert to
Republicans.
Bush Reaches Out, but
Keeps One Hand on the Wheel
January 4, 2007
by Jim Rutenbert
New York Times
Washington-
In an article published on a friendly op=ed page, and from the regal
confines of the White House, President Bush greeted the incoming
Democratic leadership of Congress on Wednesday with a message of
bipartisanship.
But he also
sent another message: I’m still the guy with the big plane, the
big office (the oval one) and the presidential seal.
With the
op-ed, in the Wall Street Journal, and in the Rose Garden
appearance, Mr. Bush sought to
set the governing agenda one day before Democrats were officially to
take control of Congress and alter the balance of power that has
favored Mr. Bush’s party for nearly his entire presidency.
In doing so,
Mr. Bush mixed calls for unity in governing with a series of red
flags on his signature issues.
Tax
increases? Forget it.
“The
elections have not
reversed the laws of economics,” Mr. Bush wrote in The Journal.
“It is a fact that economies do best when you reward hard work by
allowing people to keep more of what they have earned.”
The war in
Iraq? “We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus
to fight and win the war,” he wrote. In other words, we’re
staying.
That
new Democratic majority? It isn’t really so big.
“The
minority party, especially where the margins are close,” Mr. Bush
wrote, “has a strong say in the form bills take.” And the
president, he added- lest anyone forget- has the constitutional
authority “to use his
judgment whether they should be signed into law.”
Several
Democrats said Mr. Bush’s words on Wednesday had raised questions
about what kind of president would show up when they get down to the
business of governing side by side.
Some
Democrats may have hoped it would be the George
W. Bush who contritely acknowledged a “thumpin’”
for his party the day after the elections in November. But the
evidence suggests it is more likely to be the man who all but
ignored the disputed circumstances of his election in 2000, governed
from then as if he had an expensive mandate and who- even as he has
employed soothing tones in speaking to and about Democrats for the
last two months- has gradually but firmly reasserted himself on both
foreign and domestic policy.
“I
think what the op-ed showed was the fundamental division within the
White House and probably within the president’s head whether to
stick to the old issues and just talk bipartisanship versus really
doing it,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the new
vice chairman of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, in an
interview.
The first few weeks of
January are traditionally when the White House carefully rolls out
new or repackaged polity initiatives before the president’s State
of the Union address, a period when he can set the agenda. But for
the first time since early 2002, when Democrats controlled the
Senate, Mr. Bush has to share power and the national microphone. He
also has to show that he has a domestic agenda at a time when his
presidency is largely consumed by Iraq.
Both sides were making some
effort on Wednesday to play nice. White House officials noted that
the president had highlighted several areas in which he has shown a
willingness to work more closely with Democrats, like on a new
minimum wage and a new immigration
law.
And the White House
arranged for a plane to bring the incoming Senate majority leader, Harry
Reid of Nevada, and Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat
of Illinois, back to Washington from Gerald R. Ford’s funeral in
Grand Rapids, Mich., in time for a reception with Mr. Bush and the
other Congressional leaders.
In a memorandum that Mr.
Reid issued Wednesday to fellow Democrats, he wrote, “I’m
encouraged that President Bush said today that he wants to work in
bipartisanship.”
But, he added, “I hope he
means it.” And in defining his own approach to bipartisanship, Mr.
Reid went on to praise Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of
Oregon, saying Mr. Smith’s commentary last month on the
administration’s war policy – in which Mr. Smith said it “may
even be criminal” – had “signaled a sea change over how
Congress will address the Iraqi war.”
Mr. Reid promised to work
with Republicans to “bring oversight and accountability to the
Bush administration’s conduct of the war and ensure a new policy
that meets conditions on the ground” but also “allows our troops
to come home.”
Democrats were moving
quickly to hold the administration accountable, in their view, for
its mistakes, promising to hold as many as a dozen oversight
hearings on the war alone in the next few weeks.
In interviews, White House
officials did not hesitate to acknowledge that they were taking
advantage of the last day before the Democrats take control to
assert some presidential power.
Nor did they dispute
Democrats’ suspicions that the White House placed Mr. Bush’s
opinion piece in the Journal to reassure a target audience of
nervous fiscal conservatives- and the financial markets- that he
remained philosophically opposed to any tax increases.
But administration
officials disputed Democratic assertions that the president was
trying to upstage them before their big day.
“It’s an appropriate
time to say where we are on these things and to again reiterate the
president’s view that we can work together to find common
ground,” said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman. “It also
doesn’t mean that a Democrat-controlled Congress passes whatever
they want and we sign it- that’s not bipartisanship.”
But it was clear that as
both sides spoke about bipartisanship, they were defining it on
different terms.
Mr. Fratto acknowledged as
much, sayhing, “We’ll have to see as we go forward over the next
six months, in particular, if everyone has the same understanding of
what bipartisanship means.”
Truth at Last, While Breaking a US Taboo of Criticizing Israel
January 2, 2007
by George Bisharat
Philadelphia Inquirer
Americans owe a debt to former President Jimmy Carter for speaking
long hidden but vital truths. His book Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid breaks the taboo barring criticism in the United
States of Israel's discriminatory treatment of Palestinians. Our
government's tacit acceptance of Israel's unfair policies causes
global hostility against us.
Israel's friends have attacked Carter, a Nobel laureate who has
worked tirelessly for Middle East peace, even raising the specter of
anti-Semitism. Genuine anti-Semitism is abhorrent. But exploiting
the term to quash legitimate criticism of another system of racial
oppression, and to tarnish a principled man, is indefensible.
Criticizing Israeli government policies - a staple in Israeli
newspapers - is no more anti-Semitic than criticizing the Bush
administration is anti-American.
The word apartheid typically evokes images of former South
Africa, but it also refers to any institutionalized regime of
systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over
another. Carter applies the term only to Israel's rule of the
occupied Palestinian territories, where it has established more than
200 Jewish-only settlements and a network of roads and other
services to support them. These settlements violate international
law and the rights of Palestinian property owners. Carter maintains
that "greed for land," not racism, fuels Israel's
settlement drive. He is only partially right.
Israel is seizing land and water from Palestinians for Jews.
Resources are being transferred, under the guns of Israel's military
occupation, from one disempowered group - Palestinian Christians and
Muslims - to another, preferred group - Jews. That is racism, pure
and simple.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that Israel discriminates
against Palestinians elsewhere. The "Israeli Arabs" -
about 1.4 million Palestinian Christian and Muslim citizens who live
in Israel - vote in elections. But they are a subordinated and
marginalized minority. The Star of David on Israel's flag
symbolically tells Palestinian citizens: "You do not
belong." Israel's Law of Return grants rights of automatic
citizenship to Jews anywhere in the world, while those rights are
denied to 750,000 Palestinian refugees who were forced or fled in
fear from their homes in what became Israel in 1948.
Israel's Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty establishes the
state as a "Jewish democracy" although 24 percent of the
population is non-Jewish. Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority
Rights in Israel, counted 20 laws that explicitly privilege Jews
over non-Jews.
The government favors Jews over Palestinians in the allocation of
resources. Palestinian children in Israel attend "separate and
unequal" schools that receive a fraction of the funding awarded
to Jewish schools, according to Human Rights Watch. Many Palestinian
villages, some predating the establishment of Israel, are
unrecognized by the government, do not appear on maps, and thus
receive no running water, electricity, or access roads. Since 1948,
scores of new communities have been founded for Jews, but none for
Palestinians, causing them severe residential overcrowding.
Anti-Arab bigotry is rarely condemned in Israeli public discourse,
in which Palestinians are routinely construed as a "demographic
threat." Palestinians in Israel's soccer league have played to
chants of "Death to Arabs!" Israeli academic Daniel Bar-Tal
studied 124 Israeli school texts, finding that they commonly
depicted Arabs as inferior, backward, violent, and immoral. A 2006
survey revealed that two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live
in a building with an Arab, nearly half would not allow a
Palestinian in their home, and 40 percent want the government to
encourage emigration by Palestinian citizens. Last March, Israeli
voters awarded 11 parliamentary seats to the Israel Beitenu Party,
which advocates drawing Israel's borders to exclude 500,000 of its
current Palestinian citizens.
Some say that Palestinian citizens in Israel enjoy better
circumstances than those in surrounding Arab countries. Ironically,
white South Africans made identical claims to defend their version
of apartheid, as is made clear in books such as Antjie Krog's Country
of My Skull.
Americans are awakening to the costs of our unconditional support
of Israel. We urgently need frank debate to chart policies that
honor our values, advance our interests, and promote a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East. It is telling that it took a
former president, immune from electoral pressures, to show the way.
The debate should now be extended. Are Israel's founding ideals
truly consistent with democracy? Can a state established in a
multiethnic milieu be simultaneously "Jewish" and
"democratic"? Isn't strife the predictable yield of
preserving the dominance of Jews in Israel over a native Palestinian
population? Does our unconditional aid merely enable Israel to
continue abusing Palestinian rights with impunity, deepening
regional hostilities and distancing peace? Isn't it time that Israel
lived by rules observed in any democracy - including equal rights
for all?
George Bisharat (bisharat@uchastings.edu)
is a professor of law at University of California Hastings College
of the Law. He writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle
East.
The Mossad in the CIA
January
3, 2007
by Nicole Bagley
It might be of public interest to know that a significant number of
Israeli Mossad agents are now working in the United States as
employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. These agents, some of
whom are listed below, are initially paid by the Israeli Embassy in
Washington but Israel then bills the U.S. Government for the
salaries and is reimbursed in full on a monthly basis.
Here is a partial listing of identified Mossad agents (as of 1
January, 2007) along with their dates of birth and salaries.
They do not have American Social Security numbers and do not pay
American taxes.
Gadi
Regev
12/17/1975
$63,000 per annum
Betzalel Yanay
9/4/1978
$75,000
“
Eyal Artzel 5/27/1977
$ 87,000 “
Sharon Rotem 8/12/1977
$ 75,000 “
David Susi
1/9/1975
$90,000 “
Dana Sasson
8/10/1980
$70,000
“
Morin Biton
7/14/1980
$ 63,000 “
Gilad Lifschitz 9/17/1978
$87,000 “
Maya Maimon 12/26/1978
$65,000 “
Marco Fernandez 4/13/1977
$54,000 “
Keren Touyz
8/20/1978
$75,000 “
Nofar Bahidi 21/2/79
$53,000 “
Michal Gal
8/10/1979
$92,000 “
Ophir Baer 11/11/1956
$102,000
“
Dilka Borenstein 3/15/1979
$ 67,000
“
Michael Calmanovic 9/6/75
$102,000 “
Most of these U.S.-subsidized spies live in Potomac, McLean,
Georgetown and Arlington. I have their addresses and these will be
published in a follow-up article.
These are Israeli citizens but many of the middle level CIA
officials are American-born Jews and not included in this list but
we do know who they are. All of them, without exception, work for
Israel and Israeli interests, not American interests and more than a
few are known to be friendly with a number of the so-called Neocons,
a significant number of whom are also Israeli citizens.
America wakes up
by Julian Borger
Guardian
Weekly
This
was the year America woke up to a nightmare. All the positive spin
and the euphemisms finally fell away to reveal the horrifying
reality of the bloodletting in Iraq.
The
nightmare is all the more intense for Americans because there is no
escape for their sons and daughters in uniform. For the November
midterm elections, Democrats mostly campaigned on a platform of
phased withdrawal. Even before they take up their new offices in
Congress, the appetite for a quick departure is dwindling among the
party's leaders. US troops would have to fight their way out, and no
one seems to know whether their departure would defuse sectarian
tensions or remove the last barrier to potential genocide or a
regional conflagration, or both.
Nearly
four years into the conflict, the White House and the Pentagon still
insist it is not a civil war, but they are increasingly alone. In a
symbolic moment towards the end of November, the host of NBC's
flagship Today show, Matt Lauer, fixed the cameras with a sombre
look and declared that the network had decided to call the mess in
Iraq by its proper name. In fact, with much less fanfare the Los
Angeles Times had taken the decision a month earlier to use the
term "civil war" for Iraq, and this newspaper took a
similar decision not long after. Within a few days, the outgoing UN
secretary-general, Kofi Annan, reassessed the situation from one
that was "almost" a civil war to being "much
worse" than one.
The
semantic debate accounted for a fair deal of chatter in Washington,
and was, of course, grotesquely irrelevant to the actual suffering
of the Iraqis, of whom more than 650,000 have died, according to a
study by Johns Hopkins University. But in the US, the tussle over
the name was politically critical. Americans can now only dimly
remember what the country was supposed to have gone to war for. But
they are pretty sure they did not sign up to getting stuck between
three sides (Shia, Sunni and Kurdish) in a faraway civil war. The
Bush administration believes, with some justification, that if the
feared phrase became standard usage, it will have finally lost the
battle for hearts and minds at home.
It
is a battle that President Bush is still fighting. Earlier this
month, when he stood alongside Tony Blair for a weary but unbowed
show of solidarity in the White House, Bush defiantly spoke of
eventual "victory", at a time when almost everyone else in
Washington was talking about an exit strategy. After nine months
spent questioning generals, colonels, diplomats and policy-makers,
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) published a report describing
the situation as "grave" and "deteriorating",
and accusing the administration of systematically under-reporting
the carnage.
The
ISG recommended the withdrawal of combat troops by March 2008, and a
shift in emphasis from bearing the brunt of the fighting towards
embedding American trainers in Iraqi units. The five Republicans and
five Democrats on the commission had been unable to agree on a
timetable, so they seized on a prediction General George Casey had
made about when the Iraqi army might be ready, and stuck that in to
make their report sound specific.
This
"new diplomatic offensive" bore the unmistakable
fingerprints of the commission's Republican co-chairman, James
Baker, not to mention his fellow multilateralist and former boss,
George Bush the elder. In fact, many Bush dynasty observers saw the
ISG report as a long letter of rebuke from father to son.
There
are signs that the son, who had proudly bested the father by winning
a second term, was turning to the old man for advice now that second
term had ploughed a historic disaster. The White House let it be
known in October that the president would no longer be using the
phrase "staying the course", due to the
"impression" it might convey that the administration was
stubbornly sticking to its guns no matter what the circumstances.
The new buzzword would be "adaptability".
It
was quite clear over the course of the year that Bush would have to
do a lot more than reorder his talking points to regain public
confidence, and the day after the midterm elections he took some
action. He got rid of his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Ever
since the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld had appeared even more
disconnected from events in Iraq than the president. As anarchy
broke out in the capital, he famously observed that "stuff
happens" and concluded that some "untidiness" was
inevitable.
Soon
after his defenestration, it emerged that the defence secretary's
brusque optimism had been for public consumption only. Just days
before Rumsfeld's resignation was demanded, he had sent a memo to
the president observing that US strategy was not working and that a
"major readjustment" was required, possibly one that
involved a drastic decrease in the number of US bases in Iraq. The
memo was quickly leaked, presumably to show that Rumsfeld was not
entirely oblivious to the real world.
Rumsfeld
was replaced by Robert Gates, a choice that amounted to a signed
admission by the president that "daddy knows best",
because Gates was a courtier in the elder Bush's extended household.
George Sr had appointed the sovietologist CIA director in the face
of congressional misgivings over his role in the Reagan-era
Iran-Contra adventure, in which arms were secretly sold to Tehran to
finance equally covert aid to Nicaraguan rebels.
Gates
later showed his gratitude by acting as curator of the Bush presidential
library in Texas. Before taking over at the Pentagon, he had also
sat on the Iraq Study Group.
His
appointment to the defence department job, however, did not
guarantee the ISG report's acceptance. After its publication, in
fact, the president very quickly made it plain he would not follow
the panel's principal advice. His preconditions for talking to
Iran and Syria would remain in place. Nor does it seem likely at the
time of going to press that Bush will agree to the withdrawal of US
combat troops within a year. After consulting with the joint chiefs
of staff, the state department and friendly academics, the president
is due to announce "a new way forward" in Iraq by the New
Year.
It
is far from clear, however, whether forward is a direction still
open to the US in Iraq. For months - as the veteran Republican senator
John Warner pointed out - the US has been drifting sideways, and
backwards may ultimately be the only way to reach the exit. In other
words, there are only bad options left in Iraq, and at the start of
next year Bush must choose one of them. He may be able to determine
the number of Americans killed, but not the number of Iraqis. And he
will probably not be able to salvage anything of his legacy.
Much
of that legacy was thrown overboard in the course of 2006 in an
effort to keep the Bush administration afloat. A bid to shake up
immigration law and create a national guest worker programme for the
12 million illegal immigrants in the country went the same way as
social security and tax reform - nowhere. The Republican right,
increasingly aware it would have to survive without Bush, simply
revolted.
The
goal of leaving in place a "permanent" Republican majority
in the wake of the second Bush era also turned out to be hubris
boiled up in the heady aftermath of the 2004 election victory. The
strategy, formulated by his political guru Karl Rove, was to detach
the Hispanic and Catholic vote from the Democratic coalition by
playing up "moral values" wedge issues like abortion and
gay marriage. It worked three times, in 2000, 2002 and 2004, but in
2006 the biggest moral issue was the Iraq war, and Hispanic voters
had been exposed to the uncompassionate side of American
conservatism by the immigration debate.
The
immediate consequence was a bigger than expected rout in the House
of Representatives on November 7 and a surprise loss in the Senate.
Nevertheless the fact that a power shift took place at all in
America's ossified democracy was testament to the strength of
anti-incumbent feeling in the country. Congressional districts had
been gerrymandered wholesale to maximise Republican advantage, and
Washington was turned into a grand bazaar where political influence
was sold for campaign contributions and perks. The scale this
influence-peddling had reached became apparent in the first days of
2006, when a Republican "super-lobbyist", Jack Abramoff,
pleaded guilty to a conspiracy involving the "corruption of
public officials". Abramoff had put millions of dollars into
the campaign war-chests of prominent politicians, and taken them on
lavish, all-expenses paid, golfing trips to Scotland in return for
legislation favouring his clients, including some Native American
tribes.
The
investigation is not over yet, but among the big names caught up in
the net so far have been Tom DeLay, Bush's enforcer on Capital Hill,
another leading Republican congressman, Bob Ney, and David Safavian,
a senior White House budget official. The corruption Abramoff
represented was both symptom and cause of the Republican monopoly of
power in Washington. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, and his legal
adviser, David Addington, set about insulating the presidency from
congressional oversight. Republican-run committees held back
investigations into executive abuse of authority and the White House
made a point of stonewalling congressional requests to see documents
or question officials.
The
president's role as commander-in-chief at a time of war was used to
justify sweeping decrees that bypassed Congress - on permissible
interrogation techniques, for example. Meanwhile signing statements
the president appended to legislation sent to him by Congress
amounted to a claim that he could interpret any law as he saw fit.
In return, the congressional Republicans were free to turn Capitol
Hill into a market.
By
the end of 2006 the immediacy of the September 11 attacks had faded
and the sheer incompetence of America's war in Iraq had come to the
fore to such an extent that the "imperial presidency" was
no longer tenable. The voters opted to return to checks and
balances.
The
incoming Democratic majorities immediately announced their
intention to hold the administration to account for its past
actions, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, with a series
of congressional inquiries. The White House will continue to fight,
but from now on it will be on the defensive. The sharp rise in the
number of significant leaks from the West Wing in the last few weeks
of the year was a telling reflection of presidency's loss of
cohesion.
The
end of 2006 also witnessed the start of the 2008 campaign to take
Bush's place in the Oval Office, and for the first time in 80 years,
the outgoing White House does not have a dog in the fight. All the
leading candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, will come from
outside the administration and its immediate circle. That is hardly
surprising in a country desperate for a fresh start, at home and
in Iraq. It is a nation yearning to sleep in peace once more.
Senseless
'Sacrifice' in Iraq Must End
January
3, 2007
by Keith Olbermann
MSNBC
Broadcast
on ‘Countdown’, January 2, 2007: The BBC is reporting President
Bush is about to announce a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq
via a speech with the theme of ‘sacrifice.’ Keith Olbermann
responds in a special comment.
If
in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American
serviceman or woman, would you intervene?
Would
you at least protest?
What
if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?
What
if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention
to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
This
is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush’s
“new Iraq strategy,” and his impending speech to the nation,
which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about
troop increases and “sacrifice.”
The
president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the
release of the Iraq Study Group
He
has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.
If
the BBC is right – and we can only pray it is not- he has settled
on the only solution of all the true experts agreed cannot possibly
work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi
troops, but as part of some flabby plan for “sacrifice.”
Sacrifice!
More
American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.
More
American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.
More
American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize
the unforgivable= ‘sacrifice” –sacrifice now, sacrifice
tomorrow, sacrifice forever.
And
more Americans- more than the two-thirds who already believe we need
fewer troops in Iraq, not more- will have to conclude the president
does not have any idea what he’s doing- and that other Americans
will have to die for that reason.
It
must now be branded as propaganda- for even the president cannot
truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent
in this area, let alone, ‘the decider.”
But
from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklasewski,
tonight comes confirmation of something called “surge and
accelerate” – as many as 20,000 additional troops- for
“political purposes.”
This,
in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be
proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of
increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi
government a chance to establish some kind of order.
This
is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.
If
this is your intention- if the centerpiece of your announcement next
week will be ‘sacrifice- sacrifice your intention, not more
American lives!
As
Sen. Joseph Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the
ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend
and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.
“Sacrifice?’
No.
A
drop in the bucket
The
additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will
serve only as targets.
They
will not be there “short-term,” Mr. Bush, for many it will mean
a year or more in death’sl shadow.
This
is not temporary, Mr. Bush.
For
the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent
as it gets.
The
various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen “sacrifice”
constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.
The
former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him
that the ‘surge” would help the “morale” of the troops
already in Iraq.
.If
Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either
forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is
unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent
of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr.
McCain has departed from reality.
Then
there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop
numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the
terrorists around the world.
This
simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed
already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.
We
have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no
good reason.
We
have now shown them that we will continue to do so.
We
have shown them our stupidity.
Mr.
Bush, your judgment about Iraq —
and now about “sacrifice”
—
is at variance with your people’s,
to the point of delusion.
Your
most respected generals see no value in a “surge”
— they could not possibly see it in this
madness of “sacrifice.”
The
Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.
Perhaps
dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.
And
you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted
to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying “best two
out of three…best three out of five…hundreth one counts.”
Your
citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not
want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.
Yet
once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.
Mr.
Bush, you do not own this country!
To
those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of
partisanship- those bonded still, to this president and this
administration, and now bonded to this “sacrifice”- proceed at
your own peril.
John
McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds- he has some
inured himself to the
hypocrisy,
and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate
realist, courting the votes of those who support the government
telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great
Flood.
That
Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by
parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be
obvious to everybody but himself.
Or,
maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares.
But
to the rest of you in the Republican Party:
We
need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country’s most
precious assets- the lives of its citizens who are in harm’s way.
If
you do not, you are not serving this nation’s interests
— nor your own.
November
should have told you this.
The
opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell
you this.
Next
time, those missing Republicans will be you.
And
to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you
proceed at your own peril, as well.
President
Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr.
Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then
turning their deaths to their own political advantage.
The
equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.
It
wants fewer.
Go
and make it happen, or go and look for other work.
Yet
you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of
courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you
as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend
the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as
many troops there as long as he can keep them there.
Because
that’s what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?
That
is what this “sacrifice”
has been for.
To
continue this senseless, endless war.
You
have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of
mass destruction, then of liberation…then of regional
imperative…then of oil prices…and now in these new terms of
“sacrifice” – it’s like a damned game of Colorforms, isn’t
it, sir?
This
senseless, endless war.
But —
it has not been senseless in two ways.
It
has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective
mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against
the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It
has gotten many of us used to the idea- the virtual “white
noise” – of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans,
of vague “sacrifice” for some fluid cause, too complicated to be
interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but
ultimately meaningless phrase “the war or terror.”
And
the war’s second accomplishment- your second accomplishment, sir-
is to have taken
money
out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the
dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have
given that money to the war profiteers.
Because
if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can’t sell them any
more until the first thousand have been destroyed.
The
service men and women are ancillary to the equation.
This
is about the planned obsolescence of ordinance, isn’t it, Mr.
Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a
$125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants.
At
least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.
And
we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.
You
have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we
don’t fight them there we will fight them here- as if the
corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will
not have to fight them here.
And
yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better,
on the premise that we need to be ready to “fight them here,”
anyway, and always.
In
point of fact, even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow,
and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already
suffered a defeat- not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the
lives lost, of enduring consequence.
But
this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.
Your
policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety
here.
You
have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.
You
have already stoked paranoia.
You
have already pitted Americans, one against the other.
We
... will have to live with it.
We
... will have to live with what — of the fabric of our nation
—
you have already “sacrificed.”
The
only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and
safest exit for our people there.
But
you —
and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone —
still insist otherwise.
And
our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed
there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not “lose in Iraq.”
Our
policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for
being inscrutable, for being ineffable.
But
it is all too easily understood now.
First
we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.
Now
we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.
If
what is reported is true- if your decision is made and the
“sacrifice” is ordered- take a page instead from the man at
whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning- Gerald Ford:
Put
pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of
misguided vision.
Atone.
Sacrifice,
Mr. Bush?
No,
sir, this is not “sacrifice.”
This has now become “human
sacrifice.”
And
it must stop.
And
you can stop it.
Next
week, make us all look wrong.
Our
meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.
And
you must stop it.
Bush could send up to 40,000 more US troops to Iraq
January 4, 2007
AFP
WASHINGTON
– US President George W. Bush could send up to 40,000 more US
troops to Iraq when he unveils his revised Iraq policy, US media
said Thursday.
Reports
gave estimates of between 9,000 and 40,000 extra troops to be sent
to Iraq, where US military sources say there are currently some
130,000 US troops.
The
move could be controversial as the Iraq war is increasingly
unpopular with the US public.
CNN
television said Bush is looking at sending 20,000-40,000 additional
US troops and that the announcement could come early next week.
A
"targeted increase in troop strength" is "an active
subject of discussion," an unnamed senior administration
official told CNN, adding that Bush was "significantly along in
the process."
CBS
News, citing US military sources, said Bush is preparing to send
some 9,000 soldiers and marines into Iraq, with another 11,000 on
alert in Kuwait and the United States.
Two
US army brigades of about 7,500 troops would go to Baghdad, while
some 1,500 US marines would be sent to the volatile Sunni western
province of Al-Anbar, according to CBS.
Another
US army brigade would be on standby in Kuwait, and two more army
brigades on standby in the United States, CBS reported.
The
McClatchy Newspaper chain reported that Bush is considering sending
three to four US combat brigades, or between 15,000 and 20,000 US
troops.
"Instead
of a surge, it is a bump," an unnamed US State Department
official told McClatchy.
All
reports caution that no final decision has been made, and that the
numbers may vary.
White
House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday that the US president has
not made a final decision.
"The
policy is not done. He is still talking to people. He's going to be
engaging in consultations," said Snow amid speculation about
the speech's central focus. "You know what the theme is?
Victory. Winning."
Bush
wrote that he will be addressing the nation on a new Iraq strategy
"in the days ahead" in an opinion column in the Wall
Street Journal on Wednesday.
The
US president has previously said he is considering "all
options," including a temporary increase of US troops in Iraq.
AFP
Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf
January 4, 2007
by Kristin Roberts
Reuters
| 