Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Candidates - Give 'Em $25







Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Whiskey Bar
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Bluegrassroots
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, June 06, 2003


Robertson's Gold Standard

Tom Paine's blog doesn't appear to allow links to specific posts, so I am just going to reprint their post on Pat Robertson and his connection to accused Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor.

A United Nations special court in Sierra Leone issued an indictment against Liberian warlord and occasional Holy Savior impersonator Charles Taylor yesterday. Taylor was accused of "war crimes (murder, taking hostages); crimes against humanity (extermination, rape, murder, sexual slavery); and other serious violations of international humanitarian law (use of child soldiers)." Human Rights Watch calls Taylor "one of the single greatest causes of spreading wars in West Africa."

Remember the heat that Pat Robertson got for his shady gold mine deals with Charles Taylor? Maybe Pat will send him a "Hang in There" card, with a postscript along the lines of, "BTW, keep your mouth shut if they arrest you, lest the wrath of God smite you down."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:13 PM




Two Words Sum Up the Urgency

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has been trying, with only limited success so far, to get the public and those in Congress to start thinking about -- and respond appropriately to -- the possibility of a terrorist attack killing many or even most of those serving in Congress and/or the Senate. Several constitutional scholars and political writers have begun to urge the passage of a federal amendment to address such a catastrophic (but no longer unthinkable) scenario. An interesting article in the new issue of The Atlantic Monthly makes a compelling case for why this issue deserves the nation's attention:

"We know that United 93 crashed (Sept. 11, 2001) in Pennsylvania only because it left forty minutes late," Ornstein says; otherwise its passengers would not have learned that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, and so would have had little incentive to risk storming the cockpit. Rather than roaring to earth near the town of Shanksville, Flight 93 would have continued south to Washington, where the terrorists, it is now believed, intended to guide their stolen missile into the dome of the Capitol. "Hundreds of people could have been killed," Ornstein says .... In considering the potential carnage, Ornstein says, it occurred to him, "Wait a minute -- what does that mean for a quorum?" The Constitution dictates that House members may be replaced only through special elections, which take months to organize. "So at the worst possible time," he says, "there's no Congress" -- which means no one with the authority to declare war, appropriate money, or make laws. "What you're doing is condoning for what would be a sizable period of time a form of martial law. And when people say, 'Well, what's so bad about that?' I say, 'Two words: John Ashcroft.' "

Need he say more. Definitely worth reading.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:40 PM




I Refuse...

Nope. I'm just not going to be the bearer of bad news today. It's Friday, it's finally nice in DC, and I have a plentiful supply of chocolate. Damn the newspapers and their reporting of Ashcroft antics, this browser is only set for things that amuse me.

Hillary: The Leaked Interview -- wherin Neal Pollack puts lots of bad words in the former First Lady's mouth

WhiteHouse.org's Operation Infinite Purity -- find out how to stop the current epidemic of Democrat-approved self-abuse in America

Modern Humorist's Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Missing WMD's

Make tonight exciting -- Read Fametracker's audits of Al Pacino (better than DeNiro?) and John Cusack (overrated jackass who's squandered the seemingly boundless promise of Better Off Dead?) Then go start an argument at a bar. Do something productive!

posted by Helena Montana at 2:30 PM




We Need Corporate Welfare Reform

Reuters reports

The U.S. government spent hundreds of millions of dollars helping develop Taxol, the best-selling cancer drug ever, but failed to get the money back for taxpayers, a government report issued on Friday said.

Drugmaker Bristol Myers Squibb earned $9 billion from Taxol, which has been used to treat a million cancer patients, but the National Institutes of Health got back only $35 million in royalties, the U.S. General Accounting Office report found.

Medicare, the state-federal health insurance plan for the elderly, paid $687 million for Taxol over five years -- triple what other federal programs paid for other widely used cancer drugs, the GAO found.

The NIH does the early, riskiest, research on many drugs and then turns them over to companies to develop for market.

Based on an extract taken from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, Taxol was tested at the National Cancer Institute's Natural Products Program, which tests natural compounds, from seaweed to snail toxins as potential drugs.

The NIH took the drug through phase II clinical trials, the longest and riskiest part of drug development, which show a drug is safe and may work in people.

In 1989 it advertised for a partner to finish the testing and licensing process and take the drug to market, finally signing an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb. The corporation was asked to find an alternative to the slow-growing and potentially endangered yew tree for the drug.

The GAO, the U.S. Congress' investigational arm, said the NIH spent $484 million in research on Taxol through 2002. Under a 1991 contract called a cooperative research and development agreement or CRADA, Bristol Myers Squibb then took over development and marketing of the drug.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:05 PM




Where's the Outrage?

The Nation's David Corn wants to know why there has been no public outcry over the Bush administration's habitual deceptions on everything from the economy to war.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:53 AM


Thursday, June 05, 2003


Beware of Denials

While reading this New York Times piece on the press briefing called by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to rebut and deny accusations that the US government fabricated or exaggerated the intelligence they cited for justifying their war in Iraq, I was reminded of some seemingly familiar examples of government officials openly denying incidents or facts that later were discovered to be absolutely true.

"A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs" by Theodore Draper provides a few such examples.

After the cargo plane carrying Eugene Hasenfus was shot down in Nicaragua in October 1986, the administration went to the media to deny any link to the downed plane.

Draper:

As might have been expected, a denial reflex took over in official circles. The immediate reaction in Washington was to disavow any connection with the plane. Secretary of State [George] Schultz said that it had been "hired by private people" who "had no connection with the US government at all." ... [Elliot] Abrams exhibited the most bravado in his first public statement on October 7. He said that "some very brave people" had been willing to bring materiel to Nicaragua, and added: "God bless them ... If these people were involved in this effort, then they were heroes." On October 8, President Reagan denied that there was any US government connection with the flight; he praised the efforts to arm the contras and compared them to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War.


Total lies.

In November, when the Iran/contra scandal was beginning to unravel, Reagan went before the press to deny that we had been selling arms to Iran.

Draper again:

Before the president made his speech, [John] Poindexter for the first time gave background briefings on the Iran affair - two for the benefit of congressional leaders, the third to reporters. ... The reporters were equally skeptical. They pressed Poindexter about arms shipments in 1985, about which the media had become increasingly suspicious. A question forced Poindexter into a corner and brought from him a reply that showed how the administration had opened itself to outright falsification by adopting the new policy of justifying itself publicly:

Question: - a few things on the shipments, just to clarify this. Any shipments that were made prior to January of 1986 you're saying the US had no role in, either condoning, winking, encouraging or anything of that nature? Is that correct.

Poindexter: That's correct.

It was not correct. The unfortunate shipment of November 1985 had been carried out with the cooperation of American officials, from [Oliver] North and [Robert] McFarlane to CIA and State Department personnel in Washington and Lisbon.


When Reagan finally gave his speech, he made his own contributions to the ever-growing web of deceit.

Reagan: "The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists. Those charges are utterly false.... It's been widely reported, for example, that the Congress, as well as top executive branch officials, were circumvented .... all appropriate Cabinet officers were fully consulted.... We did not - repeat - did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages nor will we."

Draper: The charges that arms payments had been made for the freed hostages ... were not false.... Top executive branch officials had opposed the arms-for-hostages deals and had been circumvented. Weapons had been traded for hostages, at least indirectly, through Iran.


It is always a good rule of thumb to assume that when administration officials try to dance around a potentially dangerous issue, they are trying to hide something damaging. But when they finally come forward and openly deny it, it is often a sign that they have given up on trying to spin the issue and have instead adopted a PR strategy of outright falsification.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:39 PM




"We're on the Look"

I'm not one to defend Saddam Hussein, who was a barbaric, murderous tyrant who should have been killed or at least removed from power years ago. With that in mind, I feel compelled to address a few things Bush said in his speech to US troops stationed in Qatar.

Criminal courts are now reopening. Day by day, the United States and our coalition partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi citizens. We also understand that a more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs, and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water -- things that Saddam did not do for them.

Actually, the Iraqi people had food and electricity and water until George H.W. Bush bombed them the first time. And then they tried to get them thereafter, but struggled due to international sanctions. And then George W. Bush bombed them again and now they are having a difficult finding work, or food, or water or electricity. Don't blame Hussein for Iraq's ruined infrastructure when it was US bombs that ruined it.

One thing else we've done is we made sure that Iraq is not going to serve as an arsenal for terrorist -- for terrorist groups. We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth.

But one thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the Iraqi regime is no more.

Well, that is certainly reassuring. It's good to know that terrorists will never get WMD from Hussein. Of course, that won't stop them from getting there elsewhere. Or they may have gotten some from Iraq in all the looting that followed the US bombing campaign - but at least they didn't get them from the Iraqi regime, so I guess our job is done.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:56 PM




Vatican Sounding More Like Pat Robertson and Company

Last week, the Vatican issued public statements about an issue that is "very important and serious" and is sharing its concerns with European heads of state. Care to guess the issue? It's not the ethnic warfare that continues to rage in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's not the "state of emergency" in Peru that thousands of protesters have defied. It's not the new UN study that shows water tables around the world are falling rapidly and not being replenished. And it's not SARS or any other disease. Hold onto your hats, ladies and gentlemen. The issue that has the pontiff and his minions all unglued is the fact that the initial draft of the European Union's constitution does not contain the word "Christian."

Given that Europe has historically harbored significant levels of anti-Semitism -- this might have had just a little to do with that tragedy they call the "Holocaust" -- it's somewhat amazing that the Vatican has twice made public statements urging that Christianity be recognized or elevated in some way by the EU constitution. A Vatican spokesman last week also voiced doubts over Turkey's bid to secure membership in the EU, according to a BBC report, because "there should be geographical limits to the Union and ... Turkey is a deeply Muslim country with a fast-growing population." Of course, this is a not-so-nuanced way to display religious bigotry.

Given the continuing revelations of child sexual abuse within the Catholic church, you'd think the Vatican would have more than enough to worry about, but apparently not.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:55 PM




Jayson Blair Isn't the Only Reason to Worry

Remember the exasperated maitre'd in the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" who quipped: "I weep for the future"? Watching the media in action (or inaction) prompts a similar thought on my part. Predictable and vapid reporting, sloppiness and ethically challenged practices abound. Meanwhile, pundits and commentators remain fixated on the Jayson Blair controversy and its continued fallout, including today's resignations of top editors at the New York Times. However, blasting newsrooms for the Blair scandal is similar to attacking a Genovese crime boss for illegal parking -- it may be lamentable, but it obscures much more egregious misbehavior.

You may recall this blogger voicing outrage at MSNBC's wartime promo that looked and sounded more like a Bush-Cheney re-election ad. This week's issue of LA Weekly offers examples of more reasons to weep for the future of an independent press in America. Even at the New York Times, there are bigger things to worry about than whose byline should really appear on a certain story. LA Weekly made these astute observations about Times' reporter Judith Miller: "Before the Iraq war, Miller helped sway public opinion with big front-page exclusives about Saddam's stockpiles of biochemical weapons. Fair enough, except it turns out that her major, unnamed source was Ahmad Chalabi, the selfsame Iraqi exile who was also the leading source for the Defense Department's statements about WMDs -- statements that a recent Times editorial suggested may have jiggered the facts to justify pre-emptive war. Indeed, just last Friday, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof attacked the Pentagon for precisely such manipulation without mentioning that in his own paper Miller had presented the same information as truth."

After the war commenced, Miller struck a highly questionable deal with the U.S. military's MET Alpha team, which gave her exclusive access to an Iraqi scientist's revelations about WMDs. In exchange, Miller essentially gave the military pre-published, veto power over her copy. Miller is an excellent writer; I quite enjoyed her book God Has Ninety-Nine Names. Yet lucid writing can't excuse the decision to set aside the most fundamental standards of objectivity. But it isn't just the Times that is falling down on the job. CNN was recently taken to task (and rightly so) for its tardiness in covering the far-reaching decision of the FCC to water down existing rules on the ownership of media outlets.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:55 PM




Privatizing Humanitarian Intervention

Via the Mad Prophet, we learn of this Jeanne D'Arc post which links to this Washington Post op-ed on sending private, for-profit peacekeeping companies into the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The UN recently agreed to send another 1,400 peacekeepers to the region, but many think that stopping the violence will require many, many more troops - perhaps up to 50 thousand. As the UN will surely never send that many troops to the Congo,

There is another solution. A number of for-profit companies with years of experience in peace operations have been formed into a consortium and are prepared to fill the vacuum in Congo. In recent years international peace operations have increasingly relied on the private sector to provide essential services, with impressive success thus far. Aviation companies have proven willing to brave bullets to support peacekeepers in West Africa, and logistics companies have provided remarkably efficient services even in the midst of widespread chaos where little else functions. This private consortium is offering the most comprehensive package yet assembled to assist U.N. peacekeeping.

The consortium would operate under the U.N. commander and would bring the means and motivation to carry out the full mandate by providing key services to fill the gaps in the Congo unit's capabilities: high-tech aerial surveillance and armed rapid deployment police (including nearly 500 former British Gurkhas from Nepal) who could bring years of peacekeeping experience and NATO-level professionalism. They would be assigned specifically to protect vulnerable populations, while a helicopter firm would be able to quickly transport the police to hot spots as well as assist with emergency evacuations and humanitarian supply. Another firm would give Congolese gendarmes police and human rights training so they could gradually take over the quick reaction duties, control the international borders and ultimately supplant the U.N. peacekeepers. The private consortium would be a "force multiplier," making the U.N. operation substantially more effective for a fraction of the cost of its current budget. This private sector option could even be a model for improved peace operations in the future.

Jeanne D'Arc thinks this is a "godawful idea" but I disagree. There is a real danger that the additional 1,400 peacekeepers will have no real impact on stopping the fighting or protecting the innocent. Perversely, send UN troops to volatile areas can give local civilians a false sense of security. Tutsis in Rwanda assumed that UN forces were there to protect them, and sadly they found out that that was not necessarily the case.

Fortunately, the Congo troops will be operating under a Chapter VII "peace enforcement" mandate rather than a Chapter VI "peacekeeping" one that allows troops to fire only when personally in danger. Nonetheless, sending inadequate force or supplies to the area is counterproductive as it endangers troops while doing nothing to stop the violence.

I don't think that monetary concerns alone are limiting the size of the Congo force - it is more likely a reluctance by member nations to contribute their own soldiers. As such, perhaps hiring a private peacekeeping force might not be a bad idea. Given a multi-million dollar contract, there are numerous private security firms willing to deploy to the Congo. Drafting a contract that provides a specific mandate and holds these firms and their employees responsible for violations of international law could be an attractive alternative to sending in reluctant UN troops. At least, the idea should not be dismissed out of hand and it is possibly a much better option than forcing Kori Annan to beg, borrow and steal the funds, supplies and soldiers needed to do the job properly. If the international community is unwilling to do what is required, it at least ought to consider hiring others to do their dirty work for them. It is depressing, but it's better than nothing.

If we learned anything from Rwanda it is that it is much easier and more effective to intervene before a situation deteriorates and mass carnage engulfs an area. Increasing the UN force in Rwanda prior to April 1994 would undoubtedly cost member nations millions of additional dollars but the ultimate price would have been nowhere near the 800,000 dead and the $2 billion spent trying to stop the subsequent genocide and deal with the refugee/humanitarian crisis that followed.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:30 PM




Killing the Filibuster

John Cornyn, who has been a Senator for all of 5 months, has another op-ed in today's Washington Times in which he argues that it is time to change Senate rules regarding the filibustering of judicial nominees. Undoubtedly, it is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the situation I have seen to date.

You have to wonder what sort of political world Cornyn lives in when he can say things like

Proposals like the one being debated today in the Rules Committee have been endorsed by congressional experts from think tanks as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings and Cato.

I don't know what word I'd use to describe AEI, Brookings and Cato, but I can assure you that "diverse" is not it.

And when he says

As all 10 freshman senators detailed in a bipartisan letter to Senate leadership on April 30, it is time for a fresh start. The ill will of the past should not dictate the terms and direction of the future.

I feel compelled to point out that having 1 Democrat and 9 Republicans sign this letter is not exactly the definition of "bipartisan."

Finally, I take issue with the following assertions

For too long, this process has been caught in a downward spiral of politics and delay. During the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, too many appeals court nominees were never voted on at all.

The problem is even worse today

The result: vacant judgeships and empty courtrooms, compelling the U.S. Judicial Conference to declare "judicial emergencies" across the country. People seeking redress for their injuries wait years for their cases to be tried and appealed, while judicial nominees languish in the Senate waiting for an up-or-down vote. The broken confirmation process translates into denial of access to justice in our nation's most important courts.

How exactly is the problem "even worse today"? The current vacancy rate is the lowest its been in over a decade. There are 50 vacant seats out of 862 federal judgeships - 6%. Go here and hunt around a bit and I guarantee you won't find a lower level of vacancies or declared "judicial emergencies" than there are today.

Destroying the Democrats ability to filibuster nominees is totally unjustifiable, but not surprising when it comes to GOP political tactics.

Unilateralism: Its Not Just for Foreign Policy Any More



posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:18 PM




The Anti-Democratic Assault in Burma

Africa isn't the only continent on which democracy is taking a beating. Literally. Sources in Burma report that dozens of pro-democracy citizens were killed or wounded May 30 in an assault by the nation's military junta in which Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi was seriously injured. Over 200 members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) have been arrested, and the brutal military regime that controls the nation has closed NLD offices around the country.

The regime seized power in 1988, renamed the country "Myanmar," and permitted a 1990 parliamentary election -- only to ignore the results when NLD candidates prevailed. The junta has ruled with an iron fist ever since, and its actions have been particularly repugnant.

Last fall, Human Rights Watch reported that Burma "is believed to have more child soldiers than any other country in the world." The military junta forcibly conscripts children as young as 11 years old into its army. They are expected to engage in combat operations and commit human rights abuses against civilians.

Last May, there was brief hope. NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from nearly two years of house arrest after the military regime promised it would enter into United Nations-facilitated talks, but the regime has repeatedly refused to meet with the UN's envoy to get talks started.

The repressive military junta that rules Burma has gone to great lengths to harass and threaten the NLD and pro-democracy activists. In May 2000, for example, the person who chairs the NLD's Legal Advisory Body was arrested and sentenced to three months imprisonment by the regime. His crime? Failing to report an overnight visit to his mother's house. The NLD official was denied the opportunity to meet with an attorney or with family members. John Ashcroft and the Burmese junta may think that those whom they brand a "threat" to national security can be denied fundamental legal rights, but international law says otherwise.

After the May 30 violence, President Bush issued a statement condemning the regime's assault, but an excellent editorial in yesterday's Boston Globe urges Bush to "back up these strong words with actions" by instituting trade sanctions against the nation. The president has heaped loads of praise on himself and U.S. troops for having ousted "a brutal dictator" in Iraq. It remains to be seen if repressive rulers in non-oil-rich nations are of much concern to this administration.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:07 PM




Who Is Still Saying This?

In this New York Times article on Ashcroft and the treatment of immigrants/suspected terrorists in the wake of September 11th, we find the following quote

"If we trample the Constitution in the name of security," Jeanne Butterfield, director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and a participant in the forum, warned, "the terrorists have won."


This is one of the many things that is wrong with the way people in Washington speak, especially publicly. The phrase "If we do/do not X or Y, then the terrorists have won" rapidly became a cliche and a total joke because Washington insiders and talking heads kept tailoring it to fit their own narrow agendas. Nonetheless, public speakers continue to cannibalize the phrase's empty rhetoric even though it is an established fact the words are now entirely devoid of meaning - and this speaks volumes about Washington's addiction to talking points and "staying on message."

So Ms. Butterfield, is that really what the terrorists wanted, for us to trample our own Constitution? Did al Qaeda kill 3,000 American citizens so that we would over-react and imprison one thousand innocent people? I thought they hated our foreign policy, our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and our support of Israel, but apparently they really just hated our 5th and 6th Amendments.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:28 AM


Wednesday, June 04, 2003


If You Love the "War on Drugs".....

The statements made yesterday by the Bush administration's surgeon general are likely to be quickly forgotten, but it is certainly surprising to hear Surgeon General Richard Carmona tell a Congressional committee that he'd support "banning or abolishing tobacco products."

Liberal or conservative, no one of sound mind disputes the preponderance of medical and scientific research showing the harms of cigarette smoking and even of chewing tobacco. Of course, there is ample evidence of the dangers of heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages. Yet this latter knowledge hasn't changed the national consensus that alcoholic beverages should be regulated, not banned. Indeed, Carmona's view might at least be seen as consistent if he also favored a ban on alcoholic beverages too. After all, alcoholic beverages contribute significantly to a specific kind of fatality that tobacco products do not: traffic-related deaths. While tobacco use is primarily impacts the health of those who choose to use it, the negative effects of alcohol use are much more likely to reach beyond the original users.

In the early 20th Century, of course, Prohibition led to a whole new source of deaths -- namely, that of gang-related and bootlegging violence. Likewise, over the past several decades, we've witnessed the utter futility of the war against drugs and narcotics. This form of "prohibition" has helped to push desperate people into a life of crime. Following the same road for either tobacco or alcohol would be a disaster. I'm no cheerleader for Phillip Morris or the other tobacco companies; watching the film "The Insider" dashed any chance of that. But Carmona should be content to focus his attention on sensible initiatives aimed at ensuring smoke-free public spaces and curbing underage smoking.

Nothing would be more foolhardy that to create the same kind of violence-ridden, tax-avoidance black market for cigarettes that we have for pot, cocaine and other illegal drugs.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 5:44 PM




Civil Liberties Matter

Sounds like a truism according to Western political consensus, right? Few would argue with that. Overt fascism went out of style decades ago. Yet many pick and choose their favorite liberties and leave the others behind without any attempt to explain why, and still proclaim the banner of liberty. Really though, civil liberties are the burlap sack of political rhetoric for most elected officials. You put it on when you have to, but it itches and chafes and you can't wait to take it off. I mean it's really so tacky to have to put on the burlap sack. What politician would not rather be seen in more stylish duds, perhaps claiming the silky mantle of middle-class champion, or even the comfy overalls of champion of the poor? So much easier to hide behind.

Do I sound like I have my dander up? Well, this time of year does that to me. It's the season when all of Congress desecrates the Constitution and pollutes our discourse by passing the Flag Amendment. The next time you scurvy political demagogues who voted for this travesty try to slip on the mantle of liberty, I hope you get a painful rash.

If that inspired my indigestion, a NYT piece by Alan Kreuger made me think a bit more calmly about the way we literally devalue civil liberties. Kreuger argues that there is an incorrect stereotype that terrorists are driven by poverty. And he continues:
The stereotype that terrorists are driven to extremes by economic deprivation may never have held anywhere, least of all in the Middle East. New research by Claude Berrebi, a graduate student at Princeton, has found that 13 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers are from impoverished families, while about a third of the Palestinian population is in poverty. A remarkable 57 percent of suicide bombers have some education beyond high school, compared with just 15 percent of the population of comparable age.

This evidence corroborates findings for other Middle Eastern and Latin American terrorist groups. There should be little doubt that terrorists are drawn from society's elites, not the dispossessed.

Yet some stereotypes die hard. In 1958 the political scientist Daniel Lerner argued, "The data obviate the conventional assumption that the extremists are simply the `have-nots.' "

It is still possible that well-off people in poor countries with oppressive governments are drawn to terrorism. President Bush argued something along these lines in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on the anniversary of Sept. 11. "Poverty does not transform poor people into terrorists and murderers," he acknowledged. "Yet poverty, corruption and repression are a toxic combination in many societies, leading to weak governments that are unable to enforce order or patrol their borders and are vulnerable to terrorist networks."

To investigate this possibility, I have analyzed data the State Department collects on significant international terrorist incidents. The home countries of the perpetrators of each event were identified. More terrorists do come from poor countries than rich ones, but this is because poor countries tend to lack civil liberties.

Once a country's degree of civil liberties is taken into account — measured by Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that promotes democracy, as the extent to which citizens are free to develop views, institutions and personal autonomy without interference from the state — income per capita bears no relation to involvement in terrorism. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists.

Evidently, the freedom to assemble and protest peacefully without interference from the government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism.


posted by Helena Montana at 11:25 AM




That Glass is "Pro-American"

As the AP says it "World Support for U.S. at New Low." The Washington Post, the New York Times and pretty much every other responsible major news organization is reporting on this Pew Research Center for The People & The Press report on global attitudes that demonstrates the growing dislike for the US all over the world.

As PEW project director Andrew Kohut notes

"The new May survey, the update, shows the world's public further divided by the Gulf War but at the same time the broader survey shows wide support for fundamental economic and political values that the US has long promoted....The very bad news is that there is a great deal of collateral damage to public opinion from the war in Iraq. The image of the United States has fallen even further. The current ratings are well below last year's measures in favorability ratings and last year's measures were well below what the State Department was showing in 1999 and 2000."

"The headline we had last year when we talked to you that the attitude toward America has soured, well it has soured even further.... The rift between Americans and Western Europeans has widened. Large majorities of Europeans say they want a less-close diplomatic and security relationship with the United States and opinions are strained on both sides of the Atlantic. Only 53 percent of Americans say they want to continue a close relationship with the Europeans."

"Unlike anti-Americanism in other parts of the world, Muslim publics not only dislike the United States but they dislike Americans. The percentage of Muslims thinking we are a serious threat to Islam has increased in most countries. It goes as high as 97 percent in Jordan and 91 percent in the Palestinian Authority. Majorities in 7 of 8 Muslim populations even think that the US might become a military threat to their country."


Obviously, Bush's policies and his attitude are significantly responsible for this decline, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Washington Times coverage of the report

American Way of Life Has Fans All Around the World

A new Pew Research Center survey finds the globe in love with cell phones, the Internet, the English language, democracy, a fast-paced life and other hallmarks of American culture.

Americans didn't do so bad either.

Even if countries oppose U.S. policies or take issue with its global "image," 14 out of 21 nations surveyed still hold a positive view of the American people, with Great Britain, Israel, Canada, Italy and Australia our top five admirers.


The glass is either half-full or half-empty - but to the Washington Times, the important point is that the glass contains nothing but pro-American sentiment.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:45 AM


Tuesday, June 03, 2003


Giving New Meaning to the Phrase 'Long Distance'

Molly Ivins has written a column about a new report issued by the Center for Public Integrity. The report talks about the Federal Communications Commission, which has come to be known in Washington, D.C. as a "captive agency," because it is captive to the industry it is supposed to regulate.

Among the reports findings are an obscene amount of travel by FCC employees, paid for by the telecommunications industry. Writes Ivins:

The Public Integrity people examined the travel records of FCC employees and found that they have accepted 2,500 trips, costing nearly $2.8 million over the past eight years, paid for by the telecommunications and broadcast industries, which are, theoretically, "regulated" by the FCC. The industry-paid travel is on top of about $2 million a year in official travel paid for by taxpayers.

According to the center, FCC commissioners and agency staffers attended hundreds of conventions, conferences and other events all over the world, including Paris, Hong Kong and Rio de Janeiro. They were put up at luxury hotels such as the Bellagio in Las Vegas and ferried about by limo. Vegas was the top destination -- 330 trips -- New Orleans second with 173, then New York at 102 and London with 98 trips. Why London, you may ask. Well, do ask.


To read the whole column, go here.



posted by Tyler at 5:12 PM




Good Question

Katrina vanden Heuvel made a good observation "while reading a New York Times article about the terrorist bombings in Casablanca"

Buried toward the end of the piece Elaine Sciolino reported: "The king is widely credited in the United States for being an unabashed ally in the war on terror. Morocco has a very close relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, which has used the kingdom to conduct interrogations of suspected terrorists, often without regard to due process." Why isn't the CIA's outsourcing of torture front-page news?


Why indeed?


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:11 PM




Liar's Chicken

Matthew Yglesias, Sam Rosenfeld, CalPundit and presumably others are lamenting the fact that Democrats are not pummeling the Bush administration with accusations that they lied about Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I am not defending Bush, nor am I defending the Democrats who remain silent on this issue, but keeping their mouths shut for now is not necessarily cowardly or illogical.

Bush and Company explicitly sold this war by manipulating fears that Hussein possessed WMDs and was prepared to use them against his neighbors or the United States, or was at least willing to sell them to terrorist organizations who would do so. The entire reason we went to war was to prevent this from happening.

But as it stands now, one month since Bush declared the fighting over, US troops have found no trace of these WMDs. Following our best intelligence leads has turned up nothing and, needless to say, that does not bode well for the administration.

Nonetheless, it has only been one month. Iraq is a large country and I assume that Hussein could have easily have hidden or destroyed any banned weapons he may have possessed. (Why he would hide or destroy them instead of using them against US forces when it was evident that his regime was about to fall is another question that I won't raise here.)

Anyway, the consensus amongst lefty bloggers seems to be that Bush and Company lied about Iraq's possession of WMDs, which I think is a bit premature. Bloggers have nothing to lose by calling Bush a liar (I do it all the time) but it does not surprise me that professional politicians would not want to risk their reputation by accusing the President of the United States of lying about something this important this early in the game. Doing so would only open them up to ridicule and undermine their credibility should such weapons be found in the future.

Obviously, this raises a question about what sort of timeline the administration ought to face before it has to produce evidence that Iraq had these weapons. One month seem an unrealistic and unfair amount of time but Bush's assurances that such weapons will be found "eventually" is ridiculously vague and equally unrealistic.

It seems to me that we cannot confidently assert that Bush and Company lied until they order US troops to stop searching for these weapons and pull them out of Iraq. When and if this happens, the only logical conclusion will be that this administration engaged in one of the most cynical and immoral hoaxes this world as ever seen, for which they ought to be held criminally liable.

The problem with this timeline is that giving up the hunt for WMDs will not happen for months or even years. If they are not found in the next few months, Bush and Company will continue the hunt regardless, as the only other option will be to admit failure or confess to a mammoth fraud. That is not likely to happen and thus the hunt will continue until media and public pressure dies down sufficiently to allow the troops to be pulled out quietly, without eliciting any sort of outraged response.

If WMDs are not discovered, at some point in the near future the press and the American people will face a difficult decision about whether to believe that the weapons exist and we simply cannot find them or to believe that they never existed at all. Many appear to have already made up their minds but I think this is really a philosophical question that I am not competent to address, other than to note that lack of proof that something exists is not itself proof that said something does not exist.

I don't think Bush and Company actively lied about Iraq's weapons program, thought I suspect that they may have exaggerated and cherry-picked intelligence to support their pre-determined conclusion. But calling someone an "exaggerator" is not quite as powerful as calling them a "liar." And though I would like nothing more than to see Bush revealed as the dimwitted fraud that he is, I think it is a bit too early to accuse him of being a blatant liar, at least on this issue.

And in the end, in this game of Liar's Chicken, Bush holds a distinct advantage. It is outrageous but logical, for so long as Bush continues to assert that WMDs will be found, Democrats will be reluctant to call him a liar, less they look foolish should the weapons turn up the following day. From this standpoint, there is very little pressure on Bush to produce results, as he can simply continue to insist such weapons exist until such a time that the American people and the press grow weary of the issue and stop paying attention.

And given the abbreviated press cycle and attention span of the American public, I would assume that will happen sometime around August.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:18 PM




Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago!

So, even with a rudimentary understanding of physics, I had to take a few reads to wrap my mind this fun Christian Science Monitor piece. Apparently scientists are becoming increasingly confident that they will be able to create black holes on demand. That's right. Little bitty black holes coming soon to a lab near you. Sound a bit scary? You're not alone:
Everything a black hole swallows gets compressed into an unimaginably tiny central region called a singularity. According to our current knowledge, this singularity is infinitely dense, and infinitely small. And if you think that doesn't make any sense, you're not alone. Scientists have long viewed the central region of a black hole with the same kind of suspicion that early mariners held for regions of the map that read "there be monsters." It just can't be right.
Black holes are the Scylla and Charybdis of modern society. Scary and kind of cool, but ultimately unknowable. Or are they? What happens to black holes? If nothing can escape them, not even light, then will they swallow up the universe eventually, or do they eventually go away? That's one of the things they hope to answer.
In the 1970's, the well-known physicist Stephen Hawking proposed a way in which black holes radiate energy away, eventually "evaporating" completely. Over time, the black hole gradually leaks away all its energy and disappears in a final burst of radiation.

The final death throes of a black hole, scientists suspect, might be very illuminating indeed. Exactly how a black hole dies and what sort of information is carried in the Hawking radiation could tell us quite a bit about what the center of a black hole is really like....

For the best chance to observe Hawking Radiation and evaporation, you'd want a black hole that was much closer than naturally occurring black holes, and much less massive. It's a common misconception that you have to have a huge amount of mass to create a black hole. Any amount of mass will do, as long as you cram it into a sufficiently small space. A super-massive black hole with the mass of a billion Suns might be the size of our Solar System, but the Earth could be a black hole too if you packed it into the volume of a marble. Even a person will do, although you'd have to cram them into the space occupied by a single electron.
This isn't just random pie-in-the-sky nerdliness on my part. If we plan it right, we could arrange for Ann Coulter to stumble past the event horizon in one of these laboratories into her own personal black hole. Are you with me people? If we play our cards just right, then maybe someday we could see the following headline: "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Queen of the Harpies!"

posted by Helena Montana at 12:34 PM




Throwing Softballs at the White House

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank weighs in on the Bush administration's insipid "Ask the White House" on-line chat series and uncovers this interesting tidbit, which I had not seen reported elsewhere

Then there was the question last week from "John from Rocky Mount," which sounded as if it had been planted by Bush's budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. John wanted to know how much his family of four earning $41,000 would save with the tax cut. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said their taxes would drop 96 percent, from $1,178 to $45. Turns out that's the same example Bush used that same day in signing the legislation. Coincidence, said White House Web chat coordinator Jimmy Orr, who called the question "absolutely legit."


You have to admire the Bushies amazing ability to stay on message, especially when those messages are total lies.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:15 PM




Rush the Wall Street Oracle-Wanabee

Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh has long entertained his conservative minions by pontificating on the political issues of the day. Rush, of course, is frequently off base on his observations, as documented by the book The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error. Given his record of inaccuracy and distortion, one might think that Rush would be hesitant to carry his observations into other fields. But, then again, this is Rush we're talking about.

Yesterday, Rush informed listeners of his daily radio program that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, minutes earlier, had crossed the 9,000-point threshold and was then standing at just below the 9,000 mark. With fewer than two hours to go before the market's close, Rush decided to wear the hat of a Wall Street prognosticator. The Dow, Rush told his listeners, would definitely rise again and close above the 9,000 point mark. Listeners were urged to take this prediction seriously -- "count on it," Rush reassured his right-wing faithful.

The Dow steadily fell after Rush's remarks and, at the market's close, it stood at just below 8,898 -- more than 102 points below the mark that Rush insisted was a sure thing. If Rush is hoping to land a job with Fidelity or J.P. Morgan, he's going to have to do much better than that.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:11 PM




Perhaps the Bushies are all playing a childhood game?

When I was a kid in the early 80's there were a few games that practiced lying and testing the gullibility of others. Does anyone else remember the overuse of the word "NOT!" to retract compliments? For instance, saying "nice shoes" to someone then waiting for the person to say "thanks," but then bellowing "NOT!" at the kid with the not-so-nice shoes and laughing hysterically? This technique was often used by a cool kid against a not-as-cool kid or just in casual conversation with friends. A similar variation of the theme was declaring that it was "opposite day" to force a bunch of kids to hold entire conversations by saying the exact opposite of their intended meaning. Everything you hated you said you loved, and visa versa. The game ended when someone accidentally said something true. These games created an atmosphere of distrust but they also allowed people to feel invulernable. You see, if you actually something nice to someone and meant it, you'd be shielded against the reputation of being too nice by assuring everyone that you were being insincere. In those days being too nice or too generous was an obvious sign of weakness in the playground pecking order.

Keeping in mind these games, check out this piece on Slate that outlines the incredible truth deficit of the Bush Administration, lie after lie after lie. I swear most of the time I can practically hear Ari Fleischer saying "NOT!" under his breath when he talks. Sometimes I wonder, perhaps the entire Bush Administration is playing a secret game of "Opposite Day"? Considering that they'd have to tell the truth to stop the game, will it ever end?

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 11:15 AM




The Franken Factor

On last night's O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly dedicated the "Talking Points Memo" portion of the show to the Franken incident. In typical O'Reilly fashion, he dismisses Franken out of hand and accuses him from "profiting from malice." But even while O'Reilly tries to pretend he is a better man than Franken and doesn't need to stoop to his level, he can't help but issue vague, meaningless threats

Now, if I sounded angry, I was. Imagine sitting next to somebody calling you a liar for that period of time. If that happened 200 years ago, there would have been a dual, and trust me, he would have lost.


Anyway, it looks like this O'Reilly/Franken feud has been going on for some time, judging from this old Washington Post piece

Investigative humorist Al Franken thought something was amiss when Fox News star Bill O'Reilly -- whose Feb. 10 speech at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach was featured last weekend on C-SPAN's "Book TV" -- claimed that his previous show, the syndicated tabloid "Inside Edition," had won the coveted George Foster Peabody award.

"It seemed strange to me, but he was so adamant," Franken told us about the self-styled conservative populist, who regularly trashes liberal elites like Franken on his weeknight show, "The O'Reilly Factor." "I thought back and figured maybe 'Inside Edition' won a Peabody for its story 'Swimsuits: How Bare Is Too Bare?' or maybe for its three-part series on the father of Madonna's first baby."

Digging deeper, Franken did a Nexis search and discovered repeated instances where O'Reilly has defended his involvement in "Inside Edition" with such claims as: "I anchored a program called 'Inside Edition,' which has won a Peabody Award for investigative reporting" ("The O'Reilly Factor," Aug. 30, 1999); "All I've got to say is that 'Inside Edition' has won, I -- I believe, two Peabody Awards, the highest journalism award in the country" ("The O'Reilly Factor," May 8, 2000); and "A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" ("The O'Reilly Factor," May 19, 2000). Franken also discovered that O'Reilly's claims are wrong.

"I called Bill and he was nice enough to get back to me," Franken told us. "Turns out he's been confused: In 1996, 'Inside Edition' won a Polk, which does start with a 'P.' You know, it's one thing to get your facts wrong on Fox. That's expected. But lying on C-SPAN? I don't think you should do that."

Yesterday O'Reilly told us: "Al Franken is on a jihad against me. So I got mixed up between a Peabody Award and a Polk Award, which is just as prestigious. Is this an illogical mistake? My comment is: We did good work. There was no intention to mislead. I really don't understand what Franken's problem is."

Alas, O'Reilly left "Inside Edition" in 1995 -- the year before the show did its George Polk Award-winning exposé on insurance-industry exploitation of poor people.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:57 AM




Liberating Iraqis ... From Their Jobs

From the Los Angeles Times

U.S. reconstruction officials will soon hand out pink slips to nearly half a million Iraqi military and civilian personnel, exacerbating an unemployment crisis that experts say could slow the pace of postwar reconstruction.

The layoffs will mean the loss of a government paycheck for roughly 1 in 10 Iraqi workers. The Bush administration hopes to soften the blow by making cash "termination payments" to members of Saddam Hussein's armed forces, Information Ministry employees and other government workers whose services are no longer wanted. The amount of the payments had not been announced.

Officials of the U.S.-led reconstruction effort acknowledged that the dismissal of so many people will magnify the economic misfortune of a country where a majority of the population depends on food rations; an estimated 30% of the labor force works for the government; and unemployment, as best anyone can tell, already exceeds 20%. The layoffs will be the latest blow to the once-thriving trading nation, already reduced to Third World subsistence levels by nearly three decades of authoritarian rule, international sanctions and intermittent war.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM


Monday, June 02, 2003


Proof-Positive?

Ari Fleischer has taken up the "trailers = weapons of mass destruction" talking point

Q Is the President satisfied with the intelligence he got before the war? Because now one Cabinet officer is saying that they buried the weapons; another said they destroyed them; and another official said they -- what is the President's view on all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target.

Q We go to war for two trucks?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q You would go to war from the finding of two trucks?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think it's anything to dismiss. Iraq had, contrary to their protestations to the United Nations, trucks for the purpose of producing biological weapons. They said they didn't have them; they got caught -- proof-perfect that they had them. The only use for those trucks is to produce biological weapons. And so that's one item of it. And on the rest of all the intelligence, of course, the President continues to be satisfied with it. He thinks it's borne out.


Later in the briefing, when the issue is raised again, Fleischer responds

The concern as it was expressed repeatedly at the United Nations is that when the United Nations was thrown out of Iraq in the late 1990s, the United Nations reported that Iraq had not accounted for the botchulin, the toxin, the VX, the sarin gas. They said, not accounted for. They didn't say, locked and loaded. And we repeatedly cited the U.N.'s words and said, not accounted for.


Just for clarification, Iraq did not throw UN inspectors out in 1998 - the UN ordered its inspectors to leave.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:16 PM




More Dead in the Congo

Even as the United Nations was voting to send 1,400 more peacekeepers to the northeastern section of the Democratic Republic of Congo, militia forces continued to kill civilians. ABC News reports allegations that another 352 were killed over the weekend.

These new peacekeepers are going to be heading into increasingly dangerous and difficult situation when they will have to face militias who have no respect or fear of Blue Helmets

"Tell those sons of whores we can kill them any time we like"


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:28 PM




What Next...Retinal Scans at the Free Clinic?

Via TalkLeft, we find this crazy story -- Students in Akron, OH will be fingerprinted beginning this fall to identify them in school lunch lines.
The technology, instituted for security reasons and for bookkeeping purposes, is being used in Ohio's Garfield Heights district and in a sprinkling of colleges, universities, and businesses across the country.

Students' fingerprints will be put into a scanner that will make a template of binary numbers corresponding with the swirls and arches of each print. When students go through the lunch line, they will place their finger on a scanner identifying them based on the stored template. Designers of the system say the original fingerprints will be deleted. School board members have received numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from parents who have concerns about their children being fingerprinted. And the policy has drawn attention from groups like the ACLU, which is concerned the scans will be used to track students' eating habits.

Those opposed to the system will have the option of having their children use an identification card. Board members discussed the merits and drawbacks of the system for nearly 45 minutes before voting Tuesday to spend $700,000 on the modernized cafeteria system.

It will include new touch-screen registers, software, fingerprint imaging scanners, staff training, and maintenance. ''I think we need to enter the 21st century,'' said a board member, Linda Kersker. ''We need to move forward and not backward.''


posted by Helena Montana at 10:08 AM




The No Spin Zone

From the USA Today

Bill O'Reilly, the conservative talk show host, first decried political commentators who "call people names." Then he called Al Franken, the liberal humorist, an "idiot."


From the New York Post

When Franken tried to interrupt, O'Reilly went ballistic.

"Hey, shut up! You had your 35 minutes - shut up!" he shouted, visibly furious.

"We're supposed to be on here for 15 minutes - this idiot goes 35."

"This isn't your show, Bill," Franken shot back.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:51 AM




Weapons of Mass Destruction

Here is a run-down of international coverage of the WMD/intelligence issue, via the Christian Science Monitor. I've posted the most interesting bits below

Time magazine reports that controversy continues to grow over the use of pre-war intelligence that justified US and British claims that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction and was poised to use them at a moment's notice.

The Sunday Herald of Scotland writes that British Prime Minister Tony Blair disregarded the advice of his own intelligence agencies and chose instead to believe "selective and defective" information from a Pentagon unit set up to validate war against Mr. Hussein by proving that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Herald says that British intelligence sources told the paper that France and Russia actually had the most accurate intelligence on what was going on inside Iraq and those countries were telling the US and Britain that "there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program" in Iraq.

On Saturday, the Guardian reported that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and US Secretary of State Colin Powell privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons program "at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq." The comments, which are being called the "Waldorf transcripts" were allegedly made shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5. The Age reports that a British Foreign Office spokesman quickly denied the report. Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph reports that the British Foreign Office says it was impossible for Straw to meet with Powell in the few moments before the February 5 United Nations meeting.

The news of the alleged meeting between Mr. Powell and Mr. Straw came a day after US News and World Report wrote that Powell was under constant pressure from the Pentagon and the White House to include questionable intelligence in the report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction he delivered at the United Nations last February. The magazine says the first draft of the report was written for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of state Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in late January. Powell was allegedly so upset at the use of questionable material in the report that he threw several pages in the air and declared "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

These remarks come after earlier statements by the top US Marine general in Iraq that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were "wrong," and that his troops had not found any evidence of WMD.

Perhaps sensing they are being overwhelmed by damaging news on this front, British and US administration officials have started to fight back. The Observer reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he has "secret proof" that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. Blair said he was waiting to publish a "complete picture" of both intelligence gained before the war and "what we've actually found."

The administration also announced that it was sending 1,400 more experts to look for evidence of WMDs. The Associated Press reports that the man heading the effort, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, said Friday that his team would change the focus from sites identified as suspicious before the war and instead concentrate on areas where documents, interviews with Iraqis, and other new clues suggest biological or chemical weapons could be hidden.




posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:23 AM


Sunday, June 01, 2003


Sloppy Reporting at the N.Y. Times

The fallout from the revelations about the young, wunderkind reporter Jayson Blair definitely dealt a blow to the New York Times' reputation for journalistic integrity and accuracy. Unfortunately, Times' reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg isn't doing much to revive or rebuild this reputation. In the newspaper's Sunday edition, a Stolberg-written article assesses the tensions between gay Republicans and the GOP's Religious Right wing. This is an interesting subject, but Stolberg's article doesn't do it justice.

First, be sure to check out the "corrections" column in Monday's or Tuesday's Times where, undoubtedly, the newspaper will correct Stolberg's assertion that President Bush has "appointed several openly gay people, including James C. Hormel, the ambassador to Romania, to high-level jobs ..." This isn't just another of the errors that human beings are apt to make; this is the product of distinctly sloppy journalism. For starters, Hormel was one of President Clinton's recess appointments -- made in June 1999 after then-Senator Jesse Helms blocked Hormel's nomination due essentially to Hormel's sexual orientation. In addition, Hormel was appointed ambassador to Luxembourg, not Romania.

Stolberg and her fact-checkers (hopefully, the Times has a few of them around) were confusing Hormel with Michael Guest, a gay man whom Bush appointed as ambassador to Romania. Given the contentious opposition by Helms, Trent Lott and other GOP senators to Hormel's nomination, it is surprising that anyone would have confused Hormel with a Bush nominee.

Second, Stolberg writes in the Sunday article that Bush "made a calculated decision in his 2000 election campaign to reach out to gays by meeting with a select group of gay Republicans." Left unmentioned in Stolberg's article is the fact that Bush had earlier refused an invitation that same year to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, while fellow Republican John McCain accepted. In fact, as a Texas Observer article from that year noted, Bush's chief political operative -- Karl Rove -- presented gay GOPers with a very unique version of "inclusiveness." The Observer article reported that in October 1999, an account of a meeting between Bush and a group of Christian conservatives was leaked to the press, a version in which Bush was quoted as saying he wouldn't knowingly hire a gay person. The article notes that Log Cabin leader Kevin Ivers says he met privately with Karl Rove to seek a clarification about the apparent contradiction in Bush's stance -- the Texas governor had previously said that one's sexual orientation should not be a factor in hiring.

Ivers was quoted in the article: "Karl Rove said to me: 'Do you want to elect the next president or not?' That was his response, basically: 'Shut up and get on board. Stop asking questions.' " Stolberg's article is lengthy (27 paragraphs), yet she never manages to offer any of this noteworthy background info that illuminates what George W. Bush's inner circle really thinks of gay Republicans or gays in general.

The New York Times should be better than this and, thankfully, it usually is. It's still the most lucid, thorough and edifying daily newspaper in the country. But Stolberg's article is one more sign that the Times cannot rest on its laurels.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:02 PM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com