Neu auf wallstreet:online? Jetzt kostenlos registrieren!
Registrieren | Login
x
Benutzername:

Passwort:

Angemeldet bleiben
Passwort vergessen?

    Guten Morgen Mr. Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

    eröffnet am 12.02.03 11:51:02 von
    Joerver

    neuester Beitrag 08.05.06 04:37:46 von
    InvestigativTrader
    Beiträge: 35.423
    ID: 695.186
    Aufrufe heute: 35
    Gesamt: 397.667

    Der Tag im Überblick


    Beitrag schreiben Ansicht: 500 Beiträge pro Seite
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 12.02.03 11:51:02
    Beitrag Nr. 1 (8.585.070)
    Avatar
    Trendfreund
    schrieb am 12.02.03 11:55:48
    Beitrag Nr. 2 (8.585.140)
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 12.02.03 12:08:36
    Beitrag Nr. 3 (8.585.327)
    Noch einen. Achtung da kommt ein Karto(o)n.

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 12.02.03 13:39:23
    Beitrag Nr. 4 (8.586.585)
    Was hat Bush sonst noch gesagt?




    The Worst President Ever


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By: Norm. Walker - 02/10/03



    For those of you that don’t know, Helen Thomas is a veteran White House correspondent who has been saying "Thank you, Mr. President," since her first press conference in 1961.

    Helen has worked with eight Presidents and she says that George W. is the worst President ever. She has clearly stated, "He is the worst President in all of American history. She is in a position to have some authority on the subject.

    George W. is the twelfth President of my lifetime. And, I’m convinced he is a walking talking disaster that is taking place in the United States every day he is in office. Even though his reading skills have improved in the past two years he is an embarrassment to the country in front of the rest of the world. When he is off script he is incapable of clarity of speech or meaning.

    He stands before Congress and the American people in what we call the State of the Union and proceeds to deliver a Republican wish list as a substitute for the reality of our condition. Admittedly he did gloss over some negative conditions and hurriedly moved on.

    Let’s take a close look at his speech and break it down by the amount of time on certain subjects. The time Bush spent talking about issues in his speech:

    3 min - (Intro);

    4 min - Economy/Corporate Crime/Tax-Cut;

    2 min - AIDS in Africa;

    26 sec - Social Security:

    3 min - Energy / Environment;

    4 min - Health Care / Elderly;

    5 min - Faith Base / Mentor Program;

    4 min - Abortion;

    8 min - Terrorists / 9-11;

    26 min - MWD/North Korea/Iraq

    How much time did he spend on Homeland Security, States Budget, Unemployment, Poverty, Gas Prices, or the Price of War? I didn’t hear anything.

    Daily more and more Americans are unemployed, financially ruined and uninsured, have lost their home and unemployment benefits, can`t afford to go to school or buy prescription drugs, and their country is about to squander $100 billion to $200 billion and put 150,000 American men and women in harm`s way while giving the wealthiest Americans the biggest tax break in history. If this is not ineptness I don’t know how else to describe it.

    The majority of States are suffering from Revenue shortfalls. They can’t come up with the money to fund their governments. All of this has happened since Bush took office. Some Governors have described the current situation as the worst since the Great Depression. And have we heard any suggestions from The Twig on how to remedy this problem? I think not.

    This is the Twigs reasoning when describing his proposed Tax Cut. Nineteen people are in a room and are fully employed making minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year which gives them a total earning of $10,712.00 each for a $203,528.00 total. Bring in another person that makes $596,472.00 per year and now the average income for 20 people is $40,000.00 and his Tax Cut average is $1100.00 per year. This is what is known as rhetorical claptrap.

    I’m amazed that this President can hold the average American is such low regard. His arrogance is pure contempt for Mr. Average American. He behaves as if the 100 million people that didn’t vote for him have no say in this democracy.

    No doubt Helen Thomas is right on target. He is the worst President in the history of the United States and history will so regard him.

    And for all this we can all say "Thank you, Mr. President."



    Norm. Walker is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 13.02.03 00:55:44
    Beitrag Nr. 5 (8.594.334)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 13.02.03 11:45:35
    Beitrag Nr. 6 (8.597.296)
    Die Hölle wird mit Öl geheizt


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 00:43:37
    Beitrag Nr. 7 (8.606.410)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 00:54:21
    Beitrag Nr. 8 (8.606.439)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 16:27:52
    Beitrag Nr. 9 (8.614.296)
    Zu früh gefreut?


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 16:41:32
    Beitrag Nr. 10 (8.614.559)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 16:46:34
    Beitrag Nr. 11 (8.614.635)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 17:26:27
    Beitrag Nr. 12 (8.615.213)
    Si tacuisses,...

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 14.02.03 18:24:51
    Beitrag Nr. 13 (8.615.994)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 15:30:12
    Beitrag Nr. 14 (8.621.646)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 15:32:35
    Beitrag Nr. 15 (8.621.661)
    Avatar
    M_B_S
    schrieb am 15.02.03 15:42:46
    Beitrag Nr. 16 (8.621.717)
    The old and the ancient world confront Powell with new realities

    Gary Younge in New York
    Saturday February 15, 2003
    The Guardian

    The Russians smiled, the Chinese nodded, the French relaxed, the British froze in solemn contemplation and the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, stared sourly into the empty space where his now discredited case for war had shone only last week.
    The answer to the question of whether the world was moving towards war or peace was written on the faces of the permanent members of the UN security council yesterday, following the report of Hans Blix.

    The body language around him was precisely the opposite to the last time he spoke, two weeks ago, when his report had been far more critical of Iraq than most had expected. Yesterday, as he suggested that, while problems remained, improvements had been made and solutions may yet emerge, the doves cooed and the hawks delayed their swoop.

    While Mr Blix`s report did not represent a clear endorsement of either camp there could be little doubt which side of an increasingly polarised divide had been strengthened.

    All sides sought to laugh off the tension of the past week, during which the French and German resistance to war was dismissed as the peevishness of "old Europe". The Chinese went further, insisting they were "ancient". Mr Powell said he was representing "the newest country and the oldest democracy", while only the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, sparked any laughter with the claim: "I speak for a very old country... founded in 1066 by the French."

    Responding to the report, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered an impassioned speech calling for more time in the name of peace and the unity of cultures that verged on the utopian.

    Mr Powell could scarcely contain his irritation. With frustration and without notes, unyielding in his argument and relentless in his pace, he unloaded questions to the security council in rapid succession. "Are they serious? Are they going to comply? Are they going to cooperate?" he asked of the Iraqis.

    In what may yet prove a reflection of global opinion, the chamber greeted Mr Villepin`s contribution with applause and Mr Powell`s with silence.

    Immediately before the report the room had filled up quickly, a blur of lambswool coats, bespoke suits and leather cases milling in a last-minute flurry of diplomatic manoeuvring. With the balance of power shifting, nonaligned and less powerful nations such as Angola, Cameroon and Chile found themselves the object of intense interest.

    Britain`s UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, glided from the Spanish to the Angolans before settling down with Syria. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, headed first for the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, and then for Mr Powell. Only the delegate from Guinea stood alone, uncourted and apparently uninterested.

    The call to order parted the sea of mingling dignitaries, sending them to their seats and entrenching them in the positions laid out earlier in the morning by their capitals to await Mr Blix`s verdict.

    It did not come until the end of his report, which questioned Mr Powell`s intelligence reports and the need for military action. A conclusion that bought time and made the US and British positions even more difficult to sell.

    :rolleyes:
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 16:24:48
    Beitrag Nr. 17 (8.622.051)
    Es ist noch nicht angerichtet

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 16:36:25
    Beitrag Nr. 18 (8.622.188)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 18:40:26
    Beitrag Nr. 19 (8.623.041)
    Mal was Ernstes.


    The Vulnerable Giant
    By Ernest Partridge
    Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
    February 13, 2003

    George Bush and the Administration “chickenhawks” thrill at the contemplation of combat, past and future, that they did not and will not have to engage in personally. Thus they must be positively giddy at the very thought of onset of “Shock and Awe” – the unleashing of over eight-hundred cruise missiles in the first two days of the “Desert Storm II,” more cruise missiles than were fired through the entire first Gulf War.

    Surely “Shock and Awe” will show every nation in the world who’s the boss of Planet Earth, and all those nations will yield to the will of The New Empire.

    Today Iraq, tomorrow the world!

    If this is what George Bush (a dropout from “the champaign squadron”) and his coterie of absentee warriors believe, they are wrong – as was Herman Goering who was convinced that the Blitz would shatter the morale of the British, and as was General Arthur “Bomber” Harris of the RAF, who similarly believed that the destruction of the German cities would demolish the morale of the German population.

    Accordingly, while “Shock and Awe” might in fact result in the early capitulation of the Saddam Hussein regime, it is at least as likely that this blitzkrieg will steel the resolve of the Iraqi people, in addition to their Arab neighbors, to resist the invasion of their tormentors and avenge the slaughter of their compatriots. Thus the dreaded “urban warfare” will follow in Bagdad and Basra, while beyond Iraq, terrorism against American targets will escalate.

    In either case, world opinion will be so infuriated at this bloodbath that Colin Powell’s so-called “Alliance of the Willing” (i.e., Tony Blair and the Seven Dwarfs), will be immediately overwhelmed by an “Alliance of the Enraged” extending throughout the world. At last, the world leaders may take seriously the imperial aspirations of the Bush gang, as stated explicitly in the “National Security Strategy" released last September, and articulated by George Bush at West Point in June.

    Indeed, the precursors of that alliance can be seen today, in advance of “Shock and Awe,” as the leaders of Germany, France and Russia confer in a desperate attempt to forestall “Desert Storm II.” They are responding to the overwhelming sentiments of their populations. Public opinion on the European continent runs 60% to 80% against an Iraqi war without UN sanction – this includes the seven countries (minus Great Britain) of the so-called “Alliance of the Willing.” In Tony Blair’s United Kingdom, a solid majority of the population opposes a war without UN support. And in a poll just released, 32% of Britons consider the United States to be the greatest threat to world peace -- well ahead of Iraq and North Korea, each of which was cited by 27% of the respondents

    The Bush regime’s “brain trust” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is singularly uncurious about “side effects” and “unintended consequences.” And they never seem to ask, “and then what?” Thus, for example, we have heard precious little about what they plan for Iraq “post-Saddam.”

    By all indications, an “Alliance of the Outraged” is totally off the Bush “projecto-scope.” Nonetheless, after Desert Storm II, the world at large will likely regard the United States military and the imperial designs of the Bush Administration as the pre-eminent threat both to their national sovereignties and to world peace. And one of the most fundamental and time-confirmed principles of politics is that alliances are formed by the perception of a common threat. Thus Athens and Sparta halted their war to join forces against the Persians. And capitalist America and Britain allied themselves with the communist Soviet Union against Nazi Germany – an alliance that fell apart after the defeat of Germany. As the familiar maxim states, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And we are all familiar with the maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    Can we therefore doubt that a world-wide anti-American alliance might be in our future – indeed, tentatively forming even now?

    “Well, so what? What can the rest of the world do about it? They are facing the sole remaining super-power with the mightiest military in history. No power on Earth today can overcome the US military in a face-to-face military encounter.”

    Clearly, that last statement is true: “No power on Earth today can overcome the US military in a face-to-face military encounter.”

    From that truth, the Bushistas conclude: “No power on Earth can challenge the United States hegemony or cause damage to the American economy.”

    That conclusion is radically and dangerously false.

    All that the first, true, assertion tells us is that no opposing power, with a modicum of intelligence, will directly confront the US military. It does not tell us that opposing nations or alliances are helpless in the face of American military might. They have other, non-military, options.

    To shift the perspective, the mere fact that no army, navy or air force can defeat us Americans in battle does not imply that we are invulnerable. Quite the contrary. As we well know, a multi-billion dollar defense and intelligence regime was defeated by box cutters and airline tickets. And the only effective defense against that attack turned out to be bodies and bare hands of a few courageous private citizens.

    What the Bush team fails to appreciate is that the US, while militarily supreme, is otherwise extremely vulnerable. And should the US decide to take on the entire world, the rest of the world, in concert, can take down the US with ease. The “outside world” has two weapons – foreign debt and resource imports -- which, if employed either separately or in concert, will quickly bring catastrophe upon the United States without a shot being fired.

    The first weapon involves the US foreign debt, which has grown in the past fifteen years from zero to $2.5 trillion – which is a quarter of the US GDP. At present rates, that debt will increase by another trillion in three years. Given these facts , do we dare to lord it over the rest of the world? In his brilliant article, “The End of Empire,” William Greider wryly points out “any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly.”

    All that our creditors need do is withdraw their capital from our economy and/or shut their cash boxes and refuse to lend us any more. After that, chaos ensues. As Greider observes, “you can’t sustain an empire from a debtor’s weakening position – sooner or later the creditors pull the plug.”

    But if “the rest of the world,” but most acutely, Europe, Russia, China and the Pacific Rim, put the squeeze on us and try to cut us down to size, can’t the US simply say, in effect, “screw you all – we hereby repudiate our debts.” At that point, the US becomes a pariah to international trade and is thereafter, as Sam Goldwin said, “included out.” No more foreign markets to sell our goods and, far more seriously, no more imports of essential raw materials – the most essential of all, of course, is petroleum. And note this: now half of our petroleum is imported, as domestic sources approach final depletion.

    As we pointed out earlier (in “The Oil Trap”), the lost luxury of driving our SUVs is the very least of our worries when the oil tap is shut off. We quite literally “eat oil,” for petroleum not only carries the food to our tables, it also provides the fuel for the farm machinery and the raw materials for the fertilizer which are necessary for our mode of intensive, industrialized agriculture. In addition, we have foolishly opted to move most of our industrial and consumer products by trucks, rather than rail (which, incidentally, also uses diesel fuel).

    So imagine a sudden and unrecoverable loss of half of our petroleum supply. From that moment, we might coast for a few months on the “strategic reserve” – crude oil that has been pumped back into the ground in case of emergencies. But after the reserve is gone, the US economy will collapse, as all inessential use of oil is forbidden, ordinary economic life grinds to a halt, gasoline is severely rationed, and all domestic oil supplies are directed to the task of bringing food and essential supplies to our cities – just to keep our populace alive.

    The oil shortage might be further compounded by sabotage of the Alaska pipeline, which supplies approximately one and a half million barrels of crude oil per day. Almost all of the 800 miles of that pipeline is above ground – I know, I’ve driven alongside hundreds of miles of it. A couple of years ago a few rifle shots shut down the pipeline for several days. It is virtually impossible to protect the entire line, and a few well-placed satchel charges or bazooka shots could shut it down for good.

    To put it graphically, the United States is like huge, ugly, menacing mechanical monster, powered by an AC line attached to a wall socket. The poor, cowering, intimidated victims need only notice that the wall socket is right behind them, within easy reach. (Would that I were a cartoonist!).

    When the ninety-five percent of humanity that resides outside our borders – or at least a sizeable industrialized portion thereof – decides they have had enough of our bullying, they need only pull the plug, and our vaunted economy, along with our military, will collapse into a ruined heap.

    To be sure, such a coordinated act of economic warfare would have serious economic repercussions for the anti-US alliance, though the damage would arguably less than the damage to the United States. After all, we need their raw materials, oil especially, to survive. The "outside world" has no need of our raw materials, and it can readily replicate our technology. But while the damage to the world economy might be considerable, the American bullying and empire-building might well become sufficiently onerous to the rest of the world that they would willingly suffer the consequences of bringing the US down. After all, any nation that goes to war believes that it is worth the cost of some rather horrific consequences. Never mind that the leaders almost always grossly underestimate the costs to their nation, and care little about the damage and misery that they inflict upon their enemies. The historical fact remains: nations (mis)-calculate the costs, and then willingly go to war. The costs of a bloodless economic boycott would seem to be considerably less than total war.

    “Even so, they wouldn’t dare,” replies our irrepressible chicken-hawk. “If they did, we’d nuke ‘em. Just the threat should keep them in line, and should keep the oil coming in.” Sorry, fellas. You see, they also have nukes. Not as many as we do, but so what? With a few hundred warheads, and a reliable delivery to twenty of our largest cities, we will be adequately “deterred.” We have thousands of warheads, but no matter. Just a few hundred will do. More than that would be like adding more rifles to the firing squad. (See “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Armageddon”).

    To sum up:, the mighty American military machine is a paper tiger. No military force on Earth can defeat it, but no such force need to. Our economy rests upon the willingness of our creditors to continue to put more billions of dollars “on the tab.” In addition, our economy – all of it -- depends totally on the energy supply that “the outside world” consents to sell us.

    At any time, an “Alliance of the Fed-Up” can decide to cut off our credit line and/or pull our energy plug from the wall socket. George Bush and his gang of usurpers don’t seem to realize this.

    Gawd help us all when the rest of the world comes to appreciate its leverage, and begins to look mischievously at that wall socket.

    Copyright 2003 by Ernest Partridge
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 15.02.03 18:46:44
    Beitrag Nr. 20 (8.623.095)


    News Item: When Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared at the United Nations ... February 5, to argue that Iraq had not complied with UN demands to disarm and poses an imminent threat, UN officials closed the curtain -- literally -- on Pablo Picasso`s Guernica, the most widely known artistic interpretation of war. (BuzzFlash.com, [link] February 7, 2003).

    Artistic Sign Language: Signs of the Coming Bush Fall

    Bernard Weiner
    Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
    February 13, 2003

    Sign is symbol, symbol is sign. Consider:

    *Powell goes to the United Nations so that the missile attacks on Baghdad and Basra can begin -- and, in the lobby of that grand building, Picasso`s "Guernica" painting, which depicts the horrific results of the Nazi bombing of that Spanish town, is covered over prior to Powell`s arrival. No use embarrassing the U.S. by reminding folks of what`s in store for Iraqi civilians.

    *Ashcroft, in his police-state zeal, begins shredding the Constitution`s Bill of Rights with its guarantees of due-process of law, and, early on, has the huge lobby statue of the Goddess of Justice draped and covered over because of its exposed breast. How appropriate to shroud Justice so that she can`t see what`s being done in her name.

    *First Lady Laura Bush cancels a poetry workshop at the White House because she suspects that a number of America`s high-profile poets, in the sacred grounds of that seat of power, will raise the issue of the coming war with Iraq.

    Did you notice the thread that unites these events? In all three cases, symbolic shrouds are placed over art, so that nobody will notice the bad things that are being done in American citizens` names.

    But art knows. Art sees beyond, often before the general public is aware of what`s going on. (Often before the artists themselves are conscious of what they`re revealing.) Art points us in new directions that make us think and
    question.

    To those inclined more to rigid-order mentality, art is a virus that needs to be stamped out, or, at the least, tightly controlled. ("When I hear the word culture," said Nazi leader Goebbels, "I reach for my revolver.")

    It`s all part of the so-called "cultural civil war." Those who control the signs and symbols control the polity. Thus, minions are trotted out to denounce artists and their tendency to look for complexity, ironies, hypocrisies, hidden humor. To incipient fascists, the world is a Manichean one, divided into black and white, those who are Good and those who are Evil ("You`re either for us or against us").

    And since they are certain that God obviously favors their side, it follows that those in opposition -- or even (or especially) those who point the way to other visions of complex reality -- are part of the enemy forces and must
    be dealt with.

    One problem with authoritarianism -- whatever brand comes along: Stalin`s communism, or Hitler`s fascism, or Islamic Talibanism, or whatever we`re moving into in America right now -- is that it makes art more delicious and tempting. The public is not dumb and eventually comes to figure out that the "truth" being propounded by the frightened rulers does not match the world most citizens actually live in. And so they begin to seek out and support art and artists and, most of all, comedians -- those sly artisans, those holy fools, that can shake the foundations of power with a well-aimed dart.

    Musicians, playwrights, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, novelists, filmmakers, online satirists, comics -- everything these artists do in an authoritarian society comes to be seen by the public in the light of the repression visited from above.

    A story to illustrate this point: American avant-garde theater artist George Coates was invited to bring his visual extravaganzas to Poland during the dark times there. One of the huge slide projections used by Coates was of a manhole cover, which image covered the entire staging area. Various human forms emerged from the holes -- i.e., real actors came out of holes in the stage, but, given the projection, they appeared to be emerging from the holes in the manhole cover.

    The audience took this in with rapt silence and then a few brave souls began clapping. Then waves and waves of applause and cheering washed over the actors. Coates was mystified by the audience reaction. Audiences in the U.S. loved this bit of theatrical magic, to be sure, but nothing like this Polish crowd.

    After the show, various Polish theater artists came backstage to talk to Coates and his cast. They nudged Coates in the ribs and whispered their admiration for his willingness to confront the Polish Communist rulers by celebrating the "underground." Yes, what was merely an interesting use of a visual image for Coates was a cunning reference to the underground resistance of a budding Solidarity movement. After a few attempts at explaining himself, Coates simply smiled and nodded as the Poles heaped praise on his revolutionary "political" art.

    Art has power. Art unmasks. Art tells lies in the service of truth. (Whereas governments lie in order to conceal truth.)

    The more lies authoritarian governments tell their citizens, the more a sub rosa consciousness bubbles up from the culture`s artists and then from its ordinary citizens. It`s a slow-growing and, at times, dangerous movement -- which is why the forces of reaction try so hard to stomp on it -- but it is an amazingly strong and vital and resilient force.

    Because totalitarian governments rest on fake foundations, when those regimes fall, they fall with amazing quickness and ferocity. One day there`s a wall, the next day it`s torn down and the celebrations begin. One day there is officially sanctioned art, the next day those huge statues are toppled. One day, the culture arbiters and censors are in control, the next day they are in disgrace -- or in jail.

    Americans, still gripped by fear from 9/11, have tended to be in a state of animated numbness, putting up little resistance to the machinations of the authoritarian rulers. Similarly, out of great sympathy for the post-9/11United States, various nations around the world bowed to the wishes of the Bush government.

    Bush&Co., meeting little resistance, interpreted this relative lack of opposition as full support for their programs, foreign and domestic. And so they`ve continued to want more, tighten the screws more, reach and then over-reach for more. Their motto and guiding principle seems to be: "We can`t be stopped, so let`s just go take it all."

    Suddenly, though, Bush&Co. are running into overt opposition. Their allies abroad are telling them -- to their face -- that current American policies are mad, wrong, dangerous. More and more conservative allies at home are warning the Bush Administration that their dash toward imperial rule abroad and draconian Constitution-shredding at home is a violation of what America stands for, and will bring the United States (and, given the economic interweavings between nations, much of the world as well) nothing but disaster.

    The current U.S. rulers will not alter their course. It`s war with Iraq, full speed ahead and to hell with the rest of you -- especially ignorant "old Europe," and American dissidents at home. It`s a proposed extension of the so-called USA Patriot Act, to give the federal government even more martial-law-like police powers in controlling the society -- the "cover" is hunting for terrorists, of course -- and to hell with the protections
    guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

    These Bush&Co. leaders are so arrogant, so rude, so greedy and power-hungry, so taken with themselves as God`s mesengers and as the world`s only Superpower, so convinced they are right in the tunnel-vision black-and-white world they inhabit, that it`s clear their days are numbered. It may take a bit longer to build to critical mass -- and there is going to be death and destruction and persecution while that momentum is being built up -- but when the time for their fall arrives, it`s going to be quick and nasty. And we`ll finally all wake up from this nightmare that has crushed our economy, diminished our moral light in the world, disgraced our beloved Constitution and country.

    And at the vanguard of this movement away from the shadow America and back into the light will be our our poets, our comedians, our painters, our playwrights, our novelists, and so on -- "dangerous" artists all, even when they`re not political. They simply see too much, too clearly.

    A toast to their hungry vision.#

    Copyright 2003 by Bernard Weiner
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 00:03:56
    Beitrag Nr. 21 (8.625.657)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 00:12:02
    Beitrag Nr. 22 (8.625.701)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 00:43:36
    Beitrag Nr. 23 (8.625.864)
    Ein Thema:Duct Tape(von Henkel)

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 00:48:23
    Beitrag Nr. 24 (8.625.883)



    WHO WAS THE WORST IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

    To commemorate Presidents` Day Weekend 2003, MWO is sponsoring a special write-in survey, posing the perennial question: Who was the worst White House occupant in American history?

    We present some of the lowlights of five men generally held as among the very worst, just to jog your memory. Write in with your pick, and the reasons why you picked him

    It`s educational! It`s historical! What`s more, it`s fun for the whole family! Send in your pick today!!

    John Adams

    --Alien and Sedition Acts
    --Quasi-War with France
    --Led What Jefferson Called a "Reign of Witches"

    James Buchanan

    --Doughface Democrat, Truckled to Pro-Slavery Radicals
    --Backed pro-Slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas
    --Did Nothing During Secession Crisis

    Warren G. Harding

    --Teapot Dome Scandal
    --Cronyism of Ohio Gang

    Herbert Hoover

    --Economic Policies Worsened Early Stages of Great Depression
    --Went On to Demonize New Deal, Back Ultra-Right Obstructionists

    George W. Bush

    --Radical Economic Policies Threaten New Depression
    --Failed Quasi-War on Terrorism
    --Repressive Legislation on Civil, Personal Rights
    --Efforts to Destroy Social Security, Medicare
    --Efforts to Demonize, Destroy NATO, UN: New Unilateralism
    --Right-Wing Court Packing Scheme
    --Largest Federal Deficit in U.S. History
    --Neo-Confederate Appointees to Cabinet, Federal Courts

    We think you`ll agree that we`ve scraped the bottom of the White House barrel here, folks. But we want to know who had truly been the very worst, the lowest of the low.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 00:55:33
    Beitrag Nr. 25 (8.625.914)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 16.02.03 01:19:31
    Beitrag Nr. 26 (8.626.050)
    Lost Weekend
    How the junta uses idiocy to hide fiascos
    by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
    02/14/03
    http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/VRWC/lostweekend.htm
    Yeah, America’s probably had worse weekends than the one just past. There was the time the Brits burned down Washington, for instance. That wasn’t too good. There was that time the south American mob almost greased Nixon. Most Americans found that pretty upsetting, although if they knew then what we know now, they might have been routing for the mob. There was the Tet offensive, and when the My Lai story broke. Pearl Harbor. Various civil war battles.

    This weekend was different. No howling mobs, no cities in flames, no shots being fired. And we can all take solace in the fact that this time around, Nixon is still dead. The man most responsible for turning American politics into the vicious reactionary circus we see today is dead. There’s that, at least.

    Now, the set backs for America were in the quiet and cloistered halls of the diplomatic community, that realm of colorless little men discussing the unspeakable in calm and placid tones.

    It started with Colin Powell’s UN address. Even as he was giving it, the story broke that a British "white paper" which was supposed to be an up-to-date risk analysis of Iraq’s capabilities, and one on which Powell was basing much of his argument, was in fact stale data largely plagiarized from a position paper written by a grad student some twelve years earlier. Another big element of Powell’s testimony, a chemical weapons lab in Iraq run by al Qaida elements (and one which Powell himself admitted was in a part of Iraq not under Saddam’s control) was opened to the media by gleeful militia types. It turned out to be a ramshackle collection of shacks without plumbing and with only a generator for electrical power. Oops. Later in the week, it came to light that the administration told the media the previous August that they had examined the facility, and had concluded that it was, in fact, too primitive to be capable of any significant military purpose. So Powell not only looked foolish, but he was proven a liar. Double oops.

    Powell was the token decent guy in this administration. The resident bums fared much worse.

    Rumsfeld, for example, got a dressing down from the German Foreign Minister. Just so there could be no mistake, the minister addressed Rumsfeld personally, in English. He said, "...in a democracy, you have to make a case, and you have not made your case. You have not convinced me."

    Mild enough, except for the little jibe about how people do things in a Democracy. Well, it would be understandable if Rummy needed reminding.

    Rummy had just enough brains to realize that the minister had taken a shot at him. He was openly livid, and for a moment, I wondered if he was going to jump up and start a fistfight.

    That would have been entertaining.

    Instead, he snarled that Germany and France were "old Europe" (Spain and Italy are apparently "new Europe"), which didn’t mean much except that Rumsfeld is an ignoramus who makes empty insults when frustrated in negotiations. Just the sort of guy you want representing your country, right?

    Rummy and the rest of the administration forgot one little detail about the UN and diplomats in general. They exist for the main purpose of trying to AVOID war. This little nicety seems to have eluded the semi-literate stumblebum in the white house, and his handlers are too ideological to notice little things like that.

    So when France and Germany proposed a peaceful way of bringing Saddam to heel, the Americans went right out of their tiny little minds.

    The French and German proposal, which would be competing in the Security Council with the American demand to simply start bombing the hell out of Baghdad, was to triple the number of inspectors in Iraq, and station 150,000 UN troops there. This would give the Putsch junta the constraints and guarantees on Saddam that they claim is what they want, and pretty much finish off Saddam’s schemes, such as they are.

    That’s when the Americans pretty much came unraveled. From across the blasted and desolate wasteland of the American right came a huge chorus of vituperation and insults, the like of which hasn’t been seen in years. Ranking members of the administration, Senators, and Congressmen joined the trashiest of talk show hosts in calling the French cowards and appeasers, and comparing the Germans to the Nazis. Rumsfeld, apparently with no sense of irony, said the UN risked "ridicule and discredit." He didn’t say who was going to discredit them – it certainly wasn’t going to be the juvenile clowns of the Putsch junta.

    This so impressed Belgium that they were the first of three countries to vote to hold off on sending UN troops to defend Turkey. This was a lynchpin of the US/UK efforts to get good staging areas around Iraq. The Turkish government, mindful of the unpopularity of the American stance among its own people, and concerned that Saddam might lash out at Turkey, or that Kurds might engage in an uprising in both Northern Iraq and southern Turkey after the fall of Saddam, had demanded UN protection, along with guarantees from Britain to help get the financially wobbly Turkey into the European Union.

    The right wing response here pretty much pushed American-German relations to a level not seen since 1945. The Republicans pulled out a memorable line about the French that was uttered on the cartoon show "The Simpsons," and characterized the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys." This succeeded in simultaneously delighting and appalling the British media, who never think there’s a situation so grim that they can’t set aside a few moments to make fun of the French.

    I wouldn’t say this particular overture greased the skids with the French. They probably aren’t going to be real helpful when the Security Council meets over the next few days.

    It probably wouldn’t have made much difference. China, Syria and Germany are all going to veto it anyway, and there’s a pretty good chance the Russians might, too.

    Which means Putsch acts unilaterally, with all that entails.

    The Republicans know that with their followers, the best way to distract from the fact that they just made fools of themselves is to come up with something truly idiotic and scary. So they bumped Tom Ridges’ color bar up to Orange (It falls between yellow, which is "poke under your bed with a broom handle before getting in" and red, which is "Shit! We’re all gonna DIE!!!" and is officially classified as "Ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit!") They made a big production of placing stinger missile launchers around the capital, deployed a whole bunch of cops, and in a genius burst of staged idiocy, sonorously warned everyone that if they hoped to survive what might come, they should seal their homes with plastic sheeting and duct tape.

    This might be the single most idiotic suggestion an administration has made to the public since the time the Reagan administration advised one and all that nuclear war was quite survivable – all you had to do was dig a hole, get in it, pull a board over yourself, and pile three feet of dirt on top of the board. (The actual mechanics of this were left unexplained). It seems that the three feet of dirt is what really turns the trick, and with it, you can handle a direct hit from a 10 megaton warhead, no problem.)

    The administration didn’t explain whether it was the plastic sheeting or the duct tape that was going to save you from the big whatever, but in a reaction reminiscent of the Orson Welles panic, thousands of people ran out and cleared the hardware shelves of duct tape and plastic sheeting. It’s been cold in Washington. Carbon monoxide might present a problem in those sealed homes that Republican loyalists are creating.

    As Larry Niven says, Think of it as evolution in action.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:08:04
    Beitrag Nr. 27 (8.640.623)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:10:16
    Beitrag Nr. 28 (8.640.631)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:16:39
    Beitrag Nr. 29 (8.640.683)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:26:42
    Beitrag Nr. 30 (8.640.744)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:42:32
    Beitrag Nr. 31 (8.640.858)
    Aus der New York Times

    By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
    Certainly, fuel cells that use renewable resources like wind and solar power to extract hydrogen from water promise America a safe, clean energy solution. However, in a sop to the energy industry, the White House wants to extract hydrogen instead from coal and natural gas (without controlling carbon emissions), thereby increasing global warming and fouling our landscape. Worse, the president wants to build a new generation of nuclear power plants specifically for hydrogen production.

    The president`s hydrogen plan will further reduce our national commitment to renewables by cutting our already anemic financing for research into wind, solar and other energy-saving technologies.

    Fuel cells offer bright prospects but it will be 10 to 20 years before economical hydrogen vehicles are on the road. Meanwhile, Americans are buying 17 million new cars, trucks and S.U.V.`s a year — vehicles that could be much more fuel efficient. It`s no secret that right now we have the technology to make cars that get better mileage and pollute less. But the administration has repeatedly scuttled efforts to put these innovations in place, fighting tougher fuel economy standards for all vehicles, refusing to compel S.U.V.`s to meet the same mileage standards as cars and creating tax incentives for Americans to buy the largest gas guzzlers. Last week, in an astonishing move, government lawyers joined General Motors and DaimlerChrysler in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that rewards carmakers for selling low-emission, gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.

    Hybrids are just one of the proven technologies that could start saving oil right now. They can increase fuel economy 50 percent, and never need plugging in. Other technologies that can lift fuel economy include more advanced transmissions; improved engine and valve train design; and tires that promote fuel-efficiency. Available now, these solutions won`t be widely used until Washington gets serious about the arithmetic of oil security: we use a quarter of the world`s oil, yet we have only 3 percent of the known reserves.

    Requiring cars to average 40 miles per gallon by 2012 would save nearly 2 million barrels a day; that`s more than we imported from Saudi Arabia last year, and three times our Iraq imports. Raise that to 55 miles per gallon by 2020, and daily savings grow to nearly 5 million barrels, almost twice our current Persian Gulf imports.

    We have an oil security problem and we have an air pollution problem. We also have the technology to fix these problems — if only we would have the will to use it
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:43:49
    Beitrag Nr. 32 (8.640.871)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 17.02.03 23:57:22
    Beitrag Nr. 33 (8.640.995)
    Hawks should let God stand down

    02/16/03




    Help me out on this one, please: Whose side is God on?

    In his taped broadcast last week, Osama bin Laden re peatedly invoked the name of God in urging Iraq to rise up against the American "Crusaders," a not-so-veiled link to Pope Urban II`s declaration in 1095 of a "Holy War" or Crusade to rout the Muslims and to reclaim Palestine for the Christian faith.

    Bin Laden made it clear that God is on the side of the Muslim world, urging Iraqis to "fight the allies of the devil." He warned that President George W. Bush wants to install a Baghdad regime run by Israel and the United States "in preparation for the establishment of greater Israel, God forbid."

    Distancing himself from Iraq`s secular ruler, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden directed that "the fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq. Victory is from God alone. . . ."

    Saddam has a reputation for reveling in women and wine, not to mention acts of cruelty against his own people, but that does not deter him from proclaiming that God is on his side.

    Saddam rails against "the hopeless cowardly Americans . . . hiding behind a technological advance that God, most gracious, wanted to be their curse and cause for shame," and tells his troops that God sees war against the West as "a source of honor, pride, glory and blessing for you in this life and the hereafter."

    No matter how many times Saddam pays tribute to "God, the most gracious, the most merciful," he is no match for our president in the God-fearing department. Bush, who credits Jesus with enabling him to kick a heavy drinking habit, has infused the presidency with an evangelical fervor unrivaled in American history.

    Bush was introduced at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville last week as a man who "unapologetically proclaims his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Bush dismissed any doubts that the Prince of Peace might not look kindly on a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, saying such an attack would be "in the highest moral traditions of our country."

    The Washington Post reported that many of the broadcasters said Bush was divinely chosen to lead the country during its trials, an interpretation that the president does not shy from.

    In a speech to a joint session of Congress shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, the president confidently assured the country that God is on our side.

    "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain," he said. "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war. And we know that God is not neutral between them." He called bin Laden "the evil one," a term synonymous with the devil.

    Bush`s attorney general, John Ashcroft, the son and grandson of Pentecostal preachers, echoed the boss` words in his speech to the religious broadcasters a year ago, describing "a conflict between those who believe that God grants us choice and those who seek to impose their choices on us . . . a conflict between good and evil." He said God has no trouble picking between the two.

    In an interview with syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, Ashcroft went further, saying, "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you."

    When American Muslims objected, Ashcroft said his reported remarks "do not accurately reflect what I believe I said." But Thomas said he had cleared the quotation with Ashcroft beforehand.

    Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and President Bush are hardly the first to claim God as an ally. No less a beast than Adolph Hitler, in "Mein Kampf," unabashedly wrote, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

    The Rev. Jerry Falwell at first blamed the 9/11 attacks on liberal decadence in America, saying that God was punishing those who promote abortion and homosexuality.

    Later, in an apparent attempt to redeem himself, he tried a different tack, suggesting that the terrorists were following the misguided teachings of Mohammed, himself "a terrorist . . . a violent man, a man of war."

    Come to think of it, instead of arguing over whose side God is on, the world would be better off if the all-too-human instigators of war would leave God out of it.

    Brazaitis, formerly a Plain Dealer senior editor, is a Washington columnist.

    Contact Tom Brazaitis at:

    tbrazaitis@starpower.net, 202-638-1366
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 00:01:01
    Beitrag Nr. 34 (8.641.048)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 00:37:53
    Beitrag Nr. 35 (8.641.426)
    Der Guardian berichtet, dass Saddam mit dem Euro viel Geld verdient hat, indem er im Oktober 2002 Öl für Euro verkauft hat zu 0,82$.

    SADDAM SELLS OIL FOR EUROS, ONLY "A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar - `the currency of the enemy` - for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time....`It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade is conducted in dollars,` says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme. " 2.17.03
    guardian
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 00:54:43
    Beitrag Nr. 36 (8.641.645)
    Nun geht Bush auf die Straße und singt: "Give war a chance!"



    http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/warachance.h…
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 11:12:38
    Beitrag Nr. 37 (8.643.921)
    Ein seltsames Geschenk, ob Tony sich mit 12 Flaschen schottischem Whisky bedankt hat.

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 11:15:13
    Beitrag Nr. 38 (8.643.952)
    Ein Mann ein Wort


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 11:35:07
    Beitrag Nr. 39 (8.644.168)
    The Inpedendent

    Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America


    In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as "intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.

    No wonder, then, that Hans Blix`s blunt refutation of America`s "intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the untrustworthy "allies" they have become.

    The British don`t like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.

    Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, is now sending America`s poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw, the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss the dark political agenda behind George Bush`s government, nor the "sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the President.

    Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they`ve biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included – though we play down the RAF`s use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons – and many Americans – are a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children.

    Perhaps Henry VIII`s exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.

    Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a burning, fearsome wound to which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union speech – but even Blair can`t get away with that one; hence his "conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take part via video-link because Israel`s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to let them travel to London.

    So much for Blair`s influence over Washington – the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn`t persuade Sharon to change his mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon – war criminal though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres – treated Blair with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an office in Baghdad.

    Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa`ida men who support violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America`s way of giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder against the Chechens, just as Bush`s odd remark to the UN General Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq`s Turkomans only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq`s largest oil fields.

    The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush`s most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President. And they weren`t doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel`s monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

    Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell`s UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations` objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

    The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld`s snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolise the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.

    In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-sought-after second UN resolution. UN permission for America`s war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union`s abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that – after a quick US military conquest of Iraq and providing `they" die more than we die – there will be plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along. The first pictures of "liberated" Baghdad will show Iraqi children making victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of this conflict will become evident as soon as the "war" ends, when our colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.

    There lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace". But Sharon fears he may yet face trial over Sabra and Chatila, which is why Israel has just withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I`d like to see Saddam in the same court. And Rifaat Assad for his 1982 massacre in the Syrian city of Hama. And all the torturers of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.

    Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an eternal war against "terror". And the British and most Europeans don`t believe him. It`s not that Britons wouldn`t fight for America. They just don`t want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don`t want to fight for Blair either.
    18 February 2003 11:15



    Printable Story
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 11:52:56
    Beitrag Nr. 40 (8.644.337)


    Currently, less than half of the American public thinks that leaders of countries around the world have respect for President Bush.



    Do you think leaders of other countries around the world have respect for George W. Bush, or do you think they don`t have much respect for him?



    ± 3% Margin of Error
    February 3-6, 2003
    Sample Size= 1,001
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 11:56:51
    Beitrag Nr. 41 (8.644.380)
    British Prime Minister`s Popularity Drops by 14 Percent in New Poll
    The Associated Press
    Published: Feb 17, 2003




    LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair`s popularity has slumped amid concern over the Iraq crisis, according to an opinion poll published Monday.
    The British prime minister was rated as satisfactory by only 35 percent of respondents to an ICM Survey for The Guardian newspaper. The figure was down from 49 percent a month earlier.

    Fifty-five percent said they were dissatisfied, up 12 points from January. The other 10 percent expressed no opinion.

    Blair is staking his political future on backing the United States against Iraq, despite considerable opposition from Britons to war without United Nations backing.

    An estimated 750,000 peace demonstrators marched in London on Saturday as part of a global anti-war protest. Politicians, trade unionists and some British newspapers said Sunday that Blair will risk his political future if he ignores the protests.

    According to the poll, 52 percent of respondents oppose a war with Iraq, up five percentage points from last month. The poll did not indicate if that opposition depended on U.N. backing for military action. Twenty-nine percent said they would support military action, down one point.

    Support for Blair`s governing Labor Party fell from 43 percent to 39 percent, according to the survey. Support for the main opposition Conservative Party, however, rose only one percentage point to 31 percent, as it did for the Liberal Democrats, which stood at 22 percent.

    ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults by telephone on Feb. 14-16. The margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.

    AP-ES-02-17-03 1751EST
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 18.02.03 12:08:01
    Beitrag Nr. 42 (8.644.510)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 19.02.03 15:16:00
    Beitrag Nr. 43 (8.659.357)
    Das Imperium schlägt zurück

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 19.02.03 15:19:21
    Beitrag Nr. 44 (8.659.386)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 01:03:16
    Beitrag Nr. 45 (8.665.657)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 14:34:01
    Beitrag Nr. 46 (8.669.769)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 14:36:39
    Beitrag Nr. 47 (8.669.791)
    ROBERT STEINBACK

    `Why war?` needs answer




    Let`s make clear what the impending war in Iraq is not.

    It is not a war to liberate the Iraqi people.

    More than a few hawks are putting forth this fiction to soothe the sting of what war really would be: History`s first instance of America choosing to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that poses little discernible threat to this country or our allies.

    The liberation hawks were inspired by President Bush, who, in his State of the Union message, referred to an America willing to make a ``sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.``

    This is breathtaking sophistry. We`re going to liberate a population by killing them? How many Iraqi deaths have we decided are worth sacrificing for Iraq`s freedom -- 500? 50,000? More?

    It reminds me of the wicked line from the animated movie Shrek in which Lord Farquad tells the knights competing for the chance to rescue Princess Fiona from the fire-breathing dragon, ``Some of you may die, but it`s a price I`m willing to pay.``

    The liberation claim is part of the convoluted stew of rationalizations that the Bush administration has cooked up to obscure what is nothing less than the abdication of the very principles of peace, justice and law upon which America was founded.

    We`ve been told we`re going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven`t located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn`t care about before Sept. 11.

    Which is it? It doesn`t matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above.

    It`s the absence of a clear rationale for war that inspired millions of demonstrators around the world to voice their opposition over the weekend. It should be noted that nothing of the sort was seen prior to the Gulf War, because the reasons for war were evident to all, and because the world acted in concert to reverse Iraqi aggression.

    It`s a fair assertion that the Iraqis would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, even before considering if any alternatives might be worse.

    But it isn`t up to the United States to decide when a people must be freed. A people`s liberation -- especially from an oppressor spawned from within, like Hussein -- isn`t something for outsiders to choose or impose. The agitation for liberation must first come from the oppressed people themselves.

    When a population has decided on its own to make such a sacrifice, the door then opens for outside support. Yet even as American ``liberators`` gather on Iraq`s doorstep, one hears little enthusiasm from the Iraqis for the coming conflagration.

    Pre-Dubya America placed its faith in peacefully exporting the ideals of democracy, liberty, capitalism and self-determination, concepts that inspired lovers of freedom the world over to accept the risks of challenging oppressors. Now, no matter what guise we adopt, the United States in Iraq will be an invading army bent on reshaping a foreign land to suit our own purposes.

    Hawkish syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer cut through the lame liberation rationalizations to make exactly this case for war. In his column in the Feb. 17 edition of Time, Krauthammer argues that post-Sept. 11 America should use its military power to reshape troublesome parts of the world: ``A de-Saddamized Iraq . . . would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas,`` he wrote.

    In an Internet piece, he was more direct: ``It`s about reforming the Arab world . . . We haven`t attempted it so far. The attempt will begin with Iraq.``

    This is the same reasoning used by such notables as Adolf Hitler and General Tojo, who used military invasion to reform Europe and the Pacific to suit their own purposes. As distasteful as these parallels may seem, the question must be asked: What makes our rationale for invasion any different?

    Haven`t we abandoned American ideals the moment we attempt to impose them by force?






    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    © 2003 The Miami Herald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 21:07:53
    Beitrag Nr. 48 (8.675.609)
    President Bush`s Ratings Fall Sharply




    President`s Ratings Now 52% Positive, 46% Negative

    Colin Powell Now the Only Cabinet Member or Political Leader with
    Very High Ratings

    ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The last two months have taken a
    heavy toll on the president`s popularity, but a modest 52% to 46% majority
    still gives him positive ratings. Two months ago, almost two-thirds of all
    U.S. adults (64%) gave the president positive ratings and only just over a
    third (35%) gave him negative ratings.
    Other members of President Bush`s cabinet, as well as the parties in
    Congress and Congressional leaders, with one exception, have all seen a huge
    decline in their popularity since the very high numbers we recorded soon after
    September 11, 2001. The one exception is Secretary of State Colin Powell. He
    still enjoys an extraordinarily high degree of popularity, with 76% giving him
    positive ratings and only 21% giving him negative ratings. These numbers are
    fractionally better than they were in December 2002, perhaps because of his
    powerful recent testimony to the United Nations Security Council.
    While none of the other leaders has seen as big declines since last
    December as President Bush has, their numbers, nonetheless, are all down very
    substantially since their peak soon after September 11, 2001.
    Including results from the latest poll, we see the following declines in
    popularity since soon after September 11, 2001:

    * President Bush down from 88% to 52%, a decline of 36 points.
    * Secretary of State Colin Powell down from 88% to 76%, a decline of 12
    points.
    * Vice President Dick Cheney down from 69% to 45%, a decline of 24
    points.
    * Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld down from 78% to 56%, a decline of
    22 points.
    * Attorney General John Ashcroft down from 65% to 51%, a decline of 14
    points.
    * House Speaker Dennis Hastert down from 52% to 33%, a decline of 19
    points.
    * The Republicans in Congress down from 67% to 43%, a decline of 24
    points.
    * The Democrats in Congress down from 68% to 38%, a decline of 30 points.

    These are some of the results of The Harris Poll(R), a nationwide
    telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive(R) among a sample of 1,010
    adults, from February 12 to 16, 2003.


    Mehr unter:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=CMPTW_inte…
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 21:18:24
    Beitrag Nr. 49 (8.675.820)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 21:21:09
    Beitrag Nr. 50 (8.675.881)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 20.02.03 21:27:32
    Beitrag Nr. 51 (8.676.022)
    February 20, 2003

    COMMENTARY

    This Road to Hell Is Paved With Bush`s Bad Choices
    Misguided tax cuts hurt the economy, and diplomatic bungling resulted in our foreign policy crisis.


    By John B. Judis, John B. Judis is senior editor of the New Republic.

    With the Cold War`s end, many Americans thought we could close our air raid shelters and take the trillions of dollars that had gone into the military and put them into making our lives better by turning toward the pursuit of happiness rather than the defense of our liberty.

    And some of that did happen in the last half of the 1990s, during the Clinton-era boom. But only three years into a new century, the United States finds itself plagued by rising unemployment, soaring budget deficits, constricted civil liberties, the threat of terrorist attack and the prospect of a war with, and occupation of, Iraq. We`ve gone from the best of times to the worst of times.

    The Bush administration tells us that it is entirely because of Al Qaeda and now Saddam Hussein that we face these difficulties, but the dark clouds that hang over our country are largely the result of Bush administration policies.

    Take the economy. Sure, an economic downturn was inevitable after the speculative excesses of the `90s, and 9/11 certainly hurt airlines and hotels. But the Bush policies of enormous tax cuts directed at the most wealthy, and equally large increases in military spending, will prolong the current slump well through the decade, leaving large deficits just as baby boomers begin to retire.

    The nation won`t necessarily be in recession, but it will suffer, as it did during the high-deficit Reagan years, from above-average unemployment and below-average growth. And our vaunted advantage over our industrial competitors will narrow.

    That won`t be because of Osama bin Laden; that will be because of George W. Bush.

    Or take the current prospects of war with Iraq. Bad foreign policy creates bad choices, as in Vietnam in the 1960s. By the time the Iraq issue landed back in the United Nations Security Council this month, Americans had no good options about whether to go to war with Iraq. Doing so could create heavy costs down the road, increase the incidence of terrorism and split our longtime alliances; not doing so could also inspire terrorists and split other longtime alliances.

    But the question is how we got to this dilemma. We got here because of bad choices.

    Al Qaeda was an offshoot of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and of the first Gulf War, after which, through an act of folly, we decided to maintain a major military presence in Saudi Arabia -- creating a rallying point for Al Qaeda without improving Saudi security.

    Though few of Al Qaeda`s recruits came from the clash of Israelis and Palestinians, that conflict remained the single greatest source of instability in the Mideast.

    After 9/11, we had a clear path before us: wage war against Al Qaeda and those regimes that sustained it, while simultaneously waging peace in the Mideast by using our considerable influence to force the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

    The Bush administration did wage war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But instead of seeking negotiations, the administration sided with Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, who responded to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by trying to destroy the Palestinian Authority -- Israel`s only viable negotiating partner. That made it impossible for the U.S. to win anything but grudging support from other Arab governments for our conflict with Iraq, and it also inflamed Islamic radicals.

    As for Iraq, if our initial goal had been the reasonable and important one of preventing Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, there was a host of options that could have been pursued, such as a demand for inspections coupled with the threat of an air campaign against any potential military target.

    If these efforts had failed, their failure would have created far more support for an invasion than currently exists. Instead, the Bush administration began by demanding "regime change," declaring its willingness to fight a preventive war, and sending troops.

    It took the very last, fateful step before it had taken the first. As a result, the troops are there, and we have to use them or risk a credibility crisis.

    We also face the entirely predictable prospect of an enhanced threat from Al Qaeda -- exactly what the Bush policies set out to eliminate. Secretary of State Colin Powell claims that Bin Laden`s latest jeremiad, urging Muslims to commit acts of martyrdom to defend Iraq against the U.S., is evidence of a partnership between Hussein and Bin Laden.

    What it actually shows is that U.S. foreign policy has managed to accomplish the one thing that it should have avoided: bringing into a tacit alliance two people who were previously at each other`s throats and who still hold each other in contempt.

    And, of course, this new threat has spawned new terrorism alerts and instructions to put duct tape on our windows, stock up on canned peaches and watch out for any swarthy-looking foreigners. It also has provided cover for conservative Republicans who want to roll back our environmental laws and privatize Medicare and Social Security.

    We are on a fast train to hell, and the question is when the American people are going to decide they want to get off.


    Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
    By visiting this site, you are agreeing to our Terms of Service.
    Privacy Policy
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 21.02.03 00:50:36
    Beitrag Nr. 52 (8.678.767)
    What Is Really Driving The Bush Administration’s Desire For War With Iraq?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By: Jason Leopold - 02/19/03



    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.

    This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration’s desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush’s future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

    In 1998, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were working in the private sector. Both were involved with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to promote global leadership and dictate American foreign policy.

    While Clinton was dealing with the worldwide threat from Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz wrote to Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein from power because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Jan 26, 1998 letter sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.

    “We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” says the letter. “In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”

    “We urge you to turn your Administration`s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam`s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council,” says the letter.

    The full contents of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz letter can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    Clinton rebuffed the advice from the future Bush Administration officials saying he was focusing his attention on dismantling Al-Qaeda cells, according to a copy of the response Clinton sent to Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol.

    Unsatisfied with Clinton’s response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998 to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott saying that the United States should “establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.”

    “We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein`s claim to be Iraq`s legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal,” says the letter to Gingrich and Lott. “U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein`s regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime.”

    The letter to Gingrich and Lott can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

    The White House would not comment on the letters or whether Rumsfield and Wolfowitz possessed any intelligence information that suggested Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time. The letters offered no hard evidence that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

    The Clinton aide said the former President believed that the policy of “containing Saddam Hussein in a box” was successful and that the Iraqi regime did not pose any threat to U.S. interests at the time.

    President Clinton “never considered war with Iraq an option,” the former aide said. “We were encouraged by the UN weapons inspectors and believed they had a good handle on the situation.”

    Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol, however, disagreed; saying the only way to deal with Hussein was by initiating a full-scale war.

    “The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months,” Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol wrote in their letter to Clinton. “As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”

    Those alleged threats posed by Iraq and the advice Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol first offered the attention of the Clinton Administration five years ago have now become the blueprint for how the Bush Administration is dealing with the Iraq.

    The existence of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz “war” letters is just another reason to question the Bush Administration’s desire to go to war with Iraq now instead of dealing with other pressing issues such as Al-Qaeda. Because the letters were written in 1998 it proves that this war was planned well before 9-11 and casts further doubt on the claims that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

    http://fp.enter.net/~haney/j4.htm
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 21.02.03 00:54:27
    Beitrag Nr. 53 (8.678.782)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 16:06:26
    Beitrag Nr. 54 (8.694.774)
    Bush Gives You The Finger
    Millions worldwide rally against Dubya`s oily little war -- not that he gives a damn
    By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
    Friday, February 21, 2003
    ©2003 SF Gate

    URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/




    And then there`s the one about the smirky war-happy oil-drunk American president who shrugged off the disdain of pretty much the entire world and humiliated us all on a global scale and went ahead and blasted the living hell out of an otherwise worthless oil-rich nation with no real proof of serious wrongdoing and for no justifiable reason, except for the oil and the power and for Daddy and for the face-saving faux-macho pride, and the oil.

    This is the guy. This is the president who cares not a whit that just last weekend, over a million people rallied in London -- the largest political gathering of any kind in British history -- to protest his (and Tony Blair`s) little multibillion-dollar war.

    Or that 500,000 gathered at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, chanting slogans against his fearmongering ego, or that another 500,000 attempted to gather for a huge protest near the U.N. building in New York but, lacking a permit, were partially blocked by police.

    This is the smirky Texas executioner-president who looked on while even in God-thumping pro-family ultraconservative Colorado Springs, Colo., land of the Born Agains and the heavily uptight, police fired tear gas into a crowd of war protesters, even though children were in an adjacent playground. Isn`t that nice? And Christian? Shrub just shrugs. Damn hippies. God bless America.

    And, really, who cares about the huge protests in Amsterdam, Brussels, Barcelona, Melbourne, Paris, Rome, Berlin, San Francisco, Seoul, Tokyo and at least 600 other cities all over the world last week? We`ve got a bogus war to fabricate here, people. And an environment to gouge. An economy to gut. Busy, busy.

    And, besides, were any of those horrified protesters petrochemical CEOs? Military-supply execs? Members of Bush Sr.`s draconian Carlyle Group? Colleagues of the ShrubCo cabal of neo-conservative gangster executives who stand to rake in billions when we go to war? No they were not. Screw `em.

    Tough numbers to deny, nonetheless. Over 600 cities across the globe, all staging major anti-war rallies against America`s aggro attitude and insipid war posture, millions and millions of people -- teachers and salespeople and politicians and doctors and students and workers, every creed and gender and age group and nationality and hairstyle -- and yet Geedubya simply equates them all with some sort of negligible "focus group."

    And he said he doesn`t base his policy decisions on focus groups, of course, because naturally he uses Barbie`s Super Magic 8 Ball and old secret codes from his Vietnam draft-dodging days intermixed with his father`s late-night gin-soaked advice and a cassette of Dick Cheney whispering demon-conjuring incantations in Latin. I mean, really, how else can you explain it?

    This is the president who "respectfully disagrees" with just about everyone on the planet, with the almost universally held and repeatedly proven fact that Saddam isn`t the slightest threat to the U.S. and never really has been, nor that he had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, with that sort of respect, who needs a bloody violent skull bludgeoning? Can I get a hell-yeah?

    This is the president who scowled his super-duper scariest scowl at Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, as Blix calmly and rationally rebuffed everything a flustered Colin Powell could throw at him during the U.S. plea before the U.N. Security Council to please please please let America launch all our big new bombs and shiny cool expensive Lockheed Martin planes and then arm up 180,000 of America`s poor and have them go kill a half-million scary Iraqi people and destabilize an entire continent even further, please please oh pretty please.

    U.N. inspectors, Blix reiterated for the 20th time, have found next to nothing. All those buildings in Powell`s super-top-secret satellite photos? Empty. Nuclear factories? Nada. All those terrifying WMDs? Almost nonexistent.

    Can you smell it? This is when all that pro-war WWII-style jingoism starts to reek, its fumes just a little sour, a little venomous and toxic and soul curdling. Or that could just be Rumsfeld`s cologne. Eau du Warhead.

    A touching side story: J. Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House and noted hunk of conservative sweating Muenster cheese, was actually considering legislation to ban French wine and bottled water -- for "health reasons," he said, and not because France has smartly dissed poor Shrub on the whole bogus-war thing. Isn`t that cute? Hastert claimed that some French wine is clarified using cow blood. Hee. Oh Dennis. As the kids say, are you high?

    Hastert also reportedly claimed that certain molecules in French fries and French toast and French ticklers have perhaps been secretly coded by French porn stars with perverted terrorist messages designed to drive American babies insane and cause massive genital warts on teenagers and SUV owners. Just, you know, something he read. Note to Dennis: hush now.

    But enough with the bit players. Have we seen this sort of thing before? This kind of protest, on this scale? Vietnam rings a rather bitter, and heartbreaking, bell. But that movement had a decidedly different complexion.

    Huge protests, yes, but more localized, organized largely by doomed students, not quite so many millions of "normal" citizens rallying from Spain to Germany to Greece, all on the same day, all holding up signs featuring giant photos of our smirky squinty blank-eyed leader with a big red X over his face.

    And oh yes, upwards of 50,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam. In Iraq, we might suffer, say, two dozen casualties, most from our own mistakes and "friendly fire" (if Desert Storm is any precedent), while we can expect to massacre roughly half a million Iraqis in the first week. Now, that`s patriotic. Would anyone tolerate Shrub`s warmongering if we stood to lose 50,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Hardly. Good thing it`s mostly just innocent foreign civilians and children.

    Which brings us to the latest phony Orange Alert. And all the other astoundingly coincidental announcements of alleged terrorist action threatening the U.S., shrill alarmist rhetoric that, every single time, just so happened to be conveniently timed for just when Shrub was prancing most precariously in the glaring light of general idiocy and ratings slippage.

    Enron scandal: Time for a terror alert. The economy is tanking: Look out! Terrorists! Tax cuts for the rich: Terrorists are in your yard! The U.N. rejects your plea, the whole damn world is against your little war and you need to drum up some additional domestic fear like, pronto, to justify your small-scale megalomania: Stand back, time for a bogus Orange Alert! Coincidence? You do the math.

    This just in: A federal appeals court just decided that Arkansas officials can use drugs to render an insane murderer sane enough to execute. True. Finally, something Geedubya can cheer about. Just like Texas, eh, George? When life was easy and killing them crimnulz was just a flipped switch away? When all you had to deal with were a few dozen ragtag protesters outside the prison, decrying your love of killin` in the name of the state. Shoot. Life sure was simpler then. Damn hippies.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 16:11:06
    Beitrag Nr. 55 (8.694.805)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 16:22:35
    Beitrag Nr. 56 (8.694.864)
    "To justify the indefensible, [Bush] talks about "appeasement" and compares Saddam with Hitler.
    But one of the reasons Hitler was appeased was that he commanded a frightening, nearly invincible
    war machine. It took almost the entire world to defeat him, and it was a close thing at that.
    The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945. Will it take six years to defeat Saddam,
    or six days, or six hours? Whatever his intentions, he has no tanks, no airplanes, no submarines,
    no nothing. Anyone comparing this guy with Hitler has no understanding of how terrible Hitler was.
    --Nicholas von Hoffman, An Imperial Adventure For Anglo-Saxon Powers, observer.com
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 16:38:53
    Beitrag Nr. 57 (8.694.943)
    Art Spiegelman, cartoonist for The New Yorker, resigns in protest at censorship

    Interview, Corriere della Sera (Milan)

    13 February 2003

    Art Spiegelman decided to leave The New Yorker in protest at what he calls "the widespread conformism of the mass media in the Bush era."

    "The decision to leave was mine alone," the author of Maus, (the saga of Jewish mice exterminated by Nazi cats that won him the Pulitzer Prize -- the first ever awarded for a comic book), explained in an interview with Corriere della Sera. "The editor of the The New Yorker, David Remnick, was shocked when I announced my resignation. He attempted to dissuade me. But I told him that the kind of work that I`m now interested in doing is not suited to the present tone of The New Yorker. And seeing that we are living in extremely dangerous times, I don`t feel like stooping to compromise."

    (Q) Do you consider yourself a victim of September 11?

    "Exactly so. From the time that the Twin Towers fell, it seems as if I`ve been living in internal exile, or like a political dissident confined to an island. I no longer feel in harmony with American culture, especially now that the entire media has become conservative and tremendously timid. Unfortunately, even The New Yorker has not escaped this trend: Remnick is unable to accept the challenge, while, on the contrary, I am more and more inclined to provocation."

    (Q) What kind of provocation?

    "I am working on the sixth installment of my new strip, `In the shadow of no tower,` inspired both by memories of September 11 -- on that day, I had just left my apartment, a few steps from the tragedy -- and a present in which one feels equally threatened by both Bush and bin Laden. The series was commissioned by the German newspaper Die Zeit, but here in the USA, only the Jewish magazine The Forward has agreed to publish it."

    (Q) Did you feel snubbed by the refusal of The New Yorker to publish it?

    "Not at all. I knew from the beginning that the tone and content of the strip -- which, at this point in time, is of most importance to me -- were not in harmony with The New Yorker. A wonderful magazine, mind you, with delightful and refined covers, but also incredibly deferential to the present administration. If I were content to draw harmless strips about skateboarding and shopping in Manhattan, there would have been no problem; but, now, my inner life is inflamed with much different issues."

    (Q) For what do you reproach The New Yorker?

    For marching to the same beat as the New York Times and all the other great American media that don`t criticize the government for fear that the administration will take revenge by blocking their access to sources and information. Mass media today is in the hands of a limited group of extremely wealthy owners whose interests don`t coincide at all with those of the average soul living in a country where the gap between rich and poor is now unbridgeable. In this context, all criticism of the administration is automatically branded unpatriotic and un-American. Our media choose to ignore news that in the rest of the world receives wide prominence; if it were not for the Internet, even my view of the world would be extremely limited."

    (Q) Then the Bush revolution has triumphed?

    "Yes. In Reagan`s time, `liberal` was a dirty word and to be accused of such an offense was an insult. In the Bush Jr. era, the radical right so overwhelmingly dominates the debate that the Democrats have all had to move to the right just to be able to continue the conversation."

    (Q) Will The New Yorker be the same without Spiegelman?

    "The New Yorker existed long before I came on board. The great majority of the readers who adore the warm and relaxing bath of their accustomed New Yorker were very upset by the `shock treatment` of my covers. Those readers will feel more at ease with the calm and submissive New Yorker of the tradition which, since the 1920s, mixed intelligence, sophistication, snobbery, and complaisance with the status quo. Every time that I put pencil to paper, I was flooded with letters of protest."

    (Q) Which of your works caused the most controversy?

    "The cover with the atomic bomb issued on the 4th of July. The one from last Thanksgiving where turkies fell from military aircraft. The only one universally well-received was the Sept. 24 cover with the Twin Towers in two-toned black. The censorship of my work began as soon as I first set foot in the magazine, long before the 11th of September."

    (Q) What kind of censorship?

    "Large and small. For the Thanksgiving cover with turkies dropped in the place of bombs, I chose the title `Operation Enduring Turkey` to mimic `Operation Enduring Freedom` then begun by America in Afghanistan. But David Remnick forced me to change the title."

    (Q) Is it possible that the media is more reactionary than their readers?

    "I don`t think so at all, not after reading in the polls that George W. Bush is the most admired man in America. The world I see is very different from what they see. Those who think like me are condemned to the margins because the critical alternative press of the Vietnam War era no longer exists. The NYT chose to remain silent about the enormous protest marches that took place during the summer; and the readers of The Nation, the only major publication with any guts, are at most 50 thousand: that`s nothing in a country as large as ours."

    (Q) What does your wife Francoise Moulay, the artistic director of The New Yorker, think of all this?

    She thinks that I`ve left her at The New Yorker as a hostage, but I don`t think she wants to follow my example. Sometimes, I think I would like to emigrate to Europe; and seeing that in America they won`t even let me smoke, the temptation is very great."

    Q) Your plans after The New Yorker?

    "In May, at the Nuage Gallery in Milano, there will be an exhibition that covers my ten years at The New Yorker. Ten is a better number than eleven and, who knows, perhaps I left the magazine simply because it better suited the book and catalog that accompany the exhibition.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 17:36:24
    Beitrag Nr. 58 (8.695.403)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 17:43:46
    Beitrag Nr. 59 (8.695.438)
    Rumsfeld was on board Of Company That Sold North Korea two nuclear power plants.

    Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, was on the board of technology giant ABB when it won a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants.
    swissinfo February 21, 2003 6:07 PM

    Weapons experts say waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”.

    The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million (SFr270million) contract with Pyongyang.

    The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea’s east coast.

    Rumsfeld – who is one of the Bush administration’s most strident “hardliners” on North Korea – was a member of ABB’s board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post.

    Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld “was at nearly all the board meetings” during his decade-long involvement with the company.

    Maybe, maybe not

    However, he declined to indicate whether Rumsfeld was made aware of the nuclear contract with North Korea.

    “This is a good question, but I couldn’t comment on that because we never disclose the protocols of the board meetings,” Eberhardt said.

    “Maybe this was a discussion point of the board, maybe not.”

    The defense secretary’s role at ABB during the late 1990s has become a bone of contention in Washington.

    The ABB contract was a consequence of a 1994 deal between the US and Pyongyang to allow construction of two reactors in exchange for a freeze on the North’s nuclear weapons programme.

    North Korea revealed last year that it had secretly continued its nuclear weapons programme, despite its obligations under the deal with Washington.

    The Bush government has repeatedly used the agreement to criticise the former Clinton administration for being too soft on North Korea. Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has been among the most vocal critics of the 1994 weapons accord.

    Dirty bombs

    Weapons experts have also speculated that waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”.

    Rumsfeld’s position at ABB could prove embarrassing for the Bush administration since while he was a director he was also active on issues of weapons proliferation, chairing the 1998 congressional Ballistic Missile Threat commission.

    The commission suggested the Clinton-era deal with Pyongyang gave too much away because “North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme”.
    From Zurich to Pyongyang

    At the same time, Rumsfeld was travelling to Zurich for ABB’s quarterly board-meetings.

    Eberhardt said it was possible that the North Korea deal never crossed the ABB boardroom desk.

    “At the time, we generated a lot of big orders in the power generation business [worth] around $1 billion…[so] a $200 million contract was, so to speak, a smaller one.”

    When asked whether a deal with a country such as North Korea – a communist state with declared nuclear intentions – should have been brought to the ABB board’s attention, Eberhardt told swissinfo:

    “Yes, maybe. But so far we haven’t any evidence for that because the protocols were never disclosed. So maybe it was a discussion point, maybe not,” says Eberhardt.

    A Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clark, recently told “Newsweek” magazine that “Secretary Rumsfeld does not recall it being brought before the board at any time”.

    It was a long time ago

    Today, ABB says it no longer has any involvement with the North Korean power plants, due to come on line in 2007 and 2008.

    The company finalised the sale of its nuclear business in early 2000 to the British-based BNFL group.

    swissinfo, Jacob Greber
    Avatar
    antigone
    schrieb am 22.02.03 17:54:51
    Beitrag Nr. 60 (8.695.549)
    BRANDREDE DES SENATORS ROBERT BYRD

    "Bushs Politik ist bar jeder Weisheit"

    US-Senator Robert C. Byrd hat mit einer Aufsehen erregenden Rede die Außenpolitik der Bush-Regierung als unbesonnen und arrogant gegeißelt. In scharfer Form kritisierte er auch das beklemmende Schweigen des US-Senats.





    Byrd: "Offen gesagt, viele Erklärungen dieser Administration sind skandalös"


    Hamburg - Seit 45 Jahren ist der Demokrat Robert C. Byrd, 85, als Vertreter West Virginias im US-Senat. In einer Rede, die derzeit in Deutschland in die Diskussion kommt, forderte er, jeder amerikanische Bürger müsse sich einmal bewusst machen, wie grausam jeder Krieg ist. "Doch im Senat herrscht weitgehend Schweigen, geheimnisvolles, bedrohliches Schweigen. Es gibt keine Debatte, keine Diskussion, keinen Versuch, der Nation das Für und Wider dieses Krieges darzulegen. Nichts!"
    "Wir hüllen uns in passives Schweigen hier im US-Senat, gelähmt durch unsere eigene Unsicherheit, augenscheinlich erstarrt unter dem Eindruck der beunruhigenden Ereignisse.

    Nur auf den Kommentarseiten unserer Zeitungen findet noch eine stichhaltige Diskussion über den Sinn oder Unsinn dieses Krieges statt. Der drohende Krieg stellt einen Wendepunkt in der Außenpolitik der USA dar und möglicherweise auch ein Wendepunkt in der jüngeren Weltgeschichte.

    Diese Nation ist dabei, ihre revolutionäre Präventivschlag-Doktrin zu testen und sie zu einem ungünstigen Zeitpunkt anzuwenden. Sie beinhaltet die Idee, dass die USA oder jede andere Nation ganz legitim ein Land angreifen, das sie nicht unmittelbar bedroht, sondern das sie in der Zukunft bedrohen könnte - hierbei handelt es sich um einen ganz grundsätzlichen Dreh der traditionellen Vorstellung der Selbstverteidigung.

    Diese Doktrin scheint gegen internationales Recht und die Charta der Völkergemeinschaft zu verstoßen. Sie wird ausprobiert in einer Zeit des weltweiten Terrorismus. Sie ist Grund dafür, dass sich viele Länder rund um den Globus fragen, ob sie auf unserer Hitliste stehen - oder auf der eines anderen Landes.

    Hochrangige US-Regierungsvertreter weigerten sich jüngst, den Einsatz von Atomwaffen auszuschließen, als sie einen möglichen Angriff auf den Irak diskutierten. Was könnte destabilisierender und bar jeder Weisheit sein, als diese Art von Unsicherheit, besonders in einer Welt, in der vitale Wirtschafts- und Sicherheitsinteressen vieler Länder so eng verknüpft sind?


    In unseren bewährten Bündnissen tun sich riesige Brüche auf, und die Ziele der US-Politik ist plötzlich zum Gegenstand weltweiter Spekulation geworden, was dem Ansehen der USA schadet.

    Anti-Amerikanismus, der auf Misstrauen, falsche Informationen, Verdächtigungen und eine alarmierende Rhetorik führender US-Politiker zurückzuführen ist, untergräbt die ehemals feste Allianz gegen den globalen Terrorismus, wie sie nach dem 11. September existierte."

    Die Bush-Regierung komme zwei Jahre nach Amtsantritt nicht gut weg, fährt der Senator fort. Einen für das kommende Jahrzehnt ursprünglich auf 5,6 Billionen Dollar bezifferten Haushaltsüberschuss habe sie in unabsehbar großes Defizit verwandelt. Und außenpolitisch sei es dieser Administration nicht gelungen Osama Bin Laden zu fassen.

    "Diese Regierung hat die geduldige Kunst der Diplomatie in eine reine Droh- und Verleumdungspolitik verwandelt. Dies zeigt die Armseligkeit an Intelligenz und Einfühlungsvermögen unserer Führer, was Auswirkungen über Jahre haben wird.

    Wenn Staatschefs Zwerge geheißen werden, wenn andere Länder als böse qualifiziert werden, und wenn mächtige europäische Verbündete als irrelevant bezeichnet werden, dann können diese Rücksichtslosigkeiten für unsere große Nation nichts Gutes bedeuten.

    Wir mögen eine massive militärische Macht darstellen, doch wir können den weltweiten Krieg gegen den Terrorismus nicht allein führen. Wir brauchen die Zusammenarbeit mit unseren bewährten Verbündeten genauso wie die neuerer Freunde, die wir durch unseren Wohlstand gewinnen.

    Den USA fehlt es bereits jetzt an Soldaten, daher brauchen wir die Unterstützung der Nationen, die uns Truppen zur Verfügung stellen und nicht nur ermutigende Briefe zusenden.

    Der Krieg in Afghanistan hat die USA bisher 37 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Dennoch gibt es Beweise, dass der Terror in dieser Region wieder aufkeimt. Auch Pakistan droht destabilisiert zu werden. Die US-Regierung hat den ersten Krieg gegen den Terror noch nicht beendet, da ist sie bereits scharf darauf, sich in den nächsten Konflikt zu stürzen, in dem die Gefahren viel größer sind als in Afghanistan. Haben wir nicht gelernt, dass es nach einem gewonnenen Krieg gilt, den Frieden zu sichern?

    Über die Nachwirkungen eines Krieges gegen den Irak hören wir wenig. Wo es keine Pläne gibt, blühen die Spekulationen. Werden wir die irakischen Ölfelder beschlagnahmen? Wem wollen wir die Macht nach Saddam Hussein in die Hand geben? Wird ein Krieg die muslimische Welt in Flammen setzen mit der Folge verheerender Angriffe auf Israel? Wird Israel mit seinen Atomwaffen Vergeltung üben? Wird die jordanische und saudi-arabische Regierung von radikalen Muslimen gestürzt, unterstützt von Iran, der mit dem Terrorismus viel enger verknüpft ist, als der Irak? Können Verwerfungen auf dem Weltölmarkt zu einer weltweiten Rezession führen?

    Stachelt unsere unnötig kriegerische Sprache und unsere ausgesprochene Missachtung anderer Interessen und Meinungen weltweit das Bestreben anderer Länder an, bald selbst dem Club der Atommächte anzugehören?

    In nur zwei Jahren hat diese rücksichtlose und arrogante Regierung eine Politik eingeleitet, die über Jahre hinaus eine verheerende Wirkung haben kann.

    Man kann die Wut und den Schock eines jeden Präsidenten nach den üblen Anschlägen vom 11. September verstehen. Man kann auch die Frustration nachvollziehen, die entsteht, wenn man nur einen Schatten, einen gestaltlosen Feind verfolgt, an dem Vergeltung zu üben nahezu unmöglich ist. Doch es ist unentschuldbar, die eigene Frustration und den Ärger durch eine extrem destabilisierende und gefährliche Außenpolitik zu einem Debakel werden zu lassen, wie es der Welt gerade vorgeführt wird von einer Regierung, die die furchteinflößende Macht und Verantwortung hat, das Schicksal der größten Supermacht der Welt zu bestimmen.

    Offen gesagt, viele Erklärungen dieser Administration sind skandalös. Es gibt kein anderes Wort dafür.

    Dennoch herrscht Schweigen im Senat. Ganz ehrlich muss ich auch das Urteilsvermögen eines Präsidenten in Frage stellen, der sagen kann, dass ein schwerer militärischer - nicht provozierter - Angriff auf eine Nation, die zu mehr als der Hälfte aus Kindern besteht, in den `höchsten moralischen Traditionen unseres Landes` stehe.

    Dieser Krieg ist zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht nötig. Der internationale Druck auf den Irak scheint eine gute Wirkung zu zeitigen. Es war ein Fehler der amerikanischen Regierung, sich so schnell festzulegen. Nun ist es unsere Aufgabe, uns möglichst elegant aus der selbstgedrehten Schlinge zu winden. Vielleicht gibt es einen Ausweg, wenn wir uns mehr Zeit lassen."


    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,237371,00.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 18:24:43
    Beitrag Nr. 61 (8.695.753)
    Die Demokraten wachen auf.

    Feb 22, 12:15 PM EST

    Candidate Edwards Defends His Background

    By NEDRA PICKLER
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called President Bush "out of touch, out of tune" with regular Americans as the freshman senator sought Saturday to turn his political inexperience and lucrative legal career into virtues.

    "And so, I ask you, and I ask the American people, are you better off than you were two years ago?" Edwards said in his address to the Democratic National Committee. "In two short years, George W. Bush has taught us what the W stands for: Wrong. Wrong for our children, wrong for our parents, wrong for our values, and very, very wrong for our country"

    Two other announced candidates addressed the DNC, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

    Sharpton said he opposes war in Iraq, especially when terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Bush "can`t find a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan," Sharpton said, drawing laughter and applause from the crowd.

    The committee`s three-day gathering, which ended Saturday, gave a crowded field of presidential hopefuls the chance to court the party`s most active fund-raisers, political organizers and primary campaign voters.


    Four Democratic hopefuls spoke Friday - Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois.

    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the eighth candidate in a growing field, is recovering from prostate cancer surgery and did not address the DNC. His campaign shipped activists to his home in buses for private chats Friday night.

    Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman are considered the field`s top candidates, DNC members say, although Moseley-Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich have plenty of time to make an impact.

    Several other Democrats are considering joining the field, including Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, whose presence could change the top tier`s dynamics.

    Amid all the jockeying, Edwards took a poke at Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman, three long-serving lawmakers.

    "If you think the only way to restore people`s faith in our government is (with) someone ... who`s been in Washington politics for decades, I am certainly not your guy," Edwards said in a text of his address prepared for delivery.

    Kerry`s campaign has questioned Edwards` credentials, which includes only five years in government. Gephardt says he`s not a flashy, flavor-of-the-month candidate, which has been interpreted as a jab at Edwards and Kerry, but the Missourian says his experience counts more.

    Bush has lavished Edwards with attention, scheduling legal reform events in North Carolina and accusing trial lawyers of chasing high-paying verdicts that drive up insurance rates.

    "Let me be as clear as I can about this: I am proud of my career. I am proud of the families I represented. I am proud of the cases I won," Edwards said.

    "Mr. President, we`ll let you take the side you`ve always taken. You take the insurance companies` side," Edwards said.

    "He is out of touch, out of tune, and in November 2004, he will be out of time," the senator said.





    http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_2004?SI…
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 18:28:06
    Beitrag Nr. 62 (8.695.792)
    Ich hoffe, der Husten ist vorbei!


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 22.02.03 19:14:27
    Beitrag Nr. 63 (8.696.178)
    Eine kleine Veränderung würde den Sticker auch für D brauchbar machen.

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 23.02.03 17:37:04
    Beitrag Nr. 64 (8.701.582)
    Es gibt auch andere Meinungen zu Rumsfeld als im Spiegel:


    http://www.takebackthemedia.com/pentagoon2.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 23.02.03 18:21:03
    Beitrag Nr. 65 (8.702.021)
    Frankreich muß leiden.
    The Times, Louisiana.
    Viel Spaß beim übersetzen.


    Tim Greening: Mon dieu! An angry Frenchman takes offense to our French bashing
    Tim Greening / The Times
    Posted on February 22, 2003
    Dear American people,

    Or, as I would rather say it,

    listen up, you mullet-wearing Nelly worshippers!

    I am a citizen of France. I am not an official with zee French government, nor an official spokesman. I am just your average Joe Six-paquet.

    I am writing zis open letter to zee people of America to express my outrage over zee increase in French bashing by Americans.

    Yes, we have heard zee jokes.

    "A Frenchman on a battlefield is about as unnecessary as a men`s bathroom at a Lillith Fair show."

    "Going to war without zee French is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

    "How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris? Nobody knows, it`s never been tried before."

    We are not laughing.

    Many blame zis increase in French bashing on our government`s refusal to support your president`s push for military action in Iraq.

    But we Frenchmen know zee real reason you hate us: Because we ingest wine, cheese, butter and cream sauces from zee moment we wake up to zee moment we go to bed and we never gain an ounce.

    Guilty, as charged. So take zat, you McRib-chomping Hummer jockeys! Stick zat in your Twinkie and deep fry it!

    My question is, "Why all zee anger about war with Iraq?" (Well, perhaps zee real question eez, "Why does my accent translate to zee printed page?")

    First of all, let me address zee misinformation that France is not ready for war. Of course, we are preparing for war - our white flag factories have been operating day and night.

    Really, our militaries have a great history as allies. We were integral in your victory against zee British to win your independence, and we helped you fend off zee British again in zee War of 1812.

    And zat alliance continues in zee modern era: In 1991, when American forces stormed zee deserts of Iraq to liberate Kuwait, we Frenchmen were behind you all zee way.

    But now, one little disagreement and you get all bent out of shape like zee Tom Clancy-reading Zima addicts zat you are.

    Well, I will explain to you tattoo-faced Bachelorette watchers why France opposes war.

    Do you realize zee expense of war? To participate in zis effort, France would have to deploy 30 tanks, 300 military transport vehicles, 10,000 soldiers and one shower.

    No, on second thought, we probably won`t need zee shower. Still, zat eez a very expensive undertaking!

    See, war has a very high price - in human life and in money. That is what gives us pause, not, as you imply, because we are not tough.

    And to prove to you we are tough, I have a warning for you gas-station-cappuccino-slurping Britney wannabes: We do have means of retaliation.

    We still have your precious Joe Millionaire.

    Zee people of France don`t share your fascination with zat Kangaroo Jack-loving mouth breather, and we will not hesitate to execute him if the French bashing doesn`t stop.

    So quit with zee jokes or it`s guillotine time. We`ll lop his empty head off, Rick-James-circa-1983 Jeri Curl haircut and all.

    Vive le France!

    Sincerely,

    Jean Q. Publique
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 23.02.03 18:27:33
    Beitrag Nr. 66 (8.702.081)



    "Daddy, I liked it better when Bill Clinton was President."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 23.02.03 19:03:34
    Beitrag Nr. 67 (8.702.581)
    Nicht nur immer Spiegel:


    Der postmoderne Krieg ist am Ende

    Artur P. Schmidt 20.02.2003
    Der gefährliche Trugschluss der Politik der Bush-Regierung

    Die exponentielle Vermehrung der Waffen und deren potentielle Zerstörungskraft legt die Frage nahe, wie ernst wir es heute mit den Bemühungen um Frieden noch meinen. Insbesondere sogenannte saubere Hightech-Kriege, die dem Angreifer so gut wie keine Verluste bescheren sind heute en vogue. Leider trifft die Totalität dieser Angriffe immer mehr Zivilpersonen. Dies ist jedoch das besondere Merkmal der totalen Kriegsführung, deren Ziel nicht die Zerstörung von Soldaten oder Maschinen ist, sondern von Zivilisten. Der gewichtigste Grund für den Krieg ist angeblich der Frieden, der angeblich aber nur durch die Fortsetzung der Politik mit den Mitteln der Waffen gesichert werden. Betrachtet man jedoch die Ergebnisse der meisten Kriege, so sind diese völlig außer Kontrolle geraten und haben die Menschlichkeit in Massengräbern begraben.






    Vietnam war das gleiche Fiasko für Amerika wie Afghanistan für die Sowjetunion. Kriege bekommen ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt eine unkontrollierbare Eigendynamik, die nur dadurch vermieden werden kann, indem man diese nicht beginnt. Die mögliche Eigendynamik, die ein amerikanischer Kreuzzug im Nahen Osten auslösen könnte, ist heute kaum abzusehen. Der angebliche Kriegsgrund Frieden führt jedoch oft in autokatalytischer Weise zu noch mehr Terror, Krieg oder Grauen. Mit dem 1. Irak-Krieg drangen die verlegten Bombenteppiche durch das Massenmedium Fernsehen endgültig in jeden Haushalt vor. Dies wurde nur deshalb während des Afghanistan-Krieges gestoppt, weil man keine Zeugen für das angerichtete Grauen mehr haben will. Das Grauen muss anonym bleiben.






    Flucht vor der amerikanischen Unterdrückung


    Ein Großteil der Weltbevölkerung lebt heute in bitterer Armut oder wird durch Krankheiten wie AIDS dezimiert. Die voranschreitende Globalisierung bietet nur noch für diejenigen wirkliche Vorteile, die über das nötige Kleingeld verfügen, um in den Konsumtempeln des Westens einkaufen zu können. Die vollständige Unterwerfung der Weltbevölkerung unter ein Wirtschaftsystem des sozialen Darwinismus bietet den Nährboden für die heutige Form des Terrorismus, den Neoliberalismus.

    Allerdings kommen die Terroristen nicht aus den Slums der Entwicklungsländer, sondern wie beim Terror der 70er Jahr aus der Mittel- und Oberschicht. Die selbsternannten "Sprecher der Armen" sind ideologisch geprägt und wenden sich gegen die Verwestlichung der Welt. Der Grund für den Terrorismus ist nicht eine Verteidigung des Islam gegen das Christentum, sondern ein Kampf der Beherrschten gegen die Herrschenden.

    Amerika, ein Land mit großartigen Bürgern, steht deshalb vor keiner geringeren Aufgabe, als der des Dialoges zwischen den Kulturen. Amerikanische Politiker müssen lernen, sich in den Anderen hineinzuversetzen und dessen Empfindungen zu verstehen. Sie müssen lernen, dass die Unterzeichnung und Einhaltung internationaler Verträge keine Sache ist, bei der man Sonderregelungen aushandelt, sondern die Basis für Vertrauen und gegenseitigen Respekt. Wenn Bush am 29. Januar 2002 sagte: "You will not esacpe the justice of this nation", so muss die Welt ausdrücklich hinzufügen: "But America has to accept the justice of this planet".


    Die Rolle der Vereinten Nationen


    In Somalia wurden die US-Kräfte von "Lord Bands" aus dem Land gejagt, in Ruanda scheiterte die U.N. bei dem Versuch, den Macheten-Genozid zu verhindern, und auch der Balkan wurde durch eine Alliierten-Bande in Schutt und Asche gelegt. Solange der Krieg als wesentlicher Bestandteil des wirtschaftlichen Systems fungieren kann, wird das Ziel des Friedens jegliche Form der Kriegsführung rechtfertigen, ob die Bürger dies wollen oder nicht.

    Die Angewohnheit der USA, ihr eigenes Recht gegen das internationale Recht durchzusetzen, wann immer es gerade beliebt, repräsentiert die zeitgenössische Form politischer Heuchelei. Das Phänomen komplexer Systeme, positive und negative Rückkopplungen aufzuweisen, könnte uns im militärischen Maßstab zum Verhängnis werden, wenn es nicht gelingt, die heutigen Kriegsspiele in Friedensdialoge überzuführen. Das Wirken Gandhis hat gezeigt, dass friedliche Aktionen, wenn sie zur richtigen Zeit am richtigen Ort stattfinden, tiefe und weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die Überwindung bisheriger Paradigmen haben können.

    Wer in einer globalisierten Welt die Außenpolitik allein den Streitkräften und den Wohlstand für alle nur der Wirtschaft überlässt, wird zur Zielscheibe sich zunehmend vernetzender Gegenkräfte. Der heutige "Krieg" gegen den Terrorismus wird vor allem von eben dieser Zielscheibe geführt. Die USA wurden 1986 vom Internationalen Gerichtshof (International Court of Justice - ICJ) u.a. wegen vom Völkerrecht verbotener Kriegshandlungen verurteilt und die Notwendigkeit der "kollektiven Selbstverteidigung" der USA gegen die Sandnisten nicht anerkannt. Die USA sind den Verhandlungen ferngeblieben und haben das Urteil nicht anerkannt. Gegen die Resolution 595 aus dem Jahr 1987, die Staaten dazu aufruft, das internationale Recht zu achten, wurde zu allem Überfluss ein Veto eingelegt. Lapidar kommentierte die New York Times, dass der internationale Gerichtshof ein "feindliches Forum" sei, dem man keine Beachtung schenken sollte. Hierzu passt auch, das Bush die Vereinten Nationen mittlerweile nur noch als Debattier-Club ansieht, dem keine Beachtung mehr zu schenken ist.


    Arschlochizität


    Als Charles Lewinsky sein Buch "Der A-Quotient" schrieb, konnte er nicht wissen, dass G. W. Bush das perfekte Beispiel für seine theoretischen Überlegungen zu Arschlöchern abgeben würde. Demokratie erfordert Dialoge, aber sie ist, wie Attlee bemerkte, nur wirksam, "wenn man die Leute dazu bringt, dass sie aufhören zu reden".

    Angesichts der imperialen Ansprüche Amerikas sind wir zwar alle sprachlos, jedoch kann dieser Zustand mittlerweile nicht mehr länger aufrecht erhalten werden. Die neue Botschaft heißt Solidarität. Damit ist nicht diejenige gemeint, die durch Beistandspakte den Krieg unterstützt, sondern diejenige, die sich nach den Aufräumarbeiten in New York im Jahr 2001 und der Flutbekämpfung im Jahr 2002 in Deutschland zeigte. Das Volk muss, wie es Jaspers ausdrückte, nachdenken: "Es lernt nachdenken. Es weiß, was geschieht. Es urteilt."

    Wenn wir heute zu urteilen haben, dann müssen wir deshalb die Nichtunterzeichnung des Kyoto-Protokolls durch die Amerikaner verurteilen. Die amerikanische Antwort auf die Klimakatastrophe heißt ignorieren. Hierbei stellt sich nicht die Frage nach der Richtigkeit derartigen Handelns, sondern nur diejenige, wie lange der Arsch des Politikers diese Vorgehensweise aussitzen kann.

    Jetzt wird klar, warum Demokratie eine Frage der Weltanschauung ist. Man kann die Welt vom Kopf her oder mit dem Arsch betrachten. Während der Kopf Augen hat, ist der Arsch zumindest temporär blind, da das Loch in der Regel auf eine Scheibe mit einem dunklen Loch gepresst wird. Es kommt deshalb nicht von ungefähr, dass Politiker oftmals als Flachdenker bezeichnet werden müssen. Letztendlich ist die Demokratie die vornehmste Form, mit der sich ein Land ruinieren kann. Besonders eklatant wird die Situation dann, wenn Präsidenten zum Sprachrohr von Lobbyisten werden. Deshalb bezeichnete Hobbes zurecht "die Demokratie als eine Aristokratie der Redner, die durch die zeitweilige Monarchie eines Redners unterbrochen wird".

    Zwar mag die Demokratie in den USA vom Volke ausgehen, aber spätestens seit den Wahlmanipulationen in Florida und allerspätestens seit der einseitigen Berichterstattung der US-Medien heute wissen wir, dass diese das Volk verlassen hat. Was lernen wir daraus: Demokratie heißt, das zu akzeptieren, was die USA als Demokratie bezeichnen. Nicht umsonst betonte bereits Alexis de Tocqueville, der erste Theoretiker der Massendemokratie, dass die Demokratie nichts Gutes ist, es jedoch keine effektive und geeignete Alternative gibt.


    Die Begeisterung hält sich in Grenzen


    Die Begeisterungsstürme für Nach-Afghanistan-Kreuzzüge der amerikanischen Regierung wie einen 2. Irak-Krieg halten sich in Europa in Grenzen. Dies kümmert die Amerikaner jedoch wenig. Ihre zukünftigen Kriege sollen möglichst nur Luftkriege sein, bei denen die Bodentruppen nur noch für die Trümmerbeseitigung benötigt werden. Der bereits 1999 erprobte Luftkrieg im Kosovo-Konflikt wurde im Afghanistan-Krieg weiter perfektioniert.

    Der "American Way of War" in Form von Hightech-Kriegen, finanziert durch ausländische Kredite und mit Unterstützung des 53. US-Bundesstaates in Form von Großbritannien, soll zukünftig auf eine Vielzahl von Ländern ausgedehnt werden. Außerdem will sich der Weltpolizist Nr. 1 wieder vermehrt in die inneren Angelegenheiten von Entwicklungsländern einmischen und somit deren nationalen Unabhängigkeit und Selbstbestimmung untergraben.

    In einem Krieg gegen Terroristen sind auch geheime Militärgerichte vorgesehen, die Nicht-US-Bürger nach Belieben aburteilen und einsperren können. Nach dem 11. September wurde die Tradition der Bewahrung der Freiheit ad absurdum geführt. Die Regierung hat im Namen der Terrorismusbekämpfung die Rechte des Individuums und damit wesentliche Elemente der amerikanischen Verfassung bereits außer Kraft gesetzt. Amerika hat damit einen Rückschritt zu den Theorien von Hobbes aus dem sechzehnten Jahrhundert vollzogen, der den Bürger zu bedingungsloser Loyalität gegenüber dem Staat verpflichtete. G. W. Bush wird immer mehr zum Globalisierungs-Darth Vader, der keine Freunde mehr kennt, außer denen, die ihm den Playboy der Schurkenstaaten-Intellektuellen, Usama bin Ladin, ausliefern - tot oder lebendig.

    Neuerdings gehören auch Deutschland und Frankreich zum illustren Kreis von Wüstenstaaten und Zigarrenfetischisten. Für Amerika ergibt sich eine immer schwierigere Konstellation. Je mehr Kriege diese für ihr Land im Rahmen der "USA for USA"-Doktrin gewinnen, desto mehr weltweite Feinde werden geschaffen. Die Autokatalyse der Gegner fordert jedoch Widerstand und zivilen Ungehorsam heraus. Privilegierte Gegner wie Pakistan und Nordkorea sind die nächsten absehbaren Opfer des amerikanischen Kreuzzuges gegen das sogenannte Böse. George Lucas wird deshalb kaum darum herumkommen, eine neue Star Wars-Episode abzudrehen mit dem Titel: "Die Vorfahren von Darth Vader - Big Brothers Bush, Rumsfeld und Ashcroft."


    Das Imperium schlägt zurück


    Der Kampf zwischen den sich mittlerweile als Imperium verstehenden USA (pax americana) und dem Rest der Welt hat gerade erst begonnen. Als Kämpfer stehen jedoch nicht 300 Millionen Amerikaner den etwa 6 Milliarden anderen Bewohnern des blauen Planeten gegenüber, sondern rund ein Dutzend Regierungsmitglieder und deren Militärs kämpft gegen den Rest der Welt. Dies müsste einen nicht weiter beunruhigen, wenn das Imperium nicht über derart viele Atomwaffen verfügen würde.

    Wenn der Philosoph Peter Sloterdijk sagt, dass die USA das "europäische Programm der imperialen Ordnungsaufgabe in der Welt übernommen" haben, so trifft er damit in das Schwarze. Ebenso wie das große Vorbild Rom erzeugen die Amerikaner durch ihren Imperialismus ihre eigene Isolation. Dieser Isolationismus ist besonders gefährlich, da er auch noch religiös untermauert ist. Der amerikanische Flug in die Zukunft in Form einer zur Glaubenssache proklamierten Weltherrschaft wird allerdings ohne Kehrtwende in der Außenpolitik ausgesprochen einsam sein.

    Ronald Reagans Diktum, dass der Staat keine gesellschaftlichen Probleme lösen könne, hat sich unter G.W. Bush ins Gegenteil verkehrt. Der Staat ist jetzt nicht mehr Teil des Problems, sondern nur die Staatsmacht kann angeblich die anstehenden Probleme lösen. Die Folge wird ein Überwachungsstaat sein, der auf Verfassungsschutz, NSA, FBI, CIA und Grenzpolizei setzt. Das Aufblähen des Staatsapparates und das Abschotten von Informationen gehören zu den Methoden, mit denen der amerikanische Präsident seine Macht erweitert. Die Welt soll sich dieser Macht des One World One Order-Imperalismus unterordnen, weil Amerika angeblich nur das Gute will. Leider entsteht aus diesem Machtwillen immer mehr das Böse, wie das Abhören von Telefonen, die Einschränkung von Verteidigungsrechten oder die unbegrenzte Haft wichtiger Zeugen (z.B. die 600 im kubanischen Guantánamo ohne Anklage, ohne Anwalt und ohne Zeitlimit einsitzenden Talibankämpfer).

    Die Grenzen zwischen einer Demokratie und einer Diktatur zerfließen und der Rest der Welt soll eine neue Stärke zu spüren bekommen. Bush ist längst dabei, mit den Machteliten, dem Militär und seinen Schutzdiensten eine Art Neben-Regierung zu formen, die selbst die McCarthy-Ära in den Schatten stellen wird. Die Folgen dieses Wahnsinns werden den noch teilnahmslos zusehenden Amerikanern dann zu Bewusstsein treten, wenn immer mehr Menschen ohne Anklage von der Bildfläche verschwinden.


    Der Feind ist die amerikanische Regierung


    Dass sich das amerikanische Volk mittlerweile mit einem neuen Feind, der eigenen Regierung, auseinander zu setzen hat, ist das eigentliche Phänomen in Folge der Ereignisse vom 11. September. Mittlerweile wurde das CIA in eine exekutive Behörde mit der Befugnis zu Attentaten und politischen Morden verwandelt. Die Anarchie wird hierbei nicht von unten, sondern von oben ausgerufen. Amerika handelt wie ein angeschlagener Boxer. Die Weltmacht scheint zu wanken und zu einer "totalitären Demokratie" zu avancieren, wie Erwin Chargaff bemerkte.

    Amerika unterschätzt das Risiko, dass die gesamte arabische Welt sich gegen Israel wenden könnte. Doch wenn die muslimische Welt in Flammen aufgeht, wird die USA daran zerbrechen. Der Schriftsteller Dostojewskij sah die Herrschaft der Großinquisitoren und den Triumph der Macht über die Gerechtigkeit voraus, wie Albert Camus richtig beobachtete. In Dostojewskis Roman die "Die Brüder Karamasow" ist die wesentliche Botschaft, dass der Mensch niemals die Fähigkeit zur Reue verlieren darf. Bei der aktuellen amerikanischen Regierung sucht man diese jedoch vergeblich. Es wird immer offensichtlicher, dass die Amerikaner nicht nur diese, sondern seit dem 11. September auch ihre Freiheit verloren haben.

    Die von amerikanischen Politikern verordnete Lebenslüge, dass es gut ist, wenn 10 % der Bevölkerung über 90 % herrschen, wird bedenkenlos hingenommen. Da es für diese 10 % keinen anderen Gott gibt als den Mammon, scheint alles, was der Manipulierung der Massen dient, erlaubt zu sein. Dies gilt mittlerweile auch im globalen Maßstab. Die Formel von G.W. Bush ist einfach: "Wer nicht für die USA ist, ist gegen die USA". Diese Rambo-Logik ist einfach und für jeden, sogar den Dümmsten, verständlich: Was nicht weiß ist, muss schwarz sein. Jetzt dürfte auf klar sein, warum es gerade die dümmsten Anführer sind, die in Amerika das Wort führen.


    Entzieht ihnen die Nutzungsrechte!


    Für Amerika bedeutet Entwicklungshilfe, wie Denis Healy richtig bemerkte, nicht anderes, als wenn die armen Leute eines reichen Landes für die reichen Leute eines armen Landes Geld spenden. Und es ließe sich noch anfügen, dass Entwicklungshilfe solange von armen Mehrheiten betrieben werden wird, bis die reichen Minderheiten entmachtet sind.

    Die Gewaltherrschaft der Armut ist das Übel, welches es zu bekämpfen gilt. Betrachtet man die aktuellen Entwicklungen in den USA und das dort vorherrschende Vormachtstreben, so hat man als Europäer heute wahrscheinlich keine andere Möglichkeit, als eine Gegenposition einzunehmen. Jeder Weltbürger muss das Grundrecht zur Sicherung der Freiheit wahrnehmen. Da das Wort Republikaner sich von "Republica" ableitet, was soviel wie "Wohlfahrt des Ganzen" bedeutet, müsste man eigentlich den amerikanischen Regierungsmitgliedern die Nutzungsrechte für dieses Wort entziehen.

    Die republikanischen US-Politiker arbeiten nach drei Prinzipien: 1. Wenn es irgendwo in der Welt ein Problem gibt, wende Gewalt an. Wenn dadurch etwas zerstört wird, ist dies nicht schlimm, denn irgendwann hätte es sowieso erneuert werden müssen. 2. Konstruiere Waffensysteme, die selbst ein Irrer anwenden kann. Somit wird sichergestellt, dass später auch nur ein Irrer die Waffe anwenden will. 3. Die Bürokratie ist so auszulegen, dass jeder Untergebene seine Stufe der Unfähigkeit erreichen kann.


    Der gefährliche Trugschluss


    Ob mit oder ohne Europa, Amerika war und ist zu Alleingängen entschlossen, ohne UNO-Beschlüsse oder Konsultationen abzuwarten. Dies war in der Vergangenheit so und es ist nicht ersichtlich, was sich in Zukunft daran ändern sollte.

    Es ist abzusehen, dass die aktuell anbrechende Phase des Terrorismus gegen die USA, den amerikanischen Imperialismus noch weiter schüren wird. Einen wirklichen Kriegsgrund muss es dabei nicht geben, sondern nur einen, den man nach Belieben konstruieren kann. Wenn die USA glauben, durch einen Krieg gegen den Irak den Terrorismus auszumerzen, könnte sich dies als gefährlicher Trugschluss erweisen, der Amerika international noch weiter isolieren dürfte. Nährböden für den weltweiten Extremismus ist die Armut und so lange diese nicht beseitigt wird, führt die Rolle des Rüstungsweltmeisters Amerika direkt auf den Abgrund zu.

    Im Falle eines Irak-Krieges könnten Folgekosten von über 1.000 Milliarden US-Dollar entstehen und die Weltwirtschaft in ihre bisher schlimmste Krise stürzen. Europa hat deshalb keine geringere Aufgabe, als sich von den US-Positionen zu entkoppeln, ja diesen eine eigene Ordnung entgegenzusetzen. Somit bleibt nur zu hoffen, dass es gelingt, Amerika diejenigen Wege abzuschneiden, mit denen es zur Macht gelangt ist. Es geht deshalb um nichts geringeres, als den Kapitaltransfer in die USA so lange zu stoppen, bis sich ein Sinneswandel einstellt. Ebenso wie Hollywood ohne deutsche Steuersparmodelle implodieren würde, ebenso wird der amerikanischen Kriegsmaschinerie ohne Geld aus dem Ausland der Atem ausgehen. Die amerikanische Verschuldungsproblematik kann dann zum Damoklesschwert avancieren und den friedlichen Untergang des Imperiums durch eine Millisekundenpleite einleiten. Der Kybernetik sei Dank.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 23.02.03 19:32:00
    Beitrag Nr. 68 (8.702.829)
    Ein Diskussionspunkt, der in der letzten Zeit ganz aus den Augen verloren wurde. Deutschland als selbstdenkendes Mitglied der Völkergemeinschaft und nicht als Appendix der USA.

    Peter Sloterdijk, 09.02
    profil: In den letzten Wochen des Wahlkampfs brachte Gerhard Schröder das Schlagwort vom „deutschen Weg“ ins Spiel, wofür er doppelt kritisiert wurde: von den Linken, weil sie nationalistische Tendenzen witterten; von den Rechten, weil sie die westliche Bündnistreue infrage gestellt sahen. Was hat die Formel vom „deutschen Weg“ bei Ihnen zum Klingen gebracht?
    Sloterdijk: Deutschland ist nach dem Krieg groß geworden in einer Rhetorik der Leugnung deutscher Sonderwege. Wir haben uns quasi selbsttherapeutisch europäisiert und eine Art Quarantäne über die deutsche Mentalität verhängt, wenn es darum ging, nationale Interessen auszusprechen.

    profil: Um damit auch krampfhaft Normalität zu simulieren?
    Sloterdijk: Bis tief in die Ära Kohl hinein war deutsche Außenpolitik von dem Bewusst- sein geprägt, dass wir uns auf einer Sonderschule der Demokratie den Abschluss erst mühsam erarbeiten mussten. Schröder war, wenn man so will, der erste Kanzler der Normalität. Mit seiner Wahlkampfwendung vom deutschen Weg wurde sozusagen die Heimkehr der deutschen Demokratie in die Familie der nicht neurotischen Gesellschaften gefeiert. Darüber sind die ideologischen Sozialarbeiter und politischen Psychotherapeuten der Deutschen naturgemäß unglücklich, weil sie einen Patienten verlieren, an dem ihnen sehr viel lag und der sich so leicht nicht durch einen anderen ersetzen lässt. Schröders „deutscher Weg“ besticht vor allem auch durch die Selbstverständlichkeit seines Klangs, weil man weiß, dass hier kein Chauvinist oder Anti-Europäer spricht, sondern einer, der ganz deutlich signalisiert, dass im Bereich der deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen ein neues Kapitel aufgeblättert werden muss. Die Fähigkeit, zwischen den USA als kulturell verbündetem Projekt und der Bush-Administration zu unterscheiden, halte ich für eine elementare Tugend der deutschen Demokratie von heute.

    profil: Eine spezifische Ausprägung dieses deutschen Weges war Schröders Weigerung, sich der amerikanischen Kriegsrhetorik gegen den Irak anzuschließen.
    Sloterdijk: Das deutsche Nein in dieser Angelegenheit ist vor allem eine symbolisch-moralische Position, eine spezifische Form der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sonderweg der USA. Der Begriff „rogue state“, mit „Schurkenstaat“ übrigens eher unglücklich ins Deutsche übersetzt, hat in der westlichen Politik seit einigen Jahren Hochkonjunktur. In der Biologie steht „rogue“ für das wieder ausgewilderte Einzelgängertier, das abseits von der Herde durch den Busch streift. Die beiden „rogue states“ der gegenwärtigen Weltpolitik sind, so gesehen, die USA und Israel, die jede Art von Alignment mit der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft aus dem Grundansatz ihres Selbstverständnisses heraus ablehnen, weil sie beide davon ausgehen, dass Nicht-Israelis beziehungsweise Nicht-Amerikaner sich in die besondere Situation dieser beiden Länder nicht einfühlen können. Das bestärkt sie auch in ihrer Neigung, die Fähigkeit zum Selbstmandat in einem überdurchschnittlichen Ausmaß auszuüben.

    profil: Im Zusammenhang mit den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 wurde gern der pathetische Satz bemüht, nichts werde mehr so sein wie vorher. Hat „Nine-Eleven“ die Welt tatsächlich nachhaltig verändert?
    Sloterdijk: Es gibt nicht nur sich selbst erfüllende Prophezeiungen, sondern auch sich selbst erfüllende Hysterisierungen. Sowohl die Sozial- als auch die Individualpsyche hat in weiten Teilen ihres Funktionslebens eine autohypnotische Struktur: Der Mensch wird, was er hört, und die Öffentlichkeit wird, was sie liest. Die Psychologisierung des öffentlichen Raums durch Massenmedien ist eine der Primärrealitäten einer Zeit, in der es Massenmedien gibt. Seit dem 11. September 2001 hat sich die westliche Welt in ein großes Labor autoplastischer Suggestion verwandelt, in dem das Modellieren mit pathetischem Material zu einer Massenbeschäftigung geworden ist. Gegen diese Hysteriezumutungen hilft meiner Meinung nach nur ein Stück nachgereichter Kaltblütigkeit.

    profil: Mit anderen Worten: Der 11. September lässt Sie heute so kalt wie vor einem Jahr?
    Sloterdijk: Ich bin so betroffen wie irgendwer. Ich gehöre aber Gott sei Dank einer Gruppe von Menschen an, die mit dem 11. September seit jeher den Geburtstag Theodor W. Adornos verbunden haben, und halte an der Einschätzung fest, dass diese Assoziation unter kulturgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkten weiterhin die wichtigere bleibt. Im Übrigen gibt es nach dem 11. September immer auch einen 12., an dem das autohypnotische Schaumwerk wieder in sich zusammenfällt.

    Interview: Sven Gächter

    Das ganze Interview:

    http://www.profil.at/export/profil/p_content.php3?&xmlval_ID_KEY[]=0010&xmlval_AUSGABE[]=2002_39&mdoc_id=3991488&content=main

    Diskussion mit Richard von Weizecker und Peter Schneider:"Über die zukunft von Krieg und Frieden"
    http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/mediathek/ZDFde_video_cont/0,1912,VI…
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 24.02.03 14:12:03
    Beitrag Nr. 69 (8.708.970)
    ANATOMIE EINER KRISE

    Bushs Alleingang gegen die Welt

    Von Jochen Bölsche

    Biowaffen in Händen Dritter gelten den USA als Kriegsgrund, doch Uno-Pläne zur Inspektion ihrer eigenen Labors lehnt die Supermacht ebenso strikt ab wie Klimaschutzverträge oder Landminenverbote. Hat die Uno überhaupt noch eine Chance?

    Salbungsvoller hätte George W. Bush sein Gelübde nicht formulieren können: Er werde das mächtigste Land der Erde mit der "Bescheidenheit wahrer Stärke" und der "Demut wirklicher Größe" regieren, versprach der 43. Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten vor seinem Amtsantritt im Januar 2001.


    Die Inauguration lag gerade hundert Tage zurück, da war für politische Kommentatoren offenkundig, dass in Wahrheit Hybris die Hypermacht regierte - Bushs Ankündigung hatte sich binnen kürzester Zeit als pure Anmaßung erwiesen.

    Gegenüber den Uno, aber auch im Umgang mit seinen Nato-Verbündeten schlug Bush unmittelbar nach Amtsantritt einen derart selbstgefälligen und selbstherrlichen Kurs ein, dass sich die "Washington Post" an den Spruch erinnert fühlte: "My way or the highway" - frei übersetzt: Nichts geht, wenn`s nicht nach mir geht.

    Nach nur fünf Monaten im Oval Office hatte der Präsident sieben internationale Abkommen aufgekündigt, darunter Verträge zum Umweltschutz, zur Geburtenkontrolle und zur Rüstungsbegrenzung. Obendrein distanzierte sich Bush von der Zusage seines Vorgängers Bill Clinton, auf den Einsatz jener grausamen Anti-Personen-Minen zu verzichten, die gleichermaßen Infanteristen und Zivilisten verstümmeln und töten.

    "Superschurkenmacht" mit Image-Problemen

    Bevor Bush im September 2001 Verbündete für den Anti-Terror-Krieg gewinnen und sich daher vorübergehend mäßigen musste, suchte er monatelang "fast mutwillig" Streit sowie "Vorwände, internationale Verträge und Organisationen zu unterlaufen", wie die Berliner "Welt" mit Befremden beobachtete.

    Das traditionell amerikafreundliche Blatt äußerte tiefe Sorge um das Image der USA, die sich manchem Europäer schon kurz nach Bushs Amtsantritt als "Superschurkenmacht" dargestellt hätten. In jenen Wochen außenpolitischen Wütens wurzelt die tiefe Entfremdung, die mittlerweile - wiederum durch amerikanisches Zutun - zum transatlantischen Zerwürfnis eskaliert ist, das Uno, Nato und EU entzweit.



    So jedenfalls sieht es die Berliner Regierung. "Der außenpolitische Strategiewechsel der Bush-Administration, die Aufkündigung des Primats des Rechts und der Multilateralität, hat den Konflikt ausgelöst," beteuert der Grünen-Politiker Jürgen Trittin. Rapide gewachsen sei die Distanz zwischen den Partnerstaaten, als die USA im August vorigen Jahres erklärt hätten, sie würden die Uno im Notfall übergehen, wenn die sich nicht US-konform verhalte. Trittin: "Dieser eindeutig unilaterale Anspruch ist der Kern des Problems."

    Nicht nur im Umgang mit ihren engsten Bündnispartnern, sondern auch im Alltagsgeschäft der Vereinten Nationen demonstrieren die USA seit Bushs Amtsantritt, wie tief die "Kluft zwischen außenpolitischen Stilen, Methoden und Instrumenten" in Nordamerika und Kontinentaleuropa geworden ist, die Reinhard Mutz vom Hamburger Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik ausgemacht hat. Die Liste der Streitpunkte wird von Monat zu Monat länger.

    Nicht nur, dass der Rest der Welt verwundert reagierte, als die schießwütige Nation auf Drängen ihrer Waffen-Lobby ein Abkommen gegen den Schmuggel von Handfeuerwaffen durchlöcherte. Nicht nur, dass ausgerechnet die Megamacht, deren Präsident einem "göttlichen Plan" zu folgen vorgibt, sich fernhielt oder querlegte, als 178 Nationen für ein Abkommen zum Schutz der Umwelt kämpften und 148 Staaten ein verbindliches Verbot von Bio-Waffen verlangten.

    "Selbstbewusst, um nicht zu sagen arrogant"

    So wie ein "Single mit Bindungsangst" benehme sich die Supermacht seit dem Beginn der Bush-Ära, kritisiert die Öko-Organisation Greenpeace: "Sich festlegen, Verpflichtungen eingehen, Entscheidungen mit Partnern diskutieren - unter rechten Bushianern gelten solche Verhaltensweisen zunehmend als verpönt. Was die Handlungsfreiheit der USA einschränken könnte, ist von Übel, und damit gelten feste Bündnisse oder bindende Verträge als Überbleibsel der Vergangenheit."

    Eine ebenso "selbstbewusste, um nicht zu sagen arrogante Positionierung" wie in Umweltfragen bescheinigt der Bonner Politikwissenschaftler Christian Hacke der Bush-Regierung auch bei ihrem wirtschaftspolitischen Umgang mit dem Rest der Welt. "Wenn Amerika weiter nach Belieben schalten und walten kann, Grundgesetze eines liberalen Welthandels nach Belieben aussetzt, den eigenen Markt durch protektionistische Maßnahmen abschottet und vor allem im Bereich der Rüstungskooperation so rücksichtslos nationalistisch handelt wie bisher, dann werden in Europa Unverständnis und Kritik weiter anschwellen," prophezeite der Professor auf einer Unionstagung: "Darauf müssen sich die USA einstellen."

    Nicht minder schlechte Zensuren erteilt der Wissenschaftler dem US-Präsidenten für dessen Versagen bei der Friedenssicherung im Nahen Osten: "Viel zu lange" habe die Regierung Bush im palästinensisch-israelischen Konflikt "den radikalen Kräften freien Lauf gelassen". Und "zu lange" habe sie den Israelis erlaubt, "den legitimen Repräsentanten der Palästinenser, Arafat, auf eine Stufe mit dem Terroristen Bin Laden zu stellen".

    Antiamerikanismus aus Amerika

    George W. Bush mag derlei Stimmen aus Europa als puren Antiamerikanismus abtun. Doch über den Kurswechsel, den er nach seinem Amtsantritt vornahm, urteilten amerikanische Publizisten nicht weniger vernichtend als deutsche Politologen. Der "Washington Post"-Kolumnist Jim Hoagland etwa merkte voller Sarkasmus an: "Es muss eine bessere Methode geben, Freunde zu gewinnen und auf andere Nationen Einfluss zu nehmen, als aus Konferenzen auszuziehen, Abkommen zu schmähen oder auf seinen Händen zu sitzen, während der Nahe Osten brennt."

    Als geradezu verheerend für das Ansehen Amerikas könnte sich Bushs Haltung zur Kontrolle jenes Teufelszeugs erweisen, dessen - auch nur vermutete - Präsenz in Drittländern auch schon mal als Kriegsgrund herhalten soll: A-Waffen, B-Waffen, C-Waffen.
    "Da geht einem der Hut hoch"

    Wie Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld jüngst den Mitgliedern des Washingtoner Verteidigungsausschusses eröffnete, bereiteten sich die USA darauf vor, im nächsten Golfkrieg auch "nicht tödliche" Chemiewaffen einzusetzen. Allerdings, bedauerte der Verteidigungsminister, machten internationale Verträge die Verwendung dieser "absolut angemessenen" Kampfmittel "sehr kompliziert". Tatsächlich verbietet die geltende Chemiewaffen-Konvention den Kriegseinsatz sämtlicher Kampfgase.

    "Da geht einem der Hut hoch," entsetzt sich der Hamburger Jan van Aken, deutscher Leiter des internationalen "Sunshine Project"; der sonnige Name der Ökopax-Initiative spielt darauf an, dass manche C-Waffen-Wirkstoffe bei Tageslicht abgebaut werden.

    Keinerlei Verständnis hat der Friedensaktivist dafür, dass die USA sich für den Häuserkampf im Zweistromland den Einsatz von Stoffen aus jener Gattung vorbehalten, die Washington als casus belli gilt. Die Bush-Regierung, argumentiert Akens Organisation auf ihrer Website sunshine-project.org, sei im Begriff, "dieselben Verträge zu verletzten, die zu verteidigen sie vorgibt".

    Tod durch nicht tödliche Waffen

    Die Deklarierung "nonlethal" hält der Experte im Übrigen für irreführend. Zur Gruppe der so bezeichneten C-Waffen gehören nicht nur bewusstseinsverändernde Mittel ("calmatives") und krampfauslösende Stoffe ("convulsants"), mit denen seit längerem in US-Geheimlabors experimentiert wird und die über die Haut oder die Schleimhaut auf den Gegner einwirken und ihn kaltstellen sollen. Unter dem verniedlichenden Etikett "nonlethal" rangiert auch das Kampfgas, das russische Militärs in einem Moskauer Musicaltheater zur Befreiung von Geiseln einsetzten; das Mittel forderte weit über hundert Menschenleben.

    Die Friedenswächter vom "Sunshine Project" sind nicht nur, zumal seit Rumsfelds Vorstoß, in "großer Sorge" um den Fortbestand der C-Waffen-Konvention. Zugleich fürchten sie, dass die USA mehr und mehr dazu beitragen, dass auch das globale Ächtung von B-Waffen bröckelt.

    Willkommener Vorwand für Dritte

    Die Bush-Regierung lehnt es strikt ab, sich selber den Kontrollmechanismen der internationalen Biowaffen-Konvention zu unterwerfen. Unmittelbar nachdem vorletztes Jahr durch die "New York Times" publik geworden war, dass US-Forscher gentechnische Arbeiten an Milzbrandbakterien planen, appellierte "Sunshine" an die Berliner Regierung, sich gegenüber den USA "deutlich gegen diese Projekte auszusprechen" und die B-Waffen-Konvention "zu verteidigen und zu stärken".

    Wie dringend notwendig eine lückenlose Kontrolle von biologischen Kampfstoffen wie Anthrax ist, das Milzbrand auslöst, erwies sich bald nach der Schrecken auslösenden Anschlagsserie im Herbst 2001 in den USA. Nachdem zunächst irakische Terroristen als Absender von Anthrax-Briefen verdächtigt worden waren, bestehen heute kaum mehr Zweifel daran, dass das weiße Pulver aus einem US-Militärlabor stammte.

    Zwar unterstellt kaum ein Kritiker der US-Regierung, sie beabsichtige, tonnenweise Anthrax-Bomben zu produzieren wie etwa gegen Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Damals erwog der britische Kriegsherr Winston Churchill, mit C-Waffen und bereits angelieferten B-Waffen aus US-Produktion Hitlerdeutschland regelrecht zu "durchtränken". Doch die Weigerung Washingtons, die eigenen Labors internationalen Kontrollen zu unterwerfen, könnte Dritten als willkommener Vorwand dienen, ihrerseits internationale Inspektionen zu verweigern.

    "Der Samen der Spaltung ist gesät"



    Die gleiche gefährliche Doppelmoral legt die Bush-Regierung in ihrer Atomwaffenpolitik an den Tag. Washington wies nicht nur eine Anregung von Bundesaußenminister Joschka Fischer brüsk zurück, die US-Option eines nuklearen Ersteinsatzes zu "überdenken". Bush schockierte im Sommer vorigen Jahres auch die Moskauer Regierung mit der Ankündigung, einen amerikanischen Raketenschirm zu errichten, der zwar einigen europäischen Staaten Schutz bieten solle, nicht aber Russland.

    Mit einer solchen Politik werde Europa erneut geteilt, fürchtet der SPD-Senior Egon Bahr, langjähriger Direktor des Hamburger Friedensforschungsinstituts und geistiger Vater der sozialliberalen Entspannungspolitik. "Frieden und Zusammenarbeit in Europa kann es ohne Russland nicht geben," verurteilt Bahr das Washingtoner Raketenschirm-Projekt: "Damit ist der Samen der Spaltung gesät."

    Bedroht fühlen müssen sich die Russen - und nicht nur sie - vor allem aber durch amerikanische Pläne, die im März 2002 bekannt wurden: Das Pentagon will spezielle Mini-Atombomben zur Zerstörung von Bunkern, Höhlenverstecken und Waffenfabriken bauen lassen.

    Wer zuerst schießt, stirbt als zweiter"

    In einem an den US-Kongress adressierten Pentagon-Geheimpapier("Nuclear Posture Review") heißt es, diese neuartige Kategorie von Kernwaffen eigne sich zum Einsatz gegen sieben Staaten: Irak, Iran, Nordkorea, Libyen und Syrien sowie China und Russland.

    Während US-Außenminister Colin Powell das Papier als "weise militärische Planung" rühmte, sprachen Europäer entsetzt von einem möglichen "Schritt vom Abschreckungsmittel hin zu aggressiven Präventivangriffen", wie der Wiener ÖVP-Sicherheitsexperte Bernhard Moser die Bedenken der Kritiker auf den Punkt brachte.

    Die Regenbogenkrieger von Greenpeace, die schon seit Jahrzehnten vor pazifischen Atollen und in amerikanischen Wüsten gegen Atomtests protestieren, sehen in der offensiv verwendbaren Mini-Bombe eine Bedrohung des Weltfriedens: "Damit wird die Regel, die den Einsatz der Nuklearwaffen bislang verhinderte, außer Kraft gesetzt."

    Den Umweltkämpfern schwant Schlimmes: "Im Kalten Krieg galt die Faustformel: Wer zuerst schießt, stirbt als zweiter. Zukünftig heißt es: Wer immer gegen die USA Gewalt einsetzt, muss mit seiner Vernichtung und der atomaren Verseuchung seines Landes rechnen - auch Länder, die selbst nicht über Atomwaffen verfügen."
    Mit welchen Waffen auch immer die Vereinigten Staaten ihre nächsten Kriege führen werden - eine Gefahr will Bush ausgeschlossen wissen: dass sich der selbsternannte Weltpolizist vor irgendeinem Weltgericht gegen den Vorwurf verteidigen muss, im Eifer des Gefechts selber das Recht gebrochen zu haben.




    Viele US-Falken fühlen sich noch immer tief gedemütigt durch ein über anderthalb Jahrzehnte zurückliegendes Votum des Haager Gerichtshofes: Die Jury hatte 1986 die Vereinigten Staaten für schuldig befunden, durch die Verminung von Häfen, die Zerstörung von Raffinerien und die Bewaffnung von Untergrundkämpfern den Sturz der Regierung von Nicaragua betrieben zu haben.

    Massiv widersetzte sich die Bush-Administration - right or wrong, America - vorletztes Jahr dem Willen von mehr als 120 Nationen, einen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof zur Verfolgung von Völkermord, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit zu installieren.

    Das Weiße Haus begründete den Boykott des Gerichtshofs, dessen Kosten zu einem Fünftel von Deutschland getragen werden, schlicht mit dem Bedürfnis nach "Schutz der amerikanischen Streitkräfte". Unterstützung erfuhren die USA lediglich durch Israel, China, Jemen und Katar sowie zwei der so genannten Schurkenstaaten: Libyen und Irak.

    "Bisher gab es keinen Präzedenzfall, in dem die USA einen multilateralen Vertrag - den eine zu großen Teilen demokratische Koalition der Völkergemeinschaft anstrebt - mit solchem Druck zu verhindern sucht," kommentierte die liberale Hamburger "Zeit" den Widerstand Washingtons.

    "Respektable Form des Kolonialismus"

    Doch trotz des Dauerkonflikts mit der Uno - gänzlich missen möchten die USA die Weltorganisation nicht: Die Blauhelme werden noch gebraucht, zumindest für Nachkriegseinsätze in den zu besiegenden Ländern. Vor allem in der amerikanischen wie in der britischen Öffentlichkeit werden immer wieder Vorschläge erörtert, auf welche Weise sich die Uno im Ringen um eine neue Weltordnung nützlich machen könnte.

    "Die Antwort auf den Terrorismus? Kolonialismus!" - unter dieser Überschrift plädiert der konservative britische Historiker Paul Johnson dafür, nach der militärischen Niederwerfung "halsstarriger Terroristenstaaten" das "Mandatssystem des alten Völkerbundes" wiederzubeleben, das einst als "`respektable` Form des Kolonialismus gute Dienste" geleistet habe.

    Mit Hilfe einer "neuen Form des Uno-Mandats", so Johnson, könnten die Vereinten Nationen "terroristische Staaten einer verantwortungsvollen Aufsicht unterstellen". In Frage kämen neben dem Irak auch der Sudan, Libyen, Iran und Syrien.

    Blauhelm ab, Tropenhelm auf?

    Reminiszenzen an die Zeit des Tropenhelm-Kolonialismus weckte auch der Leitartikler Max Boot vom "Wall Street Journal": Viele Problemländer, schrieb er, schrieen heute geradezu "nach solch aufgeklärter ausländischer Verwaltung, wie sie einmal von selbstbewussten Engländern in Kolonialuniformen und -helmen geleistet wurde".

    "Einseitige US-Herrschaft ist vielleicht keine Option mehr," fügte Boot hinzu - wohl weil er befürchtet, das schlechte Image der Yankees würde "Ami go home"-Forderungen Vorschub leisten. Aber, so Boot, "die USA können eine internationale Besatzungsmacht unter Uno-Mandat und in Kooperation mit einigen muslimischen Staaten anführen."

    Ob allerdings die Uno, traditionell antikolonialistisch gestimmt, auf Dauer zur Kolonialmacht neuen Stils taugt und zur Verwaltung von Regionen bereit ist, die ohne ihr Plazet von den USA bombardiert und besetzt worden sind, steht dahin.

    Falls nicht, bliebe ihr nach wie vor eine wichtige Rolle in der internationalen Arbeitsteilung - als mildtätige Hilfstruppe, die mit Euro-Millionen die Überlebenden jener Kriege ernährt, die das Pentagon führt.

    Das wäre nichts Neues. Wie heißt doch der alte Nato-Spruch: "The US fights, the UN feeds, the EU pays."
    Avatar
    ODDLOT
    schrieb am 24.02.03 15:21:27
    Beitrag Nr. 70 (8.709.806)
    kleine Korrektur zur Aufgabenverteilung.

    "The US fights, the UN feeds, the EU funds."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 24.02.03 23:48:42
    Beitrag Nr. 71 (8.716.683)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:03:42
    Beitrag Nr. 72 (8.716.913)
    Ein neuer Clinton?

    Frieden in der Bewerbungsmappe

    Von Lutz Kleveman, New York

    Bisher folgte die Demokratische Partei der USA fast sprachlos dem Kriegskurs der Bush-Regierung. Doch nun regt sich Widerstand. Howard Dean, weitgehend unbekannter Bewerber um die Präsidentschafts-Kandidatur, bekam für seine Antikriegsrede beim Demokratentreff mehr Applaus als all seine renommierten Konkurrenten. Schon beschwören manche einen neuen Clinton.


    AP

    US-Präsidentschaftskandidat Howard Dean: gegen einen US-Alleingang


    Als Howard Dean ans Rednerpult tritt, hält er sich gar nicht erst mit einleitenden Floskeln auf: "Was ich wissen will: warum unterstützt die Führung der Demokratischen Partei den unilateralen Krieg des Präsidenten gegen den Irak?" Wie ein Geschoss fliegt die Frage durch den Saal des Hyatt Hotels in Washington, wo sich das Nationalkomittee der Demokraten am Wochenende zur Wintertagung versammelt hat. Erschrocken starren die Partei-Granden auf den Ex-Gouverneur von Vermont, einen der bislang eher unbekannteren Bewerber um die Kandidaten-Nominierung für die Präsidentschaftswahlen im nächsten Jahr.
    Da brandet plötzlich tosender Applaus auf, von den Hunderten Funktionäre und Delegierten. Jede Zeile, mit der der 54jährige Arzt fortan das unterwürfige Mitläufertum demokratischer Kongressmitglieder in der Politik von Präsident George W. Bush geißelt, wird wild beklatscht. "Ich bin Howard Dean, ich vertrete den demokratischen Flügel der Demokratischen Partei", ruft der liberale Nordstaatler. Am Ende der feurigen Rede erheben sich viele Delegierte zu stehenden Ovationen und "Howard, Howard"-Rufen. Die Oppositions-Partei, die der Bush-Regierung seit dem 11. September 2001 geradezu ohnmächtig gegenüber steht, hat einen neuen Star.


    Der Mann, der jahrelang dem linksliberalsten US-Staat Vermont als Gouverneur vorstand, begeisterte sogar Parteifreunde aus so konservativen Staaten wie Wyoming oder Alabama - denen gefiel Deans Rede am besten. "Er hat heute die Richtung gewiesen", sagte die texanische Demokratenführerin Molly Beth Malcolm. "Die Leute dürsten nach Führerschaft, und Howard Dean zeigte genau das." Erfahrene Parteigänger indes räumem Deans Ambitionen keine großen Chancen ein. Der Mann sei zu links; was die Demokraten bräuchten, ist eine Figur wie Clinton, der sich immer in die Mitte stellt, egal, wo die gerade ist.

    Auf jeden Fall aber tritt Deans Rede ein schwelender innerparteilichen Streit um die Irak-Politik offen zutage. Mitte Februar hatte Senator Robert Byrd im Kongress bereits eine flammende Anti-Kriegs-Rede gehalten; Deans Fortsetzung könnte nun die Demokraten aus ihrer bisherigen loyalpatriotischen Erstarrung wecken, die den Republikanern um Bush bislang weitgehend widerspruchsloses Regieren erlaubt hat. So sahen sich zwei von Deans mächtigen Rivalen gezwungen, auf der Tagung ihre Unterstützung für Bushs Kriegskurs zu verteidigen. "Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen müssen lieber früher als später zerstört werden, denn falls wir das nicht tun, wird er sie früher oder später gegen uns einsetzen", sagte Joseph Lieberman, der Senator von Connecticut. Der ehemalige Mitkandidat von Al Gore bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen vor zwei Jahren gilt als der konservativste Falke unter den demokratischen Aspiranten für das Weiße Haus.

    Zwischenruf von hinten: "Schande!"

    Zwar kritisierte Lieberman, dass Bush nicht eine breitere internationale Koalition für den Angriff auf den Irak gewonnen habe, doch das Ziel an sich nannte er richtig und entscheidend für die Sicherheit Amerikas. Lieberman warnte seine Parteifreunde: "Niemand wird im November 2004 zum Präsidenten gewählt werden, der die Wähler nicht überzeugen kann, dass er Amerika`s Familien schützen wird." Die Delegierten reagierten mit respektvollem, aber zurückhaltendem Applaus.



    AP

    George Bush im Oktober 2002: Demokraten gaben ihm freie Hand in Sachen Saddam


    Die Brandrede Deans galt auch dem Partei-Schwergewicht Richard Gephardt aus Missouri, der erst vergangene Woche seine Kandidatur um das höchste Amt im Staate bekannt gegeben hatte. Der langjährige Demokraten-Führer im Repräsentantenhaus war im vergangen Herbst entscheidend dafür eingetreten, dass die Demokraten mit grosser Mehrheit für die Kongress-Resolution votierten, die Bush einen Angriff auf den Irak erlaubte. "Ich glaube, wir müssen Saddam Hussein entwaffnen. Und ich bin stolz, dass ich die Resolution geschrieben habe. Sie half dem Präsidenten, schließlich seine Sache vor die Vereinten Nationen zu tragen." Die Delegierten schwiegen frostig, aus den hinteren Reihen donnerte ein Ruf: "Schande!"


    Die offene Gespaltenheit der Demokraten spiegelt die wachsende Skepsis im amerikanischen Volk gegenüber der Kriegspolitik der Bush-Regierung wider. Zwar unterstützt eine knappe Mehrheit noch immer den Kurs des Weißen Hauses, doch der Widerstand im Uno-Sicherheitsrat und die Friedensdemonstrationen in amerikanischen Städten haben eine erneute Irak-Debatte entfacht. Am vergangenen Wochenende hatten in New York und San Francisco Hunderttausende gegen die US-Politik protestiert. Regierungssprecher und die bürgerlichen Medien spielten die Volksaufmärsche zwar nach Kräften herunter, und konservative Kommentatoren in Radio und Fernsehen sparten nicht mit Spott und Häme.

    "Der Doktor ist in!!

    Doch die Basis der Demokratischen Partei bekommt - ähnlich wie Tony Blairs Labour Party in Großbritannien - den Druck von unten immer deutlicher zu spüren. Auf seiner ersten Pressekonferenz als Kandidat etwa sah sich Gephardt vergangene Woche an einem College im US-Bundesstaat Iowa einem regelrechten Sperrfeuer von Fragen ausgesetzt, die seine Rückendeckung für das Weiße Haus kritisierten. Wahlkampfstrategen prophezeien bereits, dass die linksliberale Parteibasis in Iowa, traditionell der Ort der ersten Vorwahlen für Präsidentschafts-Kandidaten, den Falken Gephardt und Liebermann in diesem Jahr zünftige Abfuhren erteilen wird. Auch der wohl chancenreichste Kandidat, der Vietnam-Veteran und schwerreiche Senator John Kerry aus Massachusetts, wird jetzt auf die Frage antworten müssen, warum er für die Kriegsresolution gestimmt hat.


    DPA

    US-Demokrat Robert Byrd: Antikriegsrede im Senat


    Davon könnte der bisherige Außenseiter und neue Hoffnungsträger Dean profitieren, dessen Vorstoß den Demokraten die Irak-Politik als Wahlkampfthema unumkehrbar aufgezwungen hat. Dabei betont der Sohn eines republikanischen Investmentbankers, keine pazifistische "Taube" zu sein. Dem New York Magazine sagte er: "Ich glaube einfach nicht, dass der Präsident überzeugende Argumente hat. Er muss zeigen, dass Saddam nukleare Waffen hat, und ich denke nicht, dass es dafür auch nur den Fetzen eines Beweises gibt." Biologische und chemische Waffen allein würden nicht reichen als Kriegsgrund, glaubt Dean, der sich offen für den französischen Vorschlag ausgesprochen hat, die Zahl der Uno-Inspektoren im Irak zu verdreifachen.

    "Die meisten Leute haben keine Ahnung vom Krieg, außer Menschen, die ihre Kinder im Krieg verloren haben", meint der gebürtige New Yorker, dessen Bruder während des Vietnam-Kriegs von kommunistischen Vietcong in Laos als CIA-Spion hingerichtet wurde. "Deshalb glaube ich, dass meine politischen Mitbewerber um die Nominierung in Sachen Irak falsch liegen."

    Nach der Tagung des Nationalkomitees in Washington waren sich jedenfalls fast alle Anwesenden einig, dass der Arzt aus Vermont von nun an ein ernstzunehmender Herausforderer sein könnte. Viele Delegierte, besonders junge, trugen Schilder, auf denen zu lesen war: "Der Doktor ist in!" Einige Ältere erinnerten an eine ähnliche Parteiversammlung vor zwölf Jahren, als sich ein ebenfalls weitgehend unbekannter Gouverneur eines kleinen Bundesstaats mit einer leidenschaftlichen Rede als Kandidat nach vorne gespielt hatte: Bill Clinton aus Arkansas.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:06:06
    Beitrag Nr. 73 (8.716.941)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:09:38
    Beitrag Nr. 74 (8.716.981)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:14:12
    Beitrag Nr. 75 (8.717.028)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:15:01
    Beitrag Nr. 76 (8.717.040)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:22:50
    Beitrag Nr. 77 (8.717.110)
    SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/109643_thomas23.shtml

    We need to hear from Democrats on Iraq
    Sunday, February 23, 2003

    By HELEN THOMAS
    HEARST NEWSPAPERS

    WASHINGTON -- The Democratic presidential aspirants have been pussyfooting around the Iraq question, wanting to have it both ways on whether to support President Bush`s rush-to-war.

    The time has come for them to show some backbone. They should declare their position clearly and point to peaceful options that the president has no time for. Speaking of clarity, I salute Bush for his laser-focused campaign against Saddam Hussein, even if he ignores facts and history. Also getting strong marks for clarity would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who is just as hawkish as Bush.

    It`s disappointing that the Democrats don`t have a leading candidate to challenge that point of view with the force of moral clarity. Most of the leading candidates are straddling the fence, reluctant to take a firm stand one way or another. These wafflers should get C-minus grades when voters are passing out grades for leadership.

    At a time when the Democrats need giants to challenge the incumbent president, they are surrounded by "me too" candidates.

    If it gets down to Lieberman, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts or Joseph Biden of Delaware, the voters will have scant choice in `04 and may feel they have to stick with the known quantity.

    Democrats have always felt slightly queasy when dealing with issues of national security. Polls invariably show that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to war and peace. The same voters trust Democrats more when it comes to education, health care and Social Security.

    Maybe that explains why most of the growing list of Democratic contenders are so nervous when it comes to challenging the president on Iraq. They also have to be acutely aware of the fact that the American people will rally behind the commander in chief in time of military crisis, as shown in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm and its aftermath.

    Against this wishy-washy backdrop, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean stands out because of his anti-war message.

    In a foreign policy address earlier this week at Drake University in Des Moines, Dean said Bush is too focused on "the wrong war at the wrong time."

    He suggested that the "right war" would be to target al-Qaida, which caused the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. U.S. officials are convinced the malevolent al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is still alive after his last tape rallying radical Muslims to more violence.

    "What happened to the war against al-Qaida?" Dean asked in his Iowa speech.

    Dean also said he believed Bush should be spending money for the defense of our country by hiring more emergency workers and suggesting more security measures.

    At the same time, Dean said he would be prepared to go ahead against Baghdad if the U.N. Security Council approved and if it were "clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent and could neither be contained nor deterred."

    Bush hasn`t made the case for war, noted Dean, who endorsed more of "the hard work of diplomacy and inspection" as alternatives to the Bush war machine.

    Dean said he would have voted against the congressional resolution giving the president open-ended power to go to war on his own terms and timing.

    While attacking Bush, Dean also heaped scorn on his Democratic rivals who are members of Congress.

    "I do not believe the president should have been given a green light to drive the nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and to the American people for why war is necessary," Dean said.

    "That the president was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who postured for position instead of standing on principle," Dean added.

    He chided the congressional presidential aspirants for voting for the war resolution and then running around to voter groups and criticizing the administration`s war campaign.

    Other anti-war Democrats -- Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Al Sharpton of New York -- also are on the growing list of presidential hopefuls.

    Dean has burst on the scene in a way reminiscent of Jimmy Carter of Plains, Ga., the former governor of Georgia, who in 1976 was a virtual unknown outside the South. But he patiently put together a winning campaign to defeat the incumbent president, Gerald Ford. He stunned all the Beltway seers.

    Dean isn`t making any brief for Saddam, calling him "a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver."

    Kucinich, 56, notes that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward`s book, "Bush At War," depicts the administration as so eager to attack Iraq that on Sept. 12, 2001, when the nation was in a state of shock after the terrorist attacks the day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already urging war against Iraq.

    "Why shouldn`t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaida," Rumsfeld is quoted as saying. He was echoing his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who has had Iraq on his target list since 1991 when he unsuccessfully tried to sell it to the first President Bush.

    Rumsfeld was "raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately," Woodward wrote.

    There was no evidence then of any link between Iraq and al-Qaida. And try as they might, and despite lots of huffing and puffing, Bush administration officials haven`t produced any evidence since.

    For reasons that I and many other people don`t understand, Bush has been angling to attack Iraq for years. His Democratic challengers should demand to know why.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2003 Hearst Newspapers.

    © 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 00:30:53
    Beitrag Nr. 78 (8.717.165)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 11:48:25
    Beitrag Nr. 79 (8.720.586)
    Poll suggests public wants U.N. support for military action

    The Associated Press Monday, February 24, 2003

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    (02-24) 17:09 PST (AP) --

    A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to build more support within the U.N. Security Council for military action against Iraq, even if that means moving more slowly, says a new poll.

    In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, more than 56 percent said they want to see the United States win over more of the Security Council`s membership before attacking, even if that takes more time. Thirty-nine percent said this country should move quickly against Iraq even if that means acting without the Security Council`s support.

    The public favors U.N. involvement in any military action, even though they tend to disapprove of the world organization`s handling of the Iraq situation -- 38 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval.

    Public support for President Bush`s handling of the Iraq situation has dropped slightly from 61 percent two weeks ago to 55 percent now. Bush`s overall approval rating was at 60 percent, about where it has been in polls in the last few months.

    The level of public support for military action depends on how much international backing the United States can muster.

    * 63 percent favor military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

    * 57 percent support military action even without approval of the United Nations as long as some allies such as Britain, Spain and Australia are involved.

    * 50 percent back military action and 46 percent oppose when they`re simply asked their position if the United Nations opposes the military action.

    The poll of 1,024 adults was conducted Feb. 19-23 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 11:53:11
    Beitrag Nr. 80 (8.720.662)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 12:09:17
    Beitrag Nr. 81 (8.720.939)
    Harvey Wasserman

    A regime that hates democracy can`t wage war for democracy
    February 22, 2003

    George W. Bush says he wants to attack Iraq to install democracy. But as he explained on December 18, 2002: "If this were a dictatorship, it`d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I`m the dictator."

    Under Bush the Constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon to the world for two centuries have been shredded in two short years.

    In terms of basic legal rights and sanctuary from government spying, Americans may be less free under George W. Bush than as British subjects under George III in 1776.

    Though the trappings of free speech remain on the surface of American society, the Homeland Security Act, Patriot I, Patriot II and other massively repressive legislation, plus Republican control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, plus GOP dominance of the mass media, have laid the legal and political framework for a totalitarian infrastructure which, when combined with the capabilities of modern computer technology, may be unsurpassed.

    The Administration has used the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as pretext for this centralization of power. But most of it was in the works long before September 11 as part of the war on drugs and Bush`s modus operandi as the most secretive and authoritarian president in US history.

    So with today`s US as a model, what would be in store for Iraqis should Bush kill hundreds of thousands of them to replace Saddam Hussein?

    · President Bush has asserted the right to execute "suspected terrorists" without trial or public notice;
    · The Administration claims the right to torture "suspected terrorists," and by many accounts has already done so;
    · Attorney-General John Ashcroft has asserted the right to brand "a terrorist" anyone he wishes without evidence or public hearing or legal recourse;
    · The Administration has arrested and held without trial hundreds of "suspected terrorists" while denying them access to legal counsel or even public notification that they have been arrested;
    · The Administration has asserted the right to inspect the records of bookstores and public libraries to determine what American citizens are reading;
    · The Administration has asserted the right to break into private homes and tap the phones of US citizens without warrants;
    · The Administration has attempted to install a neighbors-spying-on-neighbors network that would have been the envy of Joe Stalin;
    · The Administration has effectively negated the Freedom of Information Act and runs by all accounts the most secretive regime in US history;
    · When the General Accounting Office, one of the few reliably independent federal agencies, planned to sue Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal who he met to formulate the Bush Energy Bill, Bush threatened to slash GAO funding, and the lawsuit was dropped;
    · After losing the 2000 election by more than 500,000 popular votes (but winning a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court), the Administration plans to control all voting through computers operated by just three companies, with code that can be easily manipulated, as may have been done in Georgia in 2002, winning seats for a Republican governor and US senator, and in Nebraska to elect and re-elect US Senator Chuck Hagel, an owner of the voting machine company there;
    · FCC Chair Michael Powell (son of Colin) is enforcing the Administration`s demand that regulation be ended so nearly all mass media can be monopolized by a tiny handful of huge corporations;
    · Attorney-General Ashcroft has assaulted states rights, a traditional Republican mainstay, using federal troops to trash public referenda legalizing medical marijuana in nine states;
    · Ashcroft has overridden his own federal prosecutors and assaulted local de facto prohibitions against the death penalty, which has been renounced by every other industrial nation and is now used only by a handful of dictatorships, including Iraq.

    Overseas, the US record is infamous. Among those it has put in power are Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu, the Shah, the Greek Junta and too many other murderous dictators to mention in a single article.

    Afghanistan, leveled in the name of democracy and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, now stands ruined and abandoned. In sequel, Bush is gathering Iraq attackers with the promise of cash bribes, oil spoils and conquered land.

    Turkey, Bulgaria and Bush`s manufactured Iraqi opposition are already squabbling over the booty. Bush says rebuilding will be funded by Iraqi oil revenues, probably administered through the same core regime now in place, but with a different figurehead.

    In other words: the media hype about bringing democracy to Iraq is just that. There is absolutely no reason to believe a US military conquest would bring to Iraq the beloved freedoms George W. Bush is so aggressively destroying here in America.

    A regime that so clearly hates democracy at home is not about to wage war for one abroad.

    Copyright © 2003 by Harvey Wasserman
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 12:19:27
    Beitrag Nr. 82 (8.721.060)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 12:33:11
    Beitrag Nr. 83 (8.721.208)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 13:43:32
    Beitrag Nr. 84 (8.722.193)
    Ein neuer Star? Howard Dean

    Howard Dean Gets Hot


    By Howard Kurtz
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, February 24, 2003; 9:08 AM


    All of you are surely wondering this morning: Who won the Democratic presidential bakeoff?

    We were thinking the same thing as we sat in the press rows at the big DNC conclave here over the weekend, so we asked some fellow chattering-class members.

    "I`ve never seen Gephardt that good, but Dean was on fire," said veteran analyst Charlie Cook.

    "Dean kicked [butt]," another reporter declared.

    Dean was the unofficial winner, and Joe Lieberman the unofficial loser (he`s a great general election candidate, but his centrist approach doesn`t provide much red meat for party carnivores).

    Nearly all the candidates (other than the recuperating John Kerry and Bob Graham) were here to speechify before the DNC delegates and the assembled press corps. Which means the insiders were comparing notes and wondering who has the Right Stuff (or perhaps the left stuff) to knock off George W.

    This is all about early buzz, of course. But early buzz can produce good media coverage. Just ask Howard Dean, who in the last week has gotten nice write-ups in Salon, New York magazine and the Baltimore Sun ("Vt. Democrat`s anti-war stance could be ticket from obscurity"). Such stories can create a sense of momentum and attract supporters and fundraisers (Rob Reiner has now endorsed Dean).

    Nationally, it`s a different story. A Time-CNN poll gives Lieberman 16 percent, Dick Gephardt 13, Kerry 8, John Edwards 7, Al Sharpton 7, Carol Moseley-Braun 4, Dean 3, Graham 3 and Dennis Kucinich 2 (not bad for a guy who announced 12 minutes ago).

    Kerry, meanwhile, gets first-class treatment in Vogue, with the cover line: "Can a Blue-Blooded Mega-Millionaire Win the Heartland?" (Hey, why not? Bush did it.)

    These cattle calls can be a bit demeaning, with all the potential presidents and assorted egomaniacs waiting in the wings for their allotted few minutes. But they are the opening innings of a very long game – and a great opportunity for those don`t have a national profile.

    Like a certain doctor.

    Just check out the headlines:

    Chicago Tribune: "Dean takes Democrats to task over Iraq stance"

    Washington Times: "`Gutsy` Dean rouses Democrats with call to arms"

    St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Dean Scores a Home Run at Democratic Party Powwow"

    Here`s the New York Times take:

    "Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri drew the day`s warmest receptions by far.

    "Dr. Dean moved to distinguish himself sharply from his rivals. Taking advantage of the fact that he is not a sitting member of Congress, he criticized Democrats who had supported White House policies for the past two years, starting with the Iraq resolution last year. Dr. Dean did not even bother to warm up his crowd, starting his attack immediately after walking to his microphone.

    "`What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president`s unilateral attack on Iraq?` he asked, to applause from most of his audience. `What I want to know is why are Democratic leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be; the question should be, Can we afford a tax cut at all, with the largest deficit in the history of this country?`

    "`I`m Howard Dean, and I`m here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,` he said. . . .

    "In interviews, Democrats spoke highly of Dr. Dean, saying he had with his speech provided a sense of ideology and passion that many said had been absent among Democrats in last year`s Congressional elections.

    "But Mr. Gephardt – who as the former House minority leader took much of the blame for last year`s defeats – drew reviews that were almost as warm. . . . Indeed, in many ways, the day might prove to be especially beneficial for Mr. Gephardt, who is a regular and perhaps overly familiar figure to many Democrats here looking for a fresh face."

    The Boston Globe also likes the doctor:

    "Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, had the crowd buzzing with a speech that attacked his own party nearly as viciously as he castigated Bush. . . . The audience was far more reserved for its first speaker, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut."

    Says Newsweek: "So far, the boat rising fastest on the antiwar tide belongs to Howard Dean."

    The Washington Post delivers a similar verdict:

    "Dean`s fiery and unabashedly liberal message drew the most enthusiastic response from an audience demoralized by Democratic losses in the 2002 elections. . . .

    "Gephardt, who formally announced his candidacy this week, also drew strong applause with a speech that used personal and family experiences to promote an agenda to provide health care to all Americans, establish a pension system that would ensure workers a more secure retirement, create incentives to make it easier for young people to become teachers and work for a variable, international minimum wage. . . .

    "Lieberman, the party`s 2000 vice presidential nominee, drew a polite but reserved response as he presented himself as a hawk on foreign and defense policy and a centrist on domestic policy."

    ABC`s Note, before the cattle call, likes the man who wasn`t there. Democrats are "looking for an experienced fresh face with a military background and an anti-war stance. Barring that, they`re looking for the candidate with the best shot at beating George W. Bush.

    "Right now, that candidate would seem to be Senator John Kerry, who, in fact, will be the only one of the current eight presidential candidates not addressing the DNC`s winter meeting because he is still recovering from prostate cancer surgery.

    "Kerry`s top-notch staff`s ability to daisy-chain one advantage into another, in the vein of `good buzz leading to good clips leading to good staff hires leading to fundraising gains, and so on,` is no small part of why Kerry appears to be the frontrunner today. But the primary reason is his Vietnam/military credentials, which would seem, at least on the surface, to solve Democrats` biggest weakness – national security bona fides – for which they suffered badly in the 2002 elections."

    In the Note`s handicapping, "the Senator from Massachusetts places first. In second: Senator John Edwards, followed by Senator Joe Lieberman at third, Rep. Dick Gephardt quite close behind in fourth, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at fifth, and the Rev. Al Sharpton in sixth place."

    The speakers also included the newest candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley-Braun (who, despite brain-lock on our part Friday, is not the first serious female candidate in a generation. We somehow forgot about Elizabeth Dole`s short-lived effort).

    The Philadelphia Inquirer sees trouble ahead for whoever emerges:

    "As they ponder the next presidential race, Democrats are plagued by a recurring nightmare.

    "In the spring of 2004, fresh from a bloody and expensive primary season, their candidate could be strapped for cash – while the Republican candidate, who lives in the White House, is rolling in dough.

    "In fact, President Bush is expected to run his reelection race with the fattest campaign war chest in history, maybe $300 million, totally financed by private contributors – defying the spirit of federal reform law that, since the Watergate era, has sought to curb the dominance of private dollars in presidential campaigns. No Democrat has a prayer of matching the Bush money juggernaut.

    "As national chairman Terry McAuliffe said here at the party`s annual winter meeting, Democrats face `a tremendous gap` in the competition with Republicans to raise campaign money."

    There are hints that Kerry and Lieberman could dispense with public financing.

    The New Republic is pining for a big strong military man:

    "Mickey Kaus is probably right to think we`re on the verge of a Wesley Clark boomlet. Clark came off as serious and uncalculating on `Meet the Press` last Sunday--at least as uncalculating as you can be when you`re on national television testing the waters for a presidential run. (The `All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kosovo` routine did wear a little thin after a while.) . . . There aren`t many Democrats who have the former Supreme Allied Commander`s credibility on national security, which seems to be the party`s biggest vulnerability going forward. The problem is that, for all his credibility, Clark`s foreign policy vision isn`t very compelling. . . .

    "Wesley Clark`s thoughts on the use of force sound disturbingly Powell Doctrine-esque. Then again, Colin Powell is one of the most popular people in the country these days."

    But Kaus himself sees the retired general leaving himself plenty of wiggle room: "His ultimate Iraq stand – we have to go to war now, but a year ago Bush should have `set Iraq aside` and avoided war – also happens to be a perfect straddle of the issue. If war goes well, he was for it. If it goes badly, he was against it!"

    Mike Murphy, the GOP strategist who now opines for Hotline, goes online and asks: "Who has the longest bio listed on any announced candidate`s website? Teresa Heinz Kerry with an impressive 1,143 words, nearly twice her husband John Kerry`s 635 words. I had no idea Ms. Heinz-Kerry was `heralded by the Utne Reader in 1995 as one of 100 American visionaries.` I`d extract more but her bio is almost twice as long as this column. . . .

    "Fragile front-runner John Kerry`s website is a bundle of tells. Beyond Ms. H-K`s epic bio, the Kerry website reveals both the strength and the weakness of the Kerry campaign; an ocean of words yielding a puddle of message. The site is admirably thick – the most elaborate of any Dem contender – but the actual content is weak."

    The Orlando Sentinel finds its home-state candidate less than forthcoming on his medical treatment:

    "Sen. Bob Graham, who will begin raising money for a presidential campaign next week, said Thursday that his Jan. 31 heart surgery was much more serious that he had previously disclosed.

    "Graham, in his first interview with reporters since open-heart surgery, said that despite the health troubles he will open a presidential campaign committee next week. And if his doctors say he can withstand the rigors of a national campaign, he said, he will announce his candidacy in four to eight weeks.

    "But the more serious nature of Graham`s health problems, and the fact that he did not disclose the extent of the problem until Thursday, could hurt his campaign, political analysts said. . . .

    "Surgeons performed a double-bypass on Graham after finding he suffers from coronary artery disease. They also repaired a congenital hole between the upper chambers of his heart."

    There may be more GOP governors than Democrats, but they are suddenly on the defensive, says the Washington Times:

    "A threatened exodus of Republican governors from the National Governors Association was slowed yesterday when the organization`s executive committee managed to kill a resolution that would have opposed tax cuts favored by President Bush.

    "The resolution would have put the nation`s governors on record as saying the best stimulus to the economy would be more federal tax dollars for the states, rather than the tax cuts supported by Mr. Bush and most Republicans in Congress.

    "Rebellious Republicans led by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens managed to thwart the resolution. The victory came a day after Republican governors met privately and resolved to work together to gain control over an NGA staff they say is dominated by liberals and Democrats."

    Tired of Democrats and Republicans? This might be coming soon to a state near you, says the Baltimore Sun:

    "Plans are underway for an invasion of New Hampshire. Or Wyoming. Or maybe Delaware, Montana or Alaska. Sparsely populated and independent in spirit, they`re all attractive targets for a certain bloodless coup in the making.

    "Within the next several years, according to the plan, 20,000 Libertarians would move to a single state and begin infiltrating. They would get jobs, join civic groups, get elected and take a hatchet to taxes and laws. In this utopia called the Free State Project, schools would be severed from the state, gun-control laws abolished, drugs legalized, health and social services privatized, most federal aid rejected. Government`s only job would be to protect against `force and fraud.`

    "`The Libertarian movement has existed for decades and produced leading intellectuals and Nobel Prize winners, but despite all that it hasn`t had much influence on a national level,` says Free State Project founder Jason Sorens. `I think it`s time we concentrate our resources in a place where we have a shot at actually winning.` . . .

    "Once 20,000 have signed on – Sorens expects this by about 2005 – the migration begins."

    The abortion issue may be popping up in an unexpected place:

    "Advocates for women`s health are usually delighted when the government spends time and money to explore the causes of breast cancer," says the Los Angeles Times. "But some of them are charging that abortion politics, not science, is behind a conference starting Monday at the National Cancer Institute that will consider whether women who terminate a pregnancy also face a higher risk of breast cancer.

    "The critics say the conference is the latest case of the Bush administration`s skewing the nation`s medical research agenda to please its conservative allies.

    "There is hardly a breast cancer activist group around that can say that they`re happy this conference is happening, or that this is a high priority, or that they`ve called on the NCI to do more on this topic,` said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women`s Health Network, a Washington-based watchdog group."

    Sandy Koufax has struck out Rupert Murdoch. As we told you Friday, the baseball legend disassociated himself from the Murdoch-owned Los Angeles Dodgers after a seamy gossip item in the Murdoch-owned New York Post, which has now apologized:

    "A two-sentence blind item we ran here Dec. 19 about a `Hall of Fame baseball hero` has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry. The item said the sports hero `cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep secret that he is gay.`

    "Two weeks later, the Daily News` Michael Gross, after finding `Sandy Koufax: A Lefty`s Legacy` by Jane Leavy on the best-seller list, named Koufax as the player and ran a photo of him. Koufax himself, an intensely private man, was deeply offended by our item. The author has denied making any deal with Koufax and called our item `erroneous.` We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong."

    Salon`s Keith Olbermann rips the Murdoch forces:

    "It is the New York Post, of course, that published another piece of homophobic baseball gossip last spring that led the New York Mets` Mike Piazza to feel he had to publicly announce he was not gay. Besides the Post, the News Corp. also owns Fox Television, Fox News Channel, and other companies that produce products structurally similar to `news.` . . .

    "I worked for News Corp. – for its Fox network and one of its cable sewers, Fox Sports Net, for three years. They were swine. Many companies are swine. But the Koufax episode is something extraordinary."

    Tell us what you really think, Keith.

    © 2003 The Washington Post Company
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 25.02.03 21:48:41
    Beitrag Nr. 85 (8.728.902)


    Norman Mailer: Gaining an empire, losing democracy?
    Norman Mailer Tribune Media Services
    Tuesday, February 25, 2003

    Iraq is an excuse

    LOS ANGELES There is a subtext to what the Bushites are doing as they prepare for war in Iraq. My hypothesis is that President George W. Bush and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that the only way they can save America and get if off its present downslope is to become a regime with a greater military presence and drive toward empire. My fear is that Americans might lose their democracy in the process.

    By downslope I`m referring not only to the corporate scandals, the church scandals and the FBI scandals. The country has gone kind of crazy in the eyes of conservatives. Also, kids can`t read anymore. Especially for conservatives, the culture has become too sexual.

    Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction. War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base - not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers - to build a world empire.

    The Bushites also expect to bring democracy to the region and believe that in itself will help to diminish terrorism. But I expect the opposite will happen: terrorists are not impressed by democracy. They loathe it. They are fundamentalists of the most basic kind. The more successful democracy is in the Near East - not likely in my view - the more terrorism it will generate.

    The only outstanding obstacle to the drive toward empire in the Bushites` minds is China. Indeed, one of the great fears in the Bush administration about America`s downslope is that the "stem studies" such as science, technology and engineering are all faring poorly in U.S. universities. The number of American doctorates is going down and down. But the number of Asians obtaining doctorates in those same stem studies are increasing at a great rate.

    Looking 20 years ahead, the administration perceives that there will come a time when China will have technology superior to America`s. When that time comes, America might well say to China that "we can work together," we will be as the Romans to you Greeks. You will be our extraordinary, well-cultivated slaves. But don`t try to dominate us. That would be your disaster. This is the scenario that some of the brightest neoconservatives are thinking about. (I use Rome as a metaphor, because metaphors are usually much closer to the truth than facts).

    What has happened, of course, is that the Bushites have run into much more opposition than they thought they would from other countries and among the home population. It may well end up that we won`t have a war, but a new strategy to contain Iraq and wear Saddam down. If that occurs, Bush is in terrible trouble.

    My guess though, is that, like it or not, want it or not, America is going to go to war because that is the only solution Bush and his people can see.

    The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in Americans` lives. It will be an ever greater and greater overlay on the American system. And before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. My long experience with human nature - I`m 80 years old now - suggests that it is possible that fascism, not democracy, is the natural state.

    Indeed, democracy is the special condition - a condition we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America already.

    Norman Mailer`s latest book is "The Spooky Art: Some Thoughts on Writing." This comment was adapted from remarks Feb. 22 to the Los Angeles Institute for the Humanities and distributed by Global Viewpoint/Tribune Media Services International.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 00:34:28
    Beitrag Nr. 86 (8.731.788)
    Fitzgerald: Bush talked of assassinating Hussein
    By Eric Krol Daily Herald Political Writer
    Posted on February 25, 2003


    Sen. Peter Fitzgerald

    President Bush recently told Sen. Peter Fitzgerald he would order the assassination of Saddam Hussein "if we had intelligence on where he was now and we had a clear shot," the Illinois senator said Monday.

    Such an order would represent a major shift away from a nearly 30-year U.S. ban on assassinating foreign leaders. That ban was put into place during the Ford administration in response to criticism of CIA-backed plots in the 1960s and 1970s.

    White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Monday he "can`t confirm whether or not" Bush and Fitzgerald discussed the potential assassination of Hussein. He said the Ford "executive order remains in place."

    Fitzgerald`s comments came during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board in which he was asked how the United States could capture and remove Hussein from power without killing thousands of Iraqi citizens in the process.

    "That`s a really good question because the administration -- I have personally talked to the president about this and if we had intelligence on where he was now, and we had a clear shot to assassinate him, we would probably do that. President Bush would probably sign an executive order repealing the executive order put in place by President Ford that forbid the assassination of foreign leaders," Fitzgerald said.

    Asked later to clarify whether Bush had told him he would authorize changing U.S. policy to kill Hussein, the Inverness Republican said: "Yes, yes. Now, he told me that aboard Air Force One."

    A Fitzgerald spokesman said he thinks the conversation took place Jan. 7 when the senator flew back to Washington with Bush following the president`s Chicago speech touting his tax-cut plan.

    "I don`t want to betray any confidences of the president," Fitzgerald quickly added. "I assumed he (Bush) had said that somewhere else. But maybe if he didn`t say that anywhere else, I shouldn`t have said that just now."

    In February 1976, President Ford officially banned assassination attempts by the CIA. President Reagan extended that executive order in 1981 to include hired assassins.

    Last October, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer raised eyebrows by suggesting "the cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it upon themselves, is substantially less" than the estimated $9 billion-a-month cost of a war in Iraq. Fleischer reiterated then that the Ford assassination ban remains in place.

    Speaking at a Houston fund-raiser last September, Bush noted U.S. intelligence officials believe Hussein wanted Bush`s father assassinated 10 years ago: "This is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

    Fitzgerald said he would support a change in policy to assassinate Hussein.

    "I think in this limited case it would make sense if you could avoid a lot of civilian casualties, harm to our own young men and women in the armed forces, I think it would make sense. Not as a permanent change in policy but as a one-time policy," Fitzgerald said.

    Illinois` senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin of Springfield, cautioned against such a policy.

    "I would say we ought to take care not to go too far on this issue," said Durbin, who sits on the Senate`s intelligence panel. "In the world we live in today, any elected official would be fair game for retaliation."

    An official at the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations said only Iraqi ambassador Mohammed Aldouri could comment, but he was at U.N. hearings Monday and unavailable.

    Assassinate: Fitzgerald would support policy change; Durbin urges caution
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 00:41:46
    Beitrag Nr. 87 (8.731.823)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 12:42:42
    Beitrag Nr. 88 (8.735.793)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 12:47:16
    Beitrag Nr. 89 (8.735.856)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 12:57:30
    Beitrag Nr. 90 (8.736.015)
    News Media Get Good Marks for Terrorism Coverage
    But public generally skeptical about media accuracy and objectivity


    by David W. Moore
    GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

    PRINCETON, NJ -- According to the latest Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans perceive the news media to be acting responsibly in their handling of the recent threats of terrorism in the United States. But the poll also shows that, more generally, Americans are skeptical about the accuracy and objectivity of the "fourth estate." Almost six out of 10 Americans say that news stories are often inaccurate. While Americans are roughly as likely to say that the media`s news coverage favors the Republican Party as the Democratic Party, 45% say that the media are too liberal, while only 15% say the media are too conservative. Perceptions of inaccuracy are not strongly related to party or ideology, but perceptions of partisan bias, predictably, are related to partisan orientation. Conservatives and Republicans are highly likely to say that the media have a liberal and Democratic bias, while liberals and Democrats say that the media show a bias for conservatives and Republicans.

    The poll was conducted Feb. 17-19 and finds that 57% of Americans believe that the news media have acted responsibly "in handling the recent threats of terrorism in the United States," while 40% say the media have acted irresponsibly. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the public was more positive. By a margin of 86% to 12%, Americans said the media provided responsible coverage. Fifty-seven percent of Americans also said the media handled the sniper shootings last fall in a responsible manner.

    Overall, do you feel the news media have acted responsibly or irresponsibly in handling the recent threats of terrorism in the United States?

    Feb 17-19, 2003



    Despite this positive assessment, Americans express skepticism that the news media routinely provides accurate and objective coverage. The poll shows that 58% of Americans believe news organizations` stories "are often inaccurate," while just 39% say they "get the facts straight."

    In general, do you think -- news organizations get the facts straight, or do you think news organizations’ stories and reports are often inaccurate?










    http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030226.asp
    Avatar
    goldmist
    schrieb am 26.02.03 13:05:14
    Beitrag Nr. 91 (8.736.145)




    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :mad: :D
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 21:08:05
    Beitrag Nr. 92 (8.741.975)
    Fractured Foreign Policy
    President Bush and Captain Arab -- Psychological soul-mates

    Alex A. Vardamis Wednesday, February 26, 2003

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Literature can often place a current dilemma in perspective. To understand the crisis between the United States and Iraq, Americans would do well to refer to Herman Melville`s "Moby Dick."

    The parallels are striking. Consider the cast of characters: Captain Ahab is played by President George W. Bush. First mate Starbuck is Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Pequod`s three harpooners -- the Indian Dagoo, the African Tashtego and the kindly cannibal Queequeg -- are the military forces of the USA. They are the ones who confront the enemy. Their job is to hurl harpoons (read cruise missiles) down the whale`s throat.

    The Pequod`s diversified crew represents not only all races of mankind, but all temperaments. They are the American people. They range from the intellectual schoolmaster Ishmael and the easygoing second mate Stubb, to the third mate Flask, brave and high-spirited to a fault.

    Finally, the great white whale, Moby Dick is, of course, none other than Saddam Hussein.

    To carry the comparison further, suppose Ahab`s whaling ship, the Pequod, to be the United States of America. The hostile ocean, then, is the billion- strong Muslim world.

    Ahab is motivated by a monomaniacal hatred of Moby Dick. He is unable to rest until he has killed the whale. Bush, too, displays an obsession with Hussein. Both Bush and Ahab feel a personal affront. Ahab lost his leg to Moby Dick. The president`s dad was politically crippled by an inability to destroy Hussein.

    Just as the Pequod`s job is to harvest oil from the sperm whale, so the current crisis involves controlling Iraq`s oil supply. But Ahab, like Bush, demonstrates only a perfunctory interest in economics. He forgets the principal purpose of his voyage and, instead, uses his whaling ship as an instrument of vengeance.

    Ahab and Bush view the universe through the same lens. They see mankind engaged in a perpetual struggle between right and wrong. Ahab and Bush believe they are confronting pure evil. Compromise, therefore, is impossible. Good nations support America and bad nations oppose her in this dualistic world view.

    It is interesting that Ahab`s confidante, the sinister Persian (read, Iranian) Fedallah, shares this view of the universe with Bush`s advisers, including the "prince of darkness," Richard Perle.

    However, Bush, like Ahab, faces opposition. Starbuck, the Pequod`s brooding first mate, initially tries to dissuade Ahab from his quest. Similarly, Bush`s first mate, Powell, was an early advocate of moderation. But Starbuck and Powell are good soldiers. They take orders.

    Everyone is familiar with the conclusion of Moby Dick. The struggle with the great white whale ends with harpoons flying through the air, capsized whaleboats and churning waves. Ahab is garroted by a harpoon line. Moby Dick sinks the Pequod. All hands, but one, are lost. In the struggle between good and evil, evil triumphs, it appears.

    Or, perhaps, does evil reside in Ahab`s obsession? Most whales live out their lives placidly floating in the sea and feeding on plankton. Perhaps Moby Dick, a force of nature and potential weapon of mass destruction, turns violent only when he is goaded by relentless New Englanders.

    In any case, Ishmael, the only survivor of the Pequod, clings to a coffin floating among the scattered wreckage. Ishmael? Is Ishmael not the forefather of the Arabs?

    What in God`s name was Melville thinking when he wrote the Great American Novel? Is there a message here?

    Alex A. Vardamis is a retired professor of American literature from West Point and the University of Vermont. He lives in Carmel.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 21:18:55
    Beitrag Nr. 93 (8.742.143)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 21:22:50
    Beitrag Nr. 94 (8.742.204)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 26.02.03 21:39:30
    Beitrag Nr. 95 (8.742.457)
    Poll: Support Erodes for Bush on Economy
    Wed Feb 26, 7:58 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


    By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - Eroding support for President Bush (news - web sites)`s handling of the economy is undercutting the high marks he earned for tackling terrorism, says a new poll that shows his lowest job approval rating since before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.


    People who disapprove of Bush`s handling of the economy now outnumber those who approve, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday.


    It found that 43 percent now approve of the president`s economic policy and 48 percent disapprove — the first time a Pew poll has found more disapproving.


    His overall job approval, 54 percent, was at the lowest level in this poll since before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 sent it into the 80s.


    Bush is still near 60 percent in overall job approval in some other polls, including an ABC-Washington Post poll released Monday.


    Public support for Bush`s handling of terrorist threats remains strong, with two-thirds, or 67 percent, saying they approve. Just under half, 48 percent, said they approve of his handling of the situation in North Korea (news - web sites), while just over a third disapprove.


    The public`s view of "Bush`s stewardship of the economy continues to erode and his tax plan isn`t helping him much," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "The public is increasingly worried about finances."


    Only four in 10 in the Pew poll, 42 percent, said they approve of his tax policy — suggesting his $670 billion tax-cut plan, including a centerpiece proposal to slash the tax on investor dividends, has not shored up eroding confidence in his economic leadership. About the same number, 44 percent, said they disapprove of his tax policy.


    The poll was published the same day the Conference Board (news - web sites)`s Consumer Confidence Index (news - web sites) fell to its lowest level in nearly 10 years, plunging from 78.8 in January to 64.0 in February. That is its lowest reading since October 1993 and came in the face of analysts predictions for a reading of 77.0.


    Kohut said his poll suggests many people "would roll back the last tax cut to pay for military spending rather than add to the deficit, so it`s not too surprising that the new tax proposals are a nonstarter."


    When asked the best approach to pay for large increases in military defense and homeland security, 40 percent said the government should postpone or reduce last year`s tax cuts, 23 percent said it should add to the budget deficit and 21 percent said it should reduce spending on domestic programs.


    More than half, 56 percent, said they are very concerned they will not have enough money for their retirement, up from 42 percent who felt that way in May 1997.


    The poll of 1,254 adults was taken Feb. 12-18 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


    ___
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 00:52:40
    Beitrag Nr. 96 (8.744.322)
    This War Can Be Avoided
    VIEW FROM THE LEFT
    Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
    Monday, February 24, 2003
    ©2003 SF Gate

    URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/



    Kuwait is not Poland. Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler. This year, 2003, is not 1939.

    People who now urge a slaughterous attack on the Iraqi people don`t seem to understand these simple facts.

    In September 1939, the mighty armies of Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and quickly conquered Poland, which was virtually defenseless. We like to say now that the world stood by and did nothing, but that`s not true. The world finally began to prepare for war.

    Germany, at the time, had a magnificent army. Going one-on-one against almost any nation, it was capable of winning decisively. The Soviet Union`s military might was nearly on a par with Germany`s.

    Japan, possibly the world`s third-strongest power at the time, had thrown in its lot with Germany.

    So, in fact, there really was nobody to resist Germany`s aggression. The United States, a long way from becoming a superpower, was on a peacetime footing, and not prepared for war. Britain was gearing up, but it, too, was unprepared.

    One can argue that the rest of the world should have seen what Hitler and Stalin and Tojo, and Mussolini, were up to, and perhaps it did. But not in time to help Poland.

    How different things were in 1990, when Iraq decided to settle, once and for all, its long-standing dispute with the so-called constitutional monarchy (more monarchy than constitutional) of Kuwait. Hussein invaded and quickly conquered Kuwait, declaring it Iraq`s 19th province.

    However, unlike Hitler`s ambitions in 1939, Hussein`s aspirations in 1990 quickly backfired. The rest of the world was mobilized and prepared. The United States -- fearing further aggression by Iraq and destabilization of oil prices -- quickly put together a fighting force to take back Kuwait for the emir and sheiks who own it and the Palestinians who do their work for them.

    George Bush the Elder did a magnificent job at the time of rallying world support for a war to retake Kuwait, dropping bribes and forgiving loans at a dizzying pace. Whatever his tactics, they worked, and by the time the American-led and American-dominated forces went on the attack, just about the entire world was united behind them.

    The "fight" to retake Kuwait was more like a slaughter. Iraq was said to have the fourth-strongest military in the world at the time, but it might as well have fought with sticks and stones. American technology and firepower pulverized the Iraqis.

    So Kuwait was quickly retaken. After a virtual massacre of an estimated 85,000 retreating Iraqi troops, the war was deemed over. Bush, who had made commitments to neighboring nations to not destroy Hussein and throw Iraq into chaos, didn`t know what to do next, so he simply withdrew most of our forces.

    Please note that there was no appeasement of Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. He was promptly kicked out, at great cost to his armies and his pocketbook. Arms inspectors were sent into Iraq to find and destroy Hussein`s major weapons, a job they carried out with varying degrees of success. Economic embargoes were placed against Iraq, and "no-fly zones" were established over huge parts of the country.

    Over the past dozen years, U.S. and British planes have struck perhaps thousands of times against Iraq. According to "The World Almanac," more than 400 targets were struck within Iraq in the seven months between January and August 1999 alone. We even bombed and shelled military targets in Baghdad on occasion.


    Because of the devastation inside Iraq, and a shortage of food, the United Nations relented on its economic embargoes enough to allow Iraq to sell oil for food. Unfortunately, the U.N. did not supervise the oil-for-food program, so it turned into an oil-for-palaces program. Iraqi children continued to starve, thanks to Hussein`s callousness and the U.N.`s carelessness.

    The U.N. also allowed Hussein to wreck the weapons-inspections program.

    The U.N., by itself, has virtually no enforcement ability, so it depends on the leadership of great nations like the United States to provide that ability. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton wasn`t up to that job during his terms of office, nor was George W. Bush before Sept. 11, 2001.

    However, it`s not too late, not even now.

    We seem to forget that Iraq is a vanquished aggressor nation. As such, Iraq does not call the shots. It does what it is told.

    Good parents never threaten their children unless they`re willing to carry out the threat. Children constantly threatened but never punished grow up thinking they can get away with anything.

    The same principle applies here. Hussein has been threatened mightily by the U.N., but punishment for noncompliance has ranged from puny to nonexistent. So Hussein believes he can get away with anything.

    That`s why he keeps toying with the arms inspectors. Experience has taught him he can get away with it.

    The U.N. has made mistakes. The United States has not provided the leadership it should have. However, the remedy for these mistakes is not mass murder. We don`t have to destroy Iraq and tens of thousands of its people -- and put our own people at risk of retaliation -- in order to set things right.

    If we use our heads, instead of just our muscle, we can get the compliance from Iraq required by the world.

    For one thing, we can supervise the oil-for-food program so it works as intended. The fact that Hussein abuses that program is our fault, not his. We know what he is, so why would we expect him to do anything right? It is our obligation to make sure he does it right.

    We should disarm Iraq completely and turn it into a kind of U.N. protectorate. Hussein, of course, would not like this proposal. So what? We really don`t care what he likes, do we?

    If the goal is tranquillity in the region, a clawless Iraq, protected by U.N. forces stationed within Iraq, would go a long way toward achieving that goal. Even Israel, bellicose as it is, might appreciate that solution.

    War against Iraq can be avoided. An offensive war, for a nation as powerful as ours, is an admission of failure. It is a sign of impatience and emotional immaturity. Such a war diminishes our moral standing in the world because it demonstrates a lack of character.

    Strong people don`t control weaker people by knocking their blocks off. "All or nothing" is the philosophy of morons. The same principles apply to nations. When we demonstrate we`re incapable of dealing with intermediate steps, we demonstrate our intellectual and moral weaknesses.

    We Americans have no aversion to the use of force to achieve our goals. Nor should we, when our goals are noble. However, brute strength should be used wisely and judiciously. An all-out war against Iraq now, when intermediate measures are still available, is neither wise nor judicious.

    Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and liberal iconoclast. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com.

    ©2003 SF Gate
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 01:03:16
    Beitrag Nr. 97 (8.744.390)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 01:08:08
    Beitrag Nr. 98 (8.744.424)
    Robert Fisk: How the news will be censored in this war
    A new CNN system of `script approval` suggests the Pentagon will have nothing to worry about
    25 February 2003
    Already, the American press is expressing its approval of the coverage of American forces which the US military intends to allow its reporters in the next Gulf war. The boys from CNN, CBS, ABC and The New York Times will be "embedded" among the US marines and infantry. The degree of censorship hasn`t quite been worked out. But it doesn`t matter how much the Pentagon cuts from the reporters` dispatches. A new CNN system of "script approval" – the iniquitous instruction to reporters that they have to send all their copy to anonymous officials in Atlanta to ensure it is suitably sanitised – suggests that the Pentagon and the Department of State have nothing to worry about. Nor do the Israelis.

    Indeed, reading a new CNN document, "Reminder of Script Approval Policy", fairly takes the breath away. "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval," it says. "Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved... All packages originating outside Washington, LA (Los Angeles) or NY (New York), including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW in Atlanta for approval."

    The date of this extraordinary message is 27 January. The "ROW" is the row of script editors in Atlanta who can insist on changes or "balances" in the reporter`s dispatch. "A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorised manager and duped (duplicated) to burcopy (bureau copy)... When a script is updated it must be re-approved, preferably by the originating approving authority."

    Note the key words here: "approved" and "authorised". CNN`s man or woman in Kuwait or Baghdad – or Jerusalem or Ramallah – may know the background to his or her story; indeed, they will know far more about it than the "authorities" in Atlanta. But CNN`s chiefs will decide the spin of the story.

    CNN, of course, is not alone in this paranoid form of reporting. Other US networks operate equally anti-journalistic systems. And it`s not the fault of the reporters. CNN`s teams may use clichés and don military costumes – you will see them do this in the next war – but they try to get something of the truth out. Next time, though, they`re going to have even less chance.

    Just where this awful system leads is evident from an intriguing exchange last year between CNN`s reporter in the occupied West Bank town of Ramallah, and Eason Jordan, one of CNN`s top honchos in Atlanta.

    The journalist`s first complaint was about a story by the reporter Michael Holmes on the Red Crescent ambulance drivers who are repeatedly shot at by Israeli troops. "We risked our lives and went out with ambulance drivers... for a whole day. We have also witnessed ambulances from our window being shot at by Israeli soldiers... The story received approval from Mike Shoulder. The story ran twice and then Rick Davis (a CNN executive) killed it. The reason was we did not have an Israeli army response, even though we stated in our story that Israel believes that Palestinians are smuggling weapons and wanted people in the ambulances."

    The Israelis refused to give CNN an interview, only a written statement. This statement was then written into the CNN script. But again it was rejected by Davis in Atlanta. Only when, after three days, the Israeli army gave CNN an interview did Holmes`s story run – but then with the dishonest inclusion of a line that said the ambulances were shot in "crossfire" (ie that Palestinians also shot at their own ambulances).

    The reporter`s complaint was all too obvious. "Since when do we hold a story hostage to the whims of governments and armies?We were told by Rick that if we do not get an Israeli on-camera we would not air the package. This means that governments and armies are indirectly censoring us and we are playing directly into their own hands."

    The relevance of this is all too obvious in the next Gulf War. We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on air. Take another of the Ramallah correspondent`s complaints last year. In a package on the damage to Ramallah after Israel`s massive incursion last April, "we had already mentioned right at the top of our piece that Israel says it is doing all these incursions because it wants to crack down on the infrastructure of terror. However, obviously that was not enough. We were made by the ROW (in Atlanta) to repeat this same idea three times in one piece, just to make sure that we keep justifying the Israeli actions..."

    But the system of "script approval" that has so marred CNN`s coverage has got worse. In a further and even more sinister message dated 31 January this year, CNN staff are told that a new computerised system of script approval will allow "authorised script approvers to mark scripts (ie reports) in a clear and standard manner. Script EPs (executive producers) will click on the coloured APPROVED button to turn it from red (unapproved) to green (approved). When someone makes a change in the script after approval, the button will turn yellow." Someone? Who is this someone? CNN`s reporters aren`t told.

    But when we recall that CNN revealed after the 1991 Gulf War that it had allowed Pentagon "trainees" into the CNN newsroom in Atlanta, I have my suspicions.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 11:51:21
    Beitrag Nr. 99 (8.747.438)
    Der "eingebettete" Reporter

    Florian Rötzer 27.02.2003
    Transparenz und Echtzeitjournalismus verspricht das Pentagon im zweiten Krieg gegen das Lügenregime Irak, bei dem alles anders sein soll, als beim ersten Mal

    Dieses Mal wird alles anders, verspricht das Pentagon. In diesem Krieg, der für die Bush-Regierung längst beschlossene Sache ist, auch wenn immer noch so getan wird, als könne Hussein ihn noch vermeiden, wird die amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit eine "unglaublich starke Berichterstattung" vom Krieg erhalten und gewissermaßen in der ersten Reihe sitzen, um zu sehen, wie die amerikanischen Soldaten den Irak schnell und chirurgisch vom Bösen befreien.

    Kritik war zuletzt im Afghanistan-Krieg laut geworden, da hier den Journalisten, wie gehabt, zunächst kein Zugang zur Front eröffnet wurde ( Krieg gegen ein Land im Schwarzen Medienloch). Dafür wurde bekanntlich der arabische Sender al-Dschasira, der aus seiner Redaktion in Kabul die einzigen Bilder und Berichte aus dem Land brachte, "zufällig" von einer amerikanischen Präzisionsbombe getroffen. Die Journalisten durften sich hingegen in Pakistan drängeln und an den Pressekonferenzen der Amerikaner und der Taliban teilnehmen ( Kriegswirtschaft). Erst mit dem Vorrücken der Nordallianz kamen auch Journalisten in die bombardierten Gebiete. Anders als die medienfeindlichen Taliban wird aber Hussein zumindest versuchen, bis vielleicht eine der vielbesprochenen "E-bombs" alles Elektronische zerschmilzt ( Schon wieder eine neue "Wunderwaffe"), eine Art Gegenöffentlichkeit aufzubauen, die nicht unter der Kuratel des Pentagon steht.

    Aber zurück zu Afghanistan. Wie weit die Medien im Kriegsfall überhaupt die unabhängige Instanz bleiben können, ist sicherlich eine schwierig zu beantwortende Frage. Auch in Anwesenheit von Journalisten wurden beispielsweise in Afghanistan Massaker ohne Konsequenz verübt. So hatten britische und amerikanische Bomber und später die Krieger von Warlord Dostum gnadenlos einige Hundert aufständische Gefangene in der Festung Kala-i-Dschangi niedergemacht. Fotos zeigten Leichen, die teils noch mit gefesselten Händen am Boden lagen, also kaum gefährlich sein konnten. Nur wenige entkamen dieser Hölle. Einer war der amerikanische Taliban Lindh ( USA: Im Krieg ist das Recht eingeschränkt). Warum es zu diesem Massaker kam und ob es tatsächlich gerechtfertigt und kein Kriegsverbrechen war, blieb ebenso ungeklärt, wie das Massaker an Tausenden von Gefangenen Taliban ( Das Massaker, das nicht sein darf) oder einige Fälle von sogenannten "Kollateralschäden". Untersuchungen) des Pentagon kamen hier in aller Regel zu keinen Ergebnissen ( Beweise beseitigt?). Die Medien bestenfalls zu Vermutungen. Ansonsten diktiert der Sieger die Geschichte.

    Der saubere Krieg

    Natürlich will das Pentagon hier nicht für mehr Aufklärung und unabhängige Beobachter sorgen, sondern mit der neuen Medienstrategie nur geschickter die Journalisten an sich binden, indem sie, wie es so schön heißt, "eingebettet" werden. Zulassungsbeschränkungen gibt es auch hier, die Journalisten werden Einheiten zugewiesen, Bewegungsfreiheit haben sie keine. Krieg in Echtzeit für die aufgeregten Zuschauer an den Bildschirmen, die endlich den Höhepunkt des Reality-TV erleben wollen, wird es nach Zensur bestenfalls zeitversetzt und mit gewünschten Bildern geben. Jetzt freilich tönt die Pressesprecherin des Pentagon, Victoria Clarke, noch, dass die Journalisten von Anfang an die Kampfhandlungen auf dem Boden, in der Luft und auf dem Meer begleiten und die Zuschauer Echtzeit-Kämpfe sehen werden.

    Die Journalisten werden zwar schon gleich einmal je nach Herkunft und Medium sowie nach Vertrauen zugeteilt, so dass die nicht-amerikanischen Medienvertreter vermutlich eher weit weg, beispielsweise auf Schiffen, stationiert werden. Clarke versichert, dass die einzigen Beschränkungen der Berichterstattung für die Informationen gelten sollen, "die den Erfolg einer Mission beeinflussen" oder das "Leben von Menschen in Gefahr bringen können". Ausschließen will sie nicht, dass die Zuschauer vielleicht auch live den Tod eines amerikanischen Soldaten sehen können, aber man kann sicherlich davon ausgehen, dass der Krieg, soweit dies das Pentagon kontrollieren kann, "sauber" sein wird (Patrick J. Sloyan: What Bodies?). Im ersten Goldkrieg hatte man beispielsweise schnell mit Raupen toten irakischen Soldaten in den Schützengräben und in den getroffenen Fahrzeugen und Panzern unter dem Sand verscharrt. Wenn es nicht die Bilder von der "Straße des Todes" gegeben hätte, so hätte der Krieg trotz Zehntausenden von Toten tatsächlich ziemlich "sauber" mit zerstörten und ausgebrannten Fahrzeugen ausgesehen.

    Der damalige Verteidigungsminister und jetzige Vizepräsident Cheney war jedoch anderer Meinung, was vermutlich auch einige Implikationen für den zweiten Irak-Krieg mit seiner Beteiligung besitzt: "Das war der am besten dokumentierte Krieg. Die amerikanischen Menschen sahen mit ihren eigenen Augen durch die Magie des Fernsehens von ganz nah, was das US-Militär zu leisten imstande war."

    Transparenz gegen Propaganda?

    Aber dann gibt es natürlich doch die vom Pentagon nach "zahllosen Stunden" mit Medienvertretern festgelegten Regeln, obgleich eigentlich den Journalisten weitgehend vertraut werden könne, dass sie die Streitkräfte mit ihren Berichten nicht gefährden. Ob dann auch Journalisten weiter eingebettet bleiben, die unerwünschte kritische Berichte liefern? Für Disziplin sorgt wahrscheinlich schon die Androhung, sie und ihr Medium könnten ganz ausgeschlossen werden.

    Aber von diesen Dingen spricht man eher nicht, schon lieber von dem Prinzip der Offenheit, mit dem das Pentagon der irakischen Propaganda entgegen treten will: "Wir gehen gegen Menschen vor, die Meister der Lüge, der Täuschung und des Verbergens sind." Und die Lügen, die Eingang in die Medien finden, erhalten dann den Anschein von Wahrheit und werden glaubhaft. Ob aber die Menschen wirklich überzeugt davon sind, dass die "eingebetteten", also nicht gerade unabhängigen Journalisten die reine und umfassende Wahrheit berichten werden, wie dies Clarke als Ergebnis der neuen Pentagon-Strategie gerne hätte, darf oder sollte doch bezweifelt werden.

    "Für uns ist es eine Sache, aufzustehen und beispielsweise wahrheitsgemäß zu sagen, dass Saddam Hussein Zivilisten in die Nähe von militärischen Einrichtungen und umgekehrt postiert hat. Es ist etwas Anderes und Mächtiges, wenn NBC oder CNN International der Welt mit ihren eigenen Bildern und Worten zeigen, dass er dies tut." Aber wenn es sich dann um freiwillige Schutzschilde handelt und/oder die Amerikaner trotz des Wissens, dass sich hier Zivilisten aufhalten, bombardieren, dann wäre womöglich das Pentagon nicht mehr so glücklich, wenn nicht nur, wie offenbar erwünscht, patriotische US-Sender, sondern auch solche von anderen Ländern vor Ort wären ( Aufmerksamkeitswaffen).

    Allerdings werden die Journalisten vom Pentagon, wie auch erst am 26. Februar wieder, schon vor oder bei Bombardierungen stets darauf hingewiesen, dass der Feind militärische Ziele durch zivile Einrichtungen und Zivilisten schützt und Vorfälle inszeniert, um sie propagandistisch auszubeuten. Das gehört im Medienkrieg zur beiderseitigen Strategie, die Opfer sind auf jeden Fall die Zivilisten. Wie jetzt wurde dies auch im Afghanistan-Krieg gemacht, wobei man hier wiederum auf Beispiele aus dem ersten Irak-Krieg sowie aus dem Kosovo-Krieg zurückgriff ( Verbergen und Täuschen).

    Auch wenn nichts dafür spricht, dass dieser Krieg, wenn er denn beginnen sollte, unter einer größeren unabhängigen und kritischen Öffentlichkeit stattfinden wird, so darf man trotzdem zumindest auf die versprochene Einlösung der Transparenz gespannt sein - und sollte die US-Regierung, die als gute Befreiungsmacht gegenüber einer bösen Tyrannei sowie als Instanz der Aufrichtigkeit gegenüber einem System der Lüge und Täuschung antritt, auch daran messen. Nach all dem, was bislang geschehen ist, dürfte das erste Opfer eines Krieges aber trotz aller Echtzeitmedien und Pentagon-Propaganda dasselbe Opfer wie immer sein. Aber was ist schon Wahrheit? Noch dazu in einem möglicherweise postmodernen Krieg ...
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 12:20:42
    Beitrag Nr. 100 (8.747.842)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 12:39:21
    Beitrag Nr. 101 (8.748.056)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 12:45:47
    Beitrag Nr. 102 (8.748.125)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 13:27:56
    Beitrag Nr. 103 (8.748.535)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 13:31:13
    Beitrag Nr. 104 (8.748.571)
    Feb. 26, 2003. 05:35 AM


    U.S. crackdown drives Muslims toward Canada
    Refugee claimants jam border posts


    MARK BELLIS
    SPECIAL TO THE STAR

    LACOLLE, Que.—After surviving winter`s wrath to reach this desolate border post on the way to Montreal from New York state, about 20 refugee claimants huddle inside a large waiting room, waiting to be buzzed in by an immigration official. Most looked terrified earlier this month as they waited for their names to be called. Their concerns were not unfounded.

    Refugee claimants have overwhelmed Canadian border posts since December when the American Department of Justice added Pakistan to a list of mostly Muslim nations, and North Korea, as countries whose visitors must undergo special registration.

    Men aged 16 and older from these countries, who are not permanent residents or United States citizens, are required to report for interviews where they are also fingerprinted and photographed, steps the U.S. government has said are necessary to fight terrorism and track illegal aliens.

    Fearing deportation, more and more refugee claimants — mostly from Pakistan — are seeking shelter in Canada.

    Jalil Mirza was among hundreds of other Pakistanis fleeing the post-9/11 crackdown on illegal immigrants. He quit his job, packed up his possessions and headed north rather than face a forced return to Pakistan.

    After a 16-hour bus ride from Virginia with his wife and seven children, he crossed into Canada from Burlington, Vt., hoping to gain asylum.

    Besieged Canadian officials told him to come back in two weeks.

    But when he dragged their suitcases back to the American side, U.S. immigration agents promptly arrested him and his two teenage sons, leaving the rest of the family wailing in despair in the icy cold.

    The Mirzas are part of an unusual and chaotic exodus that has jammed land crossings from the U.S. into Canada over the past two weeks, overwhelming immigration officials and refugee aid groups on both sides of the border.

    In Ontario alone, 871 people applied for asylum in January, nearly double the number in November. Pakistani refugee claimants represented only 5 per cent of claims in November, surging to 49 per cent in January.

    In Buffalo, it now takes at least 14 days just to get an appointment at the Canadian border. It used to take a few days.

    Once in Canada, refugee claimants can expect their cases to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal whose members hear evidence during a face-to-face hearing, then render a decision on the refugee claim. Only about 55 per cent of refugee applications are accepted.

    Rejean Cantlon, a spokesperson for Immigration Canada, said many more claimants are sent back to the U.S. with future appointments because "there are not enough translators or immigration officials available."

    Back on American soil, hardship awaits.

    Some are arrested by immigration officials for the same reason they seek refuge — not having proper paperwork — and return much poorer after paying bonds that start at $1,500 (U.S.).

    A few are simply jailed.

    But most head for emergency shelters, hoping for assistance until their hearings.

    "It`s an outrage. It`s not the thing a great nation is supposed to do," said Patrick Giantonio, who helps run Vermont Refugee Assistance.

    "I am crying, my wife is crying," said Samir Sheik, a Pakistani who had been working as a street vendor in New York City and was arrested at a checkpoint on his way to the Canadian border for having overstayed his visa.

    Sheik said he could not return to Pakistan because he and his wife married against the wishes of both their families and he feared his wife would be killed by her father.

    His wife, Erim Salim, shuffled silently around the crowded Salvation Army centre in Burlington, where they had been reunited after she borrowed from friends and neighbours to pay his $5,000 (U.S.) bond.

    "She is sick now, mentally," said Sheik, nodding toward her sadly. "Millions of people live here and are overstays. Why is it only for Pakistanis and Muslim people that they do this?"

    Hiraj Zafer, a Pakistani cook from Salt Lake City who was also trying to enter Canada, gave an answer. "After 9/11, people hate us," Zafer said.

    Sheik said: "Yes, they hate us. But we love America. We feel free here."

    Mirza joined the refrain, saying he loves America and does not want to leave.

    A former restaurant manager in Virginia with four children born in the U.S., Mirza, 45, managed to scrape together the $4,500 (U.S.) he needed to get himself and his older sons out of jail. His family stayed two weeks in a shelter in Burlington, until yesterday when they had an 8 a.m. appointment with Canadian immigration officials.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With files from the New York Times and the Hamilton Spectator
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 14:27:08
    Beitrag Nr. 105 (8.749.190)
    Erst Bagdad dann Peking?

    Decisions, decisions
    While we agonise about whether to go to war, the US has moved on to a different question: what next?

    Jonathan Freedland
    Wednesday February 26, 2003
    The Guardian

    Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus. So says the latest hot polemic exciting transatlantic policy types: Robert Kagan`s Paradise and Power, a meditation on how Europeans have grown soft and idealistic (and feminine) while the Yanks remain tough, booted and aware (like real men) of how brutal a place the world can be. According to Kagan, our outlooks have grown so far apart that it`s time we stopped pretending we even "occupy the same world". We are from different planets.

    Maybe that explains why so many Europeans are not just on the opposite side from the US in the debate over the coming war on Iraq, but why we are not even having the same conversation. While we still agonise over whether or not to go to war - forcing our prime minister to make and remake his case, even if that means taking an hour of questions on MTV, as he will next Friday - the American conversation moved on long ago. With barely a peep of congressional opposition to a military attack against Saddam, and most Democrats reduced to silent compliance, the Washington village has taken it as read, both that war will happen, and that it is justified. Their debate is focusing instead on a different question: what next?

    It might be a simple function of power. We sit back making abstract, moral judgments while they, as the nation poised to do the business, concern themselves with practicalities. We are not quite spectators - 40,000 Brits will be involved, after all - but nor do we have the prime spot in the dugout, making the key decisions. Those will be made in Washington.

    Whatever the explanation, the gulf between us is real. The op-ed pages of the American papers have the odd thumb-suck on the rights and wrongs of prising Saddam out by force, but their more pressing interest (besides pouring bile on the surrender monkeys of France and Germany) is in the task that will face the great US Army of Liberation once its initial work is done.

    There is, for example, an argument about personnel. Should the American governor-general ruling newly free Iraq be a civilian - perhaps the former nuclear weapons inspector, David Kay, or Bush-friendly lawyer Michael Mobbs - or a soldier? Surely a man in a suit would smack less of military occupation, and therefore be the more tactful choice? On the other hand, a uniformed viceroy might repeat the magic worked when Douglas MacArthur oversaw Japan. If that`s the precedent, then retired lieutenant general and veteran of the first Gulf war, Jay Garner, would be a frontrunner. Or would it be smarter-to- name, Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American General John Abizaid, amusingly known as "Mad Arab" to his colleagues? Such are the dilemmas preoccupying pre-occupier America.

    There are mechanical questions to ponder, too. Which system would work best? If not a formal military occupation, perhaps a Kosovo-style civilian administration? Or an interim government made up, à la Afghanistan, of multiple opposition groups, returned to Iraq after decades of exile? Or would it be more convenient simply to replace Saddam with a new strongman: whether a former Ba`athist suitably made over and rebranded as "pro-western" or an outsider, like Jordan`s Prince Hassan, a cousin of Iraq`s last king who was assassinated in 1958?

    Decisions, decisions. And the US will, barring the most dramatic change of heart by either Saddam Hussein or George Bush, be making them soon. What they will turn on will be more than operational matters of efficiency. They will go instead to the heart of why America is fighting this war.

    For if this conflict`s chief aim is what the new, second UN resolution claims it to be - the simple disarmament of Iraq - then any postwar settlement would be devised around that objective: perhaps a new, compliant dictator would do that job best. If the goal is the one touted by Tony Blair in recent days as the moral case - namely, liberation from tyranny - then only a fresh, democratic start will do.

    If, however, the American victors insist on a much more robust level of US control - restructuring Iraq entirely, studding it with countless military bases - then we could start drawing rather different conclusions as to the true motive of this campaign. We might agree with those who detect in the Iraq adventure the opening move of a much grander American design: the establishing of US hegemony for the next 100 years.

    This is not just twitchy, anti-war conspiracy talk. An outfit exists on 17th Street in Washington, DC, called the Project for the New American Century, explicitly committed to US mastery of the globe for the coming age. Its acolytes speak of "full spectrum dominance", meaning American invincibility in every field of warfare - land, sea, air and space - and a world in which no two nations` relationship with each other will be more important than their relationship with the US. There will be no place on earth, or the heavens for that matter, where Washington`s writ does not run supreme. To that end, a ring of US military bases should surround China, with liberation of the People`s Republic considered the ultimate prize. As one enthusiast puts it concisely: "After Baghdad, Beijing."

    If this sounds like the harmless delusions of an eccentric fringe, think again. The founder members of the project, launched in 1997 as a Republican assault on the Clinton presidency, form a rollcall of today`s Bush inner circle. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle - they`re all there. So too is Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House`s "special envoy and ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis".

    It will not be the war itself which will reveal these ultras` true intent. That would be fought the same way whatever the underlying motive: overwhelming force aimed at a swift decapitation of the Iraqi regime. But the postwar occupation will reveal plenty. Then we will know if the hawkish dreamers of the project have indeed taken over US foreign policy. How they remake free Iraq will tell us whether they plan to remake the world.

    In other words, this is one debate we cannot afford to sit out. As US commentator Sandra Mackay wrote this month: "Washington`s hawks understand that the real risks ... are not in war, but in the peace that follows." It`s after victory that the most enduring impact will be felt, whether it be a hated US-led occupation, sparking a fresh round of global terrorism, or the sudden release of Iraq`s lethal, internal tensions which Saddam has kept pent-up for 35 years. Kurds could fight Turks for their own state in the north; Shias might team up with Iran for control of the south; everyone may turn on the hated Saddamite Ba`athists in a frenzy of revenge. Iraq will not be like 1940s Japan or Germany, the occupations fondly remembered by the US commentariat. Those were coherent nations; Iraq is an artificial fusion of antagonistic tribes. Victory may be rapid and easy - but that`s when the real trouble could start.

    j.freedland@guardian.co.uk


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 23:11:28
    Beitrag Nr. 106 (8.755.134)
    Das hat noch nicht einmal Mr.Bush verdient.


    Schroeder Doesn`t Speak for All Germans


    By Angela Merkel

    Thursday, February 20, 2003; Page A39


    Rarely do we have the experience of witnessing firsthand the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. But this is exactly what people all over the world are now living through. This epochal change began with the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, which marked a victory for freedom and the opening of the transatlantic partnership to the East. It continued with the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which shook the United States to its very foundations -- with consequences that, to this day, many Europeans have not fully grasped. Because of these decisive events, Europe and the United States now must redefine the nucleus of their domestic, foreign and security policy principles.

    Europe is, on the one hand, assuming new responsibilities around the world, whether in Kosovo or Afghanistan. On the other hand, it is divided, maybe even deeply split. Thus, for example, aid to Turkey, our partner in the alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by France, Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines the very basis of NATO`s legitimacy. The most important lesson of German politics -- never again should Germany go it alone -- is swept aside with seeming ease by a German federal government that has done precisely this, for the sake of electoral tactics. The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union are attacked by the French government simply because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States.

    But there is a more positive side as well. An agreement was reached at the emergency EU summit on Monday: On the basis of U.N. Resolution 1441, participants decided on a coordinated attitude to be adopted by the Europeans in the Iraq conflict. The agreement, which was long overdue, has forced the German federal government to make its first change of course in its policy toward Iraq. As the German parliamentary opposition, we welcome this change and expect the German government`s behavior on the U.N. Security Council to be in accord with the EU decision, although we also have reason to doubt it will be.

    Two things have been highlighted once again by the EU decision. First, the danger from Iraq is not fictitious but real. Second, working not against but jointly with the United States, Europe must take more responsibility for maintaining international pressure on Saddam Hussein. As is argued in the EU summit declaration, this means advocating military force as the last resort in implementing U.N. resolutions.

    It is true that war must never become a normal way of resolving political disputes. But the history of Germany and Europe in the 20th century in particular certainly teaches us this: that while military force cannot be the normal continuation of politics by other means, it must never be ruled out, or even merely questioned -- as has been done by the German federal government -- as the ultimate means of dealing with dictators. Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.

    This is a grave matter: Peace is a supreme good, for the sake of which every effort has to be made. But it is also true that responsible political leadership must on no account trade the genuine peace of the future for the deceptive peace of the present. The determination and unity of the free nations will, in the Iraq conflict, have a decisive effect not only on the outcome of the crisis but on the way in which we shape the future of Europe and its relationship with the United States. They will have a decisive effect, too, on how we guarantee peace, freedom and security, and how we find appropriate answers to the new threats of our time. Will it be alone or together, with determination or in despair, with our partners or against them?

    I am convinced that Europe and the United States will have to opt for a common security alliance in the future, just as they did in the past. The United States is the only remaining superpower, but even so it will have to rely on dependable partners over the long term. Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within the transatlantic alliance with the United States.

    A couple of days ago, an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany`s major national newspapers, carried the headline "The End of a Friendship." It included the following passage: "For Germany, a permanent break with America would probably be not much of a liberation but a return to an ugly old-new reality, to the completely disillusioned world of the old Europe with its narrow-mindedness and disloyalty. Gratitude, friendship with America: in future these could still prove to be reasonable feelings."

    For the party that I lead, our close partnership and friendship with the United States is just as much a fundamental element of Germany`s national purpose as European integration. But both will be successful only if it is possible to build new trust and we are able to formulate our own interests. There is no acceptable alternative to this way forward at the beginning of this new epoch.

    The writer is chairman of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag.




    © 2003 The Washington Post Company
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 27.02.03 23:39:36
    Beitrag Nr. 107 (8.755.264)
    By Scott Shane

    When Hussein was our ally
    Iraq: Newly released documents reveal U.S. talk of regime change in the early 1980s - except then it was language condemning Iran for attempting to overthrow the government in Baghdad.
    Sun Journal

    February 27, 2003

    In an interview Tuesday with the Arab-language television network Al-Jazeera, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld laid out again the case for war against Saddam Hussein`s Iraq. Among other crimes, he said, Iraq "used chemical weapons on its neighbor Iran."

    The defense secretary has reason to remember that crime. It was taking place in December 1983, when Rumsfeld met with Hussein as a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan. But his mission then was to improve U.S.-Iraqi relations, assure Hussein that Iran was their common enemy and promote an oil pipeline project.

    According to records of the meeting, Rumsfeld made no complaint to the Iraqi dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction, though he did mention U.S. disapproval to Hussein`s foreign minister.

    The National Security Archive, a nonprofit public affairs research group at George Washington University, published this week on its Web site recently declassified documents revealing the delicate diplomatic dance performed by the United States in the 1980s as it tilted toward Iraq and away from Iran.

    Twenty years ago, Iran seemed a far bigger threat to the United States. Iranian students chanting "Death to America" had seized the U.S. Embassy in 1980 and taken diplomats hostage. Iran was implicated in major terrorist attacks against American targets, including the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, carried out by Hezbollah militants.

    But if Reagan and Rumsfeld were right to be cozying up to Hussein in 1983, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds, does that mean President Bush and Rumsfeld are wrong today to be preparing a war against Iraq and citing such chemical attacks as one reason? Or was U.S. policy wrong then and right now?

    U.S. presidents often present American positions in starkly moral terms, as Bush did in describing Hussein in the State of the Union address: "The dictator who is assembling the world`s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages. ... International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

    But all those evils were well-documented in 1983.

    At the time of Rumsfeld`s visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas. He had harbored terrorists (though he had just expelled the infamous Abu Nidal) and had a well-established record of torturing and murdering domestic opponents.

    The U.S. response? It dropped Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terror, renewed diplomatic ties, and provided intelligence and aid to Iraq to prevent its defeat by Iran.

    Joyce Battle, the National Security Archive analyst who assembled the previously secret U.S. documents, says they are a reminder that diplomacy is rarely a clear-cut campaign of good against evil.

    "We published these documents as a response to the way the Bush administration is trying to describe this situation in black and white terms," says Battle. "In reality, that`s not the way international relations are carried out."

    Following are excerpts from the documents:


    On Nov. 1, 1983, State Department official Jonathan T. Howe writes to Secretary of State George P. Shultz expressing concern about both Iraq`s use of chemical weapons and its weak position in the war with Iran:

    We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons [CW]. We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms. ... If the [National Security Council] decides measures are to be undertaken to assist Iraq, our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures. It is important, however, that we approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain the credibility of U.S. policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq`s almost daily use of CW.


    On Dec. 14, 1983, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, William L. Eagleton Jr., proposed "talking points" for Reagan`s envoy:

    A major objective in the meeting with Saddam is to initiate a dialogue and establish personal rapport. In that meeting [Ambassador] Rumsfeld will want to emphasize his close relationship with President Reagan and the president`s interest in regional issues. ...

    [Among the talking points]: The [U.S. government] recognizes Iraq`s current disadvantage in a war of attrition since Iran has [easy] access to the Gulf while Iraq does not, and would regard any major reversal of Iraq`s fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West.


    On Dec. 21, 1983, a U.S. diplomat in London reports on the meeting the day before in Baghdad between Rumsfeld and Hussein, at which the U.S. envoy handed over a conciliatory letter from Reagan:

    In his 90-minute meeting with Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with president`s letter and Rumsfeld`s visit and in his remarks removed whatever obstacles remained in the way of resuming diplomatic relations. ... [Rumsfeld expressed] interest in seeing Iraq increase oil exports, including through possible new pipeline across Jordan. ... Our initial assessment is that meeting marked positive milestone in development of U.S.-Iraqi relations and will prove to be of wider benefit to U.S. posture in the region.

    [Hussein] used a direct quote from Rumsfeld`s statement to the foreign minister the previous evening when he said "having a whole generation of Iraqis and Americans grow up without understanding each other had negative implications and could lead to mix-ups."


    On Dec. 26, Eagleton cables the State Department that:

    Ambassador Rumsfeld`s visit has elevated U.S-Iraqi relations to a new level. This is both symbolically important and practically helpful. ... We must now maintain some momentum in the dialogue and relationship.


    On March 5, 1984, the State Department condemns Iraqi use of chemical weapons - but also blasts Iran`s determination to pursue regime change in Iraq:

    The United States has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons. The United States strongly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons wherever it occurs. ... While condemning Iraq`s resort to chemical weapons, the United States also calls on the Government of Iran to ... put an end to the bloodshed. The United States finds the present Iranian regime`s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims.


    Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 00:17:16
    Beitrag Nr. 108 (8.755.521)




    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 00:28:36
    Beitrag Nr. 109 (8.755.581)
    Immer das Neuste aus Zeitungen und Internet aus USA:


    http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/03/02/27_record.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 00:33:00
    Beitrag Nr. 110 (8.755.600)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 00:37:45
    Beitrag Nr. 111 (8.755.621)
    Support for Bush`s re-election falls below 50 percent
    President still enjoys advantage over Democrats
    From Keating Holland
    CNN Washington Bureau


    WASHINGTON (CNN) --The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

    Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.

    Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.

    Still, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said they approved of the way Bush is handling the job of president. That Bush approval rating is the lowest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    The poll -- based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adult Americans between February 24 and 26 -- also found that support for sending U.S. troops to Iraq remains steady at 59 percent. Public attitudes, however, are likely to be shaped by the events of the next week or so as indicated by the respondents` answers to other questions. Nearly half of all Americans say they may change their minds on Iraq; about a third said they are committed to war.

    The poll comes as Bush continues to lobby the U.N. Security Council to pass another resolution declaring that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has missed his last chance to disarm. And the president has made several speeches in recent weeks, emphasizing his concern about the economy and his administration`s determination to strengthen it.

    The poll numbers suggest Bush has further to go in convincing Americans that he can turn the economy around. About 45 percent of those polled said they favor Bush`s economic plan, while 40 percent said they oppose it, and 15 percent described themselves as unsure.

    On Iraq, the support for invading that country seemed to hinge on several factors. One example: Forty percent of those polled said they would support an invasion of Iraq with U.S. forces only if the United Nations approves another U.S. resolution against Iraq. And support for an invasion drops significantly if Saddam destroys missiles cited by U.N. weapons inspectors, falling from 71 percent to 33 percent.

    As for Saddam`s recent challenge to Bush to join him in a debate, poll respondents left no doubt about who they thought would win. Three-quarters of respondents said Bush would win a debate.

    The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    .
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 18:44:23
    Beitrag Nr. 112 (8.763.019)
    Billionaire Soros blasts Bush, calls on President to honor world opinion


    Friday, February 28, 2003

    By Len Boselovic, Post-Gazette Staff Writer


    Billionaire capitalist George Soros, whose shrewd speculation conquered world markets, delivered a scathing denunciation of Bush administration policies yesterday, accusing the White House of shirking its responsibility as the world`s only superpower.

    In a speech before 500 at Carnegie Mellon University, Soros said the Bush administration had a "visceral aversion to international cooperation," which is why it is willing to ignore world opinion in its rush to wage war with Iraq.

    "President Bush is pushing the wrong buttons when he says, `Those who are not with us, are against us,` " Soros said. "This is an imperialist vision in which the U.S. leads and the rest of the world follows."

    Soros characterized some members of the Bush administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, as having "an exaggerated view of their own righteousness."

    Bush`s willingness to exert U.S. military power existed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, which only served to enforce that tendency, Soros said. His solution, Soros said, is for the Bush administration to live by the rules it seeks to impose on the rest of the world.

    Soros said he liked former treasury secretary Paul O`Neill, though he thought the ex-Alcoa chairman "was not terribly well qualified" for the Cabinet post.

    The bigger problem at the Treasury Department, he said, was its neglect of responsibilities in regards to the international financial system. Soros added that he felt O`Neill, whose blunt and open style sometimes grated other members of the administration, was a breath of fresh air.

    Soros made his billions by betting on swings in the British pound and other currencies, a single-minded strategy some countries claimed complicated their financial problems.

    Soros earned investors in his Quantum Fund an average annual return of 31 percent over a 32-year period despite placing his share of losing bets during his career. He retired in 2000 after what for everyone else would have been crushing losses from Russia`s default and a premature bet on the demise of Internet stocks.

    These days, the Budapest-born philanthropist who is a naturalized U.S. citizen spends his time giving his money away through the Soros Foundations, including the Open Society Institute, which supports civil liberties, education, media, public health and human and women`s rights, as well as social, legal and economic reform in more than 50 countries. The foundations distribute about $500 million annually.

    Soros compared the failure of Bush policies with his success at investing, saying he had made bad investment decisions but had been willing to admit he was wrong and acted to correct his mistakes. "As a financial speculator, you have to be constantly living in the fear of being wrong,`` he said.

    The visit by Soros, 72, coincided with his being named by Forbes magazine as the world`s 38th richest person with an estimated net worth of $7 billion.

    A French court in December convicted the New York resident of insider trading in a case dating to a pending takeover of French bank Societe Generale 14 years ago. Soros, who was ordered to pay a $2.2 million fine, denied having any inside information when he traded his shares.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 18:53:10
    Beitrag Nr. 113 (8.763.121)
    Planet Bush
    In the president’s version of reality, an invasion of Iraq brings democracy to the Middle East, a dividend-tax cut is a good idea and Star Wars is a viable defense plan


    NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE



    REPUBLICANS ARE COUNTING on a quick military victory that will send the stock market soaring and restore President Bush’s aura of invincibility. Democrats are also hoping for a short war—so short that it will be forgotten by the time the 2004 presidential election approaches 18 months from now and the economy is still in the tank. Whichever scenario triumphs, the politics of Capitol Hill will be reshaped.
    Until the foreign war is resolved, the domestic political armies remain in place, ready to deploy once they see how much bounce Bush gets from conquering the Iraqi Army. The experience of his father in the aftermath of a successful war drives Bush. He doesn’t want to be seen as frozen in indifference to the dormant economy. But right now he has almost no ability to attract Democrats to his economic agenda. Republicans are even balking at his proposal to eliminate dividend taxes. But the prowar wing of the GOP believes that Bush himself—along with his agenda—will be transformed by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a dream deferred since the senior Bush left office.
    In a speech this week, Bush set out his vision of a liberated and democratic Iraq setting an example for other countries in the region. It is a seductive idea, but Bush provided no road map on how to move from inspiration to reality. “Magic realism,” says Thomas Carothers, a democracy specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carothers believes democracy is possible in the region, “but not soon.” There is no organized democratic opposition to replace the autocratic rulers; the only organized opposition in these countries is Islamic and rooted in fundamentalism. An American-led invasion of Iraq will strengthen the hand of Islam, says Carothers, who just returned from the region. Governments are already planning crackdowns on free expression in the aftermath of U.S. intervention in Iraq. “The idea of an invasion bringing about democracy makes people in these countries burst out laughing,” he says.
    Bush extended his fantasy of peace all the way to Jerusalem, asserting that the removal of Saddam would clear the way for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush has it backwards, says Carothers. The way the administration has ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict is fueling anti-Americanism, and an invasion of Iraq will only harden the anger. Baghdad has almost nothing to do with the Palestinian uprising, and Saddam’s payments to suicide bombers are a pittance. Money is not in short supply in the Arab world; the terrorists will find another way to underwrite their actions. “The notion that invading Iraq will dry up terrorism is a pipe dream,” says Carothers.
    It’s as though the inmates have taken over the asylum. Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, once consigned to the think-tank world, are now running the show. These mythic thinkers are more like missionaries bringing a taste of civilization to the unwashed than real-world policymakers. Democracy as a source of inspiration already exists in the Middle East. Many Arabs have lived in Europe and know what democracy is; they just don’t think it’s achieved with the barrel of a gun. “An Egyptian told me that if the road to democracy is 3,000 cruise missiles, an American invasion and an American military occupation, I’d rather not have it,” says Carothers.
    Another example of Bush’s magic realism is the strategic missile-defense shield that he has promised to have up and running by 2004. The idea that a system can be put in place like an umbrella over America is fanciful at best, but that isn’t stopping Bush from pretending. Bush’s Star Wars has failed almost every test it’s been subjected to, succeeding only when the conditions were perfectly rigged and a single incoming missile had to be intercepted. To prevent reality from intruding on fantasy, Bush asks in his 2004 budget that Star Wars be exempted from further testing and congressional oversight because that would get in the way of its timely deployment.
    Republicans are gambling that Bush will ride such a crest of approval coming out of Iraq that he can sell Congress anything. Lately he has claimed that his $670 billion tax cut earned the approval of “Blue Chip” economists, an endorsement that doesn’t even exist. He stood before the nation’s governors this week and said it was Congress’ fault that homeland security needs had been shortchanged around the nation when in reality it was the White House that rejected additional funding as “unnecessary,” even threatening a veto.
    “It’s not body language; it’s not exaggeration; it’s flat-out lying,” fumed a House Democrat.
    Bush’s swagger has worn thin with Republicans, as well. Ohio Sen. George Voinovich opposes Bush’s dividend-tax proposal, so the White House is sending members of its economic team into his state to build public pressure on him to support Bush. Those who know Voinovich say the move will only make him more entrenched in his opposition. What a contrast to last fall when Bush parachuted into several states represented by Democrats and helped defeat enough of them to return the Senate to Republican control. To recapture those heady days, Republicans are convinced Bush must take the road less traveled, the road through Baghdad.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 19:10:09
    Beitrag Nr. 114 (8.763.337)




    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 19:23:43
    Beitrag Nr. 115 (8.763.549)




    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 21:14:12
    Beitrag Nr. 116 (8.764.392)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 21:24:52
    Beitrag Nr. 117 (8.764.443)
    German lessons
    Bush should not mess with history

    Leader
    Friday February 28, 2003
    The Guardian

    When America defeats its enemies, George W Bush said in his speech on Iraq this week, it leaves not occupying armies but democracy and liberty. "There was a time," he went on, "when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong."

    In fact, it is Mr Bush who is wrong. Japanese men got the vote in 1925, not in 1945, as the president implied. And German men won the vote as far back as 1849, albeit subject to a property qualification, at a time when Mr Bush`s country practised legalised slavery. Bearing in mind that America only became a full democracy in 1965, and Germany in 1946, there is a case for saying that Germans have at least as strong a democratic tradition as Americans. What`s more, there is no dispute about who actually won the last German election, which is more than can be said about the means by which Mr Bush came to office. A little historical humility would do the president no harm.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 22:01:00
    Beitrag Nr. 118 (8.764.668)

    Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

    Video Clip von Shaking Hands zwischen Rumsfeld und Saddam: Media Player

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 28.02.03 22:34:25
    Beitrag Nr. 119 (8.764.881)
    "Bush has said..."We will not allow the world`s worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world`s worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That`s you."
    - Harold Pinter


    I`m going to war!

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 12:54:58
    Beitrag Nr. 120 (8.766.877)
    Sind es es allein die Gerichte, die noch, genau wie bei uns, die Demokratie aufrechterhalten?


    February 28, 2003
    Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on `Under God` in Pledge
    By ADAM LIPTAK


    ver the vehement objections of 9 of its 24 active judges, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, essentially let stand today a decision that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

    The deeply divided court declined a petition to review a 2-to-1 ruling i June by a three-judge appellate panel that had immediately prompted a huge public debate — and was stayed almost as quickly. Under that decision, schools may not require students to listen to the Pledge if it includes the words "under God."

    Unless the Supreme Court takes action, that decision, amended today by the original three-judge panel to specify that it applied only to public school students, will now become the law in nine Western states, affecting 9.6 million students.

    The full appeals court`s decision not to take the case surprised legal experts, with some speculating that some of the votes against rehearing the case were simply cast to hasten Supreme Court review.

    In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that the Bush administration would ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

    "The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," he said. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."

    Denials of petitions for full-court rehearings are generally dry, one- or two-sentence affairs. Not so here.

    Judge Diarmuid F. O`Scannlain, writing for six judges who favored full-court review, called the panel`s decision "wrong, very wrong — wrong because reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is simply not a `religious act` as the two-judge majority asserts, wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent properly understood, wrong because it set up a direct conflict with the law of another circuit, and wrong as a matter of common sense."

    "If reciting the Pledge is truly `a religious act` in violation of the Establishment Clause,` of the First Amendment, he continued, "then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National anthem.`

    Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was one of the two judges in the original majority, was the only judge to explain his vote against rehearing. Such explanations are uncommon, and Judge Reinhardt said he did so because he felt "compelled to discuss a disturbingly wrongheaded approach to constitutional law manifested in the dissent authored by Judge O`Scannlain," which had noted the exceptional "public and political reaction" to the original decision.

    "We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Judge Reinhardt wrote.

    "It is the highest calling of federal judges to invoke the Constitution to repudiate unlawful majoritarian action," he continued. "Any suggestion, whenever or wherever made, that federal judges should be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be firmly rejected."

    Judge O`Scannlain responded that his opinion "has nothing to do with bending to the will of an outraged populace, and everything to do with the fact that Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt misinterpret the Constitution and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. That most people understand this makes the decision no less wrong."

    The case arose from a suit brought by Michael A. Newdow of Sacramento, Calif., an atheist who had challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his 8-year-old daughter over the objections of the child`s mother, Sandra Banning, of Elk Grove, who has sole legal custody and has described herself as a Christian.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 13:28:31
    Beitrag Nr. 121 (8.766.967)
    As Bush Moralizes, Some Cringe
    By DAVID LIGHTMAN
    Washington Bureau Chief

    March 1 2003

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush has long made it clear that God is central to his value system and that much of what he does has a moral core rooted in his religious beliefs.

    "True faith," he told the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast last year, "is never isolated from the rest of life."

    So it`s no surprise that as the U.S. escalates its buildup for a possible war with Iraq, Bush has painted the likely conflict as more than just a war to disarm a rogue nation. It would be part of a moral, even religious, mission to do what he thinks is right.

    "Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history has a moral design. ... We know that suffering is temporary and hope is eternal," the president said at the prayer breakfast last month. "As a nation, we know that the ruthless will not inherit the earth."

    As a result, he said, it is important for people to use their inherent goodness to help others. "It is always, and everywhere, right to be kind and just, to protect the lives of others, and to lay down your life for a friend," Bush said.

    Such talk makes many experts and others nervous. There is a "moral absolutism" at work here that is disturbing, said Stephen Bosworth, dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

    What the country should be doing, Bosworth said, is figuring out "how you manage the problem."

    "You have to swallow hard and go deal" on foreign policy, said Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project. "You have to reason your way through."

    Others saw Bush`s moral rationales as a refreshing way to conduct foreign policy but stressed that while the U.S. wants to spread its values around the world, it is not trying to run other countries.

    A religious and moral calling is hardly a new way to conduct American foreign policy. Years ago, it was reflected more as the "white man`s burden" school of diplomacy, a feeling that America was not only morally superior, but also on a divine mission to improve the world.

    Woodrow Wilson used what biographer Arthur S. Link called "missionary diplomacy." Wilson`s chief foreign policy goals, Link said, were "the ambition to do justly, to advance the cause of international peace and to give to other peoples the blessings of democracy and Christianity."

    Much later in the century, President Reagan routinely called the U.S. a place that "for all mankind [would be] a shining city on a hill" and how the country was placed between "the two great oceans by some divine plan."

    But Reagan`s actual policies reflected more the post-World War II blueprint of practical diplomacy. Having fought that war against nations rooted in racism and totalitarianism, the "white man`s burden" debate was finished, and the threats that loomed - communism and nuclear holocaust - called for solutions that assured survival, not military or intellectual conquest.

    That view of diplomacy began to change as the Cold War ended in 1989, triggering the still ongoing debate over what philosophy should guide U.S. foreign policy. Should America be the world`s problem-solver? Police officer? Promoter of democracy and values? Or the divinely guided agent of the righteous?

    Complicating the answers is the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which injected a new dose of realism. Hence, the current debate: Should the U.S. impose its values - some say its will - on the world, partly because it believes it`s right and partly for self-protection, or should it return to the days when sheer, hard-headed practicality ruled policy?

    The Bush forces want both. "Core values have held us together" with like-minded nations, said Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis, R-Va.

    When Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before Congress last week, he had the same thought: "We have principles we stand on, and we should not be afraid to act."

    What worried others, though, was that the principles would overtake practicality and stoke the zeal to act when the country should not.

    They fretted that talk about "regime change" is another way of saying the U.S. knows what`s best for another nation and will impose its will.

    That`s scary, said Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa`s nonvoting delegate to Congress. "That`s the same theory we used in Vietnam. We said we know what`s best, and ignored their feelings about Ho Chi Minh. And people there resented our attitude," he said.

    Bush, though, keeps insisting his campaign against Saddam Hussein, and against terrorism, is righteous.

    "We face a continuing threat of terrorist networks that hate the very thought of people being able to live in freedom," he told religious broadcasters last month. "They hate the thought of the fact that in this great country, we can worship the Almighty God the way we see fit, and what probably makes [the terrorists] even angrier is we`re not going to change."

    And he painted the war against Iraq as a virtual holy war. "Should we need to use troops, for the sake of future generations of Americans," Bush said, "American troops will act in the honorable traditions of our military and in the highest moral traditions of our country."

    C. Welton Gaddy, president of the National Interfaith Alliance Foundation, heard those words and was appalled.

    "President Bush often reminds me of a first-year seminary student who, after one course in theology, thinks his particular view of faith answers all of life`s most complex problems," Gaddy said.

    Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton University, went further.

    "This is actually the language of religious zealots, whether they be Christian or Muslim. It`s the language of children`s stories."

    They and others worry that Bush`s message is being heard well beyond Iraq, thus promoting the idea that the U.S. is on a divine mission not just to root out terrorists, but to change the way nations are ruled.

    "We have to accept the fact that on the day we go in [to Iraq], not when we win, but on the day we go in, we will have the Arab world and every bit of the media in the Arab world blaming us for everything wrong in Iraq," said Anthony H. Cordesman, analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

    Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, worried that a morally superior attitude is particularly troublesome in another part of the world: the Korean peninsula.

    "My greatest worry ... is that I don`t think that [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il is as much of an imbecile as he`s made out to be," Biden said.

    Administration officials and sympathizers point out that despite the Bush rhetoric, his policies have in the end been ruled by a practical streak.

    Biden said Bush is acting much like other governors who become presidents. "I don`t think he ... fully appreciated that little nuances are read as messages that changed entire messages," Biden said.
    Copyright 2003, Hartford Courant
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 14:00:46
    Beitrag Nr. 122 (8.767.094)



    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 14:06:49
    Beitrag Nr. 123 (8.767.119)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 14:19:44
    Beitrag Nr. 124 (8.767.175)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 15:51:33
    Beitrag Nr. 125 (8.767.454)
    Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995


    By Colum Lynch
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, March 1, 2003; Page A15


    UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 28 -- A prominent Iraqi defector credited by President Bush and other senior U.S. officials with helping to reveal the full extent of Baghdad`s secret biological, chemical and nuclear weapons told U.N. inspectors in 1995 that the vast majority of Iraq`s deadliest weapons had already been destroyed, according to a confidential copy of the notes of the meeting.

    Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former head of Iraq`s secret weapons program and a son-in-law of President Saddam Hussein, told a United Nations delegation in a secret meeting in Amman, Jordan, on Aug, 22, 1995, that Iraq had halted the production of VX nerve agent in the late 1980s and destroyed its banned missiles, stocks of anthrax and other chemical agents and poison gases soon after the Persian Gulf War.

    However, U.N. inspectors have challenged the veracity of Kamel`s claims.

    Kamel, the former director of Iraq`s Military Industrialization Corp., which oversees the country`s weapons programs, acknowledged that Iraq had preserved much of the technology and know-how required for producing banned weapons in order to reconstitute the program after U.N. inspectors left the country.

    But he told the delegation, headed by then-chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus, that "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

    Ekeus and other former U.N. inspectors said this week that while Kamel provided valuable information, he frequently embellished and lied to enhance his reputation or to preserve illegal weapons programs. "He was a consummate liar," Ekeus said in a telephone interview. "He wanted to return [to Iraq] at some stage and make a political comeback when Saddam Hussein moved to the side. All the more reason to preserve some of the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] secrets."

    Kamel returned to Baghdad in 1996, where he was killed.

    Ekeus said Kamel`s suggestions that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons as early as 1991 were "absurd." The former U.N. Special Commission, which was responsible for destroying Iraq`s weapons from 1991 to 1998, carried out the destruction of more chemical, biological weapons than occurred during the Persian Gulf War, Ekeus noted. He said also that the U.N. inspectors carried out the destruction of tons of chemical weapons and agents between 1992 and 1994.

    The defection of Kamel to Amman on Aug. 7, 1995, prompted the Iraqi government to turn over millions of pages of documents with new information on Iraq`s efforts to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

    The notes from Kamel`s interview, which were obtained by Cambridge University lecturer Glen Rangwala and first reported this week in Newsweek, suggest that Bush may have overstated Kamel`s importance in leading U.N. inspectors to the trail of tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve agent.

    They indicated that the United States, which debriefed Kamel in Amman, may have ignored or dismissed his claims that many of Iraq`s deadliest agents had been destroyed. The defection of Kamel "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learn more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself," Vice President Cheney said on Aug. 26.

    U.N. inspectors familiar with the Kamel meeting cautioned that the quotes from the interview, which were translated into English from Arabic and written down by a Russian weapons inspector, may contain some mistakes or misunderstandings. "You have to take what he says with a grain of salt," one U.N. inspector said.

    Kamel said that Hussein had no intention of abandoning his pursuit of banned weapons once inspectors left. He said that Hussein`s special guards had hidden two Russian Scud rocket launchers and a computer disk with information on Iraq`s banned nuclear weapons program. Asked why Iraq would destroy its missiles and keep the launchers and missile molds, he said, "It is the first step to return to production. All blueprints for missiles are in a safe place."

    Kamel himself suggested the U.N. inspectors were a far more useful and reliable source than Iraqi defectors. "You should not underestimate yourself," Kamel said. "You are very effective in Iraq." In the interview, he described one well-known defector, Khidhir Hamza, a nuclear scientist who participated in Iraq`s secret nuclear weapons program, as "a professional liar."



    © 2003 The Washington Post Company
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 16:34:04
    Beitrag Nr. 126 (8.767.638)
    Bush`s Operation Infinite Purity, ein Beispiel für die CSU!
    Americans for Purity


    http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/purity/index.asp
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 17:49:56
    Beitrag Nr. 127 (8.768.044)
    "The bogey man of `anti-Americanism`"


    By Matthew Riemer
    YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
    (YellowTimes.org) – The term "anti-Americanism," like its cousin "anti-Semitism," has become the new mantra of an apologetic intelligentsia class: It`s used ritually to describe anyone or anything that does not obediently fawn at the feet of American exceptionalism. The most convenient and negative result of the term`s preponderance is its intentional blurring of the lines between ethnic and political criticism.

    For example, to criticize American foreign policy is to be "anti-American." And in the case of Americans themselves, to be "self-loathing" as well. But what does the term "American" really mean when used in this manner? Everything remotely "American"?

    When people gather in distant countries to demonstrate for peace or in support of their own nation`s sovereignty, which is incidentally being challenged by a hegemonic United States, it is "anti-Americanism" at work -- not people assembling of their own free will to address specific grievances.

    One can see the benefit of this usage as highly specific, political criticisms and observations are misconstrued and transformed into broad and sweeping, social, ethnic, and cultural statements.

    So now to criticize the actions of elite politicians in Washington is to criticize the American people and their way of life. If you have a problem with the U.S.` policy in the Middle East, you must hate baseball and apple pie. If you don`t support war with Iraq, you must not "appreciate your freedom." If you say the U.S. has no right to threaten non-nuclear countries with pre-emptive nuclear war, then you must be jealous of America`s greatness. The keepers of the status quo and enshriners of America as the holier-than-thou empire are determined to have all such criticism deflected in this manner.

    South Korea is an illustrative example that comes to mind. Following an incident that involved the killing of two young South Korean girls by a U.S. military jeep being driven by military personnel stationed in South Korea, the South was accused of "anti-Americanism" for expressing displeasure with the U.S.` handling of the incident.

    Many a candlelight vigil and protest have been since held in the name of the two girls and the misrepresentation of the affair continues. Radios can be heard blurting out "Massive anti-American demonstrations in South Korea today." Newsprint headlines shout the same.

    Such news, of an extreme soundbite nature, can be used to sensationalize the most mundane event. The use of headlines in this way adds to the alarmist air pervading much of corporate media today. Whether it`s Fox News with their never ending scrolling bar on the bottom of the screen displaying that day`s terror warning alert system color or sensationalist claims of rampant "anti-Americanism," the media seems intent on frightening the American public as frequently as possible. Security has become the buzzword for a desperately mis-educated American public eager to cling to anything that makes them feel more secure -- including prettified illusions of what`s going on in the world perpetuated by their local press.

    Cannot any criticism of the United States ever be accepted, or even faced, by the accused and those who apologize for them? The sentiment is clear in the American media: The South Korean "protesters" are young, disaffected, and jealous of the U.S.` role in the world. They have no legitimate gripe. No one middle-aged or "respected" could ever be criticizing the U.S. for anything of substance.

    This is one of the U.S.` worst attributes on the global social stage and one of the greatest causes of the impression of Americans as arrogant and condescending: a complete lack of respect for others` opinions and the systematic marginalization, delegitimation, and blackballing of those opinions.

    Following the attacks of September 11th, crowds gathered to publicly and collectively mourn the dead and listen to fiery speeches about American pride and retribution. Were these events described as "anti-Arab" or "anti-Muslim"? Surely not.

    Americans, and, more vitally, the U.S. government, must learn to respect and pay heed to what other nations and cultures attempt to articulate through public demonstration.

    [Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

    Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 01.03.03 19:34:55
    Beitrag Nr. 128 (8.768.732)
    TÜRKISCHER PARLAMENTSBESCHLUSS

    Chaos nach Abstimmung zur US-Truppenstationierung

    Eigentlich schien am Samstag abend zunächst alles klar. Das türkische Parlament stimmte nach mehreren Anläufen zu, dass US-Soldaten massiv an der Grenze zum Irak aufmarschieren. Doch dann stellte sich heraus, dass die Befürworter nicht die hierfür notwendige Mehrheit vorweisen konnten.


    REUTERS

    Setzte sich durch: Der türkische Premierminister Abdullah Gül


    Ankara - Die Abstimmung über die Stationierung von US-Truppen ist nach Angaben des türkischen Parlamentspräsidenten gescheitert, wie der private Fernsehsender NTV am Freitag berichtete. Zur Begründung sagte er, die Befürworter der Stationierung seien nicht in der Mehrheit gewesen. Wie Parlamentspräsident Bülent Arinc nach der Sitzung hinter verschlossenen Türen mitteilte, wurde die erforderliche Mehrheit von 276 Stimmen verfehlt. Für den Regierungsantrag hatten 264 Abgeordnete gestimmt. 250 votierten dagegen.
    Die oppositionelle Republikanische Volkspartei hatte nach der Abstimmung die Rechtmäßigkeit des Ergebnisses in Frage gestellt und eine Überprüfung gefordert.

    Die türkische Regierung hätte bei einem Erfolg der Abstimmung die Stationierung von 62.000 Soldaten, 255 Kampfflugzeugen und 65 Hubschraubern genehmigt. Außerdem hätten die Abgeordneten den Weg geebnet für eine Entsendung türkischer Truppen in den Nordirak, um die "nationalen Interessen" zu sichern, sollte es zu einem Krieg kommen.

    Im Gegenzug für die Stationierung der Soldaten sicherten die USA der Türkei finanzielle Hilfe in Höhe von rund 15 Milliarden Dollar zu. Dieses Abkommen war bis zum Samstagabend jedoch noch nicht endgültig unter Dach und Fach.

    Die Abstimmung über einen entsprechenden Antrag der Regierung war erst am Donnerstag aufs Wochenende verschoben worden und erfolgte nach mehrstündiger Debatte.

    Vor Beginn der Aussprache unter Ausschluss der Presse forderten Vertreter der Opposition Widerstand gegen den entsprechenden Antrag der Regierung. "Wir rufen Sie auf, sich nicht in diesen abscheulichen Krieg verwickeln zu lassen", appellierte Önder Sav von der Republikanischen Volkspartei an die Parlamentarier. Zehntausende Türken demonstrierten unterdessen nur wenige Kilometer vom Parlamentsgebäude entfernt gegen einen Irak-Krieg. Umfragen zufolge lehnen mehr als 80 Prozent der Türken eine militärische Lösung ab.

    Die Türkei ist Mitglied der Nato und hat von den USA im Gegenzug für die Stationierung Kredite und Bürgschaften in Milliardenhöhe zugesichert bekommen.

    Wie es nach dem Abstimmungschaos nun weitergeht, war am Abend noch unklar. Rund 40 Schiffe mit US-Truppen und Material sollen angeblich bereits vor der türkischen Küste kreuzen.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 13:51:13
    Beitrag Nr. 129 (8.772.285)
    Achtung Satire


    The Saddam and George show
    Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein`s challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met

    Tim Dowling
    Tuesday February 25, 2003
    The Guardian

    Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.

    Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world.

    Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today`s debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people`s commitment to peace and human progress and America`s desire to destroy the Middle East.

    Bush: Do I answer that?

    Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida?

    Bush: I do not.

    Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

    Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links.

    Bush: Neither do I.

    Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win?

    Bush: That`s easy. America, right?

    Saddam: Even I knew that one.

    Bush: That`s because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three?

    Blair: I think you`re allowed as many as you like.

    Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

    Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil.

    Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

    Blair: Let`s move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors` orders?

    Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I`ve tested them myself, and we don`t have any.

    Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution?

    Bush: Listen to me. It`s very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

    Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

    Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

    Saddam: OK.

    Blair: Sorry, but I`m not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe.

    Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED.

    Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

    Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

    Bush: Too late.

    Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of `Demands a Sushi`?

    Saddam: Yes, I`ve heard them all.

    Bush: I don`t eat sushi. Is there a fish option?

    Blair: I`d like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the break.


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 13:53:59
    Beitrag Nr. 130 (8.772.304)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 14:09:07
    Beitrag Nr. 131 (8.772.372)




    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 14:49:50
    Beitrag Nr. 132 (8.772.531)
    Saudi envoy in UK linked to 9/11
    Riyadh`s former intelligence chief has been accused in US court documents of helping to fund al-Qaeda, report Paul Harris and Martin Bright

    Paul Harris and Martin Bright
    Sunday March 2, 2003
    The Observer

    It was another royal function on a cold February evening as Prince Charles mingled with the guests at the opening of an Oxford clinic. Among the doctors were a few celebrities, including the actress Joanna Lumley. Canapés were eaten, a few glasses of wine were drunk. `I can`t tell you all how pleased and glad I am to be here today,` Charles gushed.

    Charles stopped to chat with the new Saudi ambassador to Britain, the distinguished figure of Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two friends shook hands and exchanged pleasantries.

    But Turki is not what he seems. Behind him lies a murky tale of espionage, terrorism and torture. For, while Turki has many powerful friends among Britain`s elite, he is no ordinary diplomat. Turki has now been served with legal papers by lawyers acting for relatives of the victims of 11 September.

    They accuse him of funding and supporting Osama bin Laden. The Observer can also reveal that Turki has now admitted for the first time that Saudi interrogators have tortured six British citizens arrested in Saudi Arabia and accused of carrying out a bombing campaign.

    The revelations throw a stark light on Turki`s appointment late last year as Saudi Arabia`s new ambassador to Britain. They also cast doubt on the suitability of Charles`s relationship with senior Saudis. A year ago Charles had dinner with bin Laden`s brother, Bakr bin Laden, and regularly hosted meetings for Turki`s predecessor, Dr Ghazi Algosaibi, who was recalled after writing poems praising suicide bombers.

    The US lawsuit is seeking more than $1 trillion in com pensation from a list of individuals and companies alleged to have supported al- Qaeda. The claimants` head lawyer, Ron Motley, a veteran of successful anti-tobacco suits, has already called it `the trial of the century`.

    Now, after papers were served on Turki several weeks ago, the Saudi ambassador will be at the heart of it. Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy. Many centre around Turki`s role as head of the Saudi intelligence agency. He held the post for 25 years before being replaced in 2001 just before the attacks on New York.

    Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States.

    However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden`s network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.

    Kakshar`s statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. `Mullah Kakshar`s sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,` the papers said.

    Turki`s link to one of al-Qaeda`s top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda`s top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.

    Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was `instrumental` in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.

    Turki did not respond to phone calls and a letter sent by The Observer to the Saudi embassy in London.

    But his lawyers will have to respond in court. The case is expected to begin in May and experts think it could go on for four of five years. If it rules against him, Turki may face enormous compensation payments and the seizure of his financial assets. It would also cost him his post as ambassador.

    Coupled with the looming court case, Turki last week raised alarming questions over the treatment of six Britons jailed in Saudi Arabia when he admitted that they had been tortured. Turki was head of Saudi intelligence when the men were arrested. Saudi authorities claim the men were involved in a `bootleggers` feud`, despite the attacks continuing after their arrest and bearing the hallmarks of Islamic terrorists.

    In an astonishing call-in programme, carried on the BBC World Service and unnoticed in Britain, Turki fielded a call from a British resident of Riyadh who knew some of the imprisoned men. The caller confronted him about the torture allegations. Turki said: `They were tortured and there was a complaint about it and that complaint would have been investigated.`

    The revelation has angered relatives of the men and campaigners, who have accused the British Government of sacrificing their freedom in the interests of good diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Last week the relatives met Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who told them that Britain would continue its `softly, softly` approach. However, that news angered many. `His stance is the same. He said softly, softly is working. But it has been two years. How much longer?` said one relative at the meeting.

    Lib Dem MP John Pugh has also tabled a series of questions about the men in Parliament, but said that Foreign Office officials had failed to answer them. `I am being blocked,` Pugh said. Diplomatic sources say Pugh has also been asked `privately` to stop his questions. Pugh has now applied to have the issue debated in the Commons.


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 16:30:09
    Beitrag Nr. 133 (8.772.916)
    Wer soll für Mr. Bush den Krieg führen?

    Who will fight the war?
    Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
    Sunday, March 2, 2003
    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


    "It`s white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people." -- lyric from "Hair." .

    When it comes to who will do the fighting and dying for the modern U.S. military, conventional wisdom today echoes the 1967 observation of the popular musical about the Age of Aquarius. Many people simply don`t believe the Pentagon`s reassurances that today`s U.S. military represents a cross section of the American population.

    At anti-war rallies, speakers rail that America`s isolated white elite has no hesitation using volunteer "cannon fodder" soldiers, mostly poor and minority, on the Baghdad battlefield. One recent San Francisco demonstrator carried a placard aimed at the Bush twins: Want war? Draft Jenna and Barbara!

    On Capitol Hill, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of Harlem and Pete Stark of Fremont push legislation to reinstate a draft, this time with no college deferments, as pure political touche -- they figure to deter war by threatening rich white families with the prospect of having to put the lives of their children on the line.

    So who`s right? Who really are the fighters who would be on the front lines,

    assuming we launch an assault on Iraq? Would it really make us less likely to go to war if we had a drafted, and not a volunteer, military?

    And what difference, if any, does the composition of the U.S. military make to power brokers who control where and when we wage war?

    The facts show that both sides of the debate engage in some distortion. The U.S. military today is hardly an accurate reflection of American society. Aside from being heavily male and young, it differs in some surprising ways from the U.S. population. Here`s what the numbers show:

    -- The wealthy are indeed almost totally absent from today`s military -- but the very poor don`t have much of a presence either. Most of today`s enlisted recruits come from the lower-middle and middle classes.

    -- The troops most likely to fight and die are disproportionately not minorities, but white. While it`s true that blacks are more likely to enlist --

    particularly in the Army -- than whites, they overwhelmingly gravitate to administration and to the medical, dental and communication fields. When it comes to high-risk slots, blacks make up less than 3 percent of fighter pilots and less than 11 percent of Army infantrymen. And Latinos are actually underrepresented in the military.

    -- Those bearing the greatest burden of military service are Southerners -- they`re twice as likely to enlist as Westerners and do so at a rate three times that of Northeasterners.

    -- The same is true for rural folks, who enlist in greater ratios than suburban kids. Ditto Republicans, who enlist at significantly higher rates than Democrats.

    In short, if anybody has a right to complain about bearing an unfair burden of military sacrifice in America, it`s the Bubba community.

    It`s been 30 years since we abolished the draft -- over Pentagon objections that conscription was essential to fill the ranks. After three decades of trial-and-error with an all-volunteer force, the Pentagon has pulled an about- face. It now argues that reinstating the draft would be "a call to go back to an earlier and lower standard of performance. We do not want that."

    But the debate about who should fight for this country is an old, bitter and sometimes bloody one -- witness the draft riots depicted in the current Oscar-nominated film "Gangs of New York." In the Civil War, a wealthy Union slacker could evade the draft by paying $300, or by hiring some poor soul to take his place.

    Probably the most egalitarian military conflict was World War II, in which so many troops were required that citizen soldiers truly came from all walks of life. Before the draft was banished at the end of the Vietnam War, it had become so riddled with escape hatches that anybody with deep pockets and connections could finagle a deferment or a post in, say, the Texas Air National Guard.

    There were 2 million men and women in the all-volunteer armed forces by the time of the Persian Gulf War -- a conflict noted for its small number of U.S. casualties. Whites made up 71 percent of the deployed force and 76 percent of deaths.

    Since then, the force has shrunk by one-third. It now consists of 1.4 million active-duty troops and 1.3 million reservists.

    At the same time, surveys show that the number of young people saying they would never consider joining the military has risen, from 40 percent in 1980 to 64 percent by 2000. Even the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 failed to change attitudes or boost recruitment.

    Critics say the very notion of an all-volunteer force is a misnomer. In reality, they say, it simply illustrates that blacks "volunteer" for the Army because it`s the only place offering affordable education. Thus, African Americans, who make up 14 percent of the U.S. population ages 18-24, comprise almost 22 percent of enlisted personnel.

    But unlike white recruits, who come from families that are poorer than their civilian counterparts, black recruits come from families that actually are better off financially than nonmilitary black families. White recruits come from families with a median income of $33,500 a year -- more than $10,000 less than that of white civilian families -- while black recruits hail from families with a median income of $32,000 a year -- some $4,000 a year higher than that of black civilian families.

    The Defense Technical Information Center has found that people who enlist are more likely to have parents who work in factories, law enforcement, service industries or the military than their civilian counterparts.

    Their parents are more likely to have graduated from high school but not college, and they`re more likely to rent instead of own their homes.

    Overall, the Pentagon doesn`t net the very poor or disadvantaged. Nine out of 10 earn a high school diploma before enlisting.

    But if the poor get a pass, so do the well-to-do. The public generally presumes no Ivy League-bound rich kid would consider enlisting in the military -- and they`re right.

    In fact, if those not-for-attribution Pentagon spokespeople were more forthcoming, they would acknowledge the fretting that goes on at Defense Department conclaves over the lack of suburban and upper-class officers, much less recruits.

    Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has warned repeatedly of the growing gap between "the elites and the rest of us," noting that the Yale Flying Club was key to naval aviation in world wars. Care to guess how many Yale graduates have entered the service since 1986? A measly dozen.

    As recently as two years ago, an internal Defense Department study bemoaned the glaring shortage of new recruits from upper-middle and upper-class backgrounds.

    In response, the Pentagon actually is trying to market upscale. The slogan "I am an army of one" is aimed to appeal to the individualism of a higher socioeconomic class. This spring the military even intends to roll out ads in high-brow publications such as the New Yorker, portraying military life as satisfying and family-friendly.

    But the gap is likely to remain. Of the 535 members of Congress who voted on giving Bush authority to attack Iraq, only a handful had children who are officers in the U.S. military and just one had an enlisted son.

    It is cynical to suggest that Congress and President Bush, whose twins are safely ensconced in college, are bent on war because somebody else`s kids would die. It`s insulting to suggest that privileged politicians would order frivolous military endeavors simply because they don`t have a personal "skin in the game."

    And yet any parent knows, it`s different when it`s personal. What can be said for a democracy when its elite policymakers and their families are comfortably disengaged from military risk?

    It`s this imbalance -- coupled with concerns that our current forces could be strained in escalating conflicts -- that`s prompting some to resurrect talk of a draft.

    Nobody expects it to happen in the foreseeable future. Even Rangel admits his draft proposal, which would funnel virtually every high school graduate into a mandatory stint in military or civilian national service, is dead-on- arrival.

    And there are serious doubts about its wisdom -- a mandatory national- service draft might well produce a lower caliber of soldier, and require a huge bureaucracy to oversee the 90 percent of draftees who would have to be channeled into mandatory civilian national service. Who would train them? Who would decide which draftees became gunnery privates and which became aides to Alzheimer`s patients?

    And how to square forcing 4 million 18-year-olds each year into national service with the Constitution`s 13th Amendment, which prohibits "involuntary servitude?"

    But there are counter-arguments worth considering as well. Despite Pentagon reassurances that we have enough troops, the services have struggled to meet recruiting goals in recent years. Nobody can say for sure what the breaking point will be if, God forbid, we end up battling Iraq, al Qaeda and North Korea at the same time.

    The country`s leading military sociologist, Northwestern University`s Charles Moskos, observes that while we continue calling up reservists who work as cops, firefighters and emergency medical responders at home, we`re "being drained of precisely the people we will need when the terrorists return."

    It`s not even clear that resurrecting a draft would put a damper on military adventurism. Moskos, who advocates a draft, argues that the public will support a war only if the children of the elite and powerful are dispatched to fight it.

    Americans who campaigned to end conscription assumed that the country would be less likely to wage war if it couldn`t rely on an unending supply of drafted bodies. With an all-volunteer force, politicians theoretically wouldn`t risk an unpopular war for fear recruits would stop volunteering.

    No less an insider than the Army Times editorialized that a new draft "would ensure that future generations of political leaders would enter office understanding the military, its strengths and weaknesses, and its culture."

    Duke University researchers working with the Triangle Institute for Security Studies have concluded that the more veterans hold political office, the less likely the United States is to use military force.

    Every year, fewer power brokers have any tie whatsoever to military service.

    This discussion has to stop being political one-upmanship. It ought to be about exactly what the words "shared sacrifice" mean.

    E-mail Vicki Haddock at vhaddock@sfchronicle.com.

    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 18:30:01
    Beitrag Nr. 134 (8.773.464)
    The Land of the Free. Sind solche Geschichten nicht bekannt von Hammett oder Chandler von vor über 50 Jahren, aber heute?
    01.03.2003
    Cited in Prostitution Sting, Cache Lawmaker Resigns

    Brent Parker
    BY KEVIN CANTERA and KIRSTEN STEWART
    THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

    Republican state Rep. Brent Parker of Wellsville abruptly resigned his seat Friday after Salt Lake City police cited him earlier this week for trying to solicit sex from an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute.
    House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, read Parker`s handwritten resignation Friday evening after lawmakers had adjourned for the day.
    "I felt that it was the appropriate thing to do . . . for myself and for the Legislature," Parker told The Salt Lake Tribune, adding with a sigh: "I`ve had better days."
    Parker, elected to a second term by Cache County voters in November, said he planned to "clear everything up."
    Stephens also informed Parker`s Republican colleagues of the arrest and resignation. Many cried as they exited the closed meeting.
    "It threw us off guard," said a tearful Rep. Loraine Pace.
    "I think of him first and foremost as a husband, father and a friend," said the Logan Republican. "My heart just aches for him and his family."
    Rep. Craig Buttars, R-Lewiston, said: "We don`t know enough right now to make a judgment. I hope that Parker knows we are with him and his family during this difficult time."
    Just before midnight Wednesday, Parker, 57, was in his Nissan Pathfinder parked on Exchange Place, an area "known for male prostitution," between Main Street and State Street in downtown Salt Lake City, according to a police report.
    When an undercover officer drove by, Parker allegedly nodded at him and motioned him over. The officer parked and approached Parker, telling him he was "working" and would perform sex acts for $15 to $20, the report says.
    Parker told the officer to follow, and drove to a parking lot about a block away, according to the report. There, the officer got into the passenger seat of Parker`s vehicle and Parker allegedly offered him $20 for oral sex.
    Parker then "grabbed" the crotch of the officer`s pants and started to massage it, the report says. Parker later asked the officer for his phone number so he could call "every time he came into town," according to the report.
    The legislator was cited for solicitation, the report says.
    Soliciting a prostitute is a class B misdemeanor, carrying a potential sentence of up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
    Parker said he had not seen the police report and said only that he "was approached" by the officer. "I never did get out of my car."
    Just shy of three full sessions in the Legislature, Parker had sponsored only a handful of bills during his tenure. He was first elected in 2000, replacing longtime state representative and fellow Republican Evan Olsen, who sponsored the bill creating Utah`s "Porn Czar."
    Parker, a father of six and grandfather of six who owns a large farming operation and is a partner in a real estate firm, expressed gratitude for his time as a lawmaker, calling his experience in the Legislature "just wonderful."
    Prior to his being elected to the House, the Wellsville Republican served eight years on the Cache County Board of Education, six years as president. A graduate of Utah State University, he also was president of the Utah School Boards Association.
    kcantera@sltrib.com
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 19:28:50
    Beitrag Nr. 135 (8.773.824)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 02.03.03 23:54:00
    Beitrag Nr. 136 (8.775.402)

    During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush said he`d been `called` to seek higher office and talked openly about his faith
    Bush and God
    A higher calling: It is his defining journey—from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war

    By Howard Fineman
    NEWSWEEK


    March 10 issue — George W. Bush rises ahead of the dawn most days, when the loudest sound outside the White House is the dull, distant roar of F-16s patrolling the skies. Even before he brings his wife, Laura, a morning cup of coffee, he goes off to a quiet place to read alone.


    HIS TEXT ISN’T news summaries or the overnight intelligence dispatches. Those are for later, downstairs, in the Oval Office. It’s not recreational reading (recently, a biography of Sandy Koufax). Instead, he’s told friends, it’s a book of evangelical mini-sermons, “My Utmost for His Highest.” The author is Oswald Chambers, and, under the circumstances, the historical echoes are loud. A Scotsman and itinerant Baptist preacher, Chambers died in November 1917 as he was bringing the Gospel to Australian and New Zealand soldiers massed in Egypt. By Christmas they had helped to wrest Palestine from the Turks, and captured Jerusalem for the British Empire at the end of World War I.
    Now there is talk of a new war in the Near East, this time in a land once called Babylon. One morning last month, as the United Nations argued and Washingtonians raced to hardware stores for duct tape amid a new Orange alert, the daily homily in “My Utmost” was about Isaiah’s reminder that God is the author of all life and history. “Lift up your eyes on high,” the prophet of the Old Testament said, “and behold who hath created these things.” Chambers’s explication: “When you are up against difficulties, you have no power, you can only endure in darkness” unless you “go right out of yourself, and deliberately turn your imagination to God.”


    Later that day, the president did so. At Opryland in Nashville—the old “Buckle of the Bible Belt”—Bush told religious broadcasters that “the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit,” and that the United States was called to bring God’s gift of liberty to “every human being in the world.” In his view, the chances of success were better than good. (After all, at the National Prayer Breakfast a few days before, he’d declared that “behind all of life and all history there is a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God.” If that’s so, America couldn’t fail.)
    After his speech in Nashville, Bush met privately with pastoral social workers and bore witness to his own faith in Jesus Christ. “I would not be president today,” he said, “if I hadn’t stopped drinking 17 years ago. And I could only do that with the grace of God.” The prospect of war with Iraq was “weighing heavy” on him, he admitted. He knew that many people—including some at the table—saw the conflict as pre-emptive and unjust. (“I couldn’t imagine Jesus delivering a message of war to a cheering crowd, as I just heard the president do,” one participant, Charles Strobel, said later.) But, the president said, America had to see that it is “encountering evil” in the form of Saddam Hussein. The country had no choice but to confront it, by war if necessary. “If anyone can be at peace,” Bush said, “I am at peace about this.”

    Every president invokes God and asks his blessing. Every president promises, though not always in so many words, to lead according to moral principles rooted in Biblical tradition. The English writer G. K. Chesterton called America a “nation with the soul of a church,” and every president, at times, is the pastor in the bully pulpit. But it has taken a war, and the prospect of more, to highlight a central fact: this president—this presidency—is the most resolutely “faith-based” in modern times, an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God. Money matters, as does military might. But the Bush administration is dedicated to the idea that there is an answer to societal problems here and to terrorism abroad: give everyone, everywhere, the freedom to find God, too.
    Bush believes in God’s will—and in winning elections with the backing of those who agree with him. As a subaltern in his father’s 1988 campaign, George Bush the Younger assembled his career through contacts with ministers of the then emerging evangelical movement in political life. Now they form the core of the Republican Party, which controls all of the capital for the first time in a half century. Bible-believing Christians are Bush’s strongest backers, and turning them out next year in even greater numbers is the top priority of the president’s political adviser Karl Rove. He is busy tending to the base with pro-life judicial appointments, a proposed ban on human cloning (approved by the House last week) and a $15 billion plan to fight AIDS in Africa, a favorite project of Christian missionaries who want the chance to save souls there as well as beleaguered lives. The base is returning the favor. They are, by far, the strongest supporters of a war—unilateral if need be—to remove Saddam.
    Now comes the time of testing. The war is controversial, more so every day, and the nuclear crisis in North Korea intensifies. The president hasn’t played his diplomatic hand well, and is tied down by the likes of Hans Blix, the Philippine military and the Turkish Parliament, which late last week denied American troops transport rights through the country. Bush advisers know that many Americans—and much of the world—see him as a man blinded by his beliefs (and those of his most active supporters) to the complexities of the world as it is. He makes a point of praising Islam as “a religion of peace.” But to many Muslims, especially Arabs, he looks sinister: a new Crusader, bent on retaking the East for Christendom.
    Aides say the president’s quiet but fervent Christian faith gives him strength but does not dictate policy. He’s only seemed like preacher in chief, they say, because of what one called “a confluence of events”: the horrors of 9-11, the terror alerts and the Columbia shuttle explosion. Still, belief gives him something more than confidence, says his closest friend, Commerce Secretary Don Evans: “It gives him a desire to serve others and a very clear sense of what is good and what is evil.”
    How did he get that way? Consider this a “faith portrait” of the president, the story of the power of belief to save a life and a family—and to shape a political career and a national government.

    GROWING UP—‘God’s Frozen People’
    The story begins in Connecticut. Protestants there long ago were a fiery breed, with Jonathan Edwards’s (Yale ’21—as in 1721) warning sinners to avoid the wrath of an “angry God.” But by 1946, when George W. Bush was born there, the old-line Episcopalians—Bushes among them—spoke in quieter voices. His dad was a “duty, honor, country” guy, a World War II hero and a punctilious churchgoer. But he was uncomfortable with public testimonies of faith, especially his own. The hoary joke among Episcopalians seemed apt: we’re “God’s Frozen People.”
    The Bible belt was another story, but not for the Bushes. Moving in 1948 to the oil patch of west Texas, they joined other Ivy League immigrants from back East at the Presbyterian church in Midland. (Barbara Bush had been reared in the denomination.) It was staid compared with other churches there, more madras than denim. Dad raised money for the building fund, and taught in Sunday school. “Georgie” was a dutiful son and churchgoer. Years later, in an excess of spin, his mother claimed that he’d always shown an interest in reading the Bible. George smilingly said he was unable to remember such a fact. Sent back East to prep at Andover, he became a school “deacon.” But that role had long since lost any true religious significance; Bush used it to engineer pranks, not minister to the student flock.
    Come-to-Jesus stories are more dramatic if the sinner is a pro. Bush was a semipro, a hardy partyer—his Triumph convertible was famous in Houston—until he married Laura in 1977. They joined her Methodist church. In most respects, he became what his father was, a respected member of the congregation. But he was a drinker, and a serious one. Only after work and at night, he told himself. But sometimes the nights were long. He could be famously obnoxious at parties, and, worse, a bore to his patient wife. The birth of his twin daughters in 1982 brought him joy. But, friends say, Laura grew increasingly fed up with his drinking. By 1985, as he approached 40, he needed to fix his relationship with the women in his life. “Nothing was broken,” Evans said. “But he wanted it to be better.” Mostly, he had to leave alcohol behind.

    BORN AGAIN—Walking ‘The Walk’

    In campaign biographies, ghostwriters highlight the role that Billy Graham played in launching Bush on what he and Evans call his “Walk.” The truth is more prosaic, and explains far more about Bush’s evolving views, not only of faith but of government. Evans, married to a Bush elementary-school chum, was the key. He had been the golden boy of Midland, a handsome straight arrow, a “Cowboy” at the University of Texas (the Skull and Bones of Austin). He had gone home to climb the ladder of Tom Brown Oil Co., a booming concern in a booming economy. But in 1984 the oil business caved in. “It was the worst industrial collapse in the history of the American economy,” says Evans, who was left with the task of plowing through piles of corporate debt. Personal life was hard, too. By that time, he’d learned that a daughter, born severely handicapped, would need lifetime care.

    As a west Texan, Evans did what came naturally in a storm: he joined a nondenominational Bible-study group. He coaxed his friend George to come along. The program was called Community Bible Study—started, ironically, in the Washington, D.C., area in 1975 by a group of suburban women. By the time it got to Midland, it was a scriptural boot camp: an intensive, yearlong study of a single book of the New Testament, each week a new chapter, with detailed read-ing and discussion in a group of 10 men. For two years Bush and Evans and their partners read the clear writings of the Gentile physician Luke—Acts and then his Gospel. Two themes stood out, one spiritual, one more political: Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, and the founding of the church. Bush, who cares little for the abstract and a great deal for people, responded to the conversion story. He liked the idea of knowing Jesus as a friend.
    The CBS program was a turning point for the future president in several ways. It gave him, for the first time, an intellectual focus. Here was the product of elite secular education—Andover, Yale and Harvard—who, for the first time, was reading a book line by line with rapt attention. And it was ... the Bible. In that sense, Bush is a more unalloyed product of the Bible belt than his friends, who may have deeply studied something else in earlier days. A jogger and marathoner for years, Bush found in Bible study an equivalent mental and spiritual discipline, which he would soon need to steel himself for his main challenge in life to that point: to quit drinking.
    Bush says he never considered himself to be an alcoholic, and never attended an AA meeting. But it turned out he didn’t have to. CBS was something akin to the same thing, part of what has since come to be called the “small group” faith movement. It’s a baby-boomerish mix of self-help, self-discipline, group therapy (without using what, for Bush, is a dreaded word) and worship. Whatever, it worked. As the world knows, Bush did quit drinking in the summer of 1986, after his and Evans’s 40th birthday. “It was ‘goodbye Jack Daniels, hello Jesus’,” said one friend from those days.

    THE POLITICS—Making New Friends
    Bush turned to the bible to save his marriage and his family. But was he also thinking of smoothing his path to elective office? We’ll never know for sure. But he knew the political landscape of his near-native Texas. He knew that, by 1985, the South had risen to take control of the GOP, and that evangelical activism and clout was rising with it—indeed had been instrumental in making it possible. He also knew that his father’s way—Episcopalian reserve, moderation on cultural issues, close ties to back East—was a tough sell, to say the least. Bush the Younger had experienced it firsthand, in 1978, when he impetuously ran for Congress in Midland. He was a proud alumnus of Sam Houston Elementary and San Jacinto Junior High. But he had been clobbered as an Ivy League interloper nonetheless.
    When Bush moved to Washington in 1987 to help run his father’s campaign, he seized the main chance: to take over the job of being the “liaison” to the religious right. He quickly saw that he could talk the talk as well as walk the walk. “His father wasn’t comfortable dealing with religious types,” recalled Doug Wead, who worked with him on evangelical outreach. “George knew exactly what to say, what to do.” He and Wead bombarded campaign higher-ups with novel ways to reach out. Wead slipped Biblical phrases—signals to the base—into the Old Man’s speeches. Dubya, typically, favored a direct approach. He wanted to feature Billy Graham in a campaign video. Dad nixed the idea.
    Bush and Rove built their joint careers on that new base. Faith and ambition became one, with Bush doing the talking and Rove doing the thinking on policy and spin. In 1993—the year before he ran for governor—Bush caused a small tempest by telling an Austin reporter (who happened to be Jewish) that only believers in Jesus go to heaven. It was a theologically unremarkable statement, at least in Texas. But the fact that he had been brazen enough to say it produced a stir. While the editorial writers huffed, Rove quietly expressed satisfaction. The story would help establish his client’s Bible-belt bona fides in rural (and, until then, primarily Democratic) Texas. As a candidate, Bush sought, and got, advice from pastors, especially leaders of new, nondenominational “megachurches” in the suburbs. His ideas for governing were congenial to his faith, and dreamed up in his faith circles. The ideas were designed to draw evangelicals to the polls without sounding too church-made. “Compassionate conservatism”—mentoring, tough love on crime, faith-based welfare—was in many ways just a CBS Bible study writ large. The discipline of faith can save lives—Bush knew it from personal experience—and undercut the stale answers of the left.
    The presidential campaign was Texas on a grander scale. As he prepared to run, in 1999, Bush assembled leading pastors at the governor’s mansion for a “laying-on of hands,” and told them he’d been “called” to seek higher office. In the GOP primaries, he outmaneuvered the field by practicing what one rival, Gary Bauer, called “identity politics.” Others tried to woo evangelicals by pledging strict allegiance on issues such as abortion and gay rights. “Bush talked about his faith,” said Bauer, “and people just believed him—and believed in him.” There was genius in this. The son of Bush One was widely, logically, believed by secular voters to be a closet moderate. Suddenly, the father’s burden was a gift: Bush Two could reach the base without threatening the rest. “He was and is ‘one of us’,” said Charles Colson, who sold the then Governor Bush on a faith-based prison program.
    For his public speeches, he hired Michael Gerson, a gifted writer recommended to him by Colson, among others. A graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois (“the Evangelical Harvard”), Gerson understood Bush’s compassionate conservatism. More important, he had a gift for expressing it in stately, lilting language that could appeal, simultaneously, to born-agains and to secular boomers searching for a lost sense of uplift in public life.
    The Bush campaign conducted its more-controversial outreach below radar, via letters and e-mail. Only once was it forced to reach out in a raw public way. After John McCain won the New Hampshire primary, Bush made his infamous visit to South Carolina’s Bob Jones University, the ultrafundamentalist and officially anti-Roman Catholic school. Strategists were opaque in public, unapologetic behind the scenes. “We had to send a message—fast—and sending him there was the only way to do it,” said one top Bush operative at the time. “It was a risk we had to take.” Bush won.

    THE RECKONING—Forged in the Fire
    Faith didn’t make Bush a decisive person. He’s always been one. His birthright as a Bush gives him a sense of obligation to serve, and a sense of an entitlement to lead. West Texas, where dust storms and the gyrating economy buffeted the locals, left him with a love of straight shooters and a come-what-may view of life. A frat man at Yale in an increasingly radical time—the late 1960s—he came to loathe intellectual avatars of complexity and doubt—especially when they disparaged his dad. He is a Pierce, too: a quick-to-judge son of a quick-to-judge mother.

    Still, faith helps Bush pick a course and not look back. He talks regularly to pastors, and loves to hear that people are praying for him. As he describes it, his faith is not complex. In recent weeks he has added a new note to his theme of the personal uses of faith, drawn from CBS. Now there is a sense of destiny that approaches the Calvinistic. “There is a fatalistic element,” said David Frum, the author and former Bush speechwriter. “You do your best and accept that everything is in God’s hands.” The result is unflappability. “If you are confident that there is a God that rules the world,” said Frum, “you do your best, and things will work out.” But what some see as solidity, others view as a flammable mix of stubbornness and arrogance. “No one’s allowed to second-guess, even when you should,” said another former staffer.
    The atmosphere inside the White House, insiders say, is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness. There have always been Bible-study groups there; even the Clintonites had one. But the groups are everywhere now. Lead players set the tone. There is Gerson, whose office keeps being moved closer to the Oval. Chief of staff Andrew Card’s wife is a Methodist minister. National-security adviser Condi Rice’s father was a preacher in Alabama.
    The president is known to welcome questions about faith that staffers sometimes have the nerve to share with him. But he’s not the kind to initiate granular debates about theology. Would Iraq be a “just war” in Christian terms, as laid out by Augustine in the fourth century and amplified by Aquinas, Luther and others? Bush has satisfied himself that it would be—indeed, it seems he did so many months ago. But he didn’t do it by combing through texts or presiding over a disputation. He decided that Saddam was evil, and everything flowed from that.
    The language of good and evil—central to the war on terrorism—came about naturally, said Frum. From the first, he said, the president used the term “evildoers” to describe the terrorists because some commentators were wondering aloud whether the United States in some way deserved the attack visited upon it on September 11, 2001. “He wanted to cut that off right away,” said Frum, “and make it clear that he saw absolutely no moral equivalence. So he reached right into the Psalms for that word.” He continued to stress the idea. Osama bin Laden and his cohorts were “evil.” In November 2001, in an interview with NEWSWEEK, he first declared—blurted out, actually—that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was “evil,” too.
    The world, and the Bush administration, are focused on Iraq. But as a matter of politics and principle, the president knows that he needs to deliver on his faith-based domestic agenda, especially since his party controls Congress. The wish list compiled by Rove is a long one. It includes conservative, pro-life judicial nominations; new HUD regulations that allow federal grants for construction of “social service” facilities at religious institutions; a ban on human cloning and “partial birth” abortion; a sweeping program to allow churches, synagogues and mosques to use federal funds to administer social-welfare programs; strengthened limits on stem-cell research; increased funding to teach sexual abstinence in schools, rather than safer sex and pregnancy prevention; foreign-aid policies that stress right-to-life themes, and federal money for prison programs (like the one in Texas) that use Christian tough love in an effort to lower recidivism rates among convicts.
    While Rove and Hill leaders work the domestic side, Bush is dwelling on faith-based foreign policy of the most explosive kind: a potential war in the name of civil freedom—including religious freedom—in the ancient heart of Arab Islam. In the just-war debate, he has strong support from his base. Leading advocates for the moral virtue of his position include Richard Land, the key leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm. Another supporter is Michael Novak, the conservative Catholic theologian. Novak recently journeyed to Rome to make his case at the invitation of the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Jim Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. All politics is local.
    But the president is facing a mighty force of religious leaders on the other side. They include the pope (Bush will meet with a papal envoy this week, NEWSWEEK has learned), the Council of Bishops, the National Council of Churches, many Jewish groups and most Muslim leaders. “People appreciate his devotion to faith, but, in the context of war, there is a fine line, and he is starting to make people nervous,” says Steve Waldman, the editor and CEO of Beliefnet, a popular and authoritative Web site on religion and society. “They appreciate his moral clarity and decisiveness. But they wonder if he is ignoring nuances in what sounds like a messianic mission.”
    Muslims are especially wary. Bush has gone to great lengths to reassure them that he admires their religion. He has hosted Ramadan dinners, and periodically criticized evangelicals, including Franklin Graham, who denounce Islam as a corrupt, violent faith. Still, evangelical missionaries don’t hide their desire to convert Muslims to Christianity, even—if not especially—in Baghdad. If one of the goals of ousting Saddam Hussein is to bring freedom of worship to an oppressed people, how can the president object?
    For Bush, that’s a nettlesome question for another time. If he’s worried about it or other such weighty matters, it wasn’t obvious at dinner upstairs in the private quarters of the White House the other week. He and Laura had invited close friends and allies such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Bush, as usual, was a genial, joshing host. Also, as usual, he didn’t want the evening to last too long. “He tends to rush through cocktail hour,” says a friend. “One quick Coke and he wants to eat.” The president asked Rumsfeld to say grace. (“Can you help us out here, Mr. Secretary?”) As 10:30 p.m. approached, the commander in chief seemed eager to turn in. Knowledgeable guests understood that he wanted to catch at least a few minutes of his beloved “SportsCenter” on ESPN. But he also needed to get up early, very early. He had some reading to do.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With Tamara Lipper, Martha Brant, Suzanne Smalley and Richard Wolffe

    © 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
    Mehr über Bush und Gott:

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?0bl=-0#BODY
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 11:09:36
    Beitrag Nr. 137 (8.777.043)
    SPIEGEL ONLINE - 03. März 2003, 6:13
    URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238355,00.html
    Nachkriegsvisionen

    Bush, der Dominospieler

    Von Dominik Baur

    Es klingt so wunderbar einfach: George W. Bush lässt seine Soldaten in Bagdad einmarschieren, Saddam stürzt, und dann kippt ein Domino-Steinchen nach dem anderen. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten werden Stück für Stück demokratisiert. Das bestechende Gedankengebäude des US-Präsidenten hat nur einen Fehler - es steht im luftleeren Raum.

    Die Theorie klingt zu schön, um zu funktionieren. Ist es wirklich so einfach? Sitzen in Saudi-Arabien, Syrien, Iran, Jordanien und den anderen Staaten, die Bush bei seiner Rede vor dem American Enterprise Institute vorgeschwebt haben mögen, wirklich lauter Völker, die nur darauf warten, von ihren autoritären Regimen befreit zu werden?

    Unsinn, meint Udo Steinbach, Direktor des Deutschen Orient-Instituts in Hamburg. Nur weil im Irak ein Diktator aus dem Amt gebombt werde, habe das noch lange keine Demokratisierung der gesamten Region als Folge. Dabei hält Steinbach die Thesen Bushs noch gar nicht mal für naiv. Es sei eine "bewusste Verzeichnung der Situation mit dem Ziel, den Krieg zu rechtfertigen". Nichts lasse derzeit darauf schließen, dass es den USA tatsächlich um einen Regimewandel und eine Demokratisierung über den Irak hinausgehe. "Und selbst im Irak", sagt Steinbach, "kann ich beim besten Willen nicht erkennen, dass nach dem Zusammenbruch des Saddam-Regime unmittelbar etwas Demokratisches entstehen könnte."

    "Wir dürfen Bush nicht unterstellen, er meine es nicht ernst"

    So neu ist das Versprechen einer Neuordnung des Nahen und Mittleren Osten nicht. Schon George Bush senior hat seinen Golfkrieg von 1991 in diesen Kontext gestellt. Es gehe um eine neue Weltordnung, hieß es damals. Und was ist davon geblieben? Nichts, meint Orientexperte Steinbach. Nachdem sich der Staub in der irakischen Wüste gesetzt habe, sei man wieder zum business as usual übergegangen. "Und das wird auch diesmal nicht anders sein. Die Amerikaner haben Interessen in der Region und die suchen sie auf die beste Art und Weise zu wahren. Und dafür sind nach wie vor die an der Macht befindlichen Regime die geeignetsten Partner."
    Amr Hamzawy, Politikwissenschaftler an der Freien Universität Berlin, sieht das anders: "Wir dürfen Bush nicht von vornherein unterstellen, er meine es nicht ernst." Sicher, was die kurzfristige politische Realität anbelange, sei auch er misstrauisch gegenüber den amerikanischen Plänen. Der übliche Vorwurf, die USA verfolgten am Golf nur strategische Interessen und missbrauchten dazu das Schlagwort Demokratie, sei zwar eine unzulässige Vereinfachung; aber die große Frage sei tatsächlich inwieweit der Demokratisierungswillen der USA mit ihren strategischen Interessen Hand in Hand gehe. Gegenwärtig hat auch der ägyptische Politologe den Eindruck, dass es Präsident Bush zunächst vor allem um eines gehe: den Irak als nationale Einheit zu erhalten.

    Und langfristig? Inwieweit der Irak hier tatsächlich eine Signalwirkung für die Region entfalten kann, ist ebenfalls umstritten. Dominoeffekte werde ein Krieg und ein Regimewechsel im Irak in der Tat hervorrufen, schreibt Volker Perthes von der Berliner Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in der "Süddeutschen Zeitung". Die Frage sei bloß, in welche Richtung die Dominosteine fallen. Das wisse doch jetzt noch niemand.

    "Stimmung, dass es so nicht weitergehen kann"

    Natürlich sei ein Szenario "amerikanischer kontrollierter Neuordnung" denkbar, so Perthes. In diesem Szenario würde sich die Bush-Regierung nach einem Sturz Saddams daran machen, die israelischen und palästinensischen Streithähne durch sanften Druck zu einer vernünftigen Lösung zwingen. Das von der Baath-Partei getragene Regime in Syrien wäre nach dem Niedergang des irakischen Baath-Flügels auf amerikanische Hilfe angewiesen und könnte sich einer Friedenslösung mit Israel nicht mehr entziehen. Auch die saudischen Ölquellen verlören an Bedeutung, sobald dass das Öl aus dem Irak wieder auf den Weltmarkt sprudelt. Ergebnis: Auch die dortige Regierung würde dann einen Amerika-freundlicheren Kurs einschlagen und Reformen im Inneren zulassen. Und ähnlich ginge es auch in Ägypten und, und, und... Ein denkbares Szenario? Durchaus. Aber unwahrscheinlich, das gibt auch Perthes zu. Vielmehr Wunschdenken. Die historische Erfahrung spreche nicht dafür, dass sich von außen beförderte Ordnungsprojekte im Nahen und Mittleren Osten widerstandslos durchsetzen ließen.

    Bleiben Reformen von innen. Hamzawy hält diese auch für eine realistische Möglichkeit. In den meisten arabischen Ländern herrsche eine breite Stimmung, dass es so nicht weitergehen könne. Optimismus schöpft er vor allem daraus, dass einige der Völker wie Tunesien, der Sudan, Ägypten, Marokko, Jordanien und der Jemen bereits Erfahrung mit Demokratie gesammelt haben. Dort sei das Potenzial für demokratische Reformen sehr hoch. Die Menschen dort erachteten Demokratie sehr wohl als etwas Erstrebenswertes. Die Diskussion um Demokratie als ein westliches Exportgut, das in der arabischen Welt wie alles, was aus Amerika komme, abgelehnt würde, sei längst passé. "Das waren die Debatten der achtziger und neunziger Jahre."

    Für diese Länder könnte ein demokratisierter Irak auch tatsächlich eine Vorbildrolle einnehmen. "Man wird dann sehen: Es klappt doch; es ist möglich, in einem sehr autoritären Land Demokratie einzuführen." Hamzawy betont zwar, dass dies eine mittel- bis langfristige Perspektive sei - er spricht von fünf bis zehn Jahren -, aber selbst mit dieser Prognose ist er noch deutlich optimistischer als viele seiner Kollegen.

    "Das wird Jahrzehnte dauern"

    Der amerikanische Demokratie-Experte Thomas Carothers etwa ist der Ansicht, dass ein Krieg gegen Saddam zunächst vor allem dem Antiamerikanismus in der arabischen Welt Auftrieb geben werde. Die Machthaber würden sich in dieser Situation jeglichen Reformen verweigern, um keinen Stein ins Rollen zu bringen. "Das heißt natürlich nicht, dass sich die arabische Welt nie demokratisieren wird", schreibt Carothers in dem Fachmagazin "Foreign Affairs". "Aber dieser Prozess wird noch Jahrzehnte dauern."

    Auch der Hamburger Orientexperte Steinbach sieht skeptisch in die Zukunft. Ein Sturz Saddams werde vor allem Instabilität in die Region bringen. "Der Druck der Öffentlichkeit im arabischen Raum wird stärker werden, und zwar mit einer doppelten Stoßrichtung: zum einen mit Gewalt gegen alles, was aus dem Westen kommt, und zum anderen gegen die eigenen Regime."

    Dabei wäre Washington nach Steinbachs Ansicht durchaus in der Lage, gestaltend auf eine Neuordnung in der Region einzuwirken. Wenn es ernst gemeint wäre, hätte es dafür auch die Unterstützung breiter Teile der Öffentlichkeit. Aber: Unterstützung könnte Bush hier nur bekommen, wenn es auch Druck auf beide Parteien im Nahostkonflikt ausüben würde. "Bush müsste Scharon einen palästinensischen Staat abtrotzen. Nur so könnte er bei den Arabern Vertrauen gewinnen. Dann könnte es tatsächlich sein, dass die Massen mit ihm gehen."

    Bevor es dazu käme, müsste jedoch zunächst einmal das Experiment einer Demokratisierung des Irak gelingen. Um den nach dem Krieg neu aufzubauen und - wie es das der erklärte Ziel der USA ist - in den bestehenden Grenzen zu erhalten, bräuchten die Amerikaner einen langen Atem, meint Steinbach. "Und den traue ich Bush nicht zu."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 11:42:04
    Beitrag Nr. 138 (8.777.358)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 11:51:02
    Beitrag Nr. 139 (8.777.458)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 12:09:13
    Beitrag Nr. 140 (8.777.708)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 12:27:41
    Beitrag Nr. 141 (8.777.874)
    POLL ANALYSES
    March 3, 2003


    Economy May Be Hurting Bush Popularity More Than Iraq
    Approval rating at lowest level since 9/11


    by David W. Moore
    GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

    PRINCETON, NJ -- The popularity of President George W. Bush has slipped over the past several months amid lower public ratings of the economy and uncertainty over when a war with Iraq might begin. But his declining popularity would appear to be related more to the economy than war, as support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq has remained fairly steady over this period, while public ratings of the economy have plummeted. In that time, Bush`s approval rating has dropped by about 10 percentage points. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also shows that for the first time since 9/11, support for Bush`s re-election against an unnamed Democratic candidate has fallen below the 50% mark among registered voters.

    The poll, conducted Feb. 24-26, finds 57% of Americans expressing approval of Bush`s overall performance in office, just a point lower than a week ago, but 10 points below the average approval rating he received in September of last year and the lowest since 9/11. Bush`s current rating is exactly the same as the average rating he received in the first 7 months of his administration, although his ratings had been falling just prior to the terrorist attacks. A Sept. 7-10, 2001 Gallup Poll showed Bush with an approval rating of 51%.



    The poll also finds that 59% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, little changed from the readings Gallup has taken over the past 6 months -- which have averaged 57% in favor of war, varying from a low of 52% to a high of 63%. But over the same period, the public`s rating of the economy has plummeted


    Six months ago, in September, Americans thought the economy was good rather than poor by a margin of 54% to 46%. In October and December, the majorities were reversed, with more people giving a poor than a good rating by 58% to 41%, and 55% to 44%, respectively.

    The latest readings show an even worse assessment. By close to a 2-to-1 margin, 65% to 34%, the public says the economy is in poor shape.

    Public Dubious About Bush Economic Plan

    This past January, the news media reported on Bush`s economic plan, designed to jump-start the economy and allay the public`s fears about a worsening situation. But the public has reacted with less than overwhelming support.



    Initially, the public was mostly divided, leaning in support of the plan by a slim margin, 42% to 37%, with 21% uncertain. After Bush`s State of the Union address on Jan. 28, the public seemed to rally somewhat around Bush`s ideas, expressing support by 51% to 39%. But the latest ratings show the public almost evenly divided again, leaning in favor by just 45% to 40%.

    Bush Re-Election Indicator Falls

    The declining ratings of the economy appear to be having an effect not only on Bush`s overall approval rating, but on the president`s potential electoral support.
    Election 2004:
    Bush or Democratic Candidate?
    (Among Registered Voters


    More:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030303.asp
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 12:46:00
    Beitrag Nr. 142 (8.778.064)
    Banging the drum for the market state is a loser if voters listen to a different music
    Larry Elliott
    Monday March 3, 2003
    The Guardian

    George Bush had something of a hell raising youth, but he was probably a bit too old for the release of the first Ramones album in the summer of 1976. Pity. Line one, track one on this seminal punk album goes: "Hey ho, let`s go" and has the appropriate title of Blitzkrieg Bop.

    A Blitzkrieg Bop is what the markets are banking on. A lightning strike, a week-long conflict, the ousting of Saddam Hussein and seizure of the oil fields will be just what the global economy needs to lift it out of torpor. If the campaign goes according to plan, there may have to be a remix of the Edwin Starr classic, which goes: "War! Huh, what is it good for?" It`s good for oil prices.

    Like the three-minute single, the "war as catharsis" argument has a compelling simplicity but lacks depth. Stage one is for the war to be over in double-quick time. Stage two is for the price of crude to come down to $20 a barrel. Stage three is for share prices to leap and consumer confidence to recover. Stage four is full-scale global recovery. Stage five is the arrival of the economic nirvana that the proponents of the new world order have been promising since - well, since the last Gulf war, as it happens.

    There are three big holes in this thesis. The first is that an easy victory is taken for granted, and while that may be understandable, the risks are that the war will be longer, bloodier and costlier than the markets are confidently predicting.

    The second drawback with "war is good for business" is that the problems of the global economy predate the Iraqi crisis and will still be there whatever happens over the next few months. It is entirely possible that even if the military strategy works to the letter, there will be a short term rally followed by the realisation that the problems of financial fragility, deflation, excessive indebtedness and weak corporate profitability have not been washed away. This is a subject I intend to return to next week.

    Finally, it is worth taking the predictions of the new world order people with a large pinch of salt. These are the people who told us that the demise of communism would lead to a golden age of peace and prosperity in which a more efficient market allocation of resources would lead to higher investment, growth and living standards for all. This is the world as seen by a tiny elite of policymakers, academics and entrepreneurs, not the one that actually exists.

    A classic example of this genre is Philip Bobbitt`s tome, The Shield of Achilles*, which argues that in the age of globalisation the nation state has been supplanted by the market state. This process has been lubricated by what Bobbitt calls the final victory of liberal democracy in the long war conducted first against fascism and then against communism.

    The market state, he says, depends on the international capital markets and the modern multinational business network to create stability in the world economy, in preference to management by national or transnational political bodies. "Whereas the nation state justified itself as an instrument to serve the welfare of the people, the market state exists to maximise the opportunities enjoyed by all members of society ... for the nation state, full employment is an important and often paramount goal, whereas for the market state, the actual number of persons employed is but one more variable in the production of economic opportunity and has no overriding intrinsic significance. If it is more efficient to have large bodies of persons unemployed because it would cost more to the society to train them and put them to work at tasks for which the market has little demand, then the society will simply have to accept large unemployment figures."

    Bobbitt may be right when he says we have witnessed the triumph of the market state over the past decade, but there is scant evidence, if any, to suggest that the market state is better at delivering the goods than the nation state. Living standards have grown less - not more - quickly; financial deregulation has led to an explosion in speculation rather than more productive investment; the past decade has been beset by financial crises and a ratcheting up of insecurity and inequality. Governments have found that all those policies that were considered judicious during the cold war - generous welfare provision, job protection, final salary pension schemes - are seen as no longer affordable. The demolition of the iron curtain may have been good news for the countries of eastern Europe but a a mixed blessing for workers in the west. The technocracy that runs the new world order is blind to these trends - it faces few of the pressures encountered by most people. Final salary pensions may have been phased out for new entrants into the labour market but they are still there in the boardroom. Would-be policymakers move from think-tanks to governments and back again, dreaming up plans for an "opportunity society" that involves making labour markets more flexible - the sack - and making welfare systems more affordable - cutting your pension.

    One upshot of all this is decay in the political process. It has led in the UK to a Conservative party that has lost the ability to conserve and a Labour party where there is the possibility of a fight to the death between those led by the prime minister who want a market state and those led by the chancellor who believe a modern nation state can deliver on traditional promises. Tony Blair set out his stall last month in Progressive Politics, a journal published by Peter Mandelson. "We should be far more radical about the role of the state as regulator rather than provider, opening up healthcare, for example, to a mixed economy under the NHS umbrella and adopting radical approaches to self-health."

    Given that perhaps the most popular acts by the government since the last election were the increases in funding for the NHS and the decision to pull the plug on Railtrack, the believers in a market state face an uphill struggle. And this is not just because the world that was supposed to be safe for all of us to get rich in has proved economically unstable, riven by inequality and culturally barren. It is also because the failings of the new world order have resulted in ideology making a comeback. Ideology has always been the bane of the technocrats; it threatens the smooth running of the machine - ideology is bad, capital B.

    It`s true that there are plenty of examples of ideology being bad. But we are also seeing a stirring of interest in green, social democratic and Marxist interpretations of the global economy. That`s what happens when the economy doesn`t deliver and policymakers don`t listen. It`s the clash of the market state and democracy in a mass media age.

    Bobbitt may be right. Market states may be all that`s on offer. But if governments can no longer deliver what their electorates expect, big trouble is on the horizon. The message from the new world order brigade is that people had better wise up to the realities of what the system can deliver. But there is an argument for changing the system to one that more of us prefer, even if that means rolling back the "gains" from market liberalisation. Otherwise the first decade of the new world order could turn out to be the equivalent of the years running up to 1914. The calm before the storm.

    *Philip Bobbitt; The Shield of Achilles; Allen Lane

    larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 13:52:54
    Beitrag Nr. 143 (8.778.640)
    Überall wo man hinschaut nur dankbare Menschen voll Gottvertrauen in Liebe verbunden mit ihrem Präsidenten.


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 21:52:55
    Beitrag Nr. 144 (8.783.691)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 22:08:20
    Beitrag Nr. 145 (8.783.847)
    Hippie Crap Saves The World
    Can better orgasms and upping your personal vibe really thwart BushCo idiocy?
    By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
    Friday, February 28, 2003
    ©2003 SF Gate

    URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



    Wanna know what conservatives really hate?


    What makes everyone from harmless GOP dittoheads to ultra-right-wing nutjobs full of rage and hiss and homophobia and blind jingoism roll their eyes and throw up their hands and scamper for their Bibles for reassurance that life is still repressed and we`re still going to war and Dubya is still smackin` `round the envurment along with them wimmin and homosekshuls and furriners?

    Why, hippie crap, of course. New-age babble about love and peace and godless pagan prayer, organic foods and sustainable trees and chakras, divinity and luscious goddesses and soul paths and upping your personal vibration to counter all the venomous hatred slinging about the culture like some sort of conservative, fearmongering weapon of mass depression. Man, they just hate that.

    The incessant drive to war, the blank-eyed young soldiers, the drab oil fields, the terse U.N. debates, Rumsfeld`s ink-black eyes, the violence and 9/11 and Osama in hiding, Saddam`s sneering and Shrub`s smirking and Dick Cheney`s defibrillator cranking on 11 -- these events are considered "real," they are tangible and raw and ugly and happening right now and we`ve got the pictures to prove it, all over the media, grainy and grim and mean, CNN and Fox News and frowning pundits and 100-point newspaper headlines, so you know it must be true.

    Then there`s you, walking through your daily life right now, eating and laughing and screwing and paying rent and thinking for yourself, filtering the onslaught and trying to remain connected to something divine and universal and authentic, all while straining to put this national trend toward violence and warmongering into some sort of acceptable frame.

    You are not "real" in this same way. This is the feeling. Your experience is somehow irrelevant; what you do and how you maneuver this daily treachery is an insignificant side note to the big ugly daily political machinations because hey, it`s war. It`s the Big Boys. Angry White Men with very serious penis issues. All that matters is the machine, and the money, and the oil, and the WMD and the drumbeat rhetoric.

    Which is, of course, utter BS. Here is what conservatives hate most: the idea that you really can, and do, make a difference. That you, hopefully working to align yourself with something deeper and more informed and perhaps not exactly Christian, or corporate, not exactly lockstep mainstream flag-waving God-fearing asexual consumer drone, you can affect the world, directly, right now, in ways you might not even realize, in ways that make them tremble and wince, in how much you laugh and love and eat and sleep and screw and breathe and in how deeply you penetrate into the soul`s raison d`etre. But you gotta work at it. And it ain`t easy. See? Fluffy new-age crap. They really hate that.

    Here is the great fallacy of the American ethos, the one that powers SUV purchases and spawns a billion McDonald`s franchises and gun purchases and Adam Sandler movies: it is the notion that Americans exist in a freewheelin` vacuum, that our daily choices don`t, in fact, affect the world, and our neighbors, and our children, and the environment and our own bodies.

    It is the idea that those very choices -- foods you eat, cars you drive, shows you watch, personal relations you have, waste you create, choices you make -- can`t, in a very real and immediate way, erode your divine links, spit on your spiritual spark, taint your mystical meat. Every single one, every single time.

    In other words, in buying that gun, smacking that child, abusing that spouse, screaming at that neighbor, buying that thuggish SUV, supporting that war, wishing death upon all them damn furriners, you may think you`re exercising your God-given all-`Murkin right to do/say/drive whatever the hell you want because you`re an American goddammit and no one will tell you how to live so back off.

    Not quite. Rather, you are also injecting a deliberate dose of bitter bile straight into the cultural bloodstream, actually -- and quite literally -- lowering the general vibration of the human collective cause, casting your vote for small-mindedness and solipsism and violence. Yep, you are. And yes indeed, your vote counts.

    Here is the gist: The world consists of energy, billions of swirling masses of it contained in living vessels -- that`s you -- and aimed out to the world, often radiating at random, intermingling, interacting, often uncontrolled and unaware, an enormous dizzying gorgeous complex kaleidoscopic organism of human interaction and interplay. We are abuzz. We are electric. We possess actual psychic and electromagnetic force. Duh. It`s a fact.

    It comes down to simple physics. Negative begets negative. Positive begets positive. War begets war, peace begets peace, Britney begets Christina begets N`Sync begets People magazine begets "Joe Millionaire" begets 10 million Prozac prescriptions begets a billion dumbed-down mind-sets, embittered souls. In a nutshell.

    ShrubCo blindly steers the nation like a giant careening Hummer toward the history-mauling notion of preemptive violence, of attacking anyone who might somehow threaten the U.S. even before such a threat is tangible. He beats the war drum, staffs his administration with enough hawks to start 1,000 wars, slams the environment, cuts women`s rights, etcetera and so on -- this all turns that swirling mass of energy that much more dark, vicious, angry, dumb.

    And the world begins to follow. The culture darkens, people run scared, reactionary, depressed. The negative feeds upon itself, the tide turns, you are hit more and more frequently with that overwhelming feeling that we are in dire and ugly and powder-keg times, worse than ever, emotionally raw, politically appalling, spiritually hollow. Sound familiar?

    Whereas notions of peace, individual thought, reason, simple acts of attuned mindfulness, of buying products and foods that sustain the planet, of making really good messy enthusiastic generous love, of regular laughter in the face of scowling Ashcroft or Cheney`s corporate henchmen, of reading deeply and recalling wisdom people like the Dalai Lama talk about all the time -- these things literally up your anima`s vibration, add positive energy back in, turn the collective volume back up.

    That postcoital buzz? That post-party feel-good vibe? That genuine laughter? That gratuitously kind thing you did for that stranger? That celebration of your body and your sex and love and spirit in spite of mainstream religious puling and finger wagging? That deep meditative solitude? Bingo. That`s the vibe you want. That`s the vibe we all need. That`s the vibration that makes all the difference.

    But it`s also the one that takes serious work and determination and you gotta do it every single day and it can only come from you. This sort of luminous divine power is messy and raw and hot and attaining more of it can be the most difficult thing you`ve ever done. But really, what else is there?

    Look. Mystics and healers and sages and scientists and philosophers across the spiritual spectrum have known it for millennia: More advanced and enlightened souls -- and cultures -- vibrate at a higher level, a more bright and rigorous pitch. It`s true. Bliss and joy and notions of peace and healing and laughter and personal choice, these things crank up the vibe. War and angst and fear and self-fulfilling prophecies of war and preemptive strikes and Jenna Bush, these things slam it down.

    So then. You want to really annoy the conservative warmongering powers that be? Work your ass off to pump up the vibration. It`s deeply personal. It`s hard work. It means re-evaluating what you do and how you do it and how you treat others, the planet, what you buy and what you eat. It means learning. And it also means loving harder, more raw and real, minimal BS, minimal waste, figuring out true messy ugly slippery gorgeous divinity for yourself, on your own terms, and then sharing it with the world.

    Man, they really hate that.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 23:43:29
    Beitrag Nr. 146 (8.784.465)
    Noch jemand der mit seiner Verwandtschaft nichts mehr zu tun haben will.

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 23:49:28
    Beitrag Nr. 147 (8.784.483)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 03.03.03 23:53:01
    Beitrag Nr. 148 (8.784.495)
    Please bomb Seattle
    Geov Parrish - workingforchange.com

    02.28.03 - Dear President Bush, I write as a proud American and a resident of one of its many great cities: Seattle. You`ve probably heard of us; Space Needle, mountains, trees, salmon. Microsoft. When you owned the Texas Rangers baseball club, your team was in the same division as our Mariners. We stunk back then. We hope you remain grateful. Oh, and Boeing sends its deepest love.

    Mr. President, I have an enormous favor to ask of you.

    Could you bomb us?

    Not just once or twice for show; I mean really bomb the city of Seattle, hard, like what you`re planning for Baghdad, and probably for Pyongyang and Teheran and Damascas and whatever other 50 or 60 major world cities are on your Pentagon planners` current lists. I mean blast us back to the stone age. Make it hurt. Send us a message.

    I`d prefer that you not hesitate or think too much about this; I wouldn`t want you getting migraines or anything. But if you do, consider that we, too, are under the rule of a power-hungry leader we never voted for, one that`s using torture and investigating political and religious minorities and disappearing people off our city streets and into a prison system from which they never re-emerge. That government has unthinkable numbers of nasty weapons and seems anxious to use them.

    As for Seattle itself, well, Mr. President, we`re in the "red" part of the country, the part that went for Gore, so I`m sure you`ll understand that we`ve contributed more than our share of terrorists over the years. Those domestic terrorists arrested a few weeks ago for stealing top-secret plans from the military? Those were ours. We`ve been breeding them for years, from the D.C. snipers back through the Green River Killer and Ted Bundy and beyond. We "harbored" every single one of `em. To your talented staff, making the case that we`re an international menace should be a breeze. Just take some fuzzy satellite photos of our city and circle a couple of the cars. You`ll find them sitting on I-5 in rush hour, any day now, once the clouds break for your cameras. Then let Colin do his thing.

    In all seriousness, Mr. President, let`s face it: the biggest threats to global security tend to come from the wealthiest and biggest countries, not the smallest. And if you have any hope of pulling them into line, you`ll need to convince them that you`d take anyone out, even your own mother. Even your own city.

    Hit us, say, with one of those big new post-daisy-cutter MOAB bombs, the ones whose name Edward Abbey would recognize as grimly appropriate, the ones that kill just like Hiroshima`s nuke except with less radiation. Maybe drop a few hundred or thousand cruise missiles first to soften us up, or alongside to make sure the fireball extends all the way out past the suburban sprawl. Dumb, smart, whatever.

    Doing this would give all Americans a far healthier respect for the new American empire that you are embarking upon. You see, the problem with obliterating Baghdad and its five million people is that they`re just too far away. For most Americans, the handiwork of your genius is simply too abstract to fully appreciate. However, take out a place like Seattle -- a city they`ve probably visited, a place where they might have service memories or an old friend or two -- and it becomes much more real. What with the proximity -- only three time zones away from the networks! -- an attack upon Seattle will attract far more media than attacking some vowel-starved dictator`s playpen. Then, you wouldn`t need to rely on "embedded" war correspondents pestering your soldiers, and you could get the flashiest displays on live in prime time. Just ask; I`m sure the networks will cooperate. (Sorta like the shots they do of the football stadium, with the sun setting over the Pacific, but with big explosions! It`d be perfect for May sweeps.)

    Even better, viewers will be able to more fully appreciate what your weapons do, because the survivors will look like them (except for the burns), even speak the same language (mostly), value human life just as much as they do. All of us here are just trying to get by each day as best as we can. But if you bomb here, our dilemmas will seem so much more vivid to our fellow Americans than the fate of 23 million stage props to Saddam Hussein. It`ll make for some amazing reality TV shows.

    Our proximity to you will make it easier for aid organizations, too, and for the shipments of medical supplies and relief workers and all that. And, of course, a wealthy First-World city like Seattle, with its big skyline and modern infrastructure, will mean trillions of dollars in rebuilding contracts after the war -- enormous windfalls that you can hand out to your corporate buddies as party favors at your next 2004 fundraising dinner.

    Best of all, it`s not like we have any way to fight back or anything. We could ask our local police, I suppose, but anything past pepper-spraying black motorists is out of their league. So if you ever get bored, you can just bomb us again! Bomb, rebuild, bomb, rebuild... now that`s putting our economy to work!

    All in all, Mr. President, I think it`s a perfect fit for the new American empire you`re constructing. It`s an unprovoked attack upon a defenseless civilian population, based on crimes committed by either unaccountable leaders or psychotic individuals who, at one time or another, passed through town. It`ll make your friends even richer, and it`ll contribute, in a much more direct way than any overseas campaign could, to your re-election success next year. It`s 12 less Electoral College votes for you to worry about. And we get a new freeway out of the deal.

    Now that you`ve thought about it, Mr. President, I`m sure you realize that you can`t back down. I trust Powell will be making the necessary presentations to foreign powers shortly. I think you`ll be surprised at how many nations will be willing, even eager, to sign up to help with this one. Trust me.

    Your patriotic friend,

    Geov Parrish

    P.S. I`m moving to Phoenix. Soon.

    P.P.S. Damn! I just remembered! We don`t have any untapped oil reserves. I guess that calls this whole thing off, huh? Never mind.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 04.03.03 11:55:51
    Beitrag Nr. 149 (8.787.018)
    The US is on the right wavelength
    Liberalism doesn`t get a hearing on American radio or television

    Matthew Engel in America
    Tuesday March 4, 2003
    The Guardian

    You are white, male, and old enough to vote but probably too young to have been forced into combat. You are most likely somewhere west of New Jersey but east of California. You may well be driving a pick-up truck while imagining it is one of those tank-like things known as Hummers. You are not very well-educated and certainly not well-travelled. You don`t harbour doubts. You are the target audience for American talk radio.

    De Gaulle wondered how you could govern France when it has 246 kinds of cheese. You might more pertinently wonder how you govern a country like the US that has 13,000 radio stations. The answer is that it`s simple, provided they all say the same thing. Of the 1,000 or so commercial stations in the US that actually deal in words rather than music, the overwhelming majority rely on a handful of syndicated hosts, all rightwing, all skilful, all ferocious.

    Some of the names are familiar, led by Rush Limbaugh, who defined the genre in the late 1980s and early 1990s and soared to glory the moment Bill Clinton became president and gave him an irresistible target. But Limbaugh, who supposedly reaches 20 million listeners a week, now has many rivals, like G Gordon Liddy (the ex-Watergate burglar-in-chief), Bill O`Reilly (the star of Fox News on TV), Sean Hannity (the only man who can say "I gotta tell you" five times in a single minute) and Michael Savage, who defines liberalism as "Trojan-horse fascism without the jackboots".

    There is a sub-genre of family-oriented hosts, whose programmes are aimed more at stay-at-home women. The leaders here are the Christian conservative Dr James Dobson, and the bleak advice-giver, Laura Schlessinger, a doctor unpleasant enough to empty a crowded NHS waiting-room.

    Despite all these rivals, Limbaugh has no opponents. Rich pinkos are trying to put together a scheme to start a liberal talk-show, but it is doomed because the essence of liberalism is that it does not deal in the slashing handed-down certainties of the radio shows. More thoughtful people listen instead to the quiet debate of the non-commercial and small-beer PBS stations. Only last week, Phil Donohue, who had been trying to run a much publicised "liberal" TV show in opposition to O`Reilly, was finally euthanased by his bosses at MSNBC after being crushed in the ratings.

    Obviously there are consequences of this for the alleged debate over war in Iraq. ("You disagree? Too bad. We`re invading.") But in fact the Limbaugh-demographic represents the one group in the US which is unhesitatingly pro-war. And in any case the secret of media influence is far more complex and insidious than is often believed.

    It doesn`t actually matter which side of the Iraq fence the New York Times leader writers (who have spent months impaling themselves) land on. No one will change their minds as a result. What makes a difference is a slow drip-drip-drip, seeping into the body politic and ultimately flooding it. Neil Kinnock`s leadership of the Labour party was destroyed because, over a nine-year period, Britain`s top-selling paper, the Sun, successfully portrayed him as an inadequate.

    American talk radio`s great achievement is more general than that. With individuals, the hosts have not yet had a major success. In spite of everything, they could not quite get rid of Bill and Hillary. They tried to demonise the mild-mannered Tom Daschle, the Democrats` leader in the Senate (the word "demonise" is used advisedly - Limbaugh calls him "El Diablo"), but it was his opposite number, the Republican Trent Lott, who fell. No, the Limbaugh gang`s real triumph is altogether more breathtaking, something that makes one want to rewrite the ancient explanation of the Yiddish word chutzpah (traditionally defined as the boy who murders his parents and begs for mercy because he`s an orphan).

    These guys have taken over the airwaves and persuaded America that the media are dominated by lefties. If that were ever true, it is emphatically untrue now. Radio obviously belongs to the right. So, by default, does TV, because the agenda is set by the White House, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer etc get massively more exposure to promote their agenda than anyone gets to counter it - especially at a time when there is no clear, credible and confident opposition leader. And the same applies in the newspapers, where the rigid notions that govern mainstream journalism demand "objectivity".

    Effectively that means that the front pages are dominated by government assertions, uncritically relayed. Hannity said on his Friday show that three-quarters of Americans believe the left dominate the media. That was a little lie: the poll he quoted showed that 45% believe that and 15% don`t, which is not the same thing. The idea itself is a much bigger lie - I gotta tell you.

    matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 04.03.03 12:25:17
    Beitrag Nr. 150 (8.787.303)
    Speaking in Tongues
    A Guide to Gibberish in the Age of Bush
    By BEN TRIPP

    When interim President Bush traveled to Europe in May of 2001, he didn`t realize people spoke gibberish in many of the European countries. This led to some embarrassing moments, such as when he upbraided a reporter for asking the French President, Jacques Chirac, a question in French. The excuses were many-- Bush had jet lag, his brain tumor was acting up--but the reality of the situation is that Bush is no different from most Americans (I mean no offense). He is ignorant of other languages. "But he speaks Spanish," you cry, and I am forced to make my weary explanations. Of course he speaks Spanish (at least he did so in front of Jacques Chirac). In Texas, you need a little Spanish, if you want the lawn mowed right and the hay bales stacked in the barn instead of the garage. But Bush doesn`t speak the kind of Spanish that Spanish-speaking people speak. Bush speaks a little Spanish and a little English. Not much of either. Do you want to be like that? Of course not, especially now that international tensions are at a fever pitch and the slightest wrong word could spark a global holocaust. In the interests of public service, I aim to teach my fellow Americans some foreign language skills. Attendre.

    Let`s start with French, which is a useful language if you are in France, non? (Isn`t it cute the way I use actual foreign words?) We will begin with a few simple phrases that you might need once you`ve expatriated to Paris rather than put up with this crap a minute longer.

    "Bonjour, je m`apelle est Mike."

    ("Hello, my name is Mike.") If your name isn`t Mike, skip this one.

    "J`ai acheté récemment un chat d`empaillage sur le marché aux antiquités."

    ("I recently purchased a taxidermied cat at the flea market.") If you bought a ceramic octopus or a nice little Louis XIV side table, simply substitute for the words "récemment un chat".

    "J`ai peur d`araignées. Tenez-moi dans vos bras, Marcelle."

    ("I am afraid of spiders. Hold me in your arms, Melvin.") If Melvin is not around (au loin), lock yourself in the bathroom (pissoir) and call the police (tel.17 in Paris).

    "Colin Powell est un Uncle Tom."

    ("May I please have a glass of water.") This is a useful phrase if you like water.

    With just these few simple phrases, you will be able to get by in France, or as they say in Paris, "Va t`faire enculer chez les Grecs!"

    Italian is another useful language, or so the Italians would have you think. I`m not so sure. But here are a few bon mots that will help you make amici in Italia.

    "L`odore cattivo me uccide."

    ("Hello, my name is Mike.") You might want to change your name to Mike for simplicity`s sake.

    "Il culo del Papa sono fermo e paffuto."

    ("Please help me. My passport photograph is unattractive.") Try this one around the Vatican.

    "Piaccio del che i guardando film ed il ciucciami il cazzo."

    ("Would you like to go to the movies?") Italians love movies, because most of them can`t read.

    Let`s not forget German! Unfortunately, my name means `gonorrhea` in German, so I have difficulty finding sexual partners there. Perhaps for this reason I have received criticism from Germans on a number of occasions for making fun of them more than other European people. I hope these nützliche phrasen will make up for this, and help me pull the birds (Vögel).

    "Arbeit macht frei."

    ("Hello, my name is Cohen.") Just because everybody can`t be named Mike, can they?

    "Bush will von seinen innenpolitischen Schwierigkeiten ablenken. Das ist eine beliebte Methode. Das hat auch Hitler schon gemacht."

    ("Is there a pharmacy nearby?") You can buy all kinds of things over the counter in Europe that are prescription-only in America. How cool is that?

    "Wassöp Mutterficker, gettdohn wit chobaddseff."

    ("Hello, Mike, how are you today?") This is a common greeting in Germany, originally coined by Jakobus Braun, der Gottvater von Seele.

    These are but a few of the many languages enjoyed throughout Europe. It is always wise to have a phrase or two in any language, as people are both flattered and impressed when you can say something even as simple as "hello" in their own tongue. So here is "hello" in a few more languages. The next time you see Mike, say them to him.

    In Norway one says "De er dum." In Portugal try "Siento-me doente." Polish people say "Ty masz mal/y hujek". In Austria, a hearty cry of "schleich dich" is appropriate. But wherever you go in Europe, remember there is no substitute for a smile, or pulling out of the United Nations. Que bueno?

    Ben Tripp is a screenwriter, political satirist and cartoonist. He can be reached at: credel@earthlink.net
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 04.03.03 13:24:28
    Beitrag Nr. 151 (8.787.888)
    The palace of the end
    The first war of the Age of Proliferation will not be an oil-grab so much as an expression of pure power

    Martin Amis
    Tuesday March 4, 2003
    The Guardian

    We accept that there are legitimate casus belli: acts or situations "provoking or justifying war". The present debate feels off-centre, and faintly unreal, because the US and the UK are going to war for a new set of reasons (partly undisclosed) while continuing to adduce the old set of reasons (which in this case do not cohere or even overlap). These new casus belli are a response to the accurate realisation that we have entered a distinct phase of history. The coming assault on Iraq may perhaps be the Last War of the Ottoman Succession; it will certainly be the first War of the Age of Proliferation - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The new casus belli are also shaped by September 11.

    September 11 has given to us a planet we barely recognise. In a sense it revealed what was already there, largely unremarked, since the collapse of the Soviet Union: the unprecedented preponderance of a single power. It also revealed the longstanding but increasingly dynamic loathing of this power in the Islamic world, where anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are exacerbated by America`s relationship with Israel - a relationship that many in the west, this writer included, find unnatural. In addition, like all "acts of terrorism" (easily and unsubjectively defined as organised violence against civilians), September 11 was an attack on morality: we felt a general deficit. Who, on September 10, was expecting by Christmastime to be reading unscandalised editorials in the Herald Tribune about the pros and cons of using torture on captured "enemy combatants"? Who expected Britain to renounce the doctrine of nuclear no-first-use? Terrorism undermines morality. Then, too, it undermines reason.

    Osama bin Laden is an identifiable human type, but on an unidentifiable scale. He is an enormous stirrer - a titanic mixer. Look how he`s shaken us up, both in the heart and in the head. One could say, countervailingly, that on September 11 America was visited by something very alien and unbelievably radical. A completely new kind of enemy for whom death is not death - and for whom life is not life, either, but illusion, a staging-post, merely "the thing which is called World". No, you wouldn`t expect such a massive world-historical jolt, which will reverberate for centuries, to be effortlessly absorbed. But the suspicion remains that America is not behaving rationally - that America is behaving like someone still in shock.

    The notion of the "axis of evil" has an interesting provenance. In early drafts of the President`s speech the "axis of evil" was the "axis of hatred", "axis" having been settled on for its associations with the enemy in the second world war. The "axis of hatred" at this point consisted of only two countries, Iran and Iraq. whereas of course the original axis consisted of three (Germany, Italy, Japan). It was additionally noticed that Iran and Iraq, while not both Arab, were both Muslim. So they brought in North Korea.

    We may notice, in this embarras of the inapposite, that the Axis was an alliance, whereas Iran and Iraq are blood-bespattered enemies, and the zombie nation of North Korea is, in truth, so mortally ashamed of itself that it can hardly bear to show its face. Still, "axis of hatred" it was going to be, until the tide turned towards "axis of evil". "Axis of evil" echoed Reagan`s "evil empire". It was more alliterative. It was also, according to President Bush, "more theological".

    This is a vital question. Why, in our current delirium of faith and fear, would Bush want things to become more theological rather than less theological? The answer is clear enough, in human terms: to put it crudely, it makes him feel easier about being intellectually null. He wants geopolitics to be less about intellect and more about gut-instincts and beliefs - because he knows he`s got them. One thinks here of Bob Woodward`s serialised anecdote: asked by Woodward about North Korea, Bush jerked forward saying, "I loathe Kim Jong II!" Bush went on to say that the execration sprang from his instincts, adding, apparently in surprised gratification, that it might be to do with his religion. Whatever else happens, we can infallibly expect Bush to get more religious: more theological.

    When the somnambulistic figure of Kim Jong II subsequently threw down his nuclear gauntlet, the "axis of evil" catchphrase or notion or policy seemed in ruins, because North Korea turned out to be much nearer to acquiring the defining WMDs, deliverable, nuclear devices, than Iraq (and the same is true of Iran). But it was explained that the North Korean matter was a diplomatic inconvenience, while Iraq`s non-disarmament remained a "crisis". The reason was strategic: even without WMDs, North Korea could inflict a million casualties on its southern neighbour and raze Seoul. Iraq couldn`t manage anything on this scale, so you could attack it. North Korea could, so you couldn`t. The imponderables of the proliferation age were becoming ponderable. Once a nation has done the risky and nauseous work of acquisition, it becomes unattackable. A single untested nuclear weapon may be a liability. But five or six constitute a deterrent.

    From this it crucially follows that we are going to war with Iraq because it doesn`t have weapons of mass destruction. Or not many. The surest way by far of finding out what Iraq has is to attack it. Then at last we will have Saddam`s full cooperation in our weapons inspection, because everything we know about him suggests that he will use them all. The Pentagon must be more or less convinced that Saddam`s WMDs are under a certain critical number. Otherwise it couldn`t attack him.

    All US presidents - and all US presidential candidates - have to be religious or have to pretend to be religious. More specifically, they have to subscribe to "born again" Christianity. Bush, with his semi-compulsory prayer-breakfasts and so on, isn`t pretending to be religious: "the loving God behind all life and all of history"; "the Almighty`s gift of freedom to the world." "My acceptance of Christ", Bush has said (this is code for the born-again experience of personal revelation), - "that`s an integral part of my life." And of ours, too, in the New American Century.

    One of the exhibits at the Umm Al-Maarik Mosque in central Baghdad is a copy of the Koran written in Saddam Hussein`s own blood (he donated 24 litres over three years). Yet this is merely the most spectacular of Saddam`s periodic sops to the mullahs. He is, in reality, a career-long secularist - indeed an "infidel", according to Bin Laden. Although there is no Bible on Capitol Hill written in the blood of George Bush, we are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive. We hear about the successful "Texanisation" of the Republican party. And doesn`t Texas sometimes seem to resemble a country like Saudi Arabia, with its great heat, its oil wealth, its brimming houses of worship, and its weekly executions?

    The present administration`s embrace of the religious right also leads, by a bizarre route, to the further strengthening of the Israel lobby. Unbelievably, born-again doctrine insists that Israel must be blindly supported, not because it is the only semi-democracy in that crescent, but because it is due to host the second coming. Armageddon is scheduled to take place near the hill of Megiddo (where, in recent months; an Israeli bus was suicide-bombed by another kind of believer). The Rapture, the Tribulation, the Binding of the Antichrist: it isn`t altogether clear how much of this rubbish Bush swallows (though Reagan swallowed it whole). VS Naipaul has described the religious impulse as the inability "to contemplate man as man", responsible to himself and uncosseted by a higher power. We may consider this a weakness; Bush, dangerously, considers it a strength.

    Even a cursory examination of Saddam`s character suggests that he will never fully disarm, any more than he would choose to revisit his childhood and walk shoeless and half-naked through the streets of Tikrit. He started as he meant to go on when, in 1991, he appointed his younger (and less feral) son Qusay to the chairmanship of the Concealment Operations Committee. The assault on Iraq is expected to cost America 0.5 per cent of its GDP; Saddam`s wars, and the subsequent sanctions, have cost Iraq about 20 years of GDP, according to The Economist. Such are his priorities. It has been in Saddam`s power to alleviate the immiseration of his people. Instead a pattern of paranoia, gangsterism and chronic kleptomania, has established itself.

    It is important to remember that Saddam, despite his liking for medals and camouflage outfits (and for personally mismanaging his armies), was never a military man. He came up through the torture corps in the 1960s, establishing the Baath secret police, Jihaz Haneen (the "instrument of yearning"), and putting himself about in the Qasr al-Nihayah ("the Palace of the End"), perhaps the most feared destination in Iraq until its demolition, after an attempted coup by the chief inquisitor, Nadhim Kazzar, in 1973.

    Saddam`s hands-on years in the dungeons distinguish him from the other great dictators of the 20th century, none of whom had much taste for "the wet stuff". The mores of his regime have been shaped by this taste for the wet stuff - by a fascinated negative intimacy with the human body, and a connoisseurship of human pain. One is struck, too, by how routinely Saddam`s organs have used familial love as an additional instrument of torture. Here, in moral terms, we decisively enter the palace of the end, as the interrogator consigns your child to a sack full of starving cats.

    I said earlier that America`s war aims remain partly undisclosed. The frank answer to the question "why now?", for instance, would be the usual jumble, something like: a) to pre-empt Saddam`s acquisition of more WMDs; b) in good time for the next election; and c) before the weather gets too hot. Without his war, Bush is an obvious one-term blowhard; and he listens to his political handler, Karl Rove, at least as keenly as he listens to Donald Rumsfeld. The supplementary motivation, hatched at the thinktank and prayer-breakfast level, is, I fear, visionary in tendency. It has been noticed that a great deal of the world`s wealth is in the hands of a collection of corrupt, benighted and above all defenceless regimes. The war, as they see it, will not be an oil-grab so much as a natural ramification of pure power: manifest destiny made manifest, for the good of all.

    Tony Blair must have known that war was inevitable more than a year ago, when Bush started talking, with vulgar levity, of "taking Saddam out". In the past Blair has been consistently tough on the Iraq question, just as France has been consistently, and venally, lenient (as early as the mid-1970s Jacques Chirac was known as "Monsieur Iraq"). More generally, perhaps, he feels that British interests are better served by continuing to ride on the American elephant, even as it trumpets its emancipation from the influence of Europe; and that the total isolation of Washington would only heat Bush`s internal brew of insecurity and messianism.

    There are two rules of war that have not yet been invalidated by the new world order. The first rule is that the belligerent nation must be fairly sure that its actions will make things better; the second rule is that the belligerent nation must be more or less certain that its actions won`t make things worse. America could perhaps claim to be satisfying the first rule (while admitting that the improvement may be only local and short term). It cannot begin to satisfy the second.

    We contemplate a kaleidoscope of terrible eventualities: a WMD attack on Israel, and a WMD response (conceivably nuclear); civil war in Iraq. and elsewhere, together with all manner of humanitarian disasters; fundamentalist revolutions in Egypt and Jordan; and, ineluctably, an additional generation of terror from militant Islam. Meanwhile, common sense calmly states that an expanded version of the present arrangement (inspectors, monitors, full exposure to world opinion) is sufficient to contain and emasculate Saddam until pressure builds for a coup; and that the "war on terror" can start only with the dismantling of the settlements in the territories occupied by Israel.

    But the necessary momentum has already been achieved, and the first humanitarian disaster will of course be the war itself.

    "O people of Iraq... By God, I shall strip you like bark, I shall truss you like a bundle of twigs, I shall beat you like stray camels... By God, what I promise, I fulfil; what I purpose, I accomplish; what I measure, I cut off." You could imagine Saddam Hussein muttering these words when he assumed the presidency in 1979. It is with weariness and shame that we hear them from our own leaders, in various encryptions - echoing al-Hadjadj, the newly arrived governor of Iraq, in the year 694. And what he measured, he cut off.

    © Martin Amis 2003


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:19:30
    Beitrag Nr. 152 (8.798.171)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:22:55
    Beitrag Nr. 153 (8.798.202)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:24:41
    Beitrag Nr. 154 (8.798.217)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:26:15
    Beitrag Nr. 155 (8.798.237)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:28:37
    Beitrag Nr. 156 (8.798.259)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:30:58
    Beitrag Nr. 157 (8.798.278)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:32:39
    Beitrag Nr. 158 (8.798.294)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:36:12
    Beitrag Nr. 159 (8.798.333)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:39:12
    Beitrag Nr. 160 (8.798.377)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:42:01
    Beitrag Nr. 161 (8.798.419)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:44:02
    Beitrag Nr. 162 (8.798.450)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 12:58:48
    Beitrag Nr. 163 (8.798.596)








    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 13:25:23
    Beitrag Nr. 164 (8.798.897)
    Der Krieg ist billiger als der Frieden?
    Fox News
    Study: Costs of Inaction Against Iraq Add Up

    Monday, March 03, 2003



    WASHINGTON — Much discussion lately has been centered on the expenses a war with Iraq will incur, but some analysts are pointing out that the cost of not making war may be greater than the cost of a conflict.

    Some estimates have put the cost of war beyond $100 billion, causing groans from anti-war lawmakers.

    With Saddam Hussein building and hiding weapons, President Bush repeated to members of a conservative think tank last week a theory he frequently paraphrases.

    "This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country," the president said.

    The Brookings Institution said the number of lives lost in another attack on the United States could be phenomenal.

    Their recent study shows that as many as 10,000 people could perish in a successful attack on a U.S. chemical or nuclear power plant; a nuclear bomb detonated in a major U.S. city could claim the lives of 100,000 people.

    The study also contends that a biological attack against a U.S. city could cause $750 billion in economic damage; attacks against malls or movie theaters could cost the economy $250 billion and if weapons of mass destruction were used against the shipping industry, the economy could take a $1 trillion hit.

    Cleaning up just two ounces of anthrax in the House and Senate office buildings more than a year ago cost American taxpayers $42 million.

    U.S. consumer confidence is now at a 10-year low. However, if Saddam remains in power, the economy may sag much longer, say market analysts.

    "If this isn`t resolved, if things are still up in the air in terms of weapons of mass destruction, I think that would cast a cloud over the stock market and over the U.S. economy," said Greg Valiere of Schwab Washington Research.

    Some fear an unrestrained Saddam Hussein might get big ideas and that could mean trouble for the United States, particularly as the Bush administration struggles with a new energy policy.

    "He would most likely try to interject himself into the free flow of oil. He would be a threat to Saudi Arabia, he would be a threat to Kuwait, he would be a threat to Jordan. He is bent on regional domination," said Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation.

    Not only that, Brooks said Saddam may try to wipe out the Kurd and Shiite minorities in his country. By some estimates he has already killed 1 million of his own citizens, leaving some to say that it`s impossible to put a value on life.

    Fox News` Brian Wilson contributed to this report.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 14:25:55
    Beitrag Nr. 165 (8.799.674)
    Are you ready?

    U.S. Presses for Force to Disarm Iraq

    BARRY SCHWEID
    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON - With no assurance of the outcome, the Bush administration says it is time for the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Council to "stand up and be counted" on using force to disarm Iraq.

    As President Bush and senior American diplomats labored to round up votes at the United Nations and in world capitals, Secretary of State Colin Powell said "nobody really knows who has the votes until the votes are taken."

    Bush also called in congressional leaders for breakfast on Wednesday.

    But Powell told RTL television of Germany on Tuesday that "the United States feels it is appropriate to move forward with a vote in the absence of compliance on the part of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime."

    Bush talked by telephone to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt while Powell directed his telephone diplomacy toward Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico and also talked to two supporters, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain.

    Powell`s spokesman, Richard Boucher, said meanwhile, that "we have emphasized the importance for members of the Security Council to stand up and be counted" and to reaffirm the resolution adopted last November that warned Iraq of serious consequences if it did not disarm.

    The Army`s oldest armored division, "Old Ironsides," got orders to head for the Persian Gulf as the total of U.S. land, sea and air forces arrayed against Iraq or preparing to deploy neared 300,000.

    The commander who would lead the war, Gen. Tommy Franks, met at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and was to consult with Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

    American war planners still hope the Turkish parliament will reverse itself and permit the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops to pave the way for an invasion of Iraq from the north.

    The payoff for Turkey would be a say in northern Iraq, a stronghold of the Kurds, and a $15 billion aid package from the United States.

    Still, Powell said if the parliament remained opposed "we have alternative plans that will allow us to conduct any military operations that the president might order.

    "We`ll still be able to accomplish our mission," he declared.

    While U.S. officials are not attempting a head count, a majority of the Security Council appears to prefer extending U.N. weapons inspections.

    The White House and Powell left open the possibility that the administration would not seek a U.N. vote if the measure appeared to be doomed.

    "The vote is desirable. It is not necessary," presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

    And Powell said that after weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report on Friday he would consult with other nations over the weekend.

    "And then early next week we`ll make a judgment on what we have heard and whether it`s time to put the resolution up to a vote."

    One option under serious consideration was Bush giving Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum, perhaps with a short-term deadline, in an address next week, two senior White House officials said.

    The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that a variety of options were under consideration and that they depended on the outcome of the debate in the council.

    Among them is Bush`s oft-stated option of using force to disarm Iraq with a "coalition of the willing" alongside the United States if the council does not adopt the U.S-British-Spanish resolution.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 14:38:21
    Beitrag Nr. 166 (8.799.857)


    ALBANY, N.Y., March 4 - A Selkirk man says he was arrested Monday for expressing his objection to possible war with Iraq at Crossgates Mall. He says all he did was wear a T-shirt bearing a message of peace, which he actually purchased in the mall.


    STEPHEN DOWNS AND his son, Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back. The men paid about $23 for each of the shirts and then wore them in the mall.
    "We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren`t handing out leaflets, we weren`t saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
    They may not have been saying anything, but they were creating enough of a disturbance to one employee, who called security.
    Security asked Downs and his son to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn`t, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested.
    "This struck me as a powerful way of expressing myself. I wanted to do something peaceful," he said.
    Roger Downs says he is proud of his father.
    "I`m impressed that he`s refused to have his civil rights violated," Roger Downs said.
    New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen Gottlieb says he can`t believe the peaceful T-shirts could lead to Downs` arrest.
    "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we believe that protects the freedom to speak. Well, if there`s a freedom of speech, where do we get to do it?" Gottlieb asked.
    Gottlieb says he believes there is a law protecting peoples` rights to free speech, even in shopping malls.
    Guilderland police say they arrested Downs because he refused to leave private property. That, they say, is trespassing.
    Representatives for Crossgates did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
    Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.


    Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a `Peace` T-Shirt
    March 4
    — NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

    According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

    "I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

    When Downs refused the security officers` orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

    Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

    "I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview.

    Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

    Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment.

    Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17.

    He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.


    Copyright 2003 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 15:10:53
    Beitrag Nr. 167 (8.800.415)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 05.03.03 22:25:30
    Beitrag Nr. 168 (8.805.224)
    BUSH POLICIES, RHETORIC OF WAR AND PEACE TOE EVANGELICAL LINE "Nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans. That`s the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe to the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in this administration. It`s impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the centrality of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and "remake" the Middle East.President Bush has said that he doesn`t believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren`t sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution....I tend to disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing religious influence. For example, evangelicals` discomfort with condoms and sex education has led the administration to policies that are likely to lead to more people dying of AIDS at home and abroad, not to mention more pregnancies and abortions." 3.05.03
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 00:36:12
    Beitrag Nr. 169 (8.806.342)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 00:37:41
    Beitrag Nr. 170 (8.806.348)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 00:50:47
    Beitrag Nr. 171 (8.806.393)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 01:03:42
    Beitrag Nr. 172 (8.806.425)
    Students pencil in Iraq protest
    Organizers hoping for crowds, even if only between classes
    By Bryan Long
    CNN


    ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --Amanda Crater, 20, will start Wednesday with butterflies in her stomach.

    She`s one of many student organizers of "Books not Bombs," a countrywide campus war protest put on by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, and she admits she`ll be nervous.

    But before Crater joins the University of California-Berkeley`s local demonstrations and before she calls several regional radio shows, Crater will attend an 11 a.m. class for her minor.

    "I`m going to walk out of my dance class, which is kind of a big deal," she said. "I will go to class and leave early. Most of the activities begin at noon."

    Call it appointment protesting, a modern spin on taking to the streets.

    On Wednesday, students from more than 360 colleges and high schools will participate in a daylong strike. Although it`s unknown how many students will participate -- or to what degree they`ll take part -- organizers expect a wide range of activities for a diverse group of students.

    Max Sussman, 20, has helped organize a daylong teach-in at the University of Michigan, where he`s a sophomore. There will also be a rally at noon that`s scheduled to last an hour.

    More than 300 students in Ann Arbor have signed Sussman`s Anti-War Action pledge vowing some sort of participation.

    "If people feel like they can attend one talk but they have one exam to take, then we consider them a participant," he said.

    Protests, full schedules conflict
    Unlike memorable protests of the Vietnam War, in which students skipped days of classes or shut down campuses for weeks, today`s collegiate activists pencil in their anti-war activities much like corporate executives plan for meetings.

    David Davenport, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank associated with Stanford University, is familiar with both approaches.

    "Back in the `60s and `70s, you know, they didn`t run on that kind of schedule. Protests might go on all afternoon," he said.

    Today, fliers around college campuses -- and Internet sites, too -- announce when and where each protest will begin and end.

    "Now it`s something you squeeze in as an extracurricular activity along with your classes and other projects," he said.

    There are good reasons for the differences, Davenport said.

    At the top of the list is that war with Iraq is still a theory. Americans were fighting in Vietnam for years before war protests reached a critical mass.

    Also, because there is no draft, students are not as personally involved with a possible war as students were during Vietnam. And the vast majority of college students were less than 10 years old when the United States fought Iraq in 1991.

    "The main war of their lifetimes has been the Gulf War, which was over in less than a week, so the kind of horror of body bags mounting up is just not of their experience," Davenport said.

    Even collegiate supporters of the Bush administration aren`t immune from looking to the calendar to find time for rallies.

    Erik Caldwell, 23, is chairman of the California College Republicans and a student at California State University San Marcos. Although there are no plans for "support our troops" rallies Wednesday, he has organized monthly pro-Bush events for about a year.

    On most campuses, events start at noon, and "normally the university limits how long we can be out there," he said. Some last for half an hour.

    `They want to do something`
    Sara Ahmed, another organizer of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition protest, is not deterred by a full schedule.

    "Most of the people that I`ve talked to on campuses really do have a good idea of how things work," Ahmed said. "I think that as far as they`re concerned, they want to do something."

    Ahmed and the peace coalition are asking students to leave class for the day and attend war protests on campus.

    "Obviously some students will not be able to do that, and that`s asking a lot," Ahmed said. "We`re not asking them to risk punishment on their own behalf if they don`t have to."

    Many groups have chosen to demonstrate for a few hours, or only in the morning or afternoon. Some are working around midterm schedules, Ahmed said.

    Although Davenport calls modern protests "neat, orderly and dispassionate," they still serve a purpose, he said.

    Ultimately, Crater said, the peace coalition wants to send the message to the Bush administration and to educators on college and high school campuses that war can be avoided.

    "We don`t want this [war] to be a cowboy fight," Crater said. "Every building we bomb in Baghdad will be another September 11. There will be innocent people dying in them."








    Find this article at:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/sprj.irq.college.protest/index.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 11:57:19
    Beitrag Nr. 173 (8.809.810)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 12:01:30
    Beitrag Nr. 174 (8.809.898)
    Exclusive! What George Bush read this morning
    Catherine Bennett
    Thursday March 6, 2003
    The Guardian

    This morning, shortly after he got up, President Bush considered how to get away from "pettiness and paltriness of mind". What did his spiritual guide advise? "Ask God to keep the eyes of your spirit open to the Risen Christ, and it will be impossible for drudgery to damp you." Thus fortified, Bush resumed hostilities against Iraq.

    That the president is a devout, born-`again leader of a crusading administration is well known. An article in Newsweek goes into much more detail about his religious practices, evoking the scene "ahead of the dawn", when "even before he brings his wife, Laura, a morning cup of coffee, he goes off to a quiet place to read alone". Bush`s chosen text, Newsweek discloses, is My Utmost for his Highest, a book of devotional readings by Oswald Chambers, an evangelical bible teacher who died in 1917. It provides a biblical text, along with Chambers` commentary, for every day of the year.

    Assuming Newsweek is correct, we can all of us, each day, accompany Bush on his spiritual journey. Tomorrow, for example, he is due to contemplate a passage headed Undaunted Radiance, in which Chambers reminds the sinner that "the experiences of life, terrible or monotonous, are impotent to touch the love of God..."

    The calendar format allows us to look back at key moments in this conflict and identify the spiritual text which might have informed the president`s day. On January 20, when he announced that he was "sick and tired of games and deception", Bush would have begun with a pre-dawn reflection on Isaiah`s response to God`s call, "Here am I; send me". On February 20, the day Bush agreed, with Blair, on a "final ultimatum" he would have considered Chapman`s exhortation to action, "always beware of giving over to mere dreaming once God has spoken". And if, as was reported then, concerted military attack is still fixed for March 14, then that morning Bush will have his mind on higher things: "There is no release in human power at all, but only in the Redemption".

    Transcribed by Chambers` wife, Gertrude, after his death from appendicitis, My Utmost for His Highest is less concerned with tips on appropriate conduct, than with the forging of an intimate relationship with God: "If the crisis has come to you on any line, surrender your will to Him absolutely and irrevocably."

    Spiritually, Chapman is a challenging, relentlessly demanding teacher; in worldly terms, he suggests an almost fatalistic surrender to God`s purpose (to be disclosed by the God-given outcome of things), which apparently made Chapman popular among troops in Egypt, where he volunteered as an army chaplain during the first world war. At his funeral, according to Oswald Chambers Publications Association Ltd, the charity which holds world rights in his work, 100 men escorted the gun carriage. The charity`s general manager, Mary Hutchison, suggests that his purpose was to impart faith to the soldiers, "so they could be seen through the crisis".

    Today, with both the Pope and the Anglican church condemning war with Iraq as unjust, you can see how Chapman`s message of resolute submission to the Almighty might have considerable appeal for America`s commander-in-chief, as he confronts the "axis of evil". "Rise to the occasion, do the thing," Chapman urges, "May God not find the whine in us any more, but may he find us full of spiritual pluck and athleticism, ready to face anything he brings".

    To Hutchison`s regret, such reflections have never been as popular here as in the US, where "Utmost", as she calls it, has sold two million copies since 1991. In Britain it sells 500 copies a month. Thanks to George Bush, that might change. "I can`t tell you how pleased I am", she says, "we`re so pleased, we`ve been praying for years that there would be some kind of revival". Sometimes, God moves in a most mysterious way.

    But what about snake oil?

    Imagine the excitement of Mark Field`s London constituents when, for the first time anyone could recall, the Conservative MP wrote asking for comments "on three issues of national importance". At last - an MP who really cared what they thought about the war, foundation hospitals, climate change, or similar.

    But it seems Field is kept awake, of a night, by more pressing questions relating to licensing hours, broadcast communications, and perhaps dearest to his heart, snake oil.

    "I am a regular taker of vitamin supplements", confessed Field, asking his constituents if alternative medicine should be "embraced more actively".

    Although, with a war almost on, some constituents find Field`s investigations faintly superfluous, such democratic commitment, extending, he stresses, to those who are anxious "about the harmful health effects of dogs defecating in the streets", is surely exemplary. And besides, maybe he knows of a good alternative smallpox remedy.

    Cull New Labour

    Critics of the impending ruddy duck cull argue that it sets an alarming precedent, and certainly if duck-purity principles were to be applied to British political fauna the consequences would be devastating. Given the similarities between the plight of the rare, white-headed duck and that of the endangered British Tory, now vigorously interbreeding with New Labour to produce a probably sterile hybrid, there is every reason, following ruddy duck logic, to carry out a cull of the American intruder. With some scientists concerned that there may be only one native Tory breeding pair left in the country (Mr and Mrs Nicholas Soames), time is short.

    True, at £915 per bird - or politician - the cost of such intervention is high and might outrage the British public. On the other hand ducks are widely preferred to MPs; in the absence of any politician welfare groups, the ruthless extermination of New Labour might be seen for what it is, a well-meaning attempt to give nature a helping hand.

    Torygraph goes gothic

    Readers of the Daily Telegraph, which has just been subjected to an amusing redesign, are divided on the merits of its gothic-style masthead. Is the heavy typeface once chosen by David Beckham to memorialise the birth of his son in a buttock-skimming tattoo, really up-to-the-minute enough for a happening young paper like the Telegraph? After all, Brooklyn has just celebrated his fourth birthday.

    But a new Heineken advertising campaign featuring similar lettering on the stomach of the young singer Craig David, confirms that the redesign was worth every penny: in the tattoo parlours that presumably contain its target audience of goths, football fans and connoisseurs of fine lagers, the brand new Telegraph will be a must-have.


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 12:55:47
    Beitrag Nr. 175 (8.810.436)
    Christlicher Fundamentalismus Gefahr Für die USA?

    The Relationship Between Religion and Identification With the Republican Party

    About 8 in 10 Americans (79%) identify with the Christian faith in one way or the other, and about half of all Americans (47%) are Protestants. Forty-one percent of Americans say they are "born again," which is a New Testament term that evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants routinely use to signify a significant conversion experience. About one in six Americans (18%) go so far as to identify with the religious right. About one in four Americans routinely tell interviewers that they have attended worship services within the last week, and 60% say that religion is very important to them in their daily lives.

    Most black Americans are Protestant (largely Baptist), and the vast majority identify with the Democratic Party. For that reason, some of the analysis that follows will focus on the attitudes of white Protestants in order to provide a clearer picture of the relationship between religion and politics, without the complicating factor of race.

    Since Bush took office in January 2001, Gallup has asked Americans about their religious attitudes in five different polls.

    One basic finding: Protestants are somewhat more likely to be Republicans than Catholics are and substantially more likely to be Republicans than are those who claim no religious preference. The relationship between identifying with a Protestant denomination and being Republican is particularly strong among whites:

    Mehr unter:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030306.asp
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 13:13:15
    Beitrag Nr. 176 (8.810.596)
    Kinder als Geiseln?

    HE`LL SPILL HIS GUTS, OR ELSE

    By NILES LATHEM and BRIAN BLOMQUIST
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HERE WE COME:
    U.S. B-52 bombers arrive at Royal Air Force base Fairford in western England.

    March 4, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A CIA team will use "all appropriate measures" to convince the just-captured mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to talk - including dangling freedom for his two young sons, who are in U.S. custody.
    Law-enforcement sources told The Post that the CIA has had the 7- and 9-year- old sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in custody since September, and plans to use them as leverage to get the No. 3 man in al Qaeda to disclose Osama bin Laden`s whereabouts and details of future terror operations.

    Mohammed, arrested Saturday in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, has undergone three days of questioning by the same team of CIA and FBI agents who have handled other high-profile terror war detainees.

    Sources said the English-speaking Mohammed has refused to cooperate with interrogators - and instead has spent hours in a trance-like state, chanting passages from the Koran.


    Die Meldung kommt von der Ney York Post einer Murdock Zeitung.
    Gesamter Text:
    http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/69950.htm
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 13:51:27
    Beitrag Nr. 177 (8.811.173)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 14:25:18
    Beitrag Nr. 178 (8.811.727)
    SPIEGEL ONLINE - 06. März 2003, 12:29
    URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238801,00.html
    US-Gesetzesentwurf

    Vom "Land of the free" zum Überwachungsstaat

    Von Lutz Kleveman in New York

    In den USA wächst der öffentliche Widerstand gegen den "Patriot Act", mit dem die Bush-Regierung seit Herbst 2001 ihre Bürger massiv überwacht und ausspioniert. Derweil strickt das US-Justizministerium unbeeindruckt an einem neuen, weitaus schärferen Gesetz, mit dem terrorverdächtige Amerikaner nun sogar heimlich verhaftet und ausgebürgert werden können.


    Lutz C.Kleveman

    Bürgerrechtler Jaffer: "Die Regierung ist besessen vom Drang nach Geheimhaltung"


    Tiefschwarze Balken bedecken fast jede Seite, die Jameel Jaffer in dem Aktenordner vor sich aufschlägt. "Alle wichtigen Absätze haben sie unleserlich gemacht", sagt der Bürgerrechtler entgeistert. "Das ist eigentlich nur in Fragen der nationalen Sicherheit erlaubt, aber diese Regierung ist besessen vom Drang nach Geheimhaltung." Erst vor ein paar Tagen traf der Ordner im Hauptquartier der angesehenen Bürgerrechtsorganisation American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) im Zentrum von Manhattan ein. Absender: das US-Justizministerium.

    "Ende letzten Jahres haben wir das Ministerium vor einem Bundesgericht verklagt, damit es uns Auskunft darüber gibt, wie viele US-Bürger es unter Terrorverdacht überwachen lässt und verhaftet hat", erklärt Jaffer und blickt aus seinem Bürofenster über den Hudson River, bis zur Freiheitsstatue. Nach ernstem Zureden des Richters lenkten die Anwälte des Ministeriums damals scheinbar ein. "Und jetzt haben sie uns das hier geschickt! Die Justizorgane können vom Volk nicht mehr zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Gleichzeitig ist diese Regierung aggressiver an Informationen über ihre Bürger interessiert als jede andere in der Geschichte der USA."

    Der 32-Jährige und Dutzende weitere Aktivisten in der ACLU haben den Kampf aufgenommen gegen den "Patriot Act". Mit dem wenige Wochen nach den Terroranschlägen des 11. September 2001 hastig verabschiedeten Gesetz weitete der US-Kongress radikal die Befugnisse von Sicherheitsorganen aus, US-Bürger und Amerika-Besucher zu überwachen und auszuspionieren.

    Schon arbeitet das Justizministerium allerdings an einem Gesetz für den "Patriot Act II", dessen 83-seitigen Entwurf das "Center for Public Integrity" Anfang Februar im Internet veröffentlichte. Darin drohen Amerikanern, die eine von der Regierung als terroristisch bezeichnete Gruppe unterstützen, der Entzug der Staatsbürgerschaft und die Abschiebung ins Ausland. Außerdem sollen US-Bürger erstmals heimlich festgenommen und in Haft gehalten werden können - ohne dass der Staat jemals Angehörige informieren muss. Auch eine nationale DNS-Datenbank für Terrorverdächtige gehört zu den Plänen der Beamten von Justizminister John Ashcroft.

    Terrorkampf gegen Amerikaner

    "Schon der erste Patriot Act ging viel zu weit und hat die demokratischen Kontrollmechanismen in unserem Land völlig ausgehebelt", empört sich Jaffer. "Der zweite Patriot Act soll uns nun noch mehr Bürgerrechte nehmen, ohne uns wirksam gegen Terroristen zu schützen. Das ist verfassungswidrig." Die ACLU will die Regierungspläne durchkreuzen: Vergangene Woche schaltete sie ganzseitige Anzeigen in der "New York Times", die die Leser zum Widerstand aufriefen. "Keep America safe and free" ist das Motto der 3,5 Millionen Dollar teuren Kampagne, die Bushs Kurs in Richtung Überwachungsstaat mit den antikommunistischen Verfolgungen unter Senator Joseph McCarthy in den fünfziger Jahren vergleicht.

    Tatsächlich spiegelt die wachsende Opposition gegen den "Patriot Act II" die Angst vieler Amerikaner wider, dass sich die Heimatfront im "Krieg gegen den Terror" bald gegen sie selbst richten könnte. So heißt es in Absatz 501 des geplanten Gesetzes, dass einem Amerikaner die Staatsbürgerschaft entzogen werden kann, "wenn er, mit der Absicht, seine Staatsangehörigkeit aufzugeben, einer Gruppe beitritt oder ihr konkrete Unterstützung bietet, die die Vereinigten Staaten als eine `terroristische Organisation` bezeichnet hat". Das gelte auch, wenn der Bürger von den vermeintlich terroristischen Aktivitäten der Gruppe nichts gewusst und selbst nur legal gehandelt hat.

    Entzug der Staatsbürgerschaft


    Während ein US-Bürger einen Verzicht auf die Staatsbürgerschaft bisher offiziell erklären muss, soll dies nunmehr aus seinem "Verhalten rückgeschlossen" werden. Über die Ausbürgerung von Amerikanern hätte in Zukunft allein der US-Präsident zu entscheiden - unanfechtbar. Zu diesem in der US-Geschichte unerhörten Schritt wird das Justizministerium der Fall des Kaliforniers John Walker Lindh motiviert haben, der sich den afghanischen Taliban anschloss und während "Enduring Freedom" gegen US-Streitkräfte kämpfte. Dafür wurde der 21-Jährige inzwischen zu zwanzig Jahren Haft verurteilt, doch der vermeintliche Landesverrat und die Debatte über Lindhs religiöse Gründe dafür waren für US-Regierung hochpeinlich. Das könnte sie sich in Zukunft ersparen, indem sie "unamerikanische" Mitglieder der Gesellschaft schlicht desavouiert und ausbürgert - so wie es Saudi-Arabien mit Osama Bin Laden getan hat.

    Einmal ihrer Staatsbürgerschaft beraubt, könnten US-Bürger als Staatenlose ins Ausland deportiert werden. Kurzfristig würde der Schritt allerdings wohl eher dem Entzug der Bürgerrechte dienen, damit Terrorverdächtige ohne rechtsstaatlichen Schutz behandelt werden können. Schon jetzt verlegen die CIA und das FBI eingestandenermaßen Verhöre vermeintlicher Mitglieder von Osama Bin Ladens Terrornetz al-Qaida in rechtsfreie Räume wie den US-Militärstützpunkt Guantanamo Bay auf Kuba oder in verbündete Staaten wie Ägypten, in denen regelmäßig angewandte Foltermethoden bessere "Ergebnisse" versprechen. Dass den jüngst in Pakistan verhafteten Top-Terroristen Chalid Scheich Mohammed genau dieses Schicksal erwarte, äußern dieser Tage ehemalige Regierungsbeamte offen in US-Fernsehsendern.

    Was "Patriot Act II" in den Augen von Rechtsexperten besonders fragwürdig macht, ist die äußerst unklare Definition dessen, was eine terroristische Organisation ist. Darunter könnten, je nach Belieben der Regierung, auch militante Tierschutzgruppen fallen. Ihre Mitglieder könnten - so sieht es der Gesetzesvorschlag vor - schnell von der ebenfalls geplanten Ausweitung der Todesstrafe betroffen sein: Sollte etwa auf einem Protestmarsch ein unbeteiligter Passant gewaltsam ums Leben kommen, wäre die Todesstrafe auf Demonstranten anwendbar.

    Das US-Justizministerium war für eine Stellungnahme nicht erreichbar. Nachdem der Gesetzesvorschlag durchsickerte, versicherten Ministeriumssprecher jedoch, bei dem Dokument habe es sich lediglich um einen ersten Entwurf gehandelt. Sie bemühten sich um politische Schadensbegrenzung: weder Minister Ashcroft noch das Weiße Haus hätten bisher Kenntnis von den Plänen erhalten.

    Derweil regt sich auch im Kongress erster Widerstand gegen "Patriot Act II". "Wir täten der Nation keinen Dienst, wenn wir dieses Gesetz so verabschieden würden", sagte der demokratische Senator Patrick Leahy vergangene Woche. "Alle suchen nach einer schnellen Lösung, um uns sicherer zu machen, aber dieses Gesetz macht uns nicht sicherer." Gleichzeitig legten Leahy und sein republikanischer Kollege Arlen Specter, beide Mitglied des Justiz-Ausschusses, einen Bericht vor, der erstmalig Machtmissbrauch und ungesetzliches Vorgehen des FBI unter dem "Patriot Act" kritisiert und mehr parlamentarische Kontrolle einfordert. "Leider haben es das Justizministerium und das FBI mitunter abgelehnt, auf völlig legitime Fragen der Aufsicht zu antworten", heißt es in dem Bericht. Beide Senatoren unterstützen ein neues Gesetzesvorhaben, das die Justizorgane zwingen soll, wieder wie früher Rechenschaft über ihr Handeln abzulegen.

    Demokratie wird abgegraben

    Bislang können die Behörden unter dem "Patriot Act" alle polizeilichen Maßnahmen geheim halten. Er wendet nämlich kurzerhand ein Gesetz aus dem Jahre 1978 an, das damals der Abwehr ausländischer Spionage galt. Ein seinerzeit geschaffenes streng geheimes Gremium erteilt dem FBI heute problemlos Tausende Durchsuchungsbefehle, auch wenn die Zielobjekte schon lange keine sowjetischen Agenten mehr sind - sondern amerikanische Bürger selbst. Längst nutzt die Polizei diese einfache Methode auch nicht mehr nur bei Terrorverdacht, sondern in ganz regulären Strafverfahren. Das hat für Staatsanwälte den großen Vorteil, dass heimlich erlangte Beweise vor Gericht verwandt werden dürfen, ohne die Quelle preisgeben und die Stichhaltigkeit prüfen lassen zu müssen.

    Selbst Verhaftungen an sich sollen in Zukunft geheim zu halten sein, geht es nach den Autoren des "Patriot Act II". Wie in südamerikanischen Militärdiktaturen in den siebziger Jahren würden FBI-Agenten dann US-Bürger auf bloßen Verdacht hin nachts aus ihren Wohnungen oder von der Arbeit abholen und auf unbestimmte Zeit einsperren dürfen. Weder ihre Familien noch Anwälte hätten ein Recht darauf, von ihrem Verbleib zu erfahren. Menschen würden einfach verschwinden. So wie die vermutlich etwa 900 Einwanderer aus muslimischen Ländern, die die US-Polizei nach dem 11. September 2001 landesweit in wochenlange Untersuchungshaft steckte - ohne konkrete Anklage und zum Teil ohne Rechtsbeistand. Fast alle wurden inzwischen entlassen, weil sich der Terror-Verdacht nicht erhärtete.

    Bürgerrechtler hoffen, dass ausreichend Opposition den neuen "Patriot Act" noch stoppen kann. Am Dienstag gab es vor dem Justizausschuss des Senats eine Anhörung von Justizminister Ashcroft, in der er Aufklärung über Einzelheiten des durchgesickerten Entwurf des "Patriot Act II" erklären sollte. Er lehnte das ab, weil der Entwurf "noch nicht endgültig ausgearbeitet" sei. Die Senatoren Patrick Leahy und Russ Feingold waren sichtlich verärgert darüber. Feingold ist der einzige Senator, der damals gegen den ersten "Patriot Act" gestimmt hat. "Sie wollen den habeas corpus aufheben, das ist seit dem Bürgerkrieg nicht geschehen", schimpft Feingold, und Leahy urteilt: "Dieser Patriot Act ist nicht sehr patriotisch, wenn er heimlich ausgearbeitet wird."

    Immerhin sind bereits zwei Regierungsprogramme an öffentlicher Empörung gescheitert: das Total Information Awareness, mit dem das Internet kontrolliert werden sollte, und das so genannte TIPS, mit dem die Regierung im Stasi-Stil Tausende Spitzel rekrutieren wollte, um Nachbarn und Verwandte auszuspionieren. Für Bürgerrechtler Jaffer ist die Sache eindeutig: "Die Bush-Regierung nutzt die Terrorgefahr, um den Menschen Angst zu machen. Die Demokratie wird Stück um Stück abgegraben, bis keine Demokratie mehr da ist."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 21:30:32
    Beitrag Nr. 179 (8.816.962)
    Es geht abwärts mit Mr.Bush

    Poll: `Unnamed Democrat` leads President Bush

    Thursday, March 6, 2003
    ©2003 Associated Press

    URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/06/national1251EST0631.DTL


    (03-06) 09:51 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

    The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.

    Almost half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    Among those identified as independents, 46 percent favored the Democratic Party nominee while 39 percent chose the Republican president.

    Bush fared better when matched head-to-head against Democratic candidates in a national poll last month, running almost 10 points ahead of some of the better known candidates such as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, as well as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said repeatedly that she is not running in 2004.

    Among the Democrats questioned in the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton received the strongest support -- 37 percent. That was more than the next three candidates -- Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry -- combined.

    Without Clinton in the race, Lieberman was at 21 percent, followed by Gephardt at 17 percent, Kerry at 12 percent and all others in single digits.

    Overall, Bush`s job approval was at 53 percent, with 39 percent disapproving. Only 9 percent said they were "very satisfied" with the country`s direction, while 26 percent were "very dissatisfied."

    ©2003 Associated Press
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 06.03.03 22:30:13
    Beitrag Nr. 180 (8.817.536)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 00:36:28
    Beitrag Nr. 181 (8.818.845)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 09:20:33
    Beitrag Nr. 182 (8.819.908)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 09:26:08
    Beitrag Nr. 183 (8.819.963)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 14:52:08
    Beitrag Nr. 184 (8.823.651)
    `Toon ist aus der "Nevada Sun", ein äußerst konservatives Blatt.


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 15:19:14
    Beitrag Nr. 185 (8.824.200)
    Begeisterung überall!

    $2.50 a gallon for gas? Thank you, George!

    "My God! Gas is now $2.50 a gallon!" I exclaimed to a resigned-looking gas station attendant last night. "It is a great tribute and credit to the American economy that it has survived thus far with the Global Village Idiot at the helm!" The attendant nodded and grinned. I bet his rent had just gone up and his wages had just shrunk like everyone else`s -- thanks to our very own Uncle George.

    Here is a typical example of GVI economics: Taxpayers now pay 50 billion dollars a year to give oil companies access to the Middle East. Oil companies in turn sell it back to us taxpayers for only 19 billion dollars. "Can oil companies do that?" asked the horrified ghost of John Maynard Keynes.

    "Of course they can," I replied. "Big Oil hasn`t paid a cent for any of the troops we`ve kept stationed in the Middle East, solely for their benefit, for the last 50 years. Taxpayers pay all that. Taxpayers pay $79,000,000,000, the oil companies pay pennies to be able to sell it back to us -- and guess who gets to wear the Armanis?"

    Do the math, America. Get a solar-powered car. Bring our troops home. Save us from carpetbaggers, scalawags, terrorists and asphyxiation from duct tape! Evict George Bush.

    "Sounds economical to me," mused Mr. Keynes.

    Sincerely, Jane Stillwater, Berkeley, CA, 02.28.03
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 15:35:24
    Beitrag Nr. 186 (8.824.497)
    Bush`Motto: "Sie mögen uns ruhig hassen, wenn sie uns nur fürchten!

    March 7, 2003
    Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear
    By PAUL KRUGMAN


    Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has `oderint dum metuant` really become our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against Bush administration policy.

    "Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this week`s crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations — a crisis that has been almost ignored north of the border — suggests that it is a perfect description of George Bush`s attitude toward the world.

    Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has — often with good reason — seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy. Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico`s recent track record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source of pride on both sides of the border.

    But Mexico`s seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the question of Iraq — and the threats the Bush administration has made to get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.

    Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn`t vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."

    Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush`s Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn`t vote America`s way, saying, "I don`t expect there to be significant retribution from the government" — emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

    And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

    These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn`t making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it`s clear that he was.

    Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That`s Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch`s media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush`s remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

    So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying — or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?

    But my most intense reaction to this story isn`t anger over the administration`s stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain — "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" — what I feel, above all, is shame.






    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 16:34:22
    Beitrag Nr. 187 (8.825.208)
    Der ultimative Leitartikel!


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 16:43:49
    Beitrag Nr. 188 (8.825.324)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 17:00:52
    Beitrag Nr. 189 (8.825.442)
    The Lie Of The U.S. Military
    Tough gritty American soldiers protect freedom of liberal S.F. columnist? Or the other way around?
    By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
    Friday, March 7, 2003
    ©2003 SF Gate

    URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



    I get this a lot: Hey Mark, you know what you should do, you pathetic piece of liberal S.F. scum? You should kneel down right now and thank our angry God there`s a hard-ass non-pussified non-wimpy U.S. military out there protecting your pathetic little butt, baby. Isn`t that thoughtful?

    You should be damn grateful, they scowl, that these fine men and women are risking their lives to ensure your right of free speech, your contemptible ability to scribble these pansy liberal words, to call Shrub a smirking daddy`s boy, to suggest that God doesn`t exist or that Lynne Cheney frightens small children and makes paint peel, all while remaining safe and cozy in your little hippie-happy tofu-licking gay-friendly S.F. cocoon, all protected and insulated and smug.

    I get this a lot, too, in response to columns about, say, alternative religion, or spirituality, or progressive politics, or sex, or open mindedness or anything that rubs conservatives the wrong way, which is, of course, just about anything: How can you write such typical lefty liberal drivel while "real" men and women are out there making "real" decisions about "real" issues?

    When people are dying from poison gas and are having their fingernails ripped out by evildoers, and you just wait until your pathetic little faggy S.F. and granola Berkeley get "hit" and your family and friends are screaming and burning to death and we`ll see how you feel then, won`t we, when Dubya tried to warn you and where will your hippie crap be then huh? Huh?

    It`s touching, truly.


    And there are many more, most filled with flaming bile, with a rabid pro-military lust, homophobia like a calling card, aimed at me, at S.F, at progressives, at gays -- anyone, really, who is not in blind lockstep support of everything ShrubCo spins their way, and never failing to leverage the rather inane "be grateful you live in this country" argument, much like saying, be grateful you weren`t born in 1347 and suffered serfdom and had boils all over your face and died toothless at age 24. Yes, I am grateful. Every day. Thank you.

    Let us now speak blasphemy. Let us point up something no one seems to be mentioning, as Shrub sends in 300,000 of our youth to blast a cheap thug who is, by every account, no serious threat to the U.S., and never has been, and who had nothing to do with 9/11, and whose ties to terrorism are tenuous at best, all while rabid North Korea happily buys more nuke technology from desperate Pakistan and sells the finished product to the highest bidder.

    Here it is: The military does not protect my freedom. Our soldiers are not out there right now safeguarding me, or you, or us, from some sort of total, `50s-era, Red Scare-esque dictatorial overthrow of our nation; nor is the military guaranteeing I have the right to write this column any more than it is protecting your right to read it, or to protest the war and speak freely and smoke imported French cigarettes and watch porn and drive really fast. Not anymore, they`re not. Not this time.

    More than ever before in recent history, the otherwise worthy U.S. military is right now in service not of the people, not of the national security, but of the current government regime and its corporate interests. Has it always been this way? Of course. But this time, with our smirky Enron president and cash-hungry CEO administration, it`s never been so flagrant, or insulting, or invidious.


    Our soldiers are not protecting our freedoms. They are not preventing more terrorism. They are not guaranteeing continued free speech. Because the only true threat to such freedoms is coming from within.

    There is every indication that our own government, more than any other in the Western world, is the one that would like our free speech quelled, dissenting voices silenced, proofs of wrongdoing or proofs of corporate greedmongering that are used as a cheap excuse to massacre an estimated half-million Iraqis, eliminated.

    There is every indication that John Ashcroft would love nothing more than to shut down independent thought and snuff out all those dirty pictures and turn off the whole gol-durn Internet once and for all.

    There is every flagrant sign that Rummy and Ari Fleischer think the media would do good to shut the hell up and be grateful they`re even allowed on the White House grounds. "If you`re not with us, you`re with the terrorists," they glower, as if everyone were 5 years old, and drugged, and stupid.

    There is every indication that BushCo would love nothing more than to fire truckfuls of tear gas into those crowds of 11 million protesters a few weeks ago, clamp down all those millions of negative voices causing him such a global headache, brainwash the media and the populace, continue to turn attention away from that pesky unfindable Osama to that evil easily annihilated Saddam, make you think the two are somehow connected, one and the same, and that if you disagree you are a traitorous baby-killing communist, how dare you, don`t you value your freedom?

    Of course I do. Which is exactly why this war is so inane, and vile.

    This war was never about your safety, or the safety of this nation, or protecting freedom. It is about strategic power bases, oil reserves and control. It is about regional supremacy first, petroleum and military supply industries second, humanitarian and domestic-security concerns, well, about 147th.

    It was never about WMD. It was never about terrorism. It was never about Saddam, except insofar as Saddam is a threat to those same corporate concerns. The U.S. military is right now serving ExxonMobile. And Lockheed Martin. And is protecting, unbeknownst to it, our grip on power brokering in the Middle East.

    Which naturally might raise the question, What, then, is actually protecting America`s freedom? What forces are guaranteeing free speech? Protecting your civil liberties?

    It`s you. It`s millions of independent, resistant voices, in chat rooms and e-mail boxes and magazines and on Web sites all over the nation and the world.

    It is staggering and potent protests like the all-time largest global rally of Feb. 15. It is artists and actors and musicians, writers and renegades and thinkers, professors and pundits and op-ed columnists and daring newspaper editors.

    Do you see? It is these people, these voices, that are right now keeping the doors of personal freedom from swinging shut. It is those who push back, refusing to be misled, resisting the crackdown. What is keeping America free is not the military -- it is independent thought. It is the progressive provocative evil "hippie vibe" that refuses to let Bush completely molest the nation.

    Because BushCo would love nothing more than for everyone to shut the hell up so it can bomb in peace. And they are trying. E-mail snooping, Homeland Security, the draconian Patriot Act, new wiretap laws, the (failed) Total Information Awareness mega-database, expanded powers for the police and FBI, immigrant detention, a raging international blanket campaign to forcibly convince everyone of their warmongering cause, as most of the world just stands there, appalled, insulted, and says no way.

    Here`s another irony: Major newspapers and TV and magazines, despite regular GOP puling about the "damn liberal media," is largely in lockstep support of the war, giving scant coverage to ongoing world protests, painting Chirac like the ogre Shrub wants you to think he is, hyping up biotoxic threats and downplaying the pathetic meagerness of the Iraqi military, or the hundreds of thousands of estimated civilian casualties and refugees this war will generate, the hundreds of billions it will cost us.

    Look. We possess a potent, world-class military. Dedicated and serious and no one questions their ability, their commitment, despite how the vast majority of wary soldiers signed up during peacetime, for the quick money, to help pay for college, or because they couldn`t find decent jobs, and not for some noble patriotic cause. But no matter.

    Was I supportive of quick, aggressive military action against the largely fragmented and untraceable al Qaeda? Was I glad to see undercover air marshals on civilian aircraft shortly after 9/11? Do I support our military in times of true crisis and need, when there is an actual viable threat? Absolutely. Is this one of those times? No way. Here`s how I support them now -- get them out before a single one is killed.

    Because here is the freedom our military is currently protecting: The freedom of cheap gas for the next decade. The freedom of expanded power in the Middle East. The freedom of continued American gluttony abroad, of a foreign policy that reeks of isolationism and corporate greed and preemptive fist-to-face threats. It ain`t worth it.

    Is the military protecting us from terrorism? Doubtful. By most every estimate, Shrub`s war will only ignite more anti-U.S. hatred, spark more countries to fuel up and prepare for America`s random attack. We are not pouring water on the dying embers of U.S. revulsion -- we are kicking them. As hard as we can.

    I understand and value the need for a strong military. I appreciate the necessity. But the war in Iraq does nothing but denigrate the value and integrity of our military. Note to conservatives: Those soldiers aren`t out there dying for you, they`re dying for strategic political power, for some oil exec`s portfolio. They`re protecting the American oligarchy. Does that make you feel proud?

    This war, then, is a direct slap in the face, an insult not just to progressives and liberals but to the country, and to the very soldiers themselves. I hereby kneel down in my liberal hippie gay-friendly S.F. cocoon and pray to my godless tofu-lovin` universe that they don`t die in oily vain.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

    Subscribe to Mark`s deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter.
    Mark Morford`s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and newsletter. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.

    ©2003 SF Gate
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 22:46:25
    Beitrag Nr. 190 (8.827.791)
    Bush brüskiert namhafte Journalisten.

    Press Irony at the White House


    President George W. Bush broke precedent at his press conference last night by not calling on either the senior correspondent present, Helen Thomas of Hearst Syndicate, or on the White House correspondent of the Washington Post, Mike Allen. No doubt the snub to Thomas, who at age 84 is pridefully grumpy, results from her outspoken support for the president`s Middle East opponents, her insistence that he means to kill innocent Iraqis to steal that nation`s oil and her well-paid tours of college campuses where she has attacked his Iraq policy and called Bush "the worst president ever," indeed "the worst president in all of American history."
    Any snub to the Washington Post might be understood in terms of its consistently anti-Republican and anti-Bush editorial policy. But to snub the gentlemanly and intelligent Allen, so scrupulously professional and fair in his reporting that many of his editors do not know he is a conservative whose late father, Stanford-educated Gary Allen, ranks with Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley among the best-selling conservative authors of the postwar era, is ironic if not darkly humorous. The senior Allen`s 1972 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, sold well over 6 million copies and, with other Gary Allen books raking the liberal establishment, helped to create the middle-class reaction that laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan.

    The younger Allen is a graduate of Washington and Lee University and worked his way up the ladder of political journalism in Virginia before reaching one of the top rungs as White House correspondent of the Washington Post just as Bush came to the presidency.

    Thomas was White House bureau chief for United Press International from 1974 to 2000, when the venerable wire service was bought by the company that owns Insight and the Washington Times. She then joined Hearst but continued to cover the White House. It is she who by custom had for years been allowed to ask the first question at presidential press conferences and to end them on behalf of the press corps by saying, "Thank you very much."



    http://www.insightmag.com/news/388890.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 07.03.03 23:22:10
    Beitrag Nr. 191 (8.828.189)
    Avatar
    aekschonaer
    schrieb am 07.03.03 23:25:33
    Beitrag Nr. 192 (8.828.200)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 00:32:16
    Beitrag Nr. 193 (8.828.568)
    http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen03062003.html
    Dies ist eine US-Web-Side

    CounterPunch

    March 6, 2003

    Time for Sanctions Against the Bush Administration
    Boycott America?
    By WAYNE MADSEN

    The international political system has a method for dealing with regimes that flout the United Nations Charter -- sanctions. Sanctions come in different flavors. Sanctions like economic boycotts have teeth, others like travel bans are more symbolic but are more easily imposed and relatively effective. It is time for the United Nations and its individual members to consider political and other sanctions against the Bush administration. After all, other countries and regimes that have snubbed their noses at international norms of behavior have been on the receiving end of sanctions. The United States heartily supported such measures against regimes in South Africa, Rhodesia, Iran, Iraq, Burma, Libya, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Taliban-run Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, Angola`s UNITA, Cuba, and Sudan.

    But now it is the United States, governed by a coterie of war hawks, which threatens international order and stability. The Bush administration is threatening to bombard Iraq with a volley of bombs and missiles that will "shock and awe" the Iraqis into surrendering.

    The Bush administration is severely in need of a demonstration of international will that will "shock and awe" Washington back into some semblance of rationality and sanity. That can best be done by imposing wide sweeping political sanctions on the Bush administration. By targeting the Bush administration and not the general American public, the international community can put key members of the Bush administration on notice that their behavior has consequences, even for officials of the "world`s only remaining superpower."

    The concept of international sanctions against the Bush administration are nothing new. The idea was first floated by the European Union in March 2001 when the United States pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, while saying trade sanctions against the United States were premature, warned of other broad implications stemming from America`s withdrawal from the treaty.

    The international community should begin with a ban on visits by the top U.S. political leaders who support flouting the United Nations and other regional international organizations. For starters, the list of Americans who could be refused visas, including transit visas, might include Donald Rumsfeld, his top deputies - Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Dov Zakheim, and Peter Rodman, Vice President Cheney`s chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Strategy John Bolton and his deputy David Wurmser, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her assistants Elliott Abrams and Otto Reich and consultant Michael Ledeen, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and UN ambassador John Negroponte.

    The travel ban should also be extended to such key administration advisers and propagandists as Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle, Center for Security Policy director Frank Gaffney, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, America`s ayatollah of morality William Bennett, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and DPB members Kenneth Adelman and Newt Gingrich.

    The European Union has already imposed such a travel ban on 72 officials of Zimbabwe`s government. The United States also imposed a travel ban on President Robert Mugabe and 19 of his top officials. The UN Security Council has imposed travel bans on Iraqi`s top military leaders and top leaders of Angola`s UNITA rebel movement. Travel restrictions were also imposed by the Clinton administration on Burma`s military leadership and their families from visiting the United States.

    In addition to the European Union and national governments imposing a travel ban on top Bush administration officials, national, regional, and municipal legislatures could also pass symbolic resolutions stating that key members and supporters of the Bush administration are "not welcome" to visit their countries, provinces, and cities. What would be more valuable for the court of public opinion than a city mayor or a regional leader informing a visiting Bush administration official or political loyalist that he or she is not officially "welcome" by the host government? That sort of bad press is every public relations person`s worst nightmare. It is a tactic worth seriously considering.

    Travel bans or "unwelcome" resolutions could also be extended to members of the U.S. Congress who stand in lockstep with the Bush administration. Considering the number of overseas congressional junkets that take place on an almost weekly basis, it would not be long before GOP loyalists and their Democratic quislings would begin to realize what their administration has wrought in severely damaging U.S. relations with the rest of the world.

    Another sanction option could be the boycotting of official U.S. diplomatic functions and cultural events by local government and business leaders, as well as celebrities. Considering Canada`s strong opposition to Washington`s unilateral policies, a boycott by Canadian politicians and dignitaries of social and other official events surrounding Bush`s upcoming May 5 state visit to Canada would appear to be in tall order.

    People abroad have already started their own grass roots sanction program against the Bush administration by canceling or curtailing pleasure trips to the United States. European travel industry insiders report that hundreds of thousands of Europeans have decided to cancel trips to the United States, opting instead to spend their vacations in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Canada. Many European air travelers object to being cajoled into providing personal information to the U.S. government, including bank account data, credit information, and even dietary habits. Traveling within Europe or to countries that do not impose such draconian screening measures appeal more to the average European traveler. As a result, America`s tourist destinations are feeling the economic pinch.

    Focusing a sanctions campaign against key members of the Bush administration and their more rabid supporters in the private policy laundering sector would serve notice that the world`s patience has its limits and the Bush administration has pushed the envelope on that patience. It is clearly time to build upon the successes of the global anti-war movement and ratchet up the pressure on the Bush regime through a sanctions and boycott process. To the American Revolutionaries in Boston, economic boycotts against the British served as an important catalyst in the successful rebellion against another mad King George. They worked then and they should be tried now.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 00:35:45
    Beitrag Nr. 194 (8.828.587)
    Hans Blix
    BuzzFlash is proud to bring you original sociopolitical cartoons by Eric Harrison.




    http://www.buzzflash.com/cartoons/03/03/07.html
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 12:28:36
    Beitrag Nr. 195 (8.830.022)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 12:37:33
    Beitrag Nr. 196 (8.830.040)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 13:38:49
    Beitrag Nr. 197 (8.830.246)
    Big Penis Monologues Hitch


    Eve Ensler`s fabulously-successful THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES so affectionately – and warmly – embraced by Oprah Winfrey, Jane Fonda, Glenn Close, Calista Flockhart, Marisa Tomei, Rosie Perez, Teri Hatcher, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Queen Latifah, Brooke Shields, Julie Kavner, Amy Irving among hundreds of others has been performed in over 40 countries along with two North American touring companies, is currently booked in over 160 cities in the US & Canada and has been translated into over 35 different languages.

    George W. Bush’s THE PENIS MONOLOGUES so provocatively – and demonstratively – swallowed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Ari Fleischer, Condoleezza Rice (yes, her too!), Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, William Safire, Rupert Murdoch and, apparently 59% of the “American People” has been unable to win support from 9 countries including its two American neighbours and is blocked in 4 key cities in China, Russia, France and Germany, despite being translated into over 135 different languages and dialects by a crack Madison Avenue guru who resigned – what else? – “to devote more time to my family” on Wednesday.


    _________________
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The lavishly expensive and spectacular world premiere of the eagerly-awaited The Penis Monologues will now not take place next Wednesday March 12, in Baghdad, Iraq as widely promoted and advertised.

    This is the only conclusion to be drawn from the unprecedented more-rigidly-stage-managed-than-a-state-funeral-eulogy prime time televised ‘news conference’ by President George W. Bush last evening.



    During which, answering carefully pre-selected reporters’ softball questions, instead of confirming the ‘curtain-up’ time and date as everyone expected, he restricted himself to regurgitating word-for-word everything he and others in the administration have been saying over-and-over-and-over (and still nobody’s buying it) and over-and-over-and-over again, for over 18 months when he first announced a determined, concerted and unstoppable thrust to get The Penis Monologues off the ground and into the cool dry Arabian desert air.

    Before it becomes the very hot dry Arabian desert air.

    This shock decision came especially hard for Mave O’Darsden, Executive-Editor-in-Chief of The Penis Monologues Inc. (An AOL Time Warner Company) who has invested much of his own money and time in the project and was looking forward to next Wednesday’s launch and a rare pre-taped appearance on Larry King Live.

    “We’ve all been working so hard to get The Penis Monologues staged on March 12. At first no-one was interested or took me seriously. But after much cajoling and guaranteeing conditions of strict anonymity and promising not to use a tape recorder or even a pen, pad, laptop, hairy Palm or hand-held BlackBerry I persuaded the key players to let everything hang-out about their penis,” O’Darsden said “to do penis interviews, which became penis monologues.

    “In all I talked with over ninety men -- and yes, one woman -- individually, holding together the nub of this administration.

    “I talked to older men, young men, married men, single men, gays, African American men, Hispanic men, Asian American men, Native American men, Caucasian men, Jewish men. At first the men were reluctant to talk. They were a little shy. But once they got going, you couldn’t stop them.

    “To protect these high individuals sticking-out so prominently in the public eye – and the occasional Beverly Hills rest room – from repercussions by their outraged immediate families and close friends or, in two cases, even loved ones, I originally deliberately resisted identifying participants directly.

    “But now with the whole shooting match in jeopardy I’m coming way-out and have no compunction pointing my fickle finger of fate at the originators of some of the more juicy Penis Monologues monologues.

    “I vividly remember the frosty morning when Mr. Bush himself, carrying the heavy burdens of a legal re-election in 2004 on his shoulders peered through the bullet-and moth-proof Oval Office curtains at his shiny new dark-green Marine Corps XP helicopter, its stationary semi-erect rotor blades throbbing gently above the hoar-covered lawn and told me, ‘If that doesn’t force a son to compare his own with his father’s I don’t know what does. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time. I lay awake alone at nights wondering, like many men in my position, just how big is Saddam’s Al Samoud 2 exactly?’

    “He looked around in that peculiar way he does,” O’Darsden continued, “seeking fawning approval from his assembled peers. But there was no-one.


    “Then,” O’Darsden said, “in a scene eerily reminiscent of John Wayne’s college football locker-room epics of the 1940’s when millions were away overseas performing on real gridirons, in the White House Oval Office oval men’s room Donald Rumsfeld, even more crotchety than most 72-year-olds, grunted and clutched his crotch and buttocks, alternately.

    “‘If his father had thrust ever further and deeper in 1992 as I told him to,’ Rumsfeld muttered, ‘maybe we wouldn’t have-to today. Classical Greek theatre is littered with powerful men and their sons reduced to desperate measures – even committing political suicide – at the last minute when the Turks about-face and ass. But that’s not the problem. We just can’t let the swarthy dictator of a third-rate fabulously-oil-rich nation have a bigger missile than our president’s. The ‘American People’ demand no less. Or more.’”

    Obviously shocked and taken aback, O’Darsden continued apace, “Perhaps the most chilling penis monologue of all came when, in his private men’s room in the back of his stretched limo, Dick Cheney opened his shirt, clutched his Compaq XP Pacemaker and confessed, ‘Hans Blix believes it’s roughly eight feet six inches long when fully primed. But no-one ever got that close. And lived to tell.’

    Condoleezza Rice, yes her too, has a significant part in The Penis Monologues.

    O’Darsden says he asked her, “Madame, what’s your considered military opinion as the token minority woman member of the Cabinet clutched from a relatively-undistinguished career in academia? Can you allow the world’s worst leader with an eight foot six missile sitting astride the world’s largest untapped oil reserves, holding the mighty United States in abject bondage? However pleasurable..?”

    “She hastily removed her own hand from her own crotch,” O’Darsden went on, “and completed the question herself. ‘Let me complete your question myself, by adding…however pleasurable...with a collection of the world`s worst instruments of mass pain and hurting?’

    “‘The war on terror between consenting adults straining to video themselves suffering pain in private involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorise himself and scandalise his own people in his dingy palaces and darkest dungeons as the world watches in abject fascination…’

    “Her voice tailed-off into the muggy Washington night and she never did finish this particular penis monologue,” O’Darsden said, “but we kept it in the show anyway.

    “Tommy Franks willingly contributed many of the penis monologues. In his own particularly charming crisp military fashion,” O’Darsden admitted.

    “‘Once, I vividly remember, fully be-medalled and be-uniformed crossing the Kuwait desert in his stretched Humvie’s men’s room he ordered himself uncrotched and said, ‘Myths are floating around. And much as I like a floating myth just like the next 5-Star General this has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. No matter where on your body you apply it rigorously and vigorously.

    “‘Our intelligence – that we can’t share with the public to protect Saddam’s only still-virgin and still-beautiful 18-year-old great-great-granddaughter – indicates he has hidden video equipment surreptitiously watching as he primes his Al Samoud 2 before groups of identical moustached uniformed military men and women. But since we can’t know what the duration and trajectory will be, we can’t predict, using some formulation, some mathematical model, what the objects of his wildest desires might look like.’”



    O`Darsden`s temples throbbed passionately as he continued, “Meanwhile, if this unfortunate cancellation weren`t enough, from China we’re told the Beijing State Opera, to coincide with the original planned March 12 launch, is already selling pirated DVD’s of The Penis Monologues with high-voiced female impersonators playing the roles of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Ari Fleischer, Condoleezza Rice (yes, her too!), Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

    “And British generally-reliable crack spokespersons thought to be very close to trusted sources indicate Prime Minister Tony Blair finally wet his trousers and told Foreign Minister Jack Straw to get a Penis Monologue postponement after admitting to an MTV interviewer that opponents in his own party are gathering steam in their quest to force him to perform long excerpts from The Penis Monologues with Kylie Minogue at their Conference in Blackpool in September.”



    Senior overseas asticle* crack bureau heads Dr. Doudelle Bangomosphère (Paris), Professor Traugott Schimpansen (Berlin) and staff writer Zeke Chesterton Jr. contributed to this report.

    © The New Tork Yimes Company MMIII. All rights unpreserved. This material may be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 13:58:54
    Beitrag Nr. 198 (8.830.315)
    Hinweis: #197 ist eine Satire! Als Hinweis für die 18%, die keine Tagesschau verstehen und für die, die für den Krieg sind (lt.Deutschlandtrent nur 13% zuzügl. die unentschlossenen) oder beides.
    Hier im Board scheinen es allerdings viel mehr zu sein von beidem.

    Anbei noch den Link:

    http://www.asticles.com/asticles/penis.htm
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 14:05:19
    Beitrag Nr. 199 (8.830.339)
    4 Jahre sind zu viel!

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 14:09:23
    Beitrag Nr. 200 (8.830.358)
    washingtonpost.com
    Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
    U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged

    By Joby Warrick
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01


    A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations` chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq`s secret nuclear ambitions.

    Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

    ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

    "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

    Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

    "We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

    A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

    The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei`s findings but also cited "new information" suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

    "It is not time to close the book on these tubes," a senior State Department official said, adding that Iraq was prohibited from importing sensitive parts, such as tubes, regardless of their planned use.

    Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq`s nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country`s known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

    However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors` stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq`s nuclear machinery.

    Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain`s assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

    Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

    Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

    By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

    In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

    Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA`s conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

    ElBaradei`s report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq`s explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

    Moreover, further work by the IAEA`s team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA`s conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

    A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA`s conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration`s statement.

    The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell`s staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell`s address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute`s president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

    Powell`s spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.



    © 2003 The Washington Post Company
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 15:12:58
    Beitrag Nr. 201 (8.830.674)
    The German Angst, oder weshalb habe ich so ein ungutes Gefühl.


    Congress urged to permit `low-yield` atomic weapons
    Pentagon`s bid to roll back nonproliferation policy makes U.S. a hypocrite, Tauscher says
    Washington Post
    Saturday, March 8, 2003
    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


    URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F03%2F08%2FMN203754.DTL


    Washington -- The Pentagon has asked Congress to lift its restriction on the development of smaller "low-yield" nuclear warheads, a move critics say would encourage other countries to develop their own stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

    Such a device would be used to attack facilities holding chemical or biological weapons. In principle, the heat or radiation of the low-yield weapon -- one below 5 kilotons -- would destroy the toxicity of the agents before they were spread by the force of the blast. This week, the Pentagon sent language to Capitol Hill that would, if approved, drop the 8-year-old restriction.

    The Pentagon also is about to take the first public step toward obtaining a high-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that could be aimed at North Korea`s underground nuclear and missile production facilities, according to senior Bush administration officials.

    Within a week, an Air Force report is to be delivered to the House and Senate Armed Services committees stating the military requirements for the "robust nuclear earth penetrator" -- a device designed to dig into the ground before it explodes and crushes any facility buried beneath it. Five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima, the bomb would have an even greater impact, because a nuclear weapon`s force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the rocky crust of the Earth.

    These moves drew criticism after Energy Department officials were questioned at a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.

    Noting the Bush administration`s standoff with North Korea over its plans to build nuclear weapons, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a senior member of the committee, said, "I don`t see how we look at all the nuclear wannabes in the face when we have announced a halfhearted attempt to take down half our own big nuclear weapons, and we are going to now launch ourselves into a whole series of new weapons."

    David Albright, a physicist who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on North Korea, said, "It is a bad idea to develop these things, which probably would never be used, and do so openly. It develops a lot of paranoia among proliferating states who believe the U.S. is planning to attack them."

    When the "earth penetrator" was first discussed in the 1990s, it was conceived as having a low yield -- a relatively small output of radiation, heat and explosive force -- so that if it exploded in the basement of a palace on the outskirts of Baghdad, it would not create much fallout.

    Today, however, the goals are different. Potential enemies are burying their war-making facilities, said Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, and there is a need for developing a weapon whose nose cone could penetrate frozen soil or rocks.

    One of the suspected sites for North Korea`s covert uranium enrichment plant is a uranium milling facility built underneath a mountain. Three other suspected nuclear production sites also are thought to be hidden near or in large sites carved out of mountains.

    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 15:30:40
    Beitrag Nr. 202 (8.830.740)
    Es gibt im Augenblick viele lesenswerte Artikel in der englischsprachigen Presse, zu viele um diese alle zu kopieren. Einen Link möchte ich empfehlen, in dem alles gesammelt wird, was an bushkritischem in den Zeitungen erscheint.
    Trotz des Namens sind die Quellen seriös, soweit ich es beurteilen kann.
    J.

    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

    Das Motto der Seite:
    Ask not at whom the chimp smirks- he smirks at you.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 15:54:34
    Beitrag Nr. 203 (8.830.829)








    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 16:22:52
    Beitrag Nr. 204 (8.830.960)
    Bruce Hammond by Bruce Hammond



    http://www.ucomics.com/brucehammond/


    yer = you are ?
    J.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 17:39:32
    Beitrag Nr. 205 (8.831.344)
    Der Krieg fordert Opfer


    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 17:52:17
    Beitrag Nr. 206 (8.831.404)
    Die Versteigerung geht weiter.


    Firm linked to Cheney wins oil-field contract
    Hussein may destroy facilities in event of war
    Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
    Saturday, March 8, 2003
    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


    URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495.DTL


    Washington -- A company tied to Vice President Dick Cheney has won a Pentagon contract for advice on rebuilding Iraq`s oil fields after a possible war.

    The contract was disclosed in the last paragraph of a Defense Department statement on preparations for Saddam Hussein`s possible destruction of Iraq`s oil fields in the event of a U.S.-led invasion. The statement calls for proposals on how to handle oil well fires and for assessing other damage to oil facilities. The contract went to Kellogg Brown & Root Services, which is owned by Halliburton Co., of which Cheney was chairman until his election in 2000.

    The Houston company is a respected name in petroleum industry construction and one of a few companies capable of large-scale oil field reconstruction. But its ties to Cheney arouse suspicions among those who believe that a primary motive for a U.S. war in Iraq is oil.

    "I certainly don`t think this comes as much of a surprise," said Michael Renner, a researcher at WorldWatch Institute, commenting on the Halliburton contract, "There are lots of business opportunities embedded in this war. It represents the larger oil and energy issues at stake."

    The White House wouldn`t comment on how the contract might fuel such suspicions. "I deal with the reality of situations," said spokesman Ken Lisaius. "The president has made it abundantly clear about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to us and our friends. We stand by to help rebuild a liberated Iraq."


    NO COMMENT FROM CHENEY
    Cheney`s office declined comment, but a Halliburton spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that Kellogg Brown & Root has been doing government contracting since the 1940s. The Pentagon wouldn`t discuss the exact size of the contract, nor how it was rewarded, saying the information is classified.

    The initial Kellogg Brown & Root contract doesn`t mean it has an inside track on later contracts potentially totaling billions of dollars to rehabilitate Iraq`s oil fields, explore new ones and pump the increased supply.

    Even if they emerge unscathed, Iraq`s oil fields will need work performed by companies like Kellogg Brown & Root. Daily production has slumped during the past two decades, worn down by wars and, since 1991, by United Nations sanctions that barred imports of equipment. Daily output capacity is about 2 million barrels, down from 3.5 million barrels before Hussein took power in 1979.

    With enough investment, it`s thought Iraqi production could surge to 10 million to 12 million barrels a day within a decade.

    Iraq`s proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels are the world`s second- largest behind only Saudi Arabia. And there might be large untapped fields in Iraq ripe for exploration.

    Renner is convinced that U.S. multinational oil industry firms would strike it rich in post-war Iraq. "Regime change in Baghdad would reshuffle the cards and give U.S. (and British) companies a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil fields for the first time in 30 years -- a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars," he said.

    Administration supporters say past history refutes claims that a war with Iraq is about oil.

    "This bumper sticker mentality about oil was wrong in the 1991 Gulf War, and it`s wrong now. We gave the oil back to Kuwait back then, and this war, at root, is about the nature of Saddam Hussein`s regime," said James Phillips, foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


    REBUILDING TOOL
    Administration officials have said they view Iraq`s petroleum wealth as a tool for rebuilding. "Iraq`s natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people and -- after decades of being used to build palaces and weapons of mass destruction -- will finally be used for their benefit, not Hussein`s," wrote deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley in a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post.

    In saying that, the White House is following international law, said David Caron, a professor at UC Berkeley`s Boalt Hall School of Law. Under the 1907 Hague Convention, the United States would be present in Iraq as an occupying power and would hold the country`s resources in trust.

    It could rebuild Iraq`s oil infrastructure, but probably would have to recognize contracts that oil companies from France, China and Russia have signed with Hussein`s regime, even though their governments oppose a war.

    "I don`t think the United States would get into breaching contracts, but there would be room for new contracts to be let," Caron said.

    Using an open bidding process that wouldn`t favor American firms "would be wise politically," he added.


    EXPERIENCE IN KUWAIT
    In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., the engineering firm that rebuilt Kuwait`s oil fields after Hussein destroyed them in the 1991 Gulf War, of waiting to profit from a new conflict. Bechtel officials discount that assertion as nonsense.

    Spokesman Jonathan Marshall said that while the company is proud of the work it did rebuilding Kuwait`s fields, "Bechtel has never lobbied to create a political crisis there. We`re not even at war yet, so it`s premature to speculate."

    But Marshall added that "I`m sure the United States government will consider Bechtel if there is work to be done."

    A report by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush, warns the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq`s oil industry.

    "There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."

    E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.

    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 18:35:25
    Beitrag Nr. 207 (8.831.610)
    Kein Fake

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=12713…


    BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH

    By Paul Gilfeather


    GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn`t guarantee a standing ovation.

    Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.

    A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address.

    "His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.

    "I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen."

    Mr Bush`s every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.

    It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.

    The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won`t help."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 19:17:23
    Beitrag Nr. 208 (8.831.821)
    03/07 07:29
    U.S. Public Divided on War With Iraq, CBS News Poll Shows
    By Tamra Santana


    Washington, March 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. public is divided on whether the Bush administration has presented enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq, with 47 percent saying the administration has made the case for war and 44 percent saying it still hasn`t, according to a new CBS News poll.

    The poll showed the 48 percent think the main goal in Iraq is to disarm the country, while 27 percent say it is removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

    Of those polled, 68 percent said they believe the Bush administration has already decided to take military action, and 59 percent said the U.S. should wait for United Nations approval before doing so, while 36 percent said the U.S. should take action without UN backing.

    The poll of the 723 people taken March 4 and March 5 has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, CBS News said.




    ©2003 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Trademarks.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 22:39:41
    Beitrag Nr. 209 (8.832.659)







    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 23:38:24
    Beitrag Nr. 210 (8.832.835)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 08.03.03 23:49:30
    Beitrag Nr. 211 (8.832.892)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 13:21:14
    Beitrag Nr. 212 (8.834.695)
    washingtonpost.com
    George Bush and the Words of War


    By Ken Ringle
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, March 9, 2003; Page F01



    The challenge is one of achieving the proper oratorical tone. How does a leader like President Bush address a crisis in such a way that he inspires and unites his people while sowing fear in his enemy?

    Whatever one thinks of his Iraq policy, even the president`s supporters concede that he has been less than Churchillian in employing his speeches effectively to marshal national and international opinion against Saddam Hussein. In fact, the more he talks, the more support around the world appears to slip away. Why?

    "Every president has his own oratorical style," says Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar and professor of government at Georgetown University. "Bush`s is concrete and conversational, much the way he talks. It suits him . . . but it lacks the idealistic language of a Kennedy . . . the sort that seizes the imagination."

    Bush`s oratory has "improved since he`s been in office," says James C. Humes, a professor of language and leadership at the University of Southern Colorado and a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford. "But he`s not happy with artifice" and "tends to avoid the sort of imagery that made Churchill`s speeches so memorable."

    Bush has sent our armed forces to root out al Qaeda and the menace of terrorism, and he has told us it will be a long fight. But he`s spent more time telling us what we have to fear than he has summoning us to what John F. Kennedy called the "long twilight struggle" against "those who would make themselves our adversaries."

    Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, by contrast, cultivated an attitude of confident and lofty disdain for their enemies, whether those enemies were economic, like the Great Depression, or military, like Adolf Hitler.

    As Kennedy said of Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."

    Churchill didn`t just exhort the British people ("We shall fight on the beaches . . .") and denounce Hitler (". . . every stain of his infected and corroding fingers will be . . . blasted from the surface of the earth"). He also marshaled humor into defiance ("They thought they would wring our neck like a chicken. Some chicken! Some neck!") and even made a point of pronouncing the word "Nazi" with a drawn-out nasal "a" and a soft, slushy "z" that made it sound like something disgusting discovered beneath a toilet seat.

    When FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he made the economic meltdown of the 1930s appear suddenly inconsequential -- almost dismissible. Everyone knew it was still there -- a quarter of the work force was unemployed -- but it suddenly appeared tiny next to the courage and resolution the new president affirmed in the American people.

    Ours is not an age given to the cultivation of great oratory or its devices, and presidents as disparate as Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman have struggled with the same problem as George W. Bush.

    But even today some leaders have shown themselves profoundly gifted in using words and demeanor to marshal the collective spirit with both strength and reassurance. Think of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the darkest moments of 9/11. Not noted previously as a great orator, and denounced throughout his mayoralty as a divisive figure in New York, he nonetheless held the nation together almost single-handedly with his words and bearing immediately after the terrorist attacks, even as the World Trade Center was falling around him.

    How did he do so? He spoke with quiet confidence of "we" New Yorkers and "we" Americans and the continuity of the city and the nation. He denounced the terrorists as criminals, but he spent more time praising the courage of the police and firefighters doing their heroic but dangerous and horrifying work. There was a stoical quality to his oratory. He summoned us to be more than victims. And so we were.

    The president seems not to grasp how much might be accomplished by comporting himself as a man of stature who views Hussein as a lower form. Instead he harries the Iraqi dictator with accusations much the way a terrier shakes a rag toy: After a while the continued existence of the toy becomes more noteworthy than the ferocity of the terrier. Hussein grows in stature by consequence.

    To make these observations is not to demean the president, whose powers of focus and persuasion in private have been attested by far too many people to ignore. But one puzzle of his oratory is that he invokes religion so often in his speeches but rarely employs the language, cadence and metaphors of the King James Bible, which even less spiritual leaders have used to such powerful effect.

    For example, Humes says, in writing perhaps the most famous presidential speech in American history -- the Gettysburg Address -- Abraham Lincoln "sought language that would be both stately and familiar to his audience. When he said, `Four score and seven years ago,` he was echoing the `three score and 10` that the Old Testament portrays as man`s allotted span of life. When he said, `Our fathers brought forth on this continent,` he was echoing the language used in both Matthew and Luke to describe the birth of Jesus, and thus suggesting something holy in the founding of the United States."

    Such language worked on both the imagination and the emotions of his listeners, Humes says, "because even the unlettered in his audience in those days went to church and heard the Bible read. Their ears were conditioned to those phrases and those rhythms."

    Although few of our leaders are Churchills or Lincolns, Humes says, many of their rhetorical techniques can be learned and adapted by those who recognize the extraordinary power the well-spoken word continues to convey. But he and other presidential scholars concede that many politicians have become skeptical of that power in the television age and impatient with the dedication necessary to hone their oral presentation skills, as well as their visual ones.

    Historian Edmund Morris, biographer of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, says George W. Bush is actually a better speaker than his father. The elder Bush, Morris says, "is a strong, intelligent and attractive man" when encountered in person or in small groups. But when speaking to large groups, especially on television, "he appeared somehow insubstantial" and his presidency suffered because of it.

    In his book "Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln," published last year, Humes suggests a reason taken from two decades ago: "Once when I was drafting remarks for him, President Bush told me, `All speeches are [bull]!` He didn`t understand the appeal of Reagan, who had mastered the art."

    Ronald Reagan was no Churchill, but the 40th president was a great communicator, Humes says, partly because as an actor he understood that the power of spoken phrases derives not just from what they mean but also from how they sound. "He worked his speeches over and over and often wrote better than his speechwriters," Humes says. "His oratory was highly individualistic."

    Reagan was attacked and stereotyped as a war hawk every bit as savagely as George W. Bush is today, Morris says. "Time has romanticized the reception of his speeches quite a bit because phrases like `the evil empire` turned out to be true, and he turned out to be right about the way to defeat communism.

    "But he was caricatured as a reckless cowboy, particularly in Europe, exactly the way Bush is now. The difference is he had that magnificent look to him. He really was a gentle man, and the gentleness of his demeanor contrasted with the harshness of his rhetoric in a way that caused people to take what he said very seriously. And he had a whole arsenal of gestures, like that way of cocking his head, that underlined what he was saying."

    With war in the air today, however, it is the speeches of Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt that want comparison with George W. Bush`s. Both men used the spoken word to coax divided, isolationist nations toward military confrontations that they recognized as vital but from which their electorates shrank.

    The times were different, certainly, and the power of their words was emphasized by the medium of radio, which in those pre-TV days imbued them with a formality and seriousness free of visual distractions.

    Both men were patricians, with a lofty sense of history and destiny and a keen sense that the civilized world was often riding on their decisions and their words. Both had a flair for the dramatic that might be suspect in our more cynical age.

    But Humes, whose five books on Churchill include three just on Churchillian oratory and phrasing, points out that as speakers, FDR and Churchill were confident enough and skilled enough to employ humor in subversive ways to both raise their rhetorical stature and devastate their opponents.

    Roosevelt once managed the neat trick of diminishing his most bitter Republican opponents merely by archly cataloguing them under the names of three GOP leaders: Martin, Barton and Fish.

    Would it be possible now for President Bush to describe the predatory nature of Saddam Hussein by adapting Churchill`s famous parable of the duplicitous peace-mouthing Nazis?

    It seems, the prime minister would say, that the zoo in Berlin featured a cage where a lion and a lamb lived together in peace and harmony. It was a great drawing card for visitors.

    One visitor asked the zookeeper, "How did you find such a lion?"

    "The lion isn`t the hard thing," replied the zookeeper. "It`s the lamb. Every morning we need a new lamb."

    Often Churchill could make his point with a single line. In the darkest days of 1940, with the victorious German army poised just across the English Channel, he announced: "We are waiting for the invasion. So are the fishes."

    Humes quotes Churchill as saying that the "scaffolding" of a great speech is built with contrast, rhyme, echo, alliteration and metaphor. The use of those tools is evident in two of the images Churchill made popular in the English language -- "Iron Curtain" and "summit conference," as well as his assertion that the British victory at El Alamein "is not the end . . . not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." But just as important, Humes says, was the studied employment of an unusual word for dramatic effect.

    Roosevelt`s description of the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor as "a date which will live in infamy" was highly deliberate, Humes says. "Infamy" is a word easily understood but rarely employed. FDR`s use of it has linked it forever with Pearl Harbor.

    President Bush`s use of the phrase "axis of evil," however, has been widely criticized as both melodramatic and counterproductive -- an overblown attempt to compare the regimes in Iraq, Iran and North Korea to the Germany, Japan and Italy "axis" of World War II.

    There`s no question, says Georgetown`s Wayne, that Bush`s oratory "lacks the eloquence of a Churchill, the idealism of a JFK, the Americanism of a Reagan or the emotional empathy of a Clinton."

    But, he says, the larger challenge of a leader is to have his oratory "capture the needs and mood of his country." Two of President Bush`s speeches have risen to that challenge, Wayne says: his first speech from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and his speech to Congress nine days later. For better or worse, he says, presidents have to deal with their own stereotypes, and he thinks many Churchillian flourishes in Bush`s speeches would strike people as false.

    Were he to advise the president about speechifying, Wayne says, he would suggest that Bush make his more important speeches less conversational with injections of "tight but elegant" language to inspire the American people. "But it may be that the time for that is after a war starts. Right now the president is still making his argument for going to war. And he obviously feels more comfortable making that argument with a minimum of rhetorical devices."



    © 2003 The Washington Post Company
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 13:29:24
    Beitrag Nr. 213 (8.834.719)
    Kinder in Geiselhaft seit September 02.


    CIA has 2 sons of the 9/11 architect
    Olga Craig
    LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

    Published March 9, 2003


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KUWAIT CITY — Two young sons of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being held by the CIA to force their father to talk, interrogators said yesterday.
    Yousef al-Khalid, 9, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, 7, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided an apartment in Karachi where their father had been hiding.
    He fled just hours before the raid, but his two young sons, along with another senior al Qaeda member, were found cowering behind a clothes closet in the apartment.
    The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities, but this weekend they were flown to America, where they will be questioned about their father.
    CIA interrogators confirmed last night that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father`s activities.
    "We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children," said one official, "but we need to know as much about their father`s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times, and they are given the best of care."
    Their father, Mohammed, 37, is being interrogated at the Bagram U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He is being held in solitary confinement and subjected to "stress and duress" interrogations.
    He has been told that his sons are being held and is being encouraged to divulge future attacks against the West and talk about the location of Osama bin Laden, officials said.
    "He has said very little so far," one CIA official said yesterday. "He sits in a trancelike state and recites verses from the Koran. But while he may claim to be a devout Muslim, we know he is fond of the Western-style fast life.
    "His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him."
    The Kuwaiti-born Mohammed named his older son after Ramzi Yousef, his nephew, who was convicted of masterminding the 1993 attack on New York`s World Trade Center. After the attack, Yousef fled to the Philippines with his uncle.
    When bomb-making chemicals set fire to their Manila apartment, Yousef fled to Pakistan, where he was captured in an Islamabad hotel room in 1995.
    Mohammed was in the next room and, audaciously, gave an eyewitness account of the arrest to a reporter. By the time the Pakistani authorities found out his true identity, he had fled the country.
    He was eventually arrested March 1 in a house in Rawalpindi, two miles from the home of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Among the items found in the house was a photograph of a smiling Mohammed with his arms around his two sons.
    Known as "the Engineer," he is suspected of being the mastermind of the Oct. 12, 2002, Bali bombings in Indonesia that killed more than 180 people, and the man who slashed the throat of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in January 2002.
    Little is known of his sons` mother, who is thought to be Pakistani. "We have no evidence that suggests she has anything to do with al Qaeda," a Pakistani intelligence source said yesterday.
    "All we know is that she is the sister of an al Qaeda member that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed met at a Pakistan college, the University of Dawa al Jihad, in the late 1980s."
    The college, considered a premier Islamic military academy, is said to have been a breeding ground for terrorists where bomb making was among the subjects on its unofficial curriculum.

    Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 13:41:16
    Beitrag Nr. 214 (8.834.771)
    Warum gilt das, was vor 12 Jahren gültig war heute nicht mehr?
    J.


    Dick Cheney on the History Channel, Feb 23 2003, "Operation Desert Storm" (aired at 9pm Pacific Time), speaking about the decision not to go into Baghdad at the end of Operation Desert Storm:

    "As long as we were leading the coaltion liberating Kuwait we were looked upon, I think, with great favor, and wide spread support in the Arab world. If we crossed over, to the point where we were going to Baghdad, taking down an Arab government, and replacing it with some other kind of government, then we would have been the colonial imperialist power and the perception would have been very different."
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 13:53:42
    Beitrag Nr. 215 (8.834.815)
    OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
    Just War — or a Just War?


    Rob Hatem


    By JIMMY CARTER


    TLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

    As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

    For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

    The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

    The war`s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

    Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein`s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

    The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

    The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

    What about America`s world standing if we don`t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq`s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

    Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 13:58:14
    Beitrag Nr. 216 (8.834.838)
    New York Times 09.03.2003

    Saying No to War
    Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

    Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position. They not only argued that progress was being made, they also discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord. But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq`s weapons program.

    By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve. Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N. operation. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home.

    Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy. He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration. Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations will be over in days, not weeks. Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives, the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack.

    There are circumstances under which the president would have to act militarily no matter what the Security Council said. If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and fiercely. But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn`t there. The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region. It is natural to suspect that one of America`s enemies might be actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence.

    The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm. That`s a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work. If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself. The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

    President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That`s another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.

    Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops — even if a considerable slice remains behind — would be an admission of failure. He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that the Iraqi army will fall quickly. The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the outcry abroad. But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential crisis points around the world. It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like Pakistan, to fight the war on terror. And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons. When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it`s time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goals.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 14:36:23
    Beitrag Nr. 217 (8.834.949)
    Nochmals die Nyt

    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    The Xanax Cowboy
    By MAUREEN DOWD


    WASHINGTON — You might sum up the president`s call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

    As he rolls up to America`s first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

    But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

    We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It`s really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

    Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

    Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

    It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we`re about to bomb one that didn`t attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn`t intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn`t financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn`t home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn`t a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

    I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists` snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost — shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair`s career and the U.S. budget — is too high.

    Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I`m going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that`s what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that`s exactly what I am going to do."

    But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

    William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11` ranks with `Remember the Maine` of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

    The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

    The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America`s primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

    And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41`s realpolitik and shaping what would become 43`s pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

    Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

    With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 15:23:42
    Beitrag Nr. 218 (8.835.119)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 15:26:19
    Beitrag Nr. 219 (8.835.128)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 15:52:55
    Beitrag Nr. 220 (8.835.229)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 15:59:33
    Beitrag Nr. 221 (8.835.261)
    Die Jokes werden härter

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 16:10:30
    Beitrag Nr. 222 (8.835.306)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 16:22:06
    Beitrag Nr. 223 (8.835.349)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 16:49:32
    Beitrag Nr. 224 (8.835.425)
    Alles Clinton oder was?










    Der tägliche "I miss Clinton" Toon

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 17:04:43
    Beitrag Nr. 225 (8.835.482)
    SPIEGEL ONLINE - 09. März 2003, 14:00

    Irak-Krise

    Blair droht Zerfall seiner Regierung

    Großbritannien und die USA wollen dem Irak offenbar eine Abrüstungsliste vorlegen. Binnen sechs Tagen solle Saddam Hussein die darauf erwähnten Waffen zerstören. Unterdessen droht Premierminister Blair wegen seiner harten Pro-Kriegshaltung in der eigenen Partei Ungemach.

    London - Mehrere Regierungsmitglieder haben für den Fall eines Irak-Krieges ohne Uno-Mandat ihren Rücktritt angekündigt. Ein Labour-Abgeordneter hat bereits am Sonntag Fakten geschaffen: Andrew Reed trat aus Protest gegen Blairs Irak-Politik von seinem Posten als parlamentarischer Privatsekretär von Umweltministerin Margaret Beckett zurück. Laut "Sunday Telegraph" haben mindestens sechs Privatsekretäre von Kabinettsministern mit ihrem Abschied gedroht. Sogar ministerielle Rücktritte würden nicht ausgeschlossen.

    Aus der Partei sollen bereits zahlreiche Mitglieder wegen der Irak-Politik Blairs ausgetreten sein: Laut "Mail on Sunday" gaben 40.000 Labour-Mitglieder ihr Parteibuch zurück. In verschiedenen Wahlkreisen sei die Wiederwahl von Labour-Abgeordneten gefährdet, berichtete die Zeitung. Die Mitgliedschaft der Labour-Partei ist nach offiziellen Angaben laut "Mail" von 405.000 im Jahr 1997 auf etwa 272.000 geschrumpft.

    Nicht verhandelbare Liste

    Dem britischen "Observer" zufolge haben sich die Regierungen in London und Washington auf eine "endgültige und nicht verhandelbare Liste" über die Abrüstung von Waffen im Irak geeinigt. Wie die Zeitung am Sonntag berichtete, wird die Zerstörung dieser Waffen innerhalb der nächsten sechs Tage verlangt, wenn ein Krieg noch verhindert werden soll. Grundlage für die Liste sei der jüngste Bericht von Chef-Waffeninspektor Hans Blix.


    "Wir wollen Saddam Hussein ein klares Ultimatum geben. Wir wollen ihm deutlich sagen, was er zu tun hat", sagte ein Sprecher der britischen Regierung dem "Observer". Damit solle unterstrichen werden, dass es immer noch die Chance einer friedlichen Abrüstung gebe. Einzelheiten der Liste wurden in dem Bericht nicht genannt. Die USA drängen den Uno-Sicherheitsrat, schon am Dienstag über eine neue Irak-Resolution zu entscheiden.

    Kriegsdiplomatie in der heißen Phase

    Vor einer Abstimmung im Sicherheitsrat laufen die Bemühungen von Kriegsbefürwortern und -gegnern weiter, das jeweilige Lager zu stärken. Der französische Außenminister Dominique de Villepin zog seinen Besuch der afrikanischen Mitgliedstaaten im Weltsicherheitsrat vor, um sich deren Unterstützung für eine friedliche Lösung im Irak-Konflikt zu sichern. Er wird am Abend nach Angola, Kamerun und Guinea reisen. Ursprünglich war von Anfang dieser Woche die Rede. Auch die USA umwerben die drei afrikanischen Staaten. Für die Annahme ihres Resolutionsentwurfs benötigen die USA, Großbritannien und Spanien neun der 15 Stimmen im Weltsicherheitsrat. Zudem darf kein Veto der ständigen Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrats eingelegt werden.

    Während die diplomatischen Bemühungen hektisch weitergehen, verstärken Türken und Amerikaner ihre militärischen Vorbereitungen zum Aufbau einer irakischen Nordfront. Die türkische Armee verlegte Panzer in den Nordirak. Das US-Militär setzte am Sonntag die Entladung von Kriegsmaterial in türkischen Häfen fort.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 18:14:38
    Beitrag Nr. 226 (8.835.798)
    Battlefield nukes
    Secret Vietnam-era report, just declassified, highlighted dangers
    James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Sunday, March 9, 2003
    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


    URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/09/IN180619.DTL


    It was the height of the Vietnam War, and though the American military was pounding the North relentlessly with one of the heaviest bombing campaigns in history, it was having no apparent impact. So a group of highly regarded scholars prepared a secret study for the Pentagon on whether using a sledgehammer -- battlefield nuclear weapons -- might finally turn the tide.

    The group, part of the influential but little-known Jason Division, met for six weeks at UC Santa Barbara in the summer of 1966, then sent their carefully researched 55-page analysis, warning in powerful language that unleashing the nuclear genie would undoubtedly backfire and have devastating consequences for the United States.

    Nearly four decades later, that report has been declassified and released, and it makes clear, in terms that are strikingly relevant today, that if some commanders were hoping for a justification for more devastating strikes against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, they were sorely disappointed.

    The study concluded that a nuclear attack would have only limited success against a guerrilla army and, worse, would provoke nuclear counterattacks against highly vulnerable American installations. At a time when the Bush administration has quietly proposed the pre-emptive use of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons against states like Iraq or North Korea, those conclusions remain as sobering today as they were then.

    "The use of TNW in Southeast Asia is likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear guerrilla operations in other parts of the world," the authors wrote, using the acronym for tactical nuclear weapons. "U.S. security would be gravely endangered if the use of TNW by guerrilla forces should become widespread."

    Substitute "terrorists" or "rogue states" for "guerrilla forces" and the report could be addressing the new American policies. The Bush administration has proposed, in a sharp departure from the past, the possible first-use of tactical nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states, to destroy caches of chemical or biological weapons.

    Senior administration officials and some weapons experts have argued that this more threatening posture is needed to deter foes. Opponents of the new policies have taken a position strikingly similar to that of the Jason group, saying that removing the inhibitions on the use of nuclear weapons -- firmly in place since 1945 -- would only encourage hostile groups to work that much harder to acquire their own, and then to use them.

    "The general conclusions of our report are still valid for any war in which the United States is likely to be engaged in the future," said Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was one of the report`s authors and is now a professor emeritus at Princeton`s Institute for Advanced Study. "The main conclusion is that the United States offers to any likely adversary much better targets for nuclear weapons than these adversaries offer to the United States. This is even more true in the fight against terrorism than it was in Vietnam."

    Added another author, S. Courtenay Wright, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago`s Enrico Fermi Institute, "The main conclusion of the report -- that employment of nuclear weapons by the U.S. would be of little use against a widely distributed opponent but disaster if copied by the opponent -- still stands."

    The once-classified report, written by Dyson, Wright, Steven Weinberg, a University of Texas professor and Nobel laureate in physics, and Robert Gomer, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, was released last December following a 19-year effort by Peter Hayes, executive director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in Berkeley.

    Hayes, who has written extensively on nuclear issues, said he heard about the report in 1984 and put in a Freedom of Information Act request for its release, only to confront numerous delays.

    The report warned that the Soviet Union or China might provide tactical nuclear weapons to guerrilla groups or others if the United States launched a nuclear attack first. Today, Hayes said, the fear is that North Korea, Iran or perhaps even Pakistan might sell nuclear materials or a device if the United States actually launches such an attack.

    The report analyzed different kinds of targets in Vietnam, concluding that Vietnamese troops were far too scattered for the weapons to have much success against soldiers. But the principal target was expected to be the Ho Chi Minh Trail, an informal supply line connecting the North and South that the United States bombed heavily but could not shut down.

    The study cited a number of "war games," as far back as 1957, performed by the Santa Monica-based Rand Corporation, which concluded that to achieve success against such targets, the United States would have to use perhaps hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons over a period of time, and even then rebuilding could begin quickly.

    In other words, the study said, even limited success would require a massive campaign of nuclear bombardment, which would create radioactive fallout that could kill people up to 200 miles away. By contrast, even a single tactical weapon used by the Vietnamese against an American target -- such as a military base or the Saigon airport -- could have had a devastating impact because of the concentration of American forces.

    "If only a few tactical nuclear weapons could be detonated intermittently at the American bases," the report found, "the U.S. would suffer terrible casualties -- and the degradation of U.S. capabilities would be considerable."

    In an interview, Weinberg said he remained steadfastly opposed to the use of nuclear weapons except as a last-resort deterrent and that he was frustrated by the fact that the Bush administration had not taken into consideration how its new nuclear policies could provoke the kind of weapons proliferation it is trying to avoid.

    "I personally felt, and still do, that to cross the line with even one weapon could be a disaster for us," he said.

    E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. A copy of the Nautilus report is available at www.nautilus.org.

    ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 18:51:08
    Beitrag Nr. 227 (8.836.001)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 22:45:24
    Beitrag Nr. 228 (8.837.215)
    CounterPunch

    March 8, 2003

    The Dollar Has Had Its Day
    Is There a Eurologist in the House?
    By BEN TRIPP

    If a guy in the iceberg business with a dad in the walrus meat business were to attack the Eskimos in the name of freedom, people would wonder if maybe he had a hidden agenda. Now look at George W, who`s waging war (his old man is in the war business) upon the nation with the most untapped oil (George is in the oil business). You don`t have to be a walrus to know something`s up. Yet somehow, the blood-for-oil mantra doesn`t satisfy. I should note that the Arctic analogy will be dropped henceforward and the walruses are on their own. We`re talking about petroleum. Or are we?

    There are many untapped mysteries surrounding the motives of the Bush administration, and when I say `untapped`, what I really mean is `these guys are whackjobs`, but this way of putting things lacks gravitas and I`m after the Pulitzer. Most commentators, except the incredibly acute ones such as myself, are content to scratch their wooly polls and wonder why we must have this war. Is it, as many experts have stated, a plunder-mad lunge at the world`s most promising oil fields, or is it, as many other different many experts have opined, an effort to redraw the Near Eastern map along lines which guarantee Israeli/American sovereignty--thus wresting control of the world`s petroleum from Russo-European interests? Maybe those Eskimos are up to something and Bush hasn`t seen fit to mention it, as one expert surmised before he fell off his bar stool and landed heavily on Christopher Hitchens. Still yet more other other different experts--although they often go to the same parties as the experts I previously mentioned--say the whole thing is a cynical ploy to divert domestic attention from a set of disastrous economic and social policies at home.

    These are all plausible enough explanations for what appears at first glance to be an insane crusade to precipitate World War Three, crush all resistance to American global hegemony, and found a Christian empire that feeds on the desperation and poverty of resource-rich wog subject states. Say it isn`t so, Joe. Not to worry. Us experts are all sure this benighted administration must have some far less dramatic, policy-based objectives. Yet we are left feeling vaguely unsatisfied, in much the same way a large Chinese meal leaves us. Despite all the chewing and the wide variety of MSG-laden flavors that make the gums tingle delightfully, in the end we feel gassy, hollow, unfulfilled. Our fortune cookie contains a blank slip of paper. What betokeneth this? Experts don`t know, bub. But there`s an interesting new theory out there which ought to be examined, like a piece of mystery meat that shows up in the moo goo gai pan which could be pork, or walrus, or it could be the very nub of the essence of the crux of this mystery. It`s the Euro, and we all know who throws that particular currency around.

    First, a little background on the Euro. It`s a new currency, as these things are measured. A mayfly would think it was an old currency, because a mayfly only lives for one day, but a glacier or even a relatively recent range of mountains would be surprised to hear the Euro was even in circulation, which in fact it has been for several years (the coins and notes since 2002, the unit of exchange since January of 1999-although the idea of the Euro was spawned by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and took form after the Single European Act of 1986. There will be a test, so take notes. We will also be dissecting frogs.) The Euro has since proved to be a formidable currency, indexed more or less to the dollar--and during this administration, at least a dime more. With the American economy in ruins and the dollar flaccid, the virile Euro stands firm and proud, reaching nearly to the navel. It is buoyed up by a variety of nations with differing economic conditions, while the dollar relies mostly on the spending of the American consumer -who ain`t feeling too flush these days (although `flush` is an appropriate term)--and international investment, which is what the Euro is all about in the first place.

    Here`s the Euro-based `why we are going merde du singe on Iraq` theory: the Euro is the currency of the future. The dollar has had it`s day (which might explain why the Treasury Secretary John Snow said he "was not particularly concerned" about the catastrophic plummet in the value of the dollar--maybe he`s already switched to Euros) and the world is itchin` to move on, especially as the Euro comes in more colors. The $20 bill will soon have extra colors, but it`s too late. So what`s an administration to do? Threaten everybody who`s thinking about using the Euro, that`s what. After all, the Bush cabal don`t know Dick Cheney about economics, but they know plenty about the use of force. And who`s most likely to adopt the Euro and hit Bush and his pals right where they live?

    OPEC, that`s who. OPEC is an acronym for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (or Ootie Pootie Eeka Cootie, I`ve never been clear on which one). OPEC has started making serious noises about a switch from its current dollar-based system to a Euro-based system. They`ve been considering such a move since the Carter administration, when they were just going to take an average of popular currencies (a proto-Euro) and index oil prices to that, because the dollar was so cheap at the time it was only worth 75¢. OPEC nations include not only all those camel-ridden states (including Iraq) which have lately been in the news, but also--wait for it--Nigeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela. The Philippines also produces oil, but is not an OPEC member--it just gets a lot of money from OPEC. Hey, didn`t we just start sending troops into all of those regions? Not Nigeria, but the Philippines (which is right next to Indonesia), and Colombia, which is right next to Venezuela, and obviously we`ve got a couple of guys in the general area of the United Arab Emirates. Not Nigeria, though? Actually, don`t count them out, because we`ve just evinced concern about some missing radioactive material over there, and we may have to send some folks along to help look for it.

    So there`s a considerable body of evidence to suggest America is making play to keep OPEC from doing anything hasty, like adopting the Euro--which would throw them in league with America`s real enemies: France, Germany, Russia, and those ever-looming threats Belgium and Finland. Because the Bush administration is fueled by oil dollars, and if the oil-producing nations switch from dollars to Euros, it`s going to be left high and dry. Which all makes a crazy kind of sense, as these theories go. After all, as I said earlier--at least I hope I did, or my punch line falls flat--the Bush family is in the oil business, but it`s also in the war business. So a war on Iraq is a win-win proposition. It intimidates all those oil producing dumps so they know better than to fool around with the Euro--any one of them could be next--and at the same time, it fills the war coffers of the people who really matter-and we`re not talking about the Eskimos.
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 22:54:08
    Beitrag Nr. 229 (8.837.273)
    Q: Why is George W. Bush so sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?

    A: His dad still has the receipts.

    http://www.theangryliberal.com/03-08-03.htm
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 22:58:05
    Beitrag Nr. 230 (8.837.293)
    #206

    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 23:10:52
    Beitrag Nr. 231 (8.837.361)
    Die Seite enthält u.a. einige Flashes:




    http://www.the-broadside.com/politicalnews.htm
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 23:18:32
    Beitrag Nr. 232 (8.837.407)
    Amerikanische Soldaten von Türken entwaffnet?


    SPIEGEL ONLINE - 09. März 2003, 19:20
    URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239423,00.html
    Irak-Nordfront

    US-Truppenaufmarsch brüskiert türkisches Parlament

    Trotz des türkischen Votums gegen eine amerikanische Truppenstationierung bauen US-Soldaten an der Nordfront des Irak einen neuen Stützpunkt. Parlamentspräsident Bülent Arinc reagierte mit wütender Kritik. Durch eine Regierungsumbildung könnten indes schon bald gegen den Krieg eingestellte Kabinettsmitglieder entfernt werden.

    Kiziltepe - Arinc kritisierte die Aktivitäten der Amerikaner am Sonntag als Missachtung des Parlaments. Die Fernsehbilder störten ihn ungemein, wurde der Politiker am Sonntag in der türkischen Presse zitiert. Dieser habe die Abgeordneten der Opposition, die sich ebenfalls beunruhigt gezeigt hätten, aufgefordert, die Kontrollmechanismen des Parlaments in Gang zu setzen.

    Nach einem Bericht der türkischen Zeitung "Cumhurriyet" sorgte darüber hinaus ein Zwischenfall in Iskenderun am Samstag für Irritationen: Am Ausgang des Hafen-Zollbereichs sollen sich plötzlich 700 amerikanische Soldaten und Einheiten der türkischen Armee einander gegenüber gestanden haben. Die türkische Armee habe sie daraufhin entwaffnet und zum Umkehren gezwungen.

    Die US-Botschaft in Ankara versuchte derweil, die Sache herunterzuspielen. Es handele sich lediglich um militärisches Material und Soldaten, nicht um Kampftruppen. Deshalb sei auch nicht gegen das Parlamentsvotum verstoßen worden.

    Stützpunkt direkt an der Granze zum Nordirak

    Arincs Kritik bezieht sich insbesondere auf einen neuen Stützpunkt, mit dessen Aufbau die US-Streitkräfte nahe der irakischen Grenze begonnen haben. Die Anlage soll als logistische Basis für 62.000 US-Soldaten dienen, falls das türkische Parlament doch noch einer Stationierung zustimmt. Der Stützpunkt, den die Türkei vor zwei Monaten genehmigt hatte, liegt nach offiziellen Angaben etwa 160 Kilometer von der Grenze entfernt.

    Etwa 30 Lastwagen mit Geländefahrzeugen und Ausrüstungsgegenständen hatten am Sonntag den türkischen Hafen Iskenderun verlassen und sollten 15 Stunden später den Stützpunkt erreichen. An der Operation sind 3500 Soldaten beteiligt. Ein ziviler Flughafen befindet sich wenige Kilometer von dem neuen Stützpunkt entfernt, direkt davor verläuft die wichtigste Straße in Richtung irakische Grenze.

    Auch die türkische Armee bereitet sich auf eine Offensive vor

    Ungeachtet des Neins des türkischen Parlaments zu einem Offensivkrieg gegen den Irak treibt aber auch die türkische Armee selbst ihre militärischen Vorbereitungen voran. Am Sonntag wurden Panzer in den Nordirak verlegt, wie der Nachrichtensender NTV berichtete. Die Panzer seien am Übergang Habur auf Sattelschleppern über die Grenze gebracht worden.

    Der Konvoi hat demnach unter strenger Bewachung von Sicherheitskräften der Demokratischen Partei Kurdistans die Kleinstadt Dohuk passiert und einen türkischen Stützpunkt auf nordirakischem Gebiet angesteuert. Über die genaue Zahl der Panzer machte der Sender keine Angaben.

    Die Türkei hatte in den vergangenen Tagen rund 500 Militärfahrzeuge, Panzer und anderes militärisches Gerät an die Grenze zum Irak verlegt. Der türkische Generalstab bezeichnete den Aufmarsch als Vorsorgemaßnahme.

    Das Parlament der Türkei hatte in der vergangenen Woche den Wunsch nach einer Stationierung von US-Kampftruppen im Land abgewiesen. Die Regierung hatte bereits angedeutet, gegenenfalls eine neue Entscheidung herbeizuführen.

    Regierungsumbildung könnte Weg in den Krieg eröffnen

    Heute abgeschlossene Nachwahlen zum türkischen Parlament könnten die Entscheidung beschleunigen. Der Vorsitzende der türkischen Regierungspartei AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ist am Sonntag zum Abgeordneten gewählt worden und kann damit Ministerpräsident werden. Bei der Nachwahl in der südosttürkischen Provinz Siirt kam Erdogans Gerechtigkeits- und Entwicklungspartei (AKP) nach dem vorläufigen Ergebnis auf 84,7 Prozent der Stimmen und holte damit alle drei Mandate - zwei mehr als bei der Parlamentswahl im November 2002.

    Mit der Wahl Erdogans zeichnet sich in der Türkei eine Neubildung der Regierung ab. Bei der Parlamentswahl im vergangenen November hatte Erdogan seine AKP an die Macht geführt. Er selbst hatte wegen einer Vorstrafe nicht kandidieren dürfen. Mit Verfassungs- und Gesetzesänderungen ebnete die AKP-Regierung ihrem Vorsitzenden den Weg in öffentliche Ämter.

    Beobachter rechnen damit, dass Ministerpräsident Abdullah Gül noch in dieser Woche seinen Rücktritt einreicht und Erdogan dann eine neue Regierung bilden wird. Es wird angenommen, dass sich Erdogan für eine erneute Abstimmung im Parlament zur Frage der Stationierung von US-Truppen einsetzen wird. Nach türkischen Medienberichten dürfte er eine Regierungsumbildung dazu nutzen, Kabinettsmitglieder, die sich gegen die US-Stationierung gewandt hatten, zu ersetzen.

    Die türkische Militärführung hatte sich in der vergangenen Woche nachdrücklich für eine Unterstützung der USA eingesetzt, um die bei einem Krieg zu befürchtenden ökonomischen Verluste zu begrenzen und die nationalen Interessen im Nordirak durchzusetzen.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
    Alle Rechte vorbehalten
    Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG
    Avatar
    LauraGerhard
    schrieb am 09.03.03 23:22:14
    Beitrag Nr. 233 (8.837.424)
    Für mich macht Herr Bush die richtige Politik, indem
    er bisher mit Hilfe der militärischen Drohkulisse Irak
    zum teilweisen Nachgeben gezwungen hat, im Gegensatz
    zur rot/grünen Traumtänzer-Politik, über welche man nur noch den Kopf schütteln kann !!!
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 23:39:15
    Beitrag Nr. 234 (8.837.545)
    Da werden im Schatten der Kriegsvorbereitungen Tatsachen geschaffen.
    Denn ohne Öl wird auch das Wasserstoffauto nicht laufen. Mr. Bush mußte das 2,1 Milliarden € Programm der EU zur Entwicklung des Wasserstoff-betriebenen-Motors, mit 1 Milliarde $ kontern, damit eine Technik entwickelt wird,mit Wasserstoff aus Öl und AKW`s.
    J.



    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 09.03.03 23:47:40
    Beitrag Nr. 235 (8.837.614)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 00:17:26
    Beitrag Nr. 236 (8.837.929)
    Die Hexenjagd geht weiter

    Richard Perle Accuses Sy Hersh of Being a Terrorist
    March 9

    A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

    On the Sunday, March 9th CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Richard Perle accused New Yorker Magazine investigative reporter of being a terrorist.

    Here is an excerpt from the CNN Rush Transcript
    http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/09/le.00.html

    BLITZER:Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

    PERLE: I don`t believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I`ve said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he`s talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.

    Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.

    BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?

    PERLE: Because he`s widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it`s first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.

    BLITZER: But I don`t understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?

    PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn`t written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).

    A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 00:30:16
    Beitrag Nr. 237 (8.838.112)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 11:12:39
    Beitrag Nr. 238 (8.839.880)
    October 11, 2002

    Addiction, Brain Damage and the President
    "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and
    George W. Bush
    by KATHERINE van WORMER

    Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

    Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

    It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush`s speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President`s speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush`s choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

    First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

    Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
    Grandiose behavior
    A rigid, judgmental outlook
    Impatience
    Childish behavior
    Irresponsible behavior
    Irrational rationalization
    Projection
    Overreaction
    Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

    Bush`s rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn`t to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

    Bush`s tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

    Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

    Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, "Iraq: It`s the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush`s logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

    On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, "Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

    Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq`s disarmament with extreme reluctance.

    Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany`s Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

    In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

    To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush`s personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield`s book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

    "[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I`d lose focus." Although he once said he couldn`t remember a day he hadn`t had a drink, he added that he didn`t believe he was "clinically alcoholic." Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic. It`s just he knows he can`t hold his liquor."

    Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I`m not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."

    That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush`s family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can`t drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn`t drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President`s thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

    One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush`s history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father`s reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George`s achievements were dwarfed in the school`s memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father`s laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father`s as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father`s footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.

    To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

    the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

    a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
    "I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
    the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
    His drive to finish his father`s battles is of no small significance, psychologically.
    If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

    Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002). She can be reached at: Katherine.VanWormer@uni.edu
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 11:13:38
    Beitrag Nr. 239 (8.839.890)
    George W. and Alcoholism
    by MICHAEL O`McCARTHY

    My name is Michael O and I am a recovered alcoholic. I am also a progressive political activist. The two are not always compatible. It is a principle of personal recovery from the disease of alcoholism that I will cease fighting anybody or anything in order that I maintain the necessary level of spiritual serenity that keeps me from creating resentments and justifiable anger. Those two emotional states will lead me to drink. They are, as our experience has taught, the two most common emotional causes of relapses.

    When I indulge in either of those two emotional states of mind, I am not rational. My perception is blurred by my own self-righteousness, which is driven by self-centered fear. That is not the right state of mind to live everyday life. Certainly not one by which to make decisions that affect all humankind. That is why I am writing.

    The two recent, brilliantly insightful and brave pieces on George W. Bush`s relationship to alcohol, Dry Drunk by Alan Bisbort in American Politics Journal (1) and Addiction, Brain Damage and the President, "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush by Katherine van Wormer in Counterpunch (2) are the most incisive, analytical explanations of his irrational behavior yet in print. They also provide a basis upon which we must argue for a debate on his mental competence to govern. An ambiguous proviso: Those of us in recovery hold that only an alcoholic can diagnose him/herself. It is too complex a disease to do otherwise, being three fold in nature as we see it. That is physical, mental and spiritual.

    Further, far too often, the alcoholic has been `diagnosed` by others both pedestrian and professional as everything from an immoral scumbag to a person without backbone to a clinical case of paranoid schizophrenic. (Parenthetically, the lack of "backbone" is George W`s favorite rant at the UN.)

    However I believe that it essential to understand the emotional, mental and spiritual state of the unrecovered and practicing alcoholic in order to understand the `dry drunk.`

    Common traits of the alcoholic are a concurrent sense of superiority along with an inferiority complex. A sense of never fitting in. Feeling irritable and discontent, or not comfortable in one`s own skin. A childish selfishness that is never satisfied by people, places or things. An innate fear that someone is always trying to take away what the alcoholic has, or will deprive them of what they think is their due.

    Often, anger, resentment and rage are the only `true` emotions that the alcoholic exhibits. At the same time, because of these emotional state`s relationship to the chemistry of the central nervous system, they alone can `fuel` the alcoholic`s behavior. The alcoholic functions on `self-will` or `self-will run riot.` The alcoholic`s favorite phrase is: `my way or the highway.`

    Then along comes alcohol. In the beginning its use brings a false sense of `well being.` The alcoholic only feels `normal` when under the abnormal influence of a mind-altering chemical.

    However, it must be noted that with some alcoholics, the disease function entirely the opposite: they alcoholic seems like a placid, normal person until that first drink and then the Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde syndrome takes place and they become angry violent people. In other words, as indicated by the American Medical Association, and now by countless clinical studies of behavior, physiology and mental health, the practicing and unrecovered alcoholic is a very sick person.

    Often, at various times in the alcoholic`s life, as the disease takes more toll, the alcohol no longer works or soothes the continually irritated state of the alcoholic. Then and/or when, the behaviors caused by the toxic allergic effects of the alcohol produce periods of out of control insanity the alcoholic often becomes both suicidal and homicidal.

    At this point only total abstinence and a `psychic` change in personality, as Jung described it, seems to save the alcoholic. Most often this `psychic` change is spiritual in nature, followed by a life altered course based on spiritual principles that are practiced one day at a time by the recovering/recovered alcoholic. These are most often found in a continued lifetime utilizing Twelve Step recovery programs.

    Where this does not take place, that is when the alcoholic drinks again, the alcoholic can only become worse. Or, when the alcoholic only abstains but does not experience the `psychic` change and alter life behaviors based on spiritual principles, the alcoholic, as described in the afore mentioned articles, becomes very much the same person as when drinking. Only the fuel becomes self-will and self-centered fear and an obsession to control everything and everybody.

    In the average alcoholic this simply means that no one but masochists and enablers wish to befriend him/her. He/she is a miserable, unrelenting pain in the ass and/or a tyrant.

    Another core mental characteristic of both the practicing alcoholic and the dry drunk is denial. Alcoholism is the only disease that continually tells the victim that he/she does not have it while it is trying to kill him/her. For the dry drunk to maintain a rational appearance requires that he/she proclaim that they are not alcoholic. Or as Bush said, he was not "clinically alcoholic."

    Katherine van Wormer states in her Counterpunch article that "dry drunk" traits consist of: Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity. Grandiose behavior. A rigid, judgmental outlook. Impatience. Childish behavior. Irresponsible behavior. Irrational rationalization. Projection. Overreaction.

    All of these mirror the character of the practicing or unrecovered alcoholic.

    These behaviors are recognized as commonplace by all familiar with alcoholics and the disease of alcoholism. They are tolerable only to those who have a vested interest in seeing that those behaviors continue, either out of a personal need for attachment and dependency, or, because those behaviors enable others to manipulate the results to their own ends. In the domestic environment it creates co-dependents. In the political environment the enablers are the political minions or manipulators of the ill alcoholic.

    In persons with external power/control over their domain, such as police and military officers over their jurisdictions and chain of command, business and corporate bosses over their employees and the direction of the company, husbands and wives over each other and their children, these people become dangerous to the well being of those around them.

    To a state ruler, depending upon the weaponry at command, they become dangerous to an entire universe.

    Michael O`McCarthy is a poet, writer and political organizer. He can be reached at: Opolitique@aol.com
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 11:41:12
    Beitrag Nr. 240 (8.840.097)
    Is Bush a "Dry Drunk"? This is a Serious, Not Just a Provocative Question
    March 10th

    A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

    In a March 7th Bush Commentary, you note:

    "Jack Beatty in the Atlantic Monthly: Beatty suggests ... Bush`s apparent belief that God has appointed him to lead a global crusade against evil.

    "He writes, `If this is what Bush believes, if his talk of Armageddon is not just catnip for the religious right, then he is in a fair way to becoming the American Ayatollah.

    "`Bush`s belief in God is based on his personal narrative of divine salvation as a recovering alcoholic. He once told members of the clergy, `There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God.`"

    First, I highly suggest that the two previous articles noted in my piece GEORGE W. and ALCOHOLISM as published In Counterpunch be read. Michael O`McCarthy: Bush and Alcoholism (Counterpunch - October 19, 2002)

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate in the lifestyle of George Bush that he is a "recovered" alcoholic. (As indicated above, Bush explicitly implies that he is alcoholic.)

    Secondly, recovery means more than that Bush is no longer plagued by the gross symptoms of the disease of alcoholism, i.e., being unable to stop drinking. Nor does it mean simply being relieved of the mental obsession to drink.

    Those two effects in the alcoholic can and often are present in what is called "the dry drunk." As indicated in the mentioned articles the "dry drunk" functions upon "self will," or by "willpower" to resist the inherent urge to use alcohol, (and other mind altering chemicals), in order to cope with day to day life. What often occurs is that the "dry drunk" finds another obsession.

    In some of the more "willful" cases, the dry drunk internalizes a concept of "God`s Will" to justify willful behavior. This mental obsession that the alcoholic now is possessed with the knowledge of God`s Will allows the unrecovered alcoholic to justify ego driven, highly aggressive attitudes and behaviors in the face of opposition of life on life`s terms. Using this God Given mandate, the unrecovered alcoholic is driven by a form of "self will run riot" that becomes not only dangerous to the alcoholic, but to all those the alcoholic affects in the daily course of life.

    The obsessive nature of mental component of the disease of alcoholism is well noted. The alcoholic will go to any length to get the drugs they need. Conversely, the alcoholic who does not enter a collective program of recovery, (for example as found in 12 Step Programs), where their attitudes and behaviors are contrasted with, confronted by, or helped by those of other recovering, become more and more convinced of the righteousness of their behavior and only surround their lives with those who support, or enable them. Much like the practicing alcoholic who only associates with those that drink the same or who enable them to drink alcoholically. It is one way of saying: "You are either with me or against me."

    President George W. Bush shows every sign of a mental obsession that is rendering him dysfunctional. This obsession that he alone is right in his view of the world is driven by the complex ingredients of egomania and inferiority symptomatic to that found in the medical diagnostic description of the illness of alcoholism.

    A simple real world analogy would be to see Bush as the Chairman of the Board of an international corporation whose majority members were opposed to his policies. In like circumstances, should he persist, as he is doing now, he would either be forced to resign or be fired, and/or, the Human Resources department would be called in to require mental health counseling.

    Michael O`McCarthy

    A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 11:59:07
    Beitrag Nr. 241 (8.840.263)
    Die Amis auf der Überholspur. Wann zieht RTL2 nach?

    TV`s hot pursuit
    Live car chases make primetime TV in LA - and the bloodier the better. But Gulf war two won`t be shown like that

    John Sutherland
    Monday March 10, 2003
    The Guardian

    The hottest item on LA`s six network TV channels is "breaking news". Inevitably, it`s a car chase - covered live by eye-in-the-sky helicopters. It hooks the viewers and keeps them hooked, often for hours. Ratings soar. What the audience is hoping for - and what it gets in 40 per cent of such chases - is blood on the freeway. Just like the movies, but real. Since (until recently) there were 800 hot pursuits a year, you could reasonably expect to catch one or two a week.

    The channels started using helicopters in the sixties to cover freeway traffic. It was unexciting TV. If you were watching at home, you didn`t give a toss about the poor sods trapped in the jams. If you were one of the poor sods, you couldn`t see yourself suffering.

    On April 29 1992, the sky-cams paid off big time. The Rodney King riots began, late afternoon, in South Central LA. Viewers (voyeurs, to be honest), courtesy of the traffic choppers, saw Reginald Denny beaten to a pulp and followed the arsonists as they drove, torching and looting, across the city. It was the best-covered urban disaster in the history of the world. A parameter shift. Vulture TV was born.

    The TV helicopter fleet had another moment of glory with the OJ slow-speed chase in June 1994. And about this time, something strange happened. The LAPD began instigating primetime chases for what seemed like no reason at all. A broken rear light, running a stop sign, even looking "weird" would trigger manic hot pursuit, with sirens shrieking, lights (and not infrequently guns) blazing. As it was going down, someone back at the police station would alert the TV people to another "breaking news" story.

    It got worse. In a bizarre folie à deux, drivers too began to take off like greyhounds from the slips - not with any motive of eluding arrest but with the humble ambition of starring on that evening`s TV. The police called it the "15 minutes of fame" syndrome.

    It reached a grisly apogee on April 30 1998 when Daniel V Jones - HIV-positive and mad as hell - stopped his van in the middle of a televised chase, calmly waited for the helicopters to catch up, unfurled a banner protesting his hatred of the American health industry, patted his dog, and blew his head off with a shotgun. All carefully timed for the early evening newscasts. Children had nightmares for weeks after.

    In January this year, the LAPD introduced a policy limiting hot pursuit. Apart from the craziness, too many innocent civilians were getting hurt. More than half the chases resulted in death or injury. It was great TV, but lousy crimefighting. From now on chases were sanctioned only where a serious offence had been committed.

    The mayor and police chief appealed to the TV stations to do their bit and not cover even these non-frivolous chases. Their appeal was studiously ignored. Last Monday, as usual, the evening airwaves were dominated for two hours by the familiar "breaking news".

    Once the audience has tasted blood it will never be happy with ketchup. And the audience, like the customer, is always right. The Pentagon has taken on board the lesson that the LAPD is painfully learning. Over recent months, the army has been putting a corps of newspaper people through boot camp with the aim of "embedding" them and their cameras in the front line of the upcoming Gulf war.

    It`s a canny move. Since the reporters will be inside the tent pissing out, real horrors can be censored, highlighting Mel Gibson-style heroics. For millions of viewers it will be the ultimate reality TV: close-up, dirty and (dramatically, but not nauseatingly) bloody. Death will be delivered, hot and smoking, to the home. War as breaking news - I like it.


    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 12:02:51
    Beitrag Nr. 242 (8.840.313)
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 12:25:29
    Beitrag Nr. 243 (8.840.499)
    SPIEGEL ONLINE - 10. März 2003, 9:23
    URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239340,00.html
    Dirty Tricks

    Wenn Kriegsgründe erfunden werden

    Von Jochen Bölsche

    Von der Emser Depesche bis zum Hufeisenplan, vom erstunkenen Tonkin-Zwischenfall bis zum erlogenen Babymord - immer wieder haben auch deutsche und amerikanische Militärs mit Propagandalügen und Provokationen die Kriegslust im eigenen Land zu schüren versucht. Derzeit, argwöhnen US-Friedenskämpfer, arbeiteten Bushs Psychokrieger an einem "neuen Tonkin".

    Wann immer es der Regierung Bush in den letzten Monaten darum ging, die Welt von der Notwendigkeit eines US-Angriffskriegs auf den Irak zu überzeugen, zählte ein General namens Hussein Kamal zu den meistzitierten Zeugen.

    Erst nachdem der Ex-Schwiegersohn Saddam Husseins, oberster Chef der irakischen Rüstungsindustrie, 1995 nach Jordanien übergelaufen sei und ausgepackt habe, sei das Regime in Bagdad bereit gewesen, "die Produktion von über 30 000 Litern Anthrax und anderer tödlicher B-Waffen-Stoffe zuzugeben", sagte Präsident George W. Bush im Oktober vorigen Jahres in einer Rede, um die Heimtücke des Schurkenstaates zu belegen.

    Bushs Außenminister Colin Powell zitierte den Überläufer noch am 5. Februar dieses Jahres vor dem Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen, um Saddams Gier nach Massenvernichtungsmitteln und die Unfähigkeit der UN-Inspektoren anzuprangern.

    "Der Irak benötigte Jahre, um endlich die Produktion von vier Tonnen des tödlichen Nervengases VX zuzugeben," erklärte Powell. "Das Eingeständnis erfolgte erst, nachdem den Inspektoren auf Grund der Aussagen des geflohenen Kamal Hussein bestimmte Dokumente in die Hände gefallen waren."

    Kriegspropaganda mit verfälschten Aussagen

    Seit einigen Tagen ist alles ganz anders: Bushs Kronzeuge Kamal - der sofort ermordet wurde, nachdem der Tyrann von Bagdad ihn 1996 mit einer Amnestiegarantie zur Rückkehr in den Irak gelockt hatte - dient jetzt der US-Friedensbewegung als Kronzeuge gegen Bush.

    Die Art und Weise, wie Washington in den letzten Wochen mit Kamals Aussagen operiert hat, verstärkt amerikanische Pazifisten und Publizisten in dem Verdacht, die Falken im Weißen Haus wollten das amerikanische Volk mit gezielt verbreiteten Falschinformationen in den Krieg gegen den Irak hetzen.
    Denn wie das US-Nachrichtenmagazin "Newsweek" in seiner Ausgabe vom 3. März enthüllte, haben die Bushisten, die sich so lange und so gern auf Kamal beriefen, einen wesentlichen Teil der Aussagen unterschlagen, die der Überläufer 1995 in einer dreistündigen Unterredung mit den UN-Inspektoren gemacht hat.

    "Ich habe die Zerstörung aller chemischen Waffen befohlen. Alle Waffen - biologische, chemische, Trägerraketen, nukleare - sind zerstört worden," hatte Kamal in seiner Vernehmung erklärt.

    Lediglich Bauanleitungen seien archiviert worden, heisst es in dem von "Newsweek" überprüften und zitierten Protokoll, das, wie das Magazin herausfand, auch amerikanischen und britischen Geheimdiensten zuging (und dessen voller Wortlaut neuerdings auch im Internet verfügbar ist).

    http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
    Die Wahrheit stirbt im Krieg zuerst

    Dass die US-Regierung die Kernaussage ihres Starzeugen jahrelang der Öffentlichkeit verschwiegen habe, sei der dickste Hund ("the biggest story") seit Beginn der Irakkrise, kommentieren die Medienwächter von der New Yorker Bürgerinitiative FAIR ("Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting").

    Die Wahrheit stirbt im Krieg zuerst - diese alte Erfahrung sehen die amerikanischen Bush-Kritiker durch die regierungsamtliche Verfälschung der Kamal-Aussage aufs Neue bestätigt.

    Warum die Hardliner in Washington zu derartigen Methoden greifen, ist nachvollziehbar.

    Schon vor mehr als zehn Jahren ersehnten die Bushisten und ihre Vordenker in den rechten, von Öl- und Rüstungskonzernen geförderten "Think Tanks" eine auf Dauer angelegte Vorherrschaft Amerikas über Eurasien - insbesondere mehr Einfluss auf Afghanistan ("das Cockpit Asiens") und einen Zugriff auf den Irak, eines der rohstoffreichsten Länder der Erde (siehe Folge 8 dieser Serie).

    Spekulationen über ein "neues Pearl Harbour"

    Um für solche kühnen Unternehmungen gerüstet zu sein, verlangte die Lobby-Organisation "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) eine -zig Milliarden Dollar teure "Transformation" des US-Militärs in eine jederzeit global einsetzbare Kriegsmaschinerie. "Dieser Umwandlungsprozess wird wahrscheinlich sehr lange dauern," hiess es noch in einem PNAC-Strategiepapier aus dem September 2000, "es sei denn, ein katastrophales Ereignis tritt ein, das als Katalysator dient - wie ein neues Pearl Habour".

    Kurz nachdem das katastrophale Ereignis - am 11. September 2001 - eingetreten war, sah Bush den rechten Zeitpunkt gekommen. Wenig später ordnete er per geheimem Exekutivbefehl nicht nur den Kreuzzug gegen den Terrorismus an, sondern auch die Erarbeitung von Plänen für einen Irakkrieg.

    Doch der Präsident hatte die Rechnung ohne die Öffentlichkeit gemacht. So bereitwillig die Amerikaner und ihre Verbündeten dem Präsidenten in seinen "Krieg gegen den Terrorismus" und auch in den Feldzug gegen das afghanische Taliban-Regime folgten, so schwierig war es, dem gemeinen Volk rasch auch noch die Notwendigkeit eines so genannten Präventivkrieges gegen den Irak zu vermitteln.

    Die CIA widerlegt das Weiße Haus
    Erst vorigen Monat beklagte der New Yorker Kolumnist (und Kriegsbefürworter) Thomas Friedman: "Ich hatte seit September die Möglichkeit, durch das ganze Land zu reisen, und kann mit Bestimmtheit sagen, dass ich nicht ein einziges Mal zu einem Publikum sprach, von dem ich den Eindruck hatte, es sei mehrheitlich für den Krieg im Irak."

    Dabei hatte Bushs Regierung schon gleich nach dem 11. September 2001 die Version verbreitet, die Attentäter seien vom Irak unterstützt worden. Viele Amerikaner allerdings glaubten offenbar eher der CIA, die Bush öffentlich widersprach: Sie sehe keine Verbindung zwischen Saddam und der al-Qaida.

    Ebenso rasch platzte die von Washington zunächst lancierte Lesart, die mysteriösen Anthrax-Briefe, die im Herbst 2001 für Panik in der Bevölkerung sorgten, seien im Auftrage des Irak verschickt worden. FBI-Ermittler stießen auf eine ganz andere Spur: Die tödlichen Sporen stammten mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit aus einem US-Militärlabor.

    Ein Phantom, das "Mr. Anthrax" heißt

    Ins Visier geriet ein amerikanischer Biowissenschaftler mit intensiven CIA-Kontakten und einem denkbar dubiosen Lebenslauf: Angehöriger einer Killertruppe im einstigen Rassistenstaat Rhodesien; Bioforscher im Auftrag des südafrikanischen Apartheid-Regimes; ABC-Waffen-Inspektor der UN im Irak; Wissenschaftler in der Biowaffen-Forschung; Reisender in geheimer US-Mission in Zentralasien.

    Als die Ermittlungen voriges Jahr ins Stocken zu geraten schienen, kommentierte die "New York Times": Wäre der Mann ein Araber, "wäre er längst verhaftet. Aber es handelt sich um einen blauäugigen Amerikaner mit Verbindung zum Pentagon, zur CIA und zum Bioabwehrprogramm."

    Und auch die Hamburger "Zeit" argwöhnte: "Gibt es eine Macht, die will, dass Mr. Anthrax ein Phantom bleibt?... Haben die Anthrax-Anschläge etwas mit den Geheimnissen der amerikanischen Regierung zu tun?"
    Während es um den mysteriösen "Mr. Anthrax" seltsam still wurde, widmeten sich Washingtons Kriegspropagandisten um so intensiver der Behauptung, Saddam Hussein bedrohe die USA mit Massenvernichtungswaffen.

    Peinlich, dass die CIA dieser Behauptung schon im Juli vorigen Jahres widersprach: Der Irak stelle in "absehbarer Zukunft" keine unmittelbare Gefahr für die Vereinigten Staaten dar; ein Irakkrieg jedoch würde das Terror-Risiko in den USA deutlich erhöhen - Einschätzungen, mit denen sich der Geheimdienst prompt den Zorn der Washingtoner Bellizisten zuzog.

    Rüge vom "Fürsten der Finsternis"

    Oberfalke und PNAC-Stratege Richard Perle - der stolz darauf ist, von Friedenskämpfern als "Fürst der Finsternis" tituliert zu werden - rügte die CIA, sie versage in Sachen Irak. Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld schäumte, der Dienst sei "kurzsichtig".

    Letzte Woche kündigte Rumsfeld den Aufbau einer weiteren Agententruppe an - zusätzlich zu den bereits bestehenden 14 US-Geheimdiensten. Die Spione sollen dem Verteidigungsministerium direkt unterstellt sein und "origineller" denken als die CIA.

    Obwohl Rumsfeld wiederholt die Vorlage von "Beweisen" für das Vorhandensein von ABC-Waffen angekündigt hat, fehlt es bis heute an völkerrechtlich relevanten Belegen, die einen Krieg rechtfertigen würden. In der Bundesrepublik, kommentierte die "Süddeutsche Zeitung", würde Material von solcher Qualität nicht einmal zur Verurteilung eines "Hühnerdiebes" ausreichen.

    Rumsfeld reagierte auf Kritik schlicht mit der Forderung nach einer Umkehr der Beweislast ("Das Fehlen von Beweisen ist kein Beweis für das Fehlen von Massenvernichtungswaffen") - und, ebenso wie Bush, mit sinnentstellend verkürzten Zitaten aus dem Kamal-Protokoll.

    Als der Trick vorige Woche aufflog, war in der US-Friedensbewegung sogleich von einem "neuen Tonkin" die Rede.

    Am Beginn des Vietnamkriegs stand eine Lüge

    Tonkin - dieser Terminus steht nicht nur in den USA für den Versuch, den Gegner durch Intrigen zum Erstschlag zu provozieren, einen Angriffskrieg als Verteidigung zu tarnen oder das eigene Volk durch Gräuelmärchen in eine Schlacht zu hetzen.

    Die Tonkin-Lüge stand am Beginn des Vietnamkrieges in Südostasien: Berichte über einen (in Wahrheit nicht erfolgten) Überfall nordvietnamesischer Boote auf den US-Zerstörer "Maddox" im Golf von Tonkin nahm US-Präsident Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 zum Anlass, sich vom Kongress zu einer lange vorbereiteten Serie von Luftschlägen gegen Vietnam ermächtigen zu lassen - Auftakt zu einer mörderischen Völkerschlacht.

    Kriegslisten dieser Art sind so alt wie die Menschheit. Und sie sind auch den Deutschen auf verhängnisvolle Weise vertraut.

    Otto von Bismarck veröffentlichte 1870 die berüchtigte "Emser Depesche" von Kaiser Wilhelm I. in einer derart verstümmelten Fassung, dass Napoleon III. sie als Kriegserklärung wertete - und selber eine abgab. Adolf Hitler liess 1939 einen polnischen Angriff auf den Reichssender Gleiwitz vortäuschen, um mitteilen zu können: "Seit 5.45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen." Rudolf Scharping förderte 1999 die Kosovo-Kriegsbereitschaft der Deutschen mit einem angeblichen "Hufeisenplan", der sich als Fälschung erwies.

    "Die Geheimoperation war eine exzellente Idee"

    Die Amerikaner stehen den Deutschen auf diesem Gebiet kaum nach. So bekennt der einstige CIA-Direktor Robert Gates in seinen Memoiren, dass die USA im Sommer 1979 mit verdeckten Hilfsaktionen für islamische Untergrundkämpfer die Sowjetunion zur Intervention in Afghanistan provoziert zu haben.

    "Die Geheimoperation war eine exzellente Idee," erklärte der vormalige US-Sicherheitsberater Zbigniew Brzezinski Jahre später in einem Interview, "sie hatte den Effekt, die Russen in die afghanische Falle zu locken." Als die Sowjets einmarschiert seien, so Brzezinski im "Nouvel Observateur", habe er an Präsident Carter geschrieben, nun hätten auch die Russen "ihren Vietnamkrieg". Und tatsächlich habe der zermürbende Krieg am Ende "zur Demoralisierung und zum Zusammenbruch" des Sowjetreichs geführt.

    Gut zehn Jahre nach der "covert operation" in Afghanistan - bei der die Amerikaner die Vorläufer der WTC-Terroristen bewaffneten, munitionierten und instrumentalisierten - begleiteten schmutzige Propagandatricks den Golfkrieg.

    Babymorde, von PR-Agenten erfunden

    Unvergessen sind in den USA die TV-Bilder von jener angeblichen Krankenschwester, die unter Tränen irakische Soldaten beschuldigte, Brutkästen geöffnet und kuweitische Säuglinge massakriert zu haben. Die Lüge hatte kurze Beine: Eine PR-Agentur aus dem Umfeld der neokonservativen Think Tanks hatte die Geschichte frei erfunden. In die Rolle der Krankenschwester war die Tochter des Botschafters von Kuweit geschlüpft.

    Als Washington nach den WTC-Anschlägen erklärte, im Krieg gegen den Terrorismus sei die Waffe der Desinformation unverzichtbar, stieg in einem Teil der US-Gesellschaft das Misstrauen in die Regierenden schlagartig an.

    Bei manchem wuchsen sich die Zweifel an der Wahrheitstreue Washingtons zur Paranoia aus. Andere Bürger hingegen legen seither eine bemerkenswerte Wachsamkeit an den Tag.



    Besonders mißtrauisch beäugen US-Friedensfreunde seit langem das wohl merkwürdigste territoriale Konstrukt der Welt: die beiden Flugverbotszonen im Norden und im Süden des Irak. Dort, wo amerikanische und britische Maschinen unablässig irakisches Territorium kontrollieren und bombardieren, so fürchteten sie schon voriges Jahr, könnten sich schon bald Dinge ereignen, die den Persischen Golf in einen "Tonkin-Golf" verwandeln würden.

    Die "no-fly zones" (NFZ) waren nach dem Golfkrieg, 1991 und 1992, von den westlichen Siegermächten eingerichtet worden. Weil keine eindeutige Zustimmung der Uno vorlag, nannte die "New York Times" diesen Schritt "vermutlich unklug und womöglich illegal".

    "Hidden trigger" in der Wüste?

    Die Zweifel von damals sind vergessen, Amerikaner und Briten reklamieren für ihre Präsenz in den NFZ mittlerweile das Gewohnheitsrecht. US-Oppositionsblätter wie das liberale Magazin "The American Prospect" wiederum sehen in den verbotenen Wüstenzonen einen verborgenen Auslöser ("hidden trigger") für einen möglichen Krieg.

    Schüsse auf amerikanische oder britische Militärmaschinen in den NFZ, betonen Washingtoner Regierungssprecher, würden als ernsthafte Verletzung einschlägiger UN-Resolutionen angesehen - als casus belli. Damit aber, argumentiert "Prospect"-Kolumnist Robert Dreyfuss, hätten es die auf einen Angriff erpichten amerikanischen Strategen in der Hand, jederzeit einen Kriegsanlass zu provozieren oder vorzutäuschen. Absurd?

    Kaum einem gesunden Hirn würden solche Gedanken entspringen - wenn, ja wenn nicht Pläne für eine Geheimoperation mit dem Codenamen "Northwoods" existierten, die 1962 entwickelt wurden und gespenstische Einblicke in die menschenverachtende Mentalität der höchsten US-Militärs jener Jahre geben.

    "Wir könnten ein US-Schiff in die Luft jagen"

    Die "Top secret" gestempelten Dokumente, die mittlerweile auf Grund eines Kongressbeschlusses freigegeben und voriges Jahr erstmals veröffentlicht worden sind, hatte der Chef des Vereinigten Generalstabs in Washington, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, ausarbeiten lassen. Darin aufgeführt sind seitenweise Vorschläge für dirty tricks, von deren Ausführung sich die Militärs öffentliche Unterstützung für einen zeitweise geplanten US-Überfall auf das kommunistische Kuba versprachen.

    Die schriftlich niedergelegten Ideen der Top-Militärs reichen von der Ermordung unschuldiger Bewohner von US-Städten bis hin zu vorgetäuschten Anschlägen auf US-Kriegsschiffe, die Fidel Castro in die Schuhe geschoben werden sollten: "Wir könnten ein US-Schiff in der Bucht von Guantanamo in die Luft jagen und Kuba beschuldigen," heisst es da, und: "Die Listen der Todesopfer in den US-Zeitungen würden eine hilfreiche Welle nationaler Empörung auslösen."

    Auch Flugzeugentführungen und Bombenattentate in US-Großstädten wurden in Erwägung gezogen, um "die kubanische Regierung vor den Augen der internationalen Öffentlichkeit so darzustellen, dass sie ... als alarmierende und unkalkulierbare Bedrohung für den Frieden der westlichen Hemisphäre erscheint".

    Ein toter Astronaut als Kriegsvorwand

    Detailliert ist in den "Northwoods"-Papieren auch dargestellt, wie sich mit Hilfe raffiniert gestalteter Flugrouten, gefälschter Kennzeichen und präparierter Wracktrümmer der Eindruck erwecken lässt, ein US-Flugzeug sei durch kubanisches Militär abgeschossen worden.

    Sogar für einen möglichen Tod des Astronauten John Glenn wollten die Militärplaner Kuba verantwortlich machen: Sollte beim ersten Versuch der USA, einen Menschen ins All zu befördern, die Rakete explodieren, könne das Unglück kubanischen Saboteuren angelastet und als Vorwand für einen Krieg genutzt werden.

    Als die Papiere voriges Jahr durch den Buchautor James Bamford ("Body of Secrets") und den TV-Sender ABC bekannt wurden, vernahm die Öffentlichkeit erleichtert, dass der einstige Präsident John F. Kennedy die Umsetzung der "Northwoods"-Pläne abgelehnt habe.

    Erst "top secret", jetzt im Internet

    Zwei Jahre später allerdings startete Kennedy-Nachfolger Johnson die Tonkin-Intrige, womöglich nach einem ganz ähnlichen Drehbuch.

    Mittlerweile stehen die Faksimiles der "Northwoods"-Akte also im Internet - gleichsam als ein virtuelles Mahnmal, das daran erinnert, zu welchen Teufeleien selbst in der grössten Demokratie der Welt Obskuranten in Uniform fähig sein können, sofern nicht im Weißen Haus ein Mann mit einem Minimum an Anstand sitzt, der sie bremst.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_northwood…



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
    Alle Rechte vorbehalten
    Avatar
    Joerver
    schrieb am 10.03.03 12:28:13
    Beitrag Nr. 244 (8.840.520)
    Avatar
    rightnow
    schrieb am 10.03.03 13:09:34
    Beitrag Nr. 245 (8.840.927)
    # 243

    hi joerver,

    vielen dank für den aufgeführten artikel.:)

    sehr kompakt u. klar -für jeden, der verstehen will, was für eine holywood-regierung, die geschicke der welt bestimmen will :mad:

    und vor allen dingen:
    welche blender am werk sind !!!

    vor kurzem sprach der einzige reporter vom zdf, der `91 im
    golfkrieg dabei war folgendes:

    "... ich sprach mit einem pressesprecher der us-army, warum sie unbedingt krieg gegen den irak führen wollen,
    wo doch nachweislich keine gefahr für die usa bestehen ?
    und ebenso, die immensen kosten des krieges !
    der us-sprecher lachte