features rare footage of war crimes against the Iraqi people suffered during and after the Gulf War. The footage is from former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his attempt to document the injustice of United States military actions in the region.
features a film on the struggle of the indigenous people of West Papua to remain sovereign in the face of an Indonesian invasion backed by world capital. Footage of Noam Chomsky on Western involvments in the region and the relation to East Timor.
From Wash Post The only African American Republican in Congress is headed home. Can the party of Lincoln -- and Trent Lott -- afford the loss of J.C. Watts? Evidently Watts time in Congress was not easy. This article, very complex and full of details about Watts time in Congress, deserves a careful reading. It suggests, with evidence, that in the Republican fold, but never an "insider", Watts was not a happy camper. And, according to another article in Wash Post, regardless of Watts departure, prospects for Republicans, even with their majorities, of smooth sailing are not as rosy as they might like.
These are fragments from article on Watts:
Watts is ready. Despite being a star within the GOP and holding a coveted leadership position for four years, he was always a solitary figure on Capitol Hill. More outsider than insider, unwilling or unable to master the give and take of building alliances and wielding power.
When he announced his retirement in July, he was fed up, though he didn't come out and say so. Watts has never been one for introspection. And his years as a political lightning rod -- hammered by both liberal black Democrats and conservative white Republicans for not following the company line -- have only made him more cautious and circumspect. But emotions have a way of spilling out, and, as Watts talks, it becomes clear that a great deal of hurt and anger churn beneath his genial, upbeat veneer....The conservative fold does include some prominent -- and powerful -- blacks: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. But they remain rare. And, in the minds of some in the liberal black establishment, suspect.
TIME.com: TIME Magazine -- Partnership of the Year: Double Edged Sword
This Time magazine puff-piece that celebrates Bush and Cheney makes it clear that Cheney is prime force running Bush. The Woodward book tends to leave Cheney on the side as if its Powell vs. Rumsfeld and the zealout hawks. Cheney IS the major rightwinger of the Bush administration and probably the most hawkist of the warmongers. This is really scary that the mainstream media puff up Cheney and fail to note, except in passing in this article, his negative qualities, hardright record, and business scandals. TIME.com: TIME Magazine -- Partnership of the Year: Double Edged Sword
Here is a highly intelligent review of Woodward's BUSH AT WAR from the American Conservative site. It depicts Bush as dangerously out of touch and confirms a position I've been arguing since GRAND THEFT 2000: that the Bush-Cheney gang are not really conservatives in the classic sense but are betrayers of all that is positive in the conservative and American democratic tradition; that they are liars, sociopaths, crooks, whores for corporate capital and warmongers (to put it succintly); it is good that some American conservatives see this. You’re Invited to the War Party
The 'Axis of Good' Will Continue to Stand Up Against Bush, We Hope!
Aftermath of Brazil leader's inauguration After the inauguration, Chavez ...dubbed the troika a Latin American "axis of good." Silva had breakfast with Chavez on Thursday and dinner with Castro that night. Beforehand, Castro said Lula's election augured well for Cuban-Brazilian relations.
More on Lula's Inauguration: Who was there, who wasn't there? President Bush dispatched U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick as his personal representative at the inauguration.
The selection [of Zoellick] was seen by some Brazilians as a snub because Zoellick suggested last October that Brazil's only trading partner would be Antarctica if it did not join a proposed hemispheric free trade zone. Silva responded by calling Zoellick "the sub secretary of a sub secretary of a sub secretary" during his election campaign. Zoellick is a member of Bush's Cabinet.
Buzz Flash--When the Emperor flashes, it ain't pretty
Here's some very asute commentator by Buzzflash readers on Bush; why is it that people here and there get it better than media professionals? Anyway, here are some highlights: 1) Bush on the ranch talking to reporters off the top: "First we get this: "Our economy is strong, it's resilient, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient". Then we get this: "This economy cannot afford to stand an attack."
I ask, if our economy is so strong and resilient, how can it even be threatened by a fourth class military power like Iraq, that's surrounded on three sides by the US Armed Forces? Makes you wonder if he has any idea what can affect the economy."
2) another reader noted: "I was aghast when I heard Bush say, in a snippet on public radio, in an arrogant voice to a timid reporter:
"You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you."
DK comments: I heard this also and was appalled and noted this in a blogleft commentary; it is so typical of Bush's arrogance and grandiosity.
3) Here's an excellent summary of some of the frightening revelations of Bush in Woodward's book which is basically puffery and mythologizing but through the cracks one gets a disturbing picture of Bush in which
"a kind of religiously-inspired grandiosity of character is revealed. For instance:
“This will be a monumental struggle between good and evil,” he says just after 9/11. He returns to the White House from Camp David one day, makes a brief statement to the press, and takes five questions: “He referred to ‘evil’ or ‘evildoers’ seven times and three times voiced amazement at the nature of the attacks,” Woodward writes. In another place, from Bush: “We haven’t seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time.” He stops at a hockey game in Philadelphia, and, when the fans demand to watch his speech on the stadium’s overhead video screens and the players huddle to watch,” Bush says with wonder, “They wanted to hear what the commander in chief, the president of the United States, had to say during this moment! I have never felt more comfortable in my life.”
Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
The principle behind the Bush thinking, the book says, is, “this is a new world.” As a matter of fact, the world that we face today is an exceedingly old world: terrorism as a substitute for armed strength, violence against “the other,” the arrogance of the affluent, the careless expectations of the powerful, and the ambitions of the zealous are all as old as the Bible to which George W. Bush so passionately ascribes.
The president says testily at one point in the book to Democrat Thomas Daschle, “I’m in the Lord’s hands.” One rather thinks, after reading this book, that much of the time now we all are indeed.
For Venezuelans, Chavez Has Brought Politics to Life
From LA Times [Chavez] may be beleaguered, but many who saw civil affairs as belonging only to the upper crust have been energized by his plight. This article is the first I've encountered in the mainstream press to give balanced coverage to all sides of the current "class warfare" in Venezuela:
Like leftist uprisings in Nicaragua and Cuba, Chavez's nascent "Bolivarian revolution" has awakened a political consciousness in the poor. For the first time in Venezuela's history, small grass-roots groups, called Bolivarian Circles, have formed in impoverished neighborhoods to demand improved living conditions such as running water and new sewers.
According to Nancy Perez, who came down from her poor neighborhood in the hills to protest for the first time in her life last month against Lopez and her allies, "all they want is for Chavez to leave. They have never taken into account the poor. They call him a murderer, but we don't see him that way. He's our leader."
There is no question that many people hate Chavez. Polls -- more accurate and professional here than in many Latin American countries -- show that about 70% of the population disapproves of him. Opposition is strongest in the upper and middle classes, but a bare majority of the lowest economic class also has turned against him.
But there is also no question that many people still love Chavez. He has the rock-solid support of about 30% of the people, and the figure is even higher among the poorest of the poor, who see him as a savior finally paying attention to their misery, even if he has not yet eased it.
The question is: Should Chavez resign or leave early, thereby weakening a democracy that has established, fixed presidential terms? Or should he stay stubbornly in power until his term ends in 2007, trying to govern a country heading toward economic collapse?
From Wash PostBush to Double Stimulus Package: Pelosi Leads Democrats in Criticism of Plan Pelosi was not mentioned in NYT article (previous post):
...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) questioned Bush's plan to cut taxes on stock dividends, saying that it would favor the wealthy. In her first news conference as leader, Pelosi said much of the tax package would benefit the rich. She said 25 percent of the dividend tax credit would go to Americans earning $1 million a year and that some of the companies that would benefit from it do not pay taxes. ... "The thought that this helps the American people is an illusion," she said. Pelosi's sharp criticism of the president's economic plan signaled her determination to draw distinctions between the two parties. "The American people expect and deserve the members of Congress to find our common ground where we can for the American people," she said. "But where we cannot, they expect us to stand our ground."
Pelosi did not disclose any details of the House Democrats' economic stimulus package, which she plans to unveil Monday. She ruled out a payroll tax holiday, however, saying that would drain funds from the Social Security trust fund.
... Even a 50 percent reduction in dividend taxes would total about $150 billion over 10 years and would probably be the centerpiece of his tax plan. Under such a plan, the tax benefits flow almost exclusively to the very wealthiest taxpayers because they are the ones who receive most dividends. Calculations by the Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit research group run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, show that about 64 percent of the benefits will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers.Administration officials acknowledge that wealthy taxpayers will be the primary beneficiaries, but they argue that reducing dividend taxes will reduce distortions in the current tax system and lift the stock market. ...
Where are the Dems? Why aren't they leading on economic policy, instead of following, by proposing a plan earlier?
The latest plans suggest that Mr. Bush is girding for a partisan battle with Democratic leaders in Congress, who accused him today of pursuing a misguided plan that would favor the rich and do little to help the sluggish economy. Firing a shot even before Mr. Bush formally outlines his tax package next week, the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, said the president's plan would be "the wrong idea at the wrong time to help the wrong people." Democratic lawmakers are pushing for tax breaks intended for lower- and middle-income families, with some proposing a temporary "holiday" from payroll taxes for Social Security and others proposing one-time rebates. ...Democratic lawmakers are not the only critics. Many economists and business analysts, even those who favor the tax cuts in theory, said today that Mr. Bush's core idea of slashing dividend taxes would do little to increase economic growth or job creation.
Brazil's new leftist government today suspended a $760 million purchase of a dozen new jet fighter planes for its air force, saying the money could be better used to relieve hunger.
For me, this is 'thinking outside the box'. In the current paradigm, however, it's "arm yourself to the hilt". How can this cycle of thinking be chnaged? Use this comparison: The US military budget is larger than the NEXT 25 military budgets combined.
Question is, can Lula hold out against pressures from the Bushies? Canada, as one example, is being chastised by US for not upgrading its military. Canadian public opinion, though, does not support such a shift in funds. Instead (from above link),
Six months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a Compas poll found that only 7 per cent thought more money should go to defence against terrorism, while 72 per cent of Canadians wanted the government to focus spending on health care or education.
Fragment of Transcript From Jim Lehrer Newshour. I particularily enjoyed the focus on the Dems who have declared that their hats are in the ring for 2004. (Except, I was disappointed that my longshot favorite, Gary Hart, hasn't come up on the radar yet. but, it won't be long, I bet! Why is Hart my favorite right now? Nobody can declare that he hasn't paid his dues. He has experience in the Senate. He is a proven thinker.)
Blogleft regulars are familiar with my penchant for listening to Mark Shields spar with David Brooks Fridays over the week's political events on the Jim Lehrer Newshour. Tonite did not disappoint. Both were in top form, but I give Shields the nod because of his powerful abilty to recall past political events. It's uncanny, Shields, I swear, has a photographic memory. Click on the link and read the whole transcript. Here is a fragment:
MARK SHIELDS: Jim, from 1940 to 1988, it was inconceivable that the American people would elect anybody into the presidency of the United States who did not meet the commander in chief test from FDR to Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to Jack Kennedy -- all the way through, they were first of all plausible convincing commanders in chief. That ceased at the end of the Cold War.
Bill Clinton, who served in the Arkansas ROTC band, I think, beat George Bush, the youngest combat pilot of War World II. And Sunday before the election in 1992, Bush's aides wanted to prepare him for the defeat, he said no, the American people would never elect a draft dodger and they never would have during the Cold War. And it didn't matter in '96 when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole or it didn't matter in 2000 when George W. Bush bet Al Gore, but now it is a changed definition. If 9/11 had happened 2000 instead of 2001, George W. Bush would have lost by ten points to Al Gore, no question.
washingtonpost.com: Is Edwards Still the Golden Boy?
Howie thinks Edwards has peaked already; indeed, as this confirms, the media were very nasty to Edwards yesterday, can you imagine them attacking Bush in this fashion when he decided to run? washingtonpost.com: Is Edwards Still the Golden Boy?
Generally speaking, said Alan Brinkley, a Columbia University historian, while secrecy has been increasingly attractive to recent administrations, "this administration has taken it to a new level."
Its "instinct is to release nothing," Professor Brinkley said, adding that this was not necessarily because there were particular embarrassing secrets to hide, but "they are just worried about what's in there that they don't know about."...The Bush administration has put a much tighter lid than recent presidents on government proceedings and the public release of information, exhibiting a penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both parties....Some of the changes have sparked a passionate public debate and excited political controversy. But other measures taken by the Bush administration to enforce greater government secrecy have received relatively little attention, masking the proportions of what dozens of experts described in recent interviews as a sea change in government openness.
Email Post From IPA on Flawed US Policies on North Korea
Under the Auspices if the Institute for Public Accuracy, Scholarly Specialists on the Koreas Voice Their Reservations About Current US Policies Toward North Korea. Includes their personal email addresses and website urls. Institute_for_Public_Accuracy_1-2-03.html
M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws in Antimissile System
Here's an excellent article on how MIT Prof Ted Postol has been constantly attacking fraud concerning testing of missile defense systems; he was first to expose the fraud of the Patriot missiles, as this article makes clear, and has been a sharp critic of the current anti-missile systems touted by the Pentagon. He has the cahones to take on his own institution of MIT as being implicit in the fraud, this guy is a real patriot and great American. M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws in Antimissile System
Bush is sabre-rattling again, his constant insults of North Korean leader just promote hostilities and potential war; the guy is the worst diplomat and representative of the US we've ever had, a boorish, aggressive boob, looking for a fight, arrogant and without shame Bush Criticizes North Korea's Leader
A new year's wish for Mideast. These same thoughts, I bet, reflect the the thinking and behavior of the vast majority of Americans as well. Well-intentioned, well-argued, this piece shows that many of our problems might be solved more easily if, across borders, across oceans, across cultures, people were talking WITH each other, not AT each other.
Hundreds of millions of ordinary Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Berbers, Armenians and other people wake up every morning, send their children to school, go to work, hold their heads up, breathe deeply, look their prevailing power structures in the eye, and declare that they will not succumb to the violence, they will not betray or relinquish their humanity. ...Most ordinary people in the Middle East will not embrace savagery as a routine operating procedure, refuse to adopt hypocrisy as a foreign policy guideline, and reject autocracy as a defining value of public governance. The problem is, these ordinary people do not make policy. This is why our region is so plagued by failed violence, domestic tyranny, the moral scourge of terror, degenerate occupations, civil wars, institutionalised corruption and mediocrity, and the barbarisms of assassination, colonialism and slow-motion ethnic cleansing as official policies
Conservative Pundit Bob Novak Expresses Concern About Frist
Worrying About Frist The conservatives are worried that Frist is a Dem in Republican clothing, quite a charge for a Senator expected to obstruct the Dems' agenda. This next session of Congress could prove to be interesting indeed. Claims Novak:
Frist's acceptance speech dwelled on Senate unity across party lines. In fact, he will face unremitting Democratic intransigence on tort reform, judicial nominees, abortion limitations, the faith-based initiative, anti-cloning legislation and President Bush's priority of tax reduction. On Dec. 23, Frist did not mention taxes. Instead, he delivered a pronouncement on health care that, with hardly any editing, could have been echoed by Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle: "We will improve and strengthen Medicare, address prescription drugs for our seniors and individuals with disabilities, and focus on the uninsured and the obvious health care disparities I've witnessed firsthand." Those are clearly Democratic issues where Republicans have to play defense.
The Bush rhetoric has had another consequence as well. While North Korea can be hard to read, it apparently forced this crisis out of fear that it would become the next target for U.S. military action. In recent weeks it has offered to end its nuke program in return for a written guarantee that the United States will not attack. U.S. officials have responded so far by saying they don't respond to blackmail.
From their point of view, the North Koreans' fear is understandable. As part of its rejection of the Clinton approach, the Bush administration raised tensions by ending U.S.-North Korean talks immediately upon taking office. Then, shortly after Sept. 11, the president publicly targeted North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" that he pledged to eradicate, pre-emptively if necessary....If the North Koreans have taken that rhetoric seriously, we should not be surprised. Talk, after all, does have consequences.
