Friday, March 14, 2003

Pentagon Papers – Bush-style The Pentagon Papers were Pentagon sponsored studies of the effectiveness of war policies during the Viet Nam war. When the studies’ findings indicated that current policies were not effective, rather than change the policies the government tried to deep-six the studies.   Thirty years later and here we are again:   Government defends a controversial war policy on the basis of certain (false) assumptions and promises. A government study is commissioned to study policy effectiveness. When reality is found to clash with the desired policy it is the reality (as described in the study) - not the policy – that loses.   Why would your government suppress information you might need in assessing its performance (not to mention ulterior motives – Cheney energy commission anyone?).   Oops, but I forgot – after 9/11 we don’t need oversight or studies or reality checks (and hence there has not been a public investigation into 9/11 to date).   After 9/11 we don’t need to ask questions or worry our little heads. Bush Jr. is going to lead us to the promised land through the power of (non-denominational) prayer – be a good patriot and just be ready to beam up.   Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible' A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say. By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document. The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq. The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform. Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States. "Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to The Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements." The thrust of the document, the source said, "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible." Even the document's title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes." The report was produced by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm. State Department officials declined to comment on the report. Intelligence officials said the report does not necessarily reflect the views of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or other senior State Department officials. Daunting Challenges The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting. "Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source. The report is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. It's not clear whether the president has seen the report, but such documents are typically distributed to top national security officials. "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," Bush said. Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months. But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be "the first Arab democracy" and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq "has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential." White House officials hold out the promise of a friendly and functional government in Baghdad to contrast with administration portrayals of President Saddam Hussein's regime as brutal and bent on building his stock of biological and chemical weapons. The domino theory also is used by the administration as a counterargument to critics in Congress and elsewhere who have expressed concern that invading Iraq will inflame the Muslim world and fuel terrorist activity against the United States. But the theory is disputed by many Middle East experts and is viewed with skepticism by analysts at the CIA and the State Department, intelligence officials said. Divisions in Iraq Critics say even establishing a democratic government in Iraq will be extremely difficult. Iraq is made up of ethnic groups deeply hostile to one another. Ever since its inception in 1932, the country has known little but bloody coups and brutal dictators. Even so, it is seen by some as holding more democratic potential — because of its wealth and educated population — than many of its neighbors. By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Middle East can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population. Given such trends, "we'll be lucky to have strong central governments [in the Middle East], let alone democracy," said one intelligence official with extensive experience in the region. The official stressed that no one in intelligence or diplomatic circles opposes the idea of trying to install a democratic government in Iraq. "It couldn't hurt," the official said. "But to sell [the war] on the basis that this is going to cause 1,000 flowers to bloom is naive." Some officials said the classified document reflects views that are widely held in the State Department and CIA but that those holding such views have been muzzled in an administration eager to downplay the costs and risks of war. One intelligence official said the CIA has not been asked to produce its own analysis on the domino question. CIA Assessment At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, CIA Director George J. Tenet offered a modest assessment of the prospects that overthrowing Hussein could prompt a wave of reform. "I don't want to be expansive in, you know, a big domino theory about what happens in the rest of the Arab world," Tenet said. "But an Iraq whose territorial integrity has been maintained, that's up and running and functioning ... may actually have some salutary impact across the region." The State Department report cites "high levels of corruption, serious infrastructure degradation, overpopulation" and other forces causing widespread disenfranchisement in the region. The report concludes that "political changes conducive to broader and enduring stability throughout the region will be difficult to achieve for a very long time." Middle East experts said there are other factors working against democratic reform, including a culture that values community and to some extent conformity over individual rights. "I don't accept the view that the fall of Saddam Hussein is going to prompt quick or even discernible movement toward democratization of the Arab states," said Philip C. Wilcox, director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and a former top State Department official. "Those countries are held back not by the presence of vicious authoritarian regimes in Baghdad but by a lot of other reasons." Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations." In pushing for democracy in the Middle East, he is departing somewhat from a long track record of U.S. presidents — focused on preserving stability, economic ties, and access to Middle East oil — backing autocratic regimes. Still, the Bush White House has been selective in applying pressure for reform, favoring longtime U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Times staff writer Sonni Efron contributed to this report.   3:54:18 PM

Bushies can’t face music They would rather run like cowards than face the consequences of their “diplomacy” in a vote at the UN   What does it say when the US can’t even convince its closest, oldest allies?   I guess all that “secret info” really wasn’t all that convincing – especially when some of it was found to have been forged and the rest false.   Now we’re avoiding a vote because we don’t want to be seen as violating the UN charter – the very document that WE helped draw up, but then FDR (an actual adult, he didn’t just play one on TV) was president then.   People say Junior is the anti-Clinton; if anything Junior is the anti-FDR:   Jr.’s policies cause depressions - rather than ameliorating them. Jr. deregulates industries (like energy - remember Kenny Boy Lay and Enron?) – FDR restored confidence for investors through strict regulation. Jr. sides with the economic royalists (hell, he’s practically their creation) - not with the people. Jr. wants to “privatize” social security and medicare – the two greatest legacies of the New Deal. Jr. bullies threatens and bribes other nations – FDR instituted the “good neighbor” policy of cooperation and alliances that has been the anchor of US foreign policy (and thereby ensured US influence)that is, until now. FDR’s wife was a strong personality in her own right and champion of civil rights – Laura Bush doesn’t seem to have a personality at all (Zoloft doesn’t count ;^).   There you have it – Junior’s policies – the failed policies of the past.   A past characterized by “Hoover-villes,” where plutocrats bought senators and media moguls started wars to boost circulation.    A past in which the US had little international influence (outside the range of a gunboat) and no moral authority, being merely another rapacious power among many.   A world “system” devoid of any mechanisms for stabilizing world affairs –which resulted in festering resentments that eventually assumed extreme political forms.    Loverly.   And when are the mediots going to fill us in on all of this? Us, the citizens of the richest, most powerful, and most obese nation in history – when are we going to be told that the very policies that have made this nation great have been junked for the crank nostrums of home-grown fundamentalists and the special interests of the privileged few – those who hated (and still hate) FDR and everything he did for this nation?   Don’t hold your breath. They’ve already been bought and paid for. U.S. May Abandon U.N. Vote on Iraq, Powell Testifies By DAVID E. SANGER with WARREN HOGE WASHINGTON, March 13 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that the United States might choose to abandon a second United Nations resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, only a week after President Bush vowed to force countries to take sides on the issue.   Mr. Powell's comment, taken together with a White House announcement that if a Security Council vote does occur, it will not happen until sometime next week, appeared to be evidence that the White House is losing hope of winning a majority vote on the resolution and may proceed to war without one.   Until today, President Bush had insisted the issue had to be resolved this week and that avoiding a vote was not an option. "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote," he said last week.   Mr. Powell's statement before Congress came after several days of internal administration dispute as Mr. Powell argued that it would be politically less damaging to go to war without a United Nations vote than to proceed under the shadow of an explicit rejection of military force.   The White House made no effort to distance itself from Mr. Powell's comment, and preparations for war sped forward. The Air Force dispatched one of the last major components of its plan for a huge air war: four B-2 stealth bombers, which will be based on Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.   Turkey today dismissed the most recent of three appeals, this time from Mr. Bush and   Vice President Dick Cheney, to use its territory as a base for strikes against Iraq, senior administration officials said.   Mr. Cheney spoke today with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the governing political party in Turkey, and an official familiar with the conversation said that "the message was clear that by the time Turkey got its act together, it would be too late to do us any good."   The White House pessimism over the Security Council votes was voiced more directly today by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who was quoted by the leader of the conservative opposition, Iain Duncan Smith, as saying that a diplomatic solution was "probably less likely than at any time" and prospects of military action "more likely."   The resolution has been considered crucial for Mr. Blair if he is to have any hope of gaining political support in his own party for a British role in a war against Iraq.   In a measure of how divided the Security Council remains, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Sergey Lavrov, said tonight as he emerged from a lengthy closed-door meeting, that the United States, Britain and Spain had "decided not to ask for any vote any day soon."   White House officials insisted that Mr. Bush was still making calls in hopes of winning the votes of three African nations — Angola, Guinea and Cameroon — along with Mexico, Chile and Pakistan. But the support of the three African countries was described today as weak. That left Mexico and Chile refusing to commit themselves. Tonight, however, Chile's foreign minister said her country could not support the resolution unless changes were made in it.   The subtle political effect of Mr. Powell's comments by the end of day was clear: the six countries are unlikely to take the domestic political risk of publicly backing the United States if they believe that Washington will abandon the vote altogether.   Mr. Powell never referred to President Bush's commitment to a vote, but rather made it sound as if that was just one option.   "We are still talking to the members of the Council with respect to coalescing around a position that wouldn't draw a veto, but the options remain: go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote," Mr. Powell told the House Appropriations Subcommittee.   In private, Mr. Powell has voiced concern that going against the Security Council's expressed position would lead to accusations that the United States was violating the United Nations Charter, which it helped write more than a half century ago. More hawkish members of the administration — including Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney — also decided that the vote was not worth it, officials said, chiefly because it could slow their military plans and because Security Council inaction would help prove their point that the institution is losing its relevance.   By this afternoon, the White House was already citing other legal justifications for invading Iraq without explicit United Nations approval, saying that Iraq's accumulation of weapons of mass destruction was a violation of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf war — and that military action would, in essence, simply be a resumption of that conflict.   Meanwhile, both American and British officials blamed France for bringing the world closer to war, most notably by its immediate rejection of Britain's proposal for Saddam Hussein to meet, in short order, six specific benchmarks to demonstrate that Iraq is truly disarming.   Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, told reporters this morning that "France rejected the British proposal before the Iraqis did."   Picking up the same themes, a British spokesman accused the French of "poisoning" the diplomatic process by dismissing a compromise proposal by Britain, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he found it "extraordinary" that France had closed off all circumstances under which it might support a new United Nations measure.   The chorus of comments were a switch in strategy by Britain from expressing the hope of securing a majority of the 15 Security Council members to blaming the French for the expected rejection of the resolution and possibly forcing Britain and the United States into abandoning the vote entirely.   In a reminder of why the French and British are often called "the best of enemies," France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, today issued a statement that accused the British and the Americans of seeking to delay war by a few days, rather than avoid it.   In the statement he said that "it isn't a matter of according a few more days to Iraq before resorting to force, but to resolutely advance on the path of peaceful disarmament created by the inspections, which are a credible alternative to war."   The British said they would still work "flat out" over the weekend and into early next week to obtain Security Council backing, but a spokesman for Mr. Blair acknowledged that they were approaching a "diplomatic endgame."   In a White House that prides itself on orderliness, there were signs today that the pressure of pulling together enough votes to give legitimacy to a military attack was beginning to fray schedules and plans.   President Bush was scheduled to go to a lunch on Capitol Hill, but with his motorcade warming up on the South Lawn, he canceled the appearance at the last moment, to talk to Mr. Blair and continue his other calls.   This morning there was a brief scurry by White House officials to arrange an overseas trip for Mr. Bush, a war caucus with Mr. Blair and perhaps Prime Minister José María Aznar of Spain.   But there was concern on both sides of the Atlantic that any such meeting would only worsen Mr. Blair's current political troubles. The scramble to make arrangements was ended as abruptly as the president's lunch.   "There's a recognition this has not been our finest diplomatic hour," said one senior official, his voice dripping with understatement. "I think minds are turning to the next step," meaning military action.   At the United Nations, the Security Council met all afternoon amid signs that the six uncommitted nations had agreed to vote as a bloc. It was unclear whether they would submit any counterproposals, but the group met to coordinate their approach at midday today.   "At the moment there is no clear way out," said Munir Akram, Pakistan's United Nations ambassador, when asked about the progress of the Council's debates. `We are trying to search for common ground."   As that meeting broke up, a procession of Security Council envoys went up to the 38th floor, one at a time, to meet with Secretary General Kofi Annan who has been exhorting the Council to come together.   Mr. Annan, who returned from a trip to the Netherlands this morning, said: "I know that strenuous efforts are being made by Council members to compromise and break the deadlock. I think these efforts should be taken seriously and I would urge all Council members to cooperate and to work in search of that compromise."   United Nations officials said this evening that they expected the Council to resume deliberations on Friday afternoon, and to work through the weekend, formally or informally.   Hans Blix, the chief inspector for chemical and biological weapons, took part in the Council's consultations. On Wednesday night, Mr. Blix sent his international board of advisers a draft of what he considers the "key remaining disarmament tasks," a list of about a dozen specifics culled from the 173-page list released about a week ago.   Mr. Blix is scheduled to present that document to Council diplomats next week.   Mr. Annan said today that the tests that Britain put into its proposal "are apparently already in the document Mr. Blix will be giving to the Council next week regarding remaining disarmament issues."   Gunter Pleuger, Germany's United Nations ambassador, said that a majority of the Council wanted a "peaceful disarmament of Iraq."   He added that the Council was awaiting the presentation by Mr. Blix that is to outline 12 key remaining disarmament issues confronting Iraq. He said those points would be used to determine disarmament benchmarks, not the list put forward by Britain.   3:33:24 PM

Cartoon Time   Another good one from Fiore: Dipl-uh-oh-macy 2:35:21 PM

Thank the Stars… …for Krugman. Not only does he hit the nail right on the head, but he does so in such an economical, straight-forward and witty way (if anything about this fiasco can be considered humorous).   Commander Queeg of the Caine mutiny – if you’ve ever seen the film (and the bravura performance by Bogey) then you just know that this is the perfect reference to capture the surreal unreality of the Bush regime.   How in the hell did it come to this?   (I know, I know… the Supremos, Jeb’s Florida machine, and the glue to make it all work – that “librul” media!) George W. Queeg By PAUL KRUGMAN Aboard the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries?   Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. There's a long list of pundits who previously supported Bush's policy on Iraq but have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn't want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.   If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy — a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance.   Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing — how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks.   Wasn't someone at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters nonmilitary, the U.S. isn't all that dominant — that Russia and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours, that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do and that in much of the world public opinion matters?   Apparently not.   And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration's eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.   What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing with right now.   I've talked in this column about the administration's eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair. Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim.   The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush's `Waco.' . . . This time, it's Kim Jong Il (and Saddam) playing David Koresh. . . . Sober minds wrestle with how to break into the mind of George Bush."   We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons — and there will be a heavy price to pay.   Alas, the epiphanies of the pundits have almost surely come too late. The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started. 2:25:50 PM

Can they go any lower?   Go ahead and check out CNN’s “question of the day” – a non-scientific poll (meaning that it is worthless) that they treat as a basis for discussion on Wolf Blitzer’s program.   Check it out and ask yourself: where do they get media celebrities like Blitzer from? How can anyone even think of making this an either/or question?!?  (No matter which side of the issue you’re on.)   Are differences of opinion to be outlawed as treasonous?   But I bet it generates site hits – oooh high ratings make everything OK… 1:40:08 PM

Let Freedom Ring And Nashville should let the Dixie Chicks exercise their freedoms and rights  as American citizens.   You go girls!   Dixie Chicks singer criticized for anti-Bush comments Associated Press March 14, 2003  |  NASHVILLE, Tennessee -- The Dixie Chicks are drawing criticism from country music fans for remarks singer Natalie Maines made about President George W. Bush during a recent performance in London.   Maines told the audience earlier this week, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."   Angry phone calls flooded Nashville radio station WKDF-FM on Thursday, some demanding a boycott of the Texas trio's music.   The group released a statement saying they've been overseas for several weeks and "the anti-American sentiment that has unfolded here is astounding. While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost."   In a separate statement Thursday, Maines said, "I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."   The Dixie Chicks will kick off a U.S. tour in support of their multiplatinum album "Home" on May 1 in Greenville, South Carolina. The group's hits include "Wide Open Spaces," "Ready to Run" and "Landslide."   12:25:58 PM