Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 147             Today’s News and Views         Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Volume 1 Issue 148                                                         Thursday, May 25, 2006

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2460

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 296

Figures provided by

the Iraq Coalition Causality website

For Immediate Release                                                                                                May 25, 2006

2500 American Deaths in Iraq are Near:

We say, “Not one more.” Call for Peace Now.

Press Contacts:

Harold P. Donle, Veterans for Peace, Inc. #49, hdonle@insightbb.com 317/698-2450.

Heather Allen-Garde, Hoosiers for Peace, heather@hoosiersforpeace.org, 317/202-9302.

Jim Wolfe, Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center, jwolfe@butler.edu, 317/255-3857.

Members of Veterans for Peace, Chapter 49, Hoosiers for Peace and the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center are asking Indiana citizens to assemble on Monument Circle in downtown Indianapolis on the day that the 2500^th American is reported killed to mark this tragic occurrence. The target date at the current rate of KIAs is on or about Sunday, June 11^th, seventeen (17) days from today.

This action is to honor the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq and their families, and to give our fellow Indiana citizens a visual representation of what 2500 looks like. We are against war because it kills our family members, wreaks havoc on our national treasury, makes the world a more dangerous place, and psychically damages our humanity.

Hundreds of Hoosiers have been invited to participate in this event that will combine an installation of 2500 flags to honor the dead and a memorial ceremony to call for an end to war. If the number is reached on a weekday (Mon.- Fri.) the group will gather at 6 P.M and if the number is reached on a weekend the group will gather at 4 P.M. at Monument Circle in downtown Indianapolis. At that time, the assembled will move north along Meridian Street, planting a flag every two to four feet until they reach Veterans Memorial Plaza. They will continue to North St., turning east and continuing to plant flags, they will turn south on Pennsylvania St. and continue with the planting of the flags until they reach Michigan St., then they will turn west planting flags until they reach Meridian St. again, thereby encircling the entire Plaza.  Then the group will gather at the center of the Plaza and plant 64 flags around the base of the obelisk in memory of the 64 Hoosiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. There will be a period of brief remarks and a memorial ceremony in closing.

For more information contact Harold Donle at (317)698-2450.

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

Just as Republicans have worked, and to some extent succeeded, at peeling off some African American voters from the Democratic Party, evangelical voters are too big a part of the electorate (about a quarter) for one party simply to write off.

Democrats have a shot at luring some of them, but it's a long shot, and one that poses dangerous temptations for the party as it tries to narrow the God gap.

Evangelicals have become increasingly Republican. In 1987, 34 percent of white evangelicals identified themselves as Republicans, 29 percent as Democrats. Today, that GOP advantage has grown to 51 to 22. And evangelical voters' growing dissatisfaction with President Bush doesn't appear to be trickling down into congressional races; in a recent Pew poll, 64 percent of evangelicals (compared with 41 percent of all voters) said they would vote for the Republican congressional candidate in November, about the same as in polls before the 2002 midterms.

Still, as John C. Green at the University of Akron has shown, evangelical voters aren't politically monolithic. Among the half that Green calls "traditionalist evangelicals," 70 percent identify themselves as Republicans or lean that way; they're pretty much a lost cause for Democrats. But among "centrist" (the 41 percent of evangelicals who have less doctrinaire religious views) or more liberal "modernist" (11 percent) evangelicals, Democrats have much more opportunity. Only 47 percent of centrist evangelicals and 30 percent of modernists are Republicans.

To some extent, Democrats could help themselves with evangelicals simply by showing up -- at the megachurches, on Christian radio and in other venues where Democrats have been scarce. Whether the Democrats are deploying the right messengers is more questionable: a liberal San Francisco Democrat and a civil union-signing Vermont governor may not be the party's best bet with evangelicals. More important, occasional drop-bys and clunky dropping of biblical references aren't going to do the trick. These voters weren't born again yesterday.

Rather, the Democrats' discussion with evangelicals has to get beyond linguistic "reframing" to substantive areas where the Democrats and evangelicals can find common ground: poverty, the environment, Darfur.

The question is whether differences on the much hotter-button issues of abortion and gay rights are nonetheless deal-breakers. For the traditionalist evangelicals, almost certainly they are. But some centrists may be reachable; they may be opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, but more supportive of other equal rights measures for gays.

"They don't want to be mean to gay people," Green said. Likewise, "while the centrist evangelicals tend to be pro-life, they don't tend to hold their opinions as intensely as the traditionals. There is some room to maneuver there."

The risk is that, in the process of maneuvering, Democrats' reframing and rebranding could edge into retreating on core principles. It was unsettling to hear Dean -- in the process of cozying up to evangelicals -- mangle the party platform, saying, incorrectly, that it states that "marriage is between a man and a woman." In fact, while deliberately silent on marriage, the platform supports "full inclusion of gay and lesbian families . . . and equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections."

Likewise, it's fine for Hillary Clinton to talk about the "tragedy" of abortion, or for Democrats to emphasize the importance of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. But I get awfully nervous when Redeem the Vote's Brinson says of abortion, "As long as the national Democratic Party makes that a centerpiece of their platform or something they're advocating, as long as that's front and center and they're saying women have a right to do this, it's going to turn off religious voters."

So, by all means, let Democrats woo evangelicals and cast the message in a way that speaks to religious voters. But in doing so, keep in mind: What does it profit a party to gain a demographic but lose its soul?

marcusr@washpost.com

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Snubs Gore Film on Global Warming

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

6:51 PM PDT, May 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore's documentary about global warming?

"Doubt it," Bush said coolly Monday.

But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

Bush and Gore have had bitter disagreements about the environment and other issues. Bush defeated Gore in a disputed presidential election that was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2000.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," chronicles his efforts to bring greater attention to the dangers of climate change.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

"I'm a grandfather and he's a father and this should not be a political issue," Gore said. "And he should ask the National Academy of Sciences ... whether or not human beings are contributing to global warming."

The White House said Bush already has acknowledged the impact of human behavior on global warming.

"The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"Since then he has committed tens of billions of dollars to the science and technology programs that he initiated and we are well on our way to meeting the president's goal of reducing greenhouse intensity by 18 percent by 2012," she said.

Gore's movie debuted at last winter's Sundance Film Festival and opens in U.S. theaters Wednesday.

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times

Now Benador's clients [3] are working just as hard to get the U.S. to invade Iran. One of her clients is Amir Taheri [4], who is a "commentator for CNN." (CNN does not publish a list of commentators [5], which is extremely suspicious. What are they hiding?) Taheri became infamous this week for writing a bogus story [6] claiming Iran just passed a law requiring Jews to wear yellow stripes.

Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar.

There was absolutely no basis for this claim - Taheri pulled it straight out of his ass - and it was denied immediately by Maurice Motamed [7], the representative of the Iranian Jewish community in Iran's parliament. But because it served the neocon propaganda purpose of demonizing Iran, Taheri's Big Lie instantly circulated throughout the global neocon conspiracy, including Rush Limbaugh [8], the Jerusalem Post [9] and NewsMax [10].

Source URL:
http://www.democrats.com/node/9012

Links:
[1] http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-you-want-war-call-benador.html
[2] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH15Aa01.html
[3] http://www.benadorassociates.com/members.php
[4] http://www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php
[5] http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/
[6] http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534
[7] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19196947-1702,00.html
[8] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051906/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html
[9] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961377561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[10] http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/19/155943.shtml

Copyright 2006 Democrats.com.

UCSB Student Body Members Display Their Distaste For President Bush

Jake Thorn
Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Yesterday at noon, a group of about 15 students streaked across the Arbor. They wore only George W. Bush masks. Bystanders were confused, but then they saw the banner these naked patriots bore: "Bush, end the streak of lies!" Heroes, all of them. Sexy ones, too.

They streaked to protest the president's streak of lies in a brilliant bit of UCSB-style political activism. Santa Cruz, y'all got nothin' on us. The protest was a reaction to the numerous lies told by the Bush Administration to the American public. Lies have been told ever since the president took office back in 2001. Remember that? It's been a long time since these dark ages of Dubya started, but there were a few specific lies that spurred the streak.

First, where the hell were these damn weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Oh yeah, they never existed. And the Downing Street Memo proves that he always knew it and that he never cared because he had already decided to go to war anyway. That jackass! And yet he could look America in the fucking face and tell people lies. Over and over and over again. I have seen videos of him telling these lies to the mothers of dead soldiers. This man has no remorse.

And what about this nonsense about some connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Oh yeah, that's right, he made that up, too. Anyone who's passed a single goddamn history class would be able to tell you that Osama bin Laden's hyper-religious terrorist network deeply hated and bitterly opposed the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. Yet, the Shrub spouted off about this bullshit, too.

And what about that stupid "Mission Accomplished" speech back in May 2003? Mission accomplished, my ass. Our soldiers are still dying, over 2,400 now and counting.

Yesterday, Dubya held a press conference to hail the creation of a new Iraqi government as a "turning point" in the reconstruction of Iraq. My question is, how the hell can there be a "turning point" after we just spent the last three years hearing that things were going great?

And last but not least, why in the hell would he possibly think it's OK to bypass Congress and undertake a warrantless surveillance program that clearly breaks multiple federal laws? Ugh! What was this idiot thinking? And how the hell do 30 percent of the American people still support this remorseless liar?

A group of 150 students just assembled at Storke Plaza the other day to impeach this jerk. Concerned UCSB students have had enough of the president's lies. They also feel like the media is not doing enough to expose them. The mainstream media refuses to ask the hard questions and launch the real investigations that have saved America from previous tyrant-wannabees (see: "Nixon, Richard M.").

Who's saving us from Bush? FOX News? That would be funny if it wasn't true. Therefore, 15 Gauchos yesterday decided to show their discontent by turning a pun into a protest. They are sick enough of Bush to run naked across the most populated area of campus at the very busiest time just to draw attention to the lies! That's devotion to a cause! The level of their devotion parallels the disappointment that thousands of fellow students and millions of American citizens feel toward the Bush Administration. A streak to end the streak of lies. Brilliant!

Jake Thorn is a senior political science major.

Copyright © 2000-2006 Daily Nexus

May 25, 2006

A dozen Marines may face courts-martial for alleged Iraq massacre

By Gayle S. Putrich
TIMES STAFF WRITER

A key member of Congress said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if a dozen Marines faced courts-martial for allegedly killing Iraqi civilians Nov. 19. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told Marine Corps Times that the number of dead Iraqis, first reported to be 15, was actually 24. He based that number on a briefing from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee on Wednesday.

Hagee visited Capitol Hill in anticipation of the release of two investigation reports, which are expected to show that among the 24 dead civilians, five of the alleged victims, all unarmed, were shot in a car with no warning, Murtha said. The killings took place in Hadithah, 125 miles northwest of Baghdad.

At least seven of the victims were women and three were children.

“If the allegations are substantiated, the Marine Corps will pursue appropriate legal and administrative actions against those responsible,” said Col. David Lapan, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters.

“The investigations are ongoing, therefore any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process,” he said. “As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable.” Murtha, an outspoken war critic and retired Marine colonel, has maintained for several weeks that the reality of the Hadithah incident was far more violent than the original reports suggested.

“They originally said a lot of things. I don’t even know how they tried to cover that up,” he said.

Two investigations into the incident are ongoing, according to the Pentagon — one by Multi-National Forces Iraq, expected before the end of the week, and a second by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, that is due in June.

The Marine Corps originally said a convoy from the Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, hit a roadside bomb Nov. 19 that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, Texas.

Marine officials initially said 15 Iraqi civilians also were killed in the blast, but later reported that the civilians were killed in a firefight that took place after the explosion.

But a 10-week investigation by Time magazine resulted in a March 27 report that included claims by an Iraqi civil rights group that the Marines barged into houses near the bomb strike in retaliation, throwing grenades and shooting civilians who were cowering in fear.

Three officers from the 3/1, including battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, were relieved April 7 for “lack of confidence in their leadership abilities stemming from their performance during a recent deployment to Iraq.”

The two other Marines who were relieved, Capts. Luke McConnell and James Kimber, were company commanders in the battalion.

Officials would not explicitly connect the firings to the Hadithah investigation.

While no charges have been filed yet, defense attorneys who handle military cases are bracing for what could fast become a busy summer season in the courtroom.

“It looks like it’s coming,” said one San Diego area-based civilian defense attorney who has handled other cases of assault and manslaughter and has gotten a sort of “warning order” about potential new cases.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure to do something,” the civilian attorney said.

“It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult for them to find enough defense counsel,” one Marine Corps attorney said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who was also briefed on the reports, said his committee will hold hearings on the incident after lawmakers return from their Memorial Day recess.

Hunter was matter-of-fact about the reports’ contents.

“It is not good,” he said. “Let the chips fall where they may.”

Hagee was due to brief leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee late Wednesday.

Staff writers Rick Maze and Gidget Fuentes contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006

U-turn by White House as it blocks direct talks with Iran

· Hardening of Bush policy rebuffs Tehran's approach
· Move appears to surprise US ambassador to Iraq

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Thursday May 25, 2006

Guardian

The White House yesterday ruled out previously authorised direct talks between Tehran and the US ambassador in Baghdad, which were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite pressure from the international community to enter into direct dialogue with Iran.

A White House official said that although the US envoy had originally been granted a mandate for talks with Iran, "we have decided not to pursue it."

Western diplomats hoped that talks on Iraq could have widened into a discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear arms programme. Iran has been asking in recent weeks for direct talks with Washington on the nuclear issue and the Bush administration had come under pressure from Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, and countries such as Germany to hold direct talks.

Washington's decision not to pursue the talks with Iran on Iraq, which would have been conducted by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, came as the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China concluded a meeting in London last night to discuss a new offer to Iran. The Foreign Office reported progress on agreeing on a combination of sticks and carrots to try to entice Iran into suspending its uranium-enrichment programme, which is seen by the west as a step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

The progress at the meeting contrasted with a bad-tempered discussion on May 8 between the foreign ministers of the six countries in New York.

The decision not to pursue direct talks has exposed rifts in the Bush administration on how to deal with Iran. Mr Khalilzad had told reporters on Sunday that the formation of the Iraqi government had cleared the way for direct negotiations with Iranian officials. "We have a lot of issues to discuss with them with regard to our concerns and what we envision for Iraq and are prepared to listen to their concerns," he told the Associated Press.

However, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, said yesterday there were no longer any plans for talks. "We will assess the situation and see when talks with the Iranians about the situation in Iraq might be useful," he said, noting that the US had talked to Iran about Afghanistan and drug-trafficking. "If it makes sense in Iraq, we'll do it. But we'll assess it based on what makes sense."

The US has had no formal contact with the Iranian government since students in Tehran took 52 Americans hostage in 1979.

The tough White House line appeared to take Mr Khalilzad's office by surprise. A US official in Baghdad said senior administration officials, including the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had previously said that Mr Khalilzad's talks with the Iranians could proceed once a government in Baghdad was sworn in.

There were also reports of rifts on how to respond to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush. The Washington Post reported that some intelligence analysts saw the letter as an important diplomatic opening and US government experts had "exerted mounting pressure" on the White House to respond.

However, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, ruled out any such response yesterday. "Iran, in responding to pressure, is trying to change the subject and we won't let them change the subject," he said. He said the precondition for bilateral talks would be that Iran cease enriching uranium and did "nothing to build up its capacity to make nuclear weapons".

In the London meeting, senior officials discussed the detail of an offer to construct a light-water nuclear reactor for Iran, which is seen as less of a threat than its uranium-enrichment programme. But the package also includes a threat to punish Iran with sanctions if it refuses to suspend uranium-enrichment.

These sanctions would include a ban on arms sales, no transfer of nuclear technology, no visas for Iranian leaders and officials, and freezing their assets.

There would also be an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. Although Iran is a leading producer of crude oil, it is short of petrol and other oil derivatives.

Western diplomats are braced for rejection by the Iranians. The US, Britain and France would then return to the UN security council to table a resolution setting a deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme or face sanctions.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Crist's first words were, "Well, as they say, the praise doesn't get any higher."

Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, who is opposing Crist in the primary, wouldn't comment on the remarks after the event.

Afterward, Dozier said he met Crist two months after the dream at a conference of Republican leaders from around the South. He told Crist about the dream, and Crist replied that he would run.

"It's the most amazing thing anyone's every told me," Crist said. "It's beyond overwhelming, but the reverend has a very strong faith in his heart and he's a good man. I'm very grateful for his help and his support and his belief."

Gov. Jeb Bush, who appointed Dozier to a group that nominates judges in South Florida, didn't directly respond to the remark, but praised Dozier.

"Far be it from me to judge about people's faiths and what occurs because of it," Bush said. "He is very sincere. Rev. Dozier's a good man."

All four gubernatorial candidates were invited to the pastor appreciation breakfast organized by the Christian Family Coalition. Crist and Gallagher spoke to the group, both giving an anti-abortion message and discussing their proposals to increase adoptions.

Democrats running for the seat Bush is leaving due to term limits — state Sen. Rod Smith and U.S. Rep. Jim Davis (news, bio, voting record) — did not attend, though Smith's son-in-law, the Rev. Graham Glover, spoke on his behalf.

Crist spoke at length about a bill he has pushed for the last two years that would force judges to lock up sex offenders who violate probation. It has not passed. Crist said if there were already such a law, young murder victims like Jessica Lunsford, Carlie Brucia and Sarah Lunde might still be alive.

Gallagher told the group that there is a place for values and beliefs in government, saying he would work toward increasing faith-based partners.

"There are people who don't think that we ought to say 'under God' in our pledge. They think that's some kind of radical thing," he said. "These are values that are Florida values that the people in this state want as a whole and they don't want fringe groups trying to take those things away. The same thing goes for silent prayer."

Smith's son-in-law acknowledged that Democrats haven't always been seen as strong advocates of faith, but said Smith is unquestionably a religious man.

"It is sad when we're told that our faith can't be brought to the table, that our values can't be front and center," said Glover, a Lutheran. "(Smith) is a man who loves his lord, he is a man who loves his family. As a Southern Baptist, he can probably quote scripture a whole lot better than I can."

Anthony Verdugo, executive director of the coalition, told the group he was disappointed Davis didn't attend the event, adding that he didn't even respond to the invitation.

"We tried and tried and tried to get Congressman Jim Davis to speak here," he said. "We believe we have a voice in both parties because our values are transcended values that don't belong to one party or another."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc

Terror bill would limit Florida scholars' travels

Tania Deluzuriaga
Sentinel Staff Writer

May 23, 2006

Florida could become one of the most restrictive states in the nation for international scholars under a proposal that would forbid professors and students from visiting Cuba and other nations accused of supporting terrorism.

Gov. Jeb Bush has expressed support for the bill and is likely to sign it into law. The measure, passed unanimously by the Legislature earlier this month, prohibits faculty and students at public universities and community colleges from using "state or non-state funds" to travel to any country deemed a sponsor of terrorists. Those guidelines would go further than those of the federal government.

Five countries would be off-limits, according to the list of terror nations issued by the U.S. State Department: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

"I don't think Florida taxpayers want their public resources being used to subsidize trips to terrorist countries," said Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, who first tried to pass the legislation two years ago. "We're engaged in a hot war against terror."

The proposal has caused an outcry among academics who say it would cut Florida off from important research, especially in Cuba. Although much academic fieldwork is funded through private foundations, not the state, the grants are often channeled through universities, not given directly to a professor.

"This is one of those instances where they're trying to be more Catholic than the pope," said Houman Sadri, a University of Central Florida political-science professor who specializes in foreign policy and relations in the Middle East. "Everyone in this country is for apple pie and their mothers. It's the same with counter-terrorism. There's no constituency against it."

Sadri, who has traveled extensively in the Middle East, including Iran, says such trips are vital if the United States is going to formulate sound foreign policy. Several Florida academics have testified before Congress and provided information to other parts of the federal government on their research in terrorist states, particularly Cuba.

"How do we make a good decision about something if we don't understand it?" he said. "Political climates change -- you need to go every couple years. Otherwise, you don't know what's going on."

Law affects slate of studies

Although the law pertains to research in a small number of nations, it would affect academics who study a variety of issues -- from architecture in Cuba to public health in Syria.

"It makes us a pariah, a joke," said Carmen Diana Deere, director of the University of Florida's Center for Latin American Studies. "To me, as a professor, it's embarrassing."

UF, with the largest library collection on Cuba in the world, is a leader in Cuban studies. But professors there say they won't be seen as experts for long if they can't conduct field research.

"It's the kind of thing where you have to be there," said Jalane Schmidt, an assistant religion professor at the University of Florida who studies the way religion changed under various Cuban regimes in the 20th century.

A large part of Schmidt's job consists of collecting oral histories that otherwise might be forgotten as Cuba's older generation dies off.

"People feel they've been kept from researching and accessing their own history," she said. "As a foreigner, people speak more openly with me. I've been told things that can't see the light of day in Cuba."

Professors say the legislation also would undermine the state's efforts to attract the best students to study in Florida.

"It would make us the most restrictive state in the nation," said Damian Fernandez, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "It's going to hurt the institution. What serious master's or Ph.D. student is going to come here to study Cuba when they know they can't travel to the island?"

Many academics oppose bill

Many academics, including university-system Chancellor Mark Rosenberg, opposed the bill on the premise that it would prevent Florida researchers from doing work that would benefit the state and the nation.

"When the U.S. embargo [on Cuba] is lifted -- whenever that is -- the implications for Florida agriculture will be more significant for our economy than for any other single event in the history of our state," said Bill Messina, an agricultural economist at the University of Florida.

Messina, who returned from a trip to Cuba earlier this month, has been studying agriculture on the island nation for more than 12 years.\

Messina's research has been used by the U.S. International Trade Commission and by congressional committees.

"If this passes, we're basically shut down," Messina said.

The American Association of University Professors came out against the bill this month, sending a letter to the Governor's Office saying it would impose significant administrative burdens on Florida colleges and universities and seriously harm academic freedom.

"Even during the darkest days of the Cold War years there was certain contact going on between American and Soviet scholars," said Jonathan Knight, director of the program on academic freedom for the university professors' group. "There is a strong belief that those kind of connections between academics are vital to advancing knowledge and understanding."

Rivera said he was pushed to pass the bill after two Florida International University professors were arrested in January and accused of being spies for Cuba.

"I want to protect the universities' integrity," he said.

Critics of the bill say the Cuban-American lawmaker is simply out to appeal to his supporters.

"This is Representative Rivera's attempt to get his base excited," said Dennis Jett, the dean of the international center at the University of Florida. "What this does to Florida agriculture, he's not concerned about. What this does to academic freedom, he's not concerned about."

Tania deLuzuriaga can be reached at tdeluzuriaga@orlandosentinel.com  or 407-435-3115.

Copyright © 2006, Orlando Sentinel

Tomdispatch Interview: Bacevich on the Limits of Imperial Power

This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=85723

[Note to Tomdispatch readers: This is the tenth in an ongoing series of interviews at the site. The last three interviews were with Chalmers Johnson (1 and 2), Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Mike Davis (1 and 2). Tom]

The Delusions of Global Hegemony

A Tomdispatch Interview with Andrew Bacevich (Part 1)

I wait for him on a quiet, tree and wisteria-lined street of red-brick buildings. Students, some in short-sleeves on this still crisp spring morning, stream by. I'm seated on cold, stone steps next to a sign announcing the Boston University Department of International Relations. He turns the corner and advances, wearing a blue blazer, blue shirt and tie, and khaki slacks and carrying a computer in a black bag. He's white haired, has a nicely weathered face, and the squared shoulders and upright bearing of a man, born in Normal, Illinois, who attended West Point, fought in the Vietnam War, and then had a twenty-year military career that ended in 1992.

Now a professor of history at Boston University, he directs me to a spacious, airy office whose floor-to-ceiling windows look out on the picturesque street. A tasseled cap and gown hang on a hook behind the door -- perhaps because another year of graduation is not far off. I'm left briefly to wait while he deals with an anxious student, there to discuss his semester mark. Soon enough though, he seats himself behind a large desk with a cup of coffee and prepares to discuss his subjects of choice, American militarism and the American imperial mission.

Andrew Bacevich is a man on a journey -- as he himself is the first to admit. A cultural conservative, a former contributor to such magazines as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, a former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, he discovered sometime in the 1990s that his potential conservative allies on foreign policy had fallen in love with the idea of the American military and its imagined awesome power to change the world. They had jumped the tracks and left him behind. A professed cold warrior, in those years he took a new look at our American past -- and he's not stopped looking, or reconsidering, since.

What he discovered was the American empire, which became the title of a book he published in 2002. In 2005, his fierce, insightful book on American dreams of global military supremacy, The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War, appeared. (It was excerpted in two posts at this site.) It would have been eye-opening no matter who had written it, but given his background it was striking indeed.

Forceful and engaged (as well as engaging), Bacevich throws himself into the topic at hand. He has a barely suppressed dramatic streak and a willingness to laugh heartily at himself. But most striking are the questions that stop him. Just as you imagine a scholar should, he visibly turns over your questions in his mind, thinking about what may be new in them.

He takes a sip of coffee and, in a no-nonsense manner, suggests that we begin.

Tomdispatch: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, you said the revolt of the retired generals against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld represented the beginning of a search for a scapegoat for the Iraq War. I wondered whether you also considered it a preemptive strike against the Bush administration's future Iran policy.

Andrew Bacevich: The answer is yes. It's both really. Certainly, it's become incontrovertible that the Iraq War is not going to end happily. Even if we manage to extricate ourselves and some sort of stable Iraq emerges from the present chaos, arguing that the war lived up to the expectations of the Bush administration is going to be very difficult. My own sense is that the officer corps -- and this probably reflects my personal experience to a great degree -- is fixated on Vietnam and still believes the military was hung out to dry there. The officer corps came out of the Vietnam War determined never to repeat that experience and some officers are now angry to discover that the Army is once again stuck in a quagmire. So we are in the early stages of a long argument about who is to be blamed for the Iraq debacle. I think, to some degree, the revolt of the generals reflects an effort on the part of senior military officers to weigh in, to lay out the military's case. And the military's case is: We're not at fault. They are; and, more specifically, he is -- with Rumsfeld being the stand-in for [Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense] Robert McNamara.

Having said that, with all the speculation about Bush administration interest in expanding the Global War on Terror to include Iran, I suspect the officer corps, already seeing the military badly overstretched, doesn't want to have any part of such a war. Going public with attacks on Rumsfeld is one way of trying to slow whatever momentum there is toward an Iran war.

I must say, I don't really think we're on a track to have a war with Iran any time soon -- maybe I'm too optimistic here [he laughs] -- but I suspect even the civilian hawks understand that the United States is already overcommitted, that to expand the war on terror to a new theater, the Iranian theater, would in all likelihood have the most dire consequences, globally and in Iraq.

TD: Actually, I was planning to ask about your thoughts on the possibility of an Iranian October surprise.

Bacevich: You mean, attacking Iran before the upcoming fall election? I don't see Karl Rove -- because an October surprise would be a political ploy -- signing off on it. I think he's cunning, calculating, devious, but not stupid. With the President's popularity rating plummeting due to unhappiness with the ongoing war, it really would be irrational to think that yet another war would turn that around or secure continued Republican control of both houses of Congress.

TD It seems that way to me with gas assumedly soaring to $120 a barrel or something like that…

Bacevich: Oh gosh, oh my gosh, yes…

TD But let me throw this into the mix, because I've seen no one mention it: If you look at the list of retired commanders who came out against Rumsfeld, they're all from the Army or Marines. We always say the military is overextended, but only part of it is -- and I note the absence of admirals or anybody connected to the Air Force.

Bacevich: That's a good point. One could argue that the revolt of the generals actually has a third source. If the first source is arguing about who's going to take the fall for Iraq and the second is trying to put a damper on war in Iran, the third has to do with Rumsfeld's military transformation project. To oversimplify, transformation begins with the conviction that the military since the end of the Cold War has failed to adapt to the opportunities and imperatives of the information age. Well before 9/11, the central part of Rumsfeld's agenda was to "transform" -- that was his word -- this old Cold-War-style military, to make it lighter, more agile, to emphasize information technology and precision weapons.

Well, if you're in the Air Force, or you're a Navy admiral, particularly one in the aviation community, that recipe sounds pretty good. It sounds like dollars, like programs being funded. But if you're in the Army or the Marine Corps, becoming lighter and more agile sounds like cutting divisions or like getting rid of tanks and artillery; it sounds like a smaller Marine Corps.

Both the initial stage of the Afghanistan War and the invasion of Iraq were specifically designed by Rumsfeld as projects to demonstrate what a transformed military could do. Hence, his insistence on beginning the Iraq War without a major build-up, on invading with a relatively small force, on having the ground intervention accompany the air campaign rather than having a protracted air campaign first as in the first Gulf War. All the literature about both Afghanistan and Iraq now shows that the war-planning process was filled with great civil/military tension. The generals argued, "Mr. Secretary, here's the plan; we want to do a Desert Storm Two against Iraq," and Rumsfeld kept replying, "I want something smaller, think it over again and get back to me" -- reflecting his intention to demonstrate his notion of how America will henceforth fight its wars.

Well, now we can see the outcome and it's at best ambiguous. That is to say, the early stages of Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be smashing successes. The smaller, agile forces performed remarkably well in demolishing both the Taliban and the Baath Party regime; but in both cases, genuine victory has proven enormously elusive. This gets us to the third basis for the generals' gripe. When they talk about Rumsfeld's incompetence and micromanagement, they're arguing against the transformation project and on behalf of those services which have footed most of the bill.

TD: Just to throw one other thing into the mix, if there were a campaign against Iran, it would be a Navy and Air Force one.

Bacevich: It would begin with a Navy and Air Force campaign, but it wouldn't end that way. If the Army generals could be assured that we know exactly where the Iranian nuclear program is, that we have the targeting data and the munitions to take it out… Well, that would be one thing, but we don't have that assurance. From the Army and Marine Corps perspective, an air attack might begin a war with Iran, but the war would not end there. As is the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq, some sort of ugly aftermath would be sure to follow and the Navy and the Air Force aren't going to be there, at least not in large numbers.

TD What about the Iraq War at present?

Bacevich There are a couple of important implications that we have yet to confront. The war has exposed the limited depth of American military power. I mean, since the end of the Cold War we Americans have been beating our chests about being the greatest military power the world has ever seen. [His voice rises.] Overshadowing the power of the Third Reich! Overshadowing the Roman Empire!

Wait a sec. This country of 290 million people has a force of about 130,000 soldiers committed in Iraq, fighting something on the order of 10-20,000 insurgents and a) we're in a war we can't win, b) we're in the fourth year of a war we probably can't sustain much longer. For those who believe in the American imperial project, and who see military supremacy as the foundation of that empire, this ought to be a major concern: What are we going to do to strengthen the sinews of American military power, because it's turned out that our vaunted military supremacy is not what it was cracked up to be. If you're like me and you're quite skeptical about this imperial project, the stresses imposed on the military and the obvious limits of our power simply serve to emphasize the imperative of rethinking our role in the world so we can back away from this unsustainable notion of global hegemony.

Then, there's the matter of competence. I object to the generals saying that our problems in Iraq are all due to the micromanagement and incompetence of Mr. Rumsfeld -- I do think he's a micromanager and a failure and ought to have been fired long ago -- because it distracts attention from the woeful performance of the senior military leaders who have really made a hash of the Iraq insurgency. I remember General Swannack in particular blaming Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib. I'll saddle Rumsfeld with about ten percent of the blame for Abu Ghraib, the other ninety percent rests with the senior American military leaders in Baghdad…

TD: General Ricardo Sanchez signed off on it…

Bacevich: Sanchez being number one. So again, if one is an enthusiast for American military supremacy, we have some serious thinking to do about the quality of our senior leadership. Are we picking the right people to be our two, three, and four-star commanders? Are we training them, educating them properly for the responsibilities that they face? The Iraq War has revealed some major weaknesses in that regard.

TD: Do you think that the neocons and their mentors, Rumsfeld and the Vice President, believed too deeply in the hype of American hyperpower? Ruling groups, even while manipulating others, often seem to almost hypnotically convince themselves as well.

Bacevich: That's why I myself tend not to buy into the charge that Bush and others blatantly lied us into this war. I think they believed most of what they claimed. You should probably put believe in quotes, because it amounts to talking yourself into it. They believed that American omnipotence, as well as know-how and determination, could imprint democracy on Iraq. They really believed that, once they succeeded in Iraq, a whole host of ancillary benefits were going to ensue, transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. All of those expectations were bizarre delusions and we're paying the consequences now.

You know, the neoconservatives that mattered were not those in government like Douglas Feith or people on the National Security Council staff, but the writers and intellectuals outside of government who, in the period from the late seventies through the nineties, were constantly weaving this narrative of triumphalism, pretending to insights about power and the direction of history. Intellectuals can put their imprint on public discourse. They can create an environment, an atmosphere. When the events of September 11, 2001 left Americans shocked and frightened and people started casting about for an explanation, a way of framing a response, the neoconservative perspective was front and center and had a particular appeal. So these writers and intellectuals did influence policy, at least for a brief moment.

TD: Here's something that puzzles me. When I look at administration actions, I see a Middle Eastern catastrophe in the midst of which an Iranian situation is being ratcheted up. Then there's China, once upon a time the enemy of choice for the neocons and Rumsfeld, and now here we are this summer having the largest naval maneuvers since Vietnam, four carrier task forces, off the Chinese coast. Then -- as with Cheney's recent speech -- there's the attempted rollback of what's left of the USSR, which has been ongoing. On the side, you've got the Pentagon pushing little Latin American bases all the way down to Paraguay. So many fronts, so much overstretch, and no backing down that I can see. What do you make of this?

Bacevich: My own sense is that this administration has largely exhausted its stock of intellectual resources; that, for the most part, they're preoccupied with trying to manage Iraq. Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to see a coherent strategy in the Middle East or elsewhere. In that sense, Iraq is like Vietnam. It just sucks up all the oxygen. Having said that, before being eclipsed by 9/11 and its aftermath, China was indeed the enemy-designate of the hawks, and a cadre of them is still active in Washington. I would guess that large naval exercises reflect their handiwork. Still, I don't think there's been a resolution within the political elite of exactly how we ought to view China and what the U.S. relationship with China will be.

Why the hell we're extending bases into Latin America is beyond me. Rumsfeld just announced that he has appointed an admiral as the head of U.S. Southern Command. Now this has almost always been an Army billet, once or twice a Marine billet, never a Navy one. I got an email today from someone who suggested that this was another example of Rumsfeld's "boldness." My response was: Well, if he was bold, he'd simply shut down the Southern Command. Wouldn't it be a wonderful way to communicate that U.S.-Latin American relations had matured to the point where they no longer revolved around security concerns? Wouldn't it be interesting for Washington to signal that there is one region of the world that does not require U.S. military supervision; that we really don't need to have some four-star general parading around from country to country in the manner of some proconsul supervising his quarter of the American Empire?

Now, I have friends who think that [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez poses a threat to the United States. I find that notion utterly preposterous, but it does reflect this inclination to see any relationship having any discord or dissonance as requiring a security -- i.e. military -- response. I find it all crazy and contrary to our own interests.

TD: One thing that's ratcheted up in recent years is the way the Pentagon's taken over so many aspects of policy, turning much of diplomacy into military-to-military relations.

Bacevich: If you look at long-term trends, going back to the early Cold War, the Defense Department has accrued ever more influence and authority at the expense of the State Department. But there's another piece to this -- within the Defense Department itself, as the generals and the senior civilians have vied with one another for clout. When Rumsfeld and [Paul] Wolfowitz came into office they were determined to shift the balance of civil/military authority within the Pentagon. They were intent on trimming the sails of the generals. You could see this in all kinds of ways, some symbolic. Regional commanders used to be called CINCs, the acronym for commander-in-chief. Rumsfeld said: Wait a minute, there's only one commander-in-chief and that's my boss, so you generals who work for me, you're not commanders-in-chief any more. Now the guy who runs US Southern Command is just a "combatant commander."

Also indicative of this effort to shift power back to the civilians is the role played by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which has been nonexistent for all practical purposes. Accounts of the planning and conduct of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars make clear that they had virtually no influence at all. They were barely, barely consulted. Ever since Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs and became a quasi-independent power broker, presidents have chosen weak chairmen. Presidents want top officers to be accommodating rather than forceful personalities who might hold independent views. I'm sure General Myers of the Air Force is a wonderful man and a patriot, but he served four years as chairman after 9/11 and did so without leaving any discernible mark on policy. And that's not accidental. It reflects Rumsfeld's efforts to wrest authority back towards the office of the Secretary of Defense.

TD: Isn't this actually part of a larger pattern in which authority is wrested from everywhere and brought into this commander-in-chief presidency?

Bacevich: That's exactly right. I've just finished a review of Cobra II this new book by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor. A major theme of the book is that people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz saw 9/11 as a great opportunity. Yes, it was a disaster. Yes, it was terrible. But by God, this was a disaster that could be turned to enormous advantage. Here lay the chance to remove constraints on the exercise of American military power, enabling the Bush administration to shore up, expand, and perpetuate U.S. global hegemony. Toward that end, senior officials concocted this notion of a Global War on Terror, really a cover story for an effort to pacify and transform the broader Middle East, a gargantuan project which is doomed to fail. Committing the United States to that project presumed a radical redistribution of power within Washington. The hawks had to cut off at the knees institutions or people uncomfortable with the unconstrained exercise of American power. And who was that? Well, that was the CIA. That was the State Department, especially the State Department of Secretary Colin Powell. That was the Congress -- note this weird notion that the Congress is somehow limiting Presidential prerogatives -- and the hawks also had to worry about the uniformed military, whom they considered "averse to risk" and incapable of understanding modern warfare in an information age.

TD: And you might throw in the courts. After all, the two men appointed to the Supreme Court are, above all else, believers in the unitary executive theory of the presidency.

Bacevich Yes, it fits. I would emphasize that it's not because Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are diabolical creatures intent on doing evil. They genuinely believe it's in the interests of the United States, and the world, that unconstrained American power should determine the shape of the international order. I think they vastly overstate our capabilities. For all of their supposed worldliness and sophistication, I don't think they understand the world. I am persuaded that their efforts will only lead to greater mischief while undermining our democracy. Yet I don't question that, at some gut level, they think they are acting on your behalf and mine. They are all the more dangerous as a result.

[Note: Part 2 of Andrew Bacevich's interview, Drifting Down the Path to Perdition, will be posted on Thursday. Those readers who want some background on the issues discussed in this interview are advised to pick up a copy of Bacevich's remarkable book, The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War.]

Copyright 2006 Tomdispatch

posted May 23, 2006 at 9:03 am

DERRICK Z. JACKSON

The war on free press

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist  |  May 24, 2006

JOURNALISTS. Get the rack ready! Our attorney general is coming for us, snarling like a guard dog at Abu Ghraib.

On Sunday, Alberto Gonzales told ABC's ``This Week" that he would consider prosecuting reporters who get their hands on classified information and break news about President Bush's terrorist surveillance program. ``There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility, " Gonzales said, adding at one point, ``We have an obligation to enforce those laws."

Asked more specifically if The New York Times should be prosecuted for its initial story on government surveillance without warrants, Gonzales said, ``We are engaged now in an investigation about what would be the appropriate course of action."

It is almost funny to see Gonzales scour the statutes to harass journalists. This is the same administration that cannot spell the word law if you spot it the ``l" and the ``a." It has already set the presidential record in claiming the authority to circumvent the law in more than 750