Donle’s Daily Dispatches
Volume 1 Issue 161 & 162 Today’s News and Views Wednesday & Thursday, June 7&8, 2006
|
|
|
Volume 1 Issue 161 & 162 Today’s News and Views Wednesday & Thursday, June 7&8, 2006 |
|
Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc. |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
|
|
Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2484 Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 299 Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website |
|
Remember
Who Made This MESS! |
|
||
For Immediate Release June 3, 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 2500th American is reported killed to mark this tragic occurrence. The target date at the current rate of KIAs is on or about Wednesday, June 14th, eleven (11) 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 Veterans Memorial Plaza in downtown Indianapolis. (The Plaza is bounded by Michigan to the south, Meridian to the west, North Street to the north, and Pennsylvania to the west.) At that time, the assembled will a field of flags on Veterans Memorial Plaza. The group will reserve 64 flags to represent the Hoosiers that have been lost in Iraq and they will plant those 64 flags around the base of the obelisk. There will be a period of brief remarks and a memorial ceremony in closing. For more information contact Harold Donle at (317)698-2450.
|
|
Support Our Troops IMPEACH Bush/Cheney |
|
Rep. Louise Slaughter's report "America for Sale" (pdf document) |
|
Click on Play, then place cursor on Player and right click, select play in Theatre Mode. this is a one hour and thirty-nine minute long movie and well worth watching. - Harold, ed. |
|
|
||
|
| Pasta for Peace |
 |
|
Hoosiers for Peace requests the honor of your presence… What: Share Sunday Gravy with Local Progressives at Pasta for Peace. Good Food, Stimulating Conversation, Inspirational Music, Film, and Art and a Silent Auction. Did we mention the pasta was shaped like peace signs? To reserve your seat, call 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org. Seats are limited and going fast. When: June 25, 2006 from 1 to 4 p.m. (with dinner at 2 p.m.) |
Where: Indianapolis Peace and Learning Center (6040 DeLong Rd.) in Eagle Creek Park. Why: Now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace. Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. To find out more visit www.hoosiersforpeace.org Cost: Adults $20, Children 5-12 $7, Children under 5 eat free. All proceeds will go towards the advertising campaign. Seats are limited, contact Heather for tickets today: 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org. |
|
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. May 7, 2006 Dear Peacemakers, Will you help to spread and encourage peace? With a record number of American soldiers dying in April 2006 and possible military action against Iran becoming daily news, now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace. Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. We are contacting dozens of organizations to make a proposal to form a coalition to raise funds and send a collaborative message to Hoosiers to Call for Peace. The message is: Call your friends, your family, and your representatives and ask them to support the Call for Peace. Like most Americans, we oppose war based on the following, which will be reflected in the advertisement: A. War Kills. More than 2,400 American Soldiers have died and nearly 1,000 Hoosier soldiers are in harms way. B. War depletes our resources. Billions of dollars are going to sustain war efforts while ordinary citizens struggle for social services. C. War will not make us secure. Studies have shown that the U.S. is no more secure today than it was before 911. Hoosiers for Peace, a website sponsored by Progressive Indiana, requests your support to make this advertisement a success. We will use the advertisement to call for peace. Each group in the coalition working on this project will be listed in the ad. Each group will be asked to raise $1000 by October 1, 2006. Below are some suggestions for fundraising: |
1. Letter Writing Campaign: Contact your family and friends and ask them to support this call for peace. Tell them how many people we can reach and ask them to make a generous donation and spread the word. You may collect the money through your organization or you may refer them to Progressive Indiana. Donations may be sent through our secure online giving by going to www.progressiveindiana.org and click on donate now or log onto www.hoosiersforpeace and click on donate now. Checks may also be made payable to Progressive Indiana and mailed to: Progressive Indiana P.O. Box 55253 Indianapolis, Indiana 46205-0253 2. Host a house party. Go grassroots and organize a pasta dinner or backyard barbecue and ask for a donation from each guest. Play poker and donate half of each pot to the campaign for peace. Have a bake sale through your church or place of employment. 3. Plan a small event. Invite your community to an event and ask for donations for the ad. Small concerts, speakers, and socials are some ideas for these events. Get creative and network! We need at least 14 groups to join the coalition and many more people to join the campaign to help fill in possible gaps. If we join together we can make this happen and we can bring Hoosiers together through this ad. As we Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, and call for an End to the War we can stand united for peace. We can make a difference by showing ordinary Hoosiers that there are many people like them working for peace. Please contact us as soon as possible if you would like to participate in this campaign. With a little work and collaboration we can make a large impact on our community. In Peace, Heather Allen-Garde Director, Hoosiers For Peace heatherreneeallen@yahoo.com 317/202-9302 It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it – Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
 |
|
David Korten Butler University June 26, 2006 7pm Reilley Room Atherton Hall Suggested Donation is $5.00
For more information |
|
Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views |
|
|
|
|
Sign the ACLU's Petition against torture! We demand our country back. |
 |
 |
The Not Your Soldier Project gives youth the tools we need to stop the military invasion of our schools and our communities. Not Your Soldier Action Camps bring together young people who are heavily targeted by military recruitment. At the camps, youth learn how to take action to fight military recruitment, the poverty draft, and the corporations that profit off of war. In 2006, Not Your Soldier will be hosting a national camp for youth and adult allies. >>Go to the Pick a Camp section to find out more! If you're interested in hosting a regional Not Your Soldier gathering, find out more here. Not Your Soldier National Days of Action are coordinated days of creative, non-violent direct action where youth take leadership and tell recruiters, "We are Not Your Soldiers!" >>Sign up for our action alert e-mail list! Parents: have questions? Check out Info for Parents, and our FAQ's to find out what the camps will be like. copyright 2005 Not Your Soldier. |
|
|
|
Today's News and Views |
 |
|||
Molly Ivins: Flag Burning and Other Dubious EpidemicsPosted on Jun 5, 2006AUSTIN, Texas—Thank goodness the Republicans are around to tell me what to worry about. The flag-burning crisis—here in Austin, there’s that pall of smoke rising from the west every morning (it’s from an area called Tarrytown, where they burn hundreds of flags daily). You didn’t know hundreds of flags were being burned daily? Actually, you can count on your hand the number of incidents reported over the last five years. For instance, there was one flag burned in 2005 by a drunken teenager and one by a protester in California in 2002. This appalling record of ravishment must be stopped. You’re clearly not worried about what matters. Gay marriage, now there’s a crisis. Well, OK, so there isn’t much gay marriage going on here in Texas. None, in fact. First, we made it illegal. Then, we made it unconstitutional. But President Bush is all concerned about it, so I guess we have to alter the U.S. Constitution. Gus and Captain Call (of “Lonesome Dove” fame) will be an item—with who knows who waiting in line right after them. Also of great concern to Republicans is God Almighty, who, rather to my surprise, has been elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party. That’s what they announced at the biannual convention in San Antonio this week: “He is the chairman of the party.” Sheesh, the Democrats couldn’t even get Superman. Also weighing down the nation with a heavy burden is the estate tax, which the Senate will try to repeal this week. The estate tax applies to around 1% of Americans, and I have yet to find any record of it costing anyone a family farm or business. It affects only very, very, very rich people, of whom you are probably not one. And they don’t, actually, need another tax break. These are the things we are supposed to be worrying about, and you notice that it frees us of quite a few troubles we might otherwise fret about. The war in Iraq? No sweat. War with Iran? We’re carefree. The economy? Hey, did you see that employment report? Well, ignore it. Budget out of control, shipwreck ahead? Never mind—Bush doesn’t. Worst class divisions since the Gilded Age, rich so much more enormously richer than everybody else, country starting to get creepy? Don’t worry, be happy. Torture, massacre, extraordinary rendition, hidden gulag of prisons in foreign countries, Guantanamo and massive violations of international law, American law and the Constitution? Well, you can see why gay marriage is a far greater menace. Wipe out for the environment; hundreds of regulations and laws changed to favor those who exploit and damage natural resources; all so common no one is keeping track of them all? Let her rip. Global warming? In the first place, it’s Al Gore’s issue. In the second place, it’s a downer. In the third place, who cares if it’s too late in a few years? Homeland security/war on terror? With the highly excellent disposition of anti-terror funds once more judiciously applied by the Department of Homeland Security, we truly have nothing to worry about. We’re ready to stop terrorist attacks in Wyoming, and there are no important cultural sites in New York City, so let’s rock. Oil crisis? Ha! What oil crisis? You want a $100 rebate you can then give the oil companies? Hey, we’re going to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and that should see us through ... oh, about nine months. Windfall profits? You think the oil companies are ripping us off for windfall profits? Who? ExxonMobil? Why, they would never! I believe what we have here is a difference over moral values. The Republicans are worried about the flag, gay marriage and the terrible burden of the estate tax on the rich. The rest of us are obviously unnecessarily worried about war, peace, the economy, the environment and civilization. Another reason to vote Republican—they have a shorter list. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor,
Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. |
|||
|
|||
|
By Dan Froomkin President Bush this afternoon speaks out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. But nobody's buying it. Not the Senate, where there's not even a remote chance that the amendment will muster the required two-thirds majority this week. Not the critics, who see Bush's posturing on the issue as nothing more than a bald-faced sop to his increasingly restive social-conservative base -- and a desperate attempt to change the subject from the grimmer, more important issues that are appropriately disquieting the public. And not even that social-conservative base, whose members doubt the intensity of Bush's commitment to the issue. The president has actively ignored this issue until this week, most notably by refusing to twist arms on the Hill. According to an old Bush friend quoted in Newsweek today, the issue is not one that Bush cares about -- except for its political significance. And two of his most loyal top advisers -- Vice President Cheney and First Lady Laura Bush -- have publicly distanced themselves from using the issue as a political wedge. Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush on Saturday urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying in his weekly radio address that marriage 'cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots.' . . . "Mr. Bush's radio address was the beginning of what White House aides had said would be a major push to support the marriage amendment, which the Senate is to begin debating in the next couple of days. The effort comes after weeks of increasingly vocal complaints from cultural conservatives that Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans abandoned their issues after relying on them to win in the 2004 elections." Caroline Daniel writes in the Financial Times: "The revival of the issue marks the most visible contours of the electoral strategy being crafted by Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist who has been charged with focusing on the mid-term elections. In an effort to rally disaffected Republican conservatives -- whose support for Mr Bush has slipped from 91 per cent to 68 per cent -- he is turning again to the divisive issues of gay marriage and judicial nominations." Reluctant Warrior Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. . . . "Bush has given the appearance of a reluctant supporter of banning same-sex marriage. In an interview with The Washington Post in January 2005, he said he did not plan to lobby senators for the amendment because it did not have much chance of passing, infuriating conservative supporters. Even this week, he has sent mixed signals. The White House told activists that Monday's speech would be in the Rose Garden, but after criticism that he was using such a symbolic site, the White House moved it to an office building next door." Here's the transcript of Bush's 2005 interview with Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher. "The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment? "THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge. "The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to -- "THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. "The Post: But until that changes, you want it? "THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I'm saying? "The Post: Right. "THE PRESIDENT: The logic." So much for the logic, apparently. Doesn't Register Debra Rosenberg writes in Newsweek: "Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told Newsweek that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. 'I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a [expletive] about it. He never talks about this stuff,' said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters -- Bush will also meet privately with a small group -- have been in the works 'for weeks' and aren't just a sop to conservatives." Dissent in High Places Here's my August 25, 2004, column, Cheney Breaks With the Boss , in which I ran excerpts from the vice president's comments at a town meeting in Iowa, where a questioner asked: "I need to know what do you think about homosexual marriages." Cheney's surprising response: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. . . . "I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled." And here the first lady, just last month, on Fox News : Q "[W]hat do you think of the constitutional amendment and the idea of using it as a campaign tool? "MRS. BUSH: Well, I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue -- a lot of sensitivity." The Malcontents Maura Reynolds and Janet Hook write in the Los Angeles Times: "The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday -- words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras. "Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham. " 'I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse,' said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. 'We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late.' " Charlotte Raab of AFP also quotes Glover: "He hasn't twisted any arms, he hasn't made any deals, he hasn't been pushing senators to support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. . . . And he thinks that he can hold one speech . . . the day before the vote, which is a clear expression of weakness, and appease conservatives as if he's done something significant." About Those Nonexistent Calls So is this just lip service, or has Bush put any actual effort into getting the amendment passed? That came up at Friday's press briefing , but spokesman Tony Snow typically brushed the questions off with a laugh and a shrug. "Q Is he making calls to senators? "MR. SNOW: Senators aren't in town -- do you know how hard it is to find a senator this week? (Laughter.) I'm serious. Do you have any clue? . . "Q So is that a 'no' about phone calls? "MR. SNOW: I honestly don't know if he's making phone calls on this." An anonymous White House official told Newsweek that Bush has in fact not made calls on the amendment -- because "nobody has asked us." Not a Top Concern Joseph Carroll writes for the Gallup News Service: "Americans continue to say that the war in Iraq should be the top priority for the president and Congress, according to a recent Gallup Panel poll. After Iraq, the public feels that the government should focus on fuel and oil prices, immigration policy, the general state of the economy, and healthcare issues." Gay marriage didn't make the list at all. Dueling Narratives on the Iran Reversal So what are we to make of Bush's startling turnaround on direct talks with Iran last week? Depends who you read, and who you trust. U.S. News reports: "Senior White House officials want it known that it was President Bush -- not foreign leaders, as has been rumored -- who came up with the idea of giving Iran one final 'test' before pressing for sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. 'This is actually something that the president conceived of and talked a lot about over a number of weeks,' a senior Bush adviser says." Jim Hoagland writes in his Washington Post op-ed column: "President Bush handed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and German Chancellor Angela Merkel a significant foreign policy victory and put new distance between himself and Vice President Cheney with last week's decision to dangle the carrot of U.S. participation in talks with Iran. But it is a victory of process rather than of substance and could still come undone. . . . "The true immediate significance of Rice's dramatic announcement was that it shows Bush is now fighting to save his battered presidency by allowing change in a White House where Cheney's influence has been paramount." Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler writes that "the administration's about-face, as recounted by U.S. officials, shows the dominant influence of Rice on the policymaking process." Rice's conclusion that the international effort to derail Iran's programs was falling apart "spurred a secret discussion among Rice, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley: Should the United States finally agree to join the Europeans at the negotiations with Iran? "Though Bush administration officials had publicly always dismissed that possibility, officials at the highest levels -- including Cheney, frequently but inaccurately portrayed as an adamant foe of joining the talks -- realized that soon the administration would be forced to grapple with the question, five U.S. officials said in interviews last week." Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times that "the story of how a president who rarely changes his mind did so in this case -- after refusing similar proposals on Iran four years ago -- illustrates the changed dynamic between the State Department and the White House in Mr. Bush's second term. . . . "It is unclear how much dissent, if any, surrounded the decision, which appears to have been driven largely by the president, Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley, with other senior national security officials playing a more remote role. Both White House and State Department officials say Vice President Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran, agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment -- clearing the way to sanctions that could test the Iranian government's ability to survive." No matter how you slice it, it's clear that people close to Bush are suddenly being unusually chatty. The liberal Web site Buzzflash does a close reading of the Cooper/Sanger piece and makes some interesting points about its unhealthy lack of skepticism. "[T]he very context of this article as conveying a credible scenario should be called into question because it relies on White House sources who wish to remain anonymous, according to the New York Times, for no credible reason, since they obviously are telling flattering details about Bush being 'in charge' with the full permission of the White House propaganda apparatus." Among the more stinging critiques, Buzzflash points out that the Times apparently buys into "the bizarre Bush penchant for running foreign policy based on body language." For the record, I'm a big fan of close readings of White House stories, from whatever perspective. If you see others out there please let me know. Bubble Watch Peter Baker writes in a front-page Washington Post story on Saturday: "A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints has been reaching out in its moment of weakness to prominent figures who have disagreed with the president. Bush just hired a Treasury secretary who opposed his policy on global warming and a press secretary who dismissed his domestic agenda as timid and listless. "How much such moves reflect a genuine opening up for an insular White House remains uncertain. Symbolically, at least, the White House is eager to rebut the longstanding public impression of a president in a bunker listening only to like-minded advisers. Substantively, Bush has hardly signaled a major course change in the direction of his presidency, and skeptics recall past instances when nonconformists within the administration were shut out. "Yet some Washington veterans detect signs of a tentative new willingness by the administration to heed the advice of others rather than sticking stubbornly to its position." Admittedly, that Bush lets dissenters into the same room with him on occasion these days is news -- compared to his past practices. That he lets them speak is news -- for the same reason. But there are further steps required before anyone declares this a bubble rupture. Does Bush actually listen to these dissenters? Does he actually engage in a dialogue with those who disagree with him on important issues, or just respond with those familiar, often unresponsive talking points? (See my May 23 column, Time for a Debate .) Some liberal bloggers were unimpressed by Baker's argument or evidence. Steve Benen writes: "Henry Paulson for Treasury isn't exactly a persuasive example -- Paulson disagrees with Bush on environmental issues, but has been nominated for a post that has nothing to do with the environment, and agrees with every economic decision the White House has made since 2001. Press Secretary Tony Snow took a few mild shots at the White House as a conservative commentator, but that was just empty rhetoric. Besides, reaching out to Fox News for your press secretary is hardly a sign of a deteriorating bubble. "Let's be clear: genuine tolerance for dissent includes sincere consideration of ideas that conflict with pre-conceived notions. What evidence is there that Bush has matured in this capacity? None." They Still Love Him in Utah New York Times reporter Timothy Egan travels to Utah to find some Bush supporters. "This core group is a highly concentrated version of the Bush base, one that appears to be motivated more by general principles and a comfort level with the president than by specific issues or political trends. They tend to be impressed by Mr. Bush's faith and convinced that he understands their lives and values." Scooter Libby Watch Neil A. Lewis writes in the New York Times: "A federal district judge dealt a severe setback on Friday to I. Lewis Libby Jr., denying him a trove of documents that his lawyers had said were crucial to his defense against charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. . . . "In effect, the decision blocked the defense team's bid to expand the trial into a wider forum about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and what Mr. Libby has portrayed as the Bush administration's legitimate efforts to respond to critics of the war on the merits." Here's the text of the ruling, from Talking Points Memo. Rove Watch Mark Silva writes: "Karl Rove is slowly but surely shedding the low profile that he has assumed since a federal probe identified him as one of the Bush administration officials who served as sources for reporters who wrote about a CIA official's identity." For instance: "The Rove-warrior was in high gear Friday night in one of Florida's Democratic strongholds, Broward County, where he told a crowd of Republicans that Democratic Sen. John Kerry's formula for finishing the fight in Iraq amounts to nothing more than 'cut and run.' "Rove delivered a 'resounding defense' of the decision to invade Iraq, according to the St. Petersburg Times ." I wrote in my May 18 column : "White House political guru Karl Rove's chirpy optimism is meeting with more than a little skepticism these days. But undeterred, Rove has now sent out his deputy, Peter Wehner , to spread the message on The Washington Post's op-ed page. Wehner writes: "We hear a great deal about the problems we face. We hear hardly anything about the encouraging developments. Off-key as it may sound in the current environment, a strong case can be made that in a number of areas there are positive trends and considerable progress." For instance, there's national security: "Perhaps no nation has ever been as dominant as the United States is today -- and we are using our military power to promote great purposes." And social conditions: "Between 1960 and the mid-'90s virtually every social indicator got worse -- and in many cases staggeringly worse. Then things began to turn around, almost as if a cultural virus created its own antibodies." Remind me. Who was president in the mid-'90s again? Live Online I'll be Live Online Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET. Bye Bye Bumiller Bidding farewell to the White House beat after almost five years, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller on Sunday offered up a collection of anecdotes in an attempt to clear up what she considers the most important "misperception" about the beat: that it's an awful job. Her piece offers no great insight into the president ("like just about everyone, he can be short-tempered, impatient and brusque"). And, much like the man she's so dutifully covered, Bumiller declined to engage her critics. Bumiller, for instance, doesn't address the widespread concern that an overly credulous press corps has been complicit in its own emasculation at the hands of a White House that sees no obligation to explain itself to anyone. Her "White House Letters" in particular have often been cited as examples of fluffy appeasement. She does write that to "report effectively on one of the most secretive White Houses ever" she "worked the phones in concentric circles inward, from members of Congress who were mad at the president, to put-upon State Department officials, to those ubiquitous 'Republicans close to the White House.'" But as she herself notes: "Not incidentally, the anonymous Republicans were often White House-sanctioned leakers -- lobbyists, former party officials -- who would pass on information West Wing officials wanted out. . . . White House officials then said they had no idea where these terrible leaks were coming from." Quite the legacy. Feeling Counted Out? A possibly telling comment from Bush's photo op with the Pittsburgh Steelers on Friday: "About halfway through the season a lot of people were counting the Steelers out. They said you didn't have a chance. I kind of know the feeling. " © 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Standards go up in smokeA desperate Bush is cynically deploying the totemic issues of gay marriage and flag-burning to rally his weary troops. June 6, 2006 06:00 PM President Bush's regression to his "back to basics" culture war is not intended to enact the proposals he advocates. On the contrary, he and his senior political adviser, Karl Rove, "the "architect", as Bush calls him, really want them to fail. Indeed, Bush knows that the two constitutional amendments he pushes - the family protection amendment banning gay marriage and the flag desecration amendment making flag-burning a federal crime - will not pass through the complicated process requiring approval by both houses of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures. Even Republicans supporting the anti-gay marriage amendment acknowledge
it stands no chance of passing through Congress. The flag-burning amendment
has been fruitlessly proposed every decade for more than 30 years. But in
Bush's and Rove's calculations, the amendments may serve as inflammatory
causes to rally the Republican rightwing base, dispirited, divided and
disillusioned amid Bush's general political collapse. Bush and Rove, however, are not concerned with the broad public: they are targeting their discontented and demobilising base on the eve of midterm elections in which Republicans may lose control of the House of Representatives and perhaps, in a worst-case scenario, even the Senate. Raising the level of homophobia and jingoism is the first act in a well-rehearsed theatre of political exploitation. In the second act, the evil Democrats, liberals, relativists, secular humanists and devil worshippers defeat the heartfelt effort of the faithful to defend the family and the nation. Then, in the concluding act, in the midterm elections, the aroused conservative masses flock to the polls in a mood of retribution to retain Republican rule of the Congress. Hallelujah! Rove's political rise - like Bush's - can be charted through his homophobic campaigns, from the choreographed whispering campaign against the Texas democratic governor, Ann Richards, according to which she was a secret lesbian (she wasn't) to the ballot initiatives in 16 swing states during the 2004 presidential campaign. Having exhausted his other ploys, Rove is relying on his tried-and-true tactic once again. The urgency of these twin crises - gay marriage and flag-burning - appears to vary. Gay people, after all, are to be found almost everywhere, including in the highest reaches of the Republican Party (though closeted). But there are very few flag-burners. While civil libertarians argue that an amendment would violate the first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech (even expressions that one despises), not a single flag-burner has stepped forward, perhaps because many, if not most of them, are drunken teenagers. The last incident, a not untypical one, occurred in 2005, according to the pro-amendment rightwing group the Citizen Flag Alliance: "December 20, 2005 Sarasota, FL: a young man will spend six months in jail and six months in a residential alcohol treatment programme for his role in burning American flags that hung from homes in a Florida subdivision." The report did not note the flag-burner's sexual orientation. On gay marriage, Bush himself is indifferent, except as political tool. Newsweek reports this week: "One of his old friends told Newsweek that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. 'I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff,' said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush." Bush's cynicism, of course, expresses profound contempt for his most devoted followers, who remain his bulwark even when everyone else has deserted his side. In his unexpressed but obvious view, there is nothing he can do that they will not support; there is nowhere these sheep cannot be herded. The reasoning, such as it is, behind the amendments is patently political. Otherwise, one must believe the possession of a document by strangers will cause the break-up of your own and others' marriages or inspire you to rush out and burn a flag. The inherent logic is that there is no free will and that an authoritarian order must impose it. Given his logic, it is unclear why Bush doesn't argue that thinking about gay people will incite flag-burning. The absurdities required were displayed yesterday at the White House press briefing after the president delivered his speech in favour of the family protection amendment. His press secretary, Tony Snow, mentioned it in the same breath as "civil rights." The following exchange, as recorded in the official transcript, ensued: Q: You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this
to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the
years?
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Elsewhere
in the book, Coulter refers to the widows as "witches" and asks, "how do we
know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies"? In response, a group of five 9/11 widows, who may have been the prime targets of Coulter's remarks, issued a statement denouncing Coulter's views. The New York Daily News on Wednesday featured a smiling Coulter and this headline on its front page: COULTER THE CRUEL. One story inside was topped with "Massive Chip on Her Coulter " and another called her a "a model of meanness." The Star-Ledger in Newark, meanwhile, carried a story today with the headline "For 9/11 widows, book adds insult to injury." It featured interviews with some of the widows. The New York Post headlined a story: "RIGHTY WRITER COULTER HURLS NASTY GIBES AT 9/11 GALS." The Post interviewed one of the widows, Mindy Kleinberg of East Brunswick, N.J. -- part of a group Coulter dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick." Kleinberg said, "We are trying to make sure that nobody else walks in our footsteps. And if she [Coulter] thinks that's wrong, so be it." Newsday (Melville, N.Y.) carried an Associated Press story. On a separate matter -- charges that she knowingly voted in the wrong precinct in Florida last year -- Coulter said on Fox News Tuesday night that reporters who wrote about the case are "all retarded" and accused Palm Beach officials of having a sexually transmitted disease. "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains," she said. "This is all false, I'm telling you." Universal syndicates Coulter's column. A spokesman there told E&P it had no response to the latest firestorm. The five widows' statement is reprinted below (it first appeared at crooksandliars.com). *** We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated? We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day. It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11. We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings. 1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack. 2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack. 3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack. 4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together. 5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives. 6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives. 7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus. 8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights. -- September 11th Advocates Kristen Breitweiser Patty Casazza Monica Gabrielle Mindy Kleinberg Lorie Van Auken E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
Links referenced within this article
|
