« December 2003 | Main | February 2004 »
Our old friends Bloggerheads have come up with a brilliant new campaign in response to the Hutton Report's blasting of the BBC and the ensuing shakeup that has left the Corporation's future in doubt:
This is one initiative I support fully. The BBC is a venerable institution providing a service to the world, and to have it crippled or eliminated on the basis of an increasingly-questionable government investigation would be a travesty.
Hi, you UK folks, I thought you should know about the following events that DA-UK has coming up (thanks to Jamey Dumas, chairman of DA-UK):
Voter Registration TrainingUpdate 6PM Friday 30th
Monday, February 2Democrats Abroad UK will hold a voter registration training on Monday 2 February at 7:00 pm. Volunteers who would like to learn how to register other Americans to vote and request absentee ballots for 2004 elections should contact Frances Deak for more information.
----------------------------------------------------
Super Tuesday Party and Voter Registration Drive
Tuesday, February 38 PM at the Rothermere American Institute, Oxford
Come and watch the primary election results and register to vote or request an absentee ballot. Francis Deak from the UK DA Committee will be on hand to assist with registration, and food will be available.
----------------------------------------------------
February Speakeasy
Wednesday, February 4An opportunity for Americans in London and in Oxford to discuss current events in American politics. Our Political Speakeasy meetings are held the first Wednesday of every month. To find out more please contact speakeasy@democratsabroad.org.uk for our London meeting, or oxford@democratsabroad.org.uk for our Oxford meeting.
If you would like to join in the discussion, or just meet other Democrats and like-minded Americans in London, you'll want to be there. Everyone is welcome, so please bring along anyone who might be interested.
WHEN: The first Wednesday of every month starting informally at 7pm (show up when you can) barring special circumstances such as falling on New Year's Day.
IN LONDON AT: The Harrow, 22 Whitefriars Street, London EC4Y 8JJ, (020) 7427-0916. The McCawber Bar on the top floor of the pub has been reserved for the meeting. The closest tube is Blackfriars Bridge. To get to the Harrow, walk up New Bridge Street away from Blackfriars Bridge. After a block or two make a left onto Tudor Street and walk for a few more blocks until you get to Whitefriars Street. Make a right and walk about 100 feet to the Harrow. See map from streetmap.co.uk.
IN OXFORD AT: The Royal Oak on Woodstock Road (starting in November).
----------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire Debriefing
Sunday, February 8Please join us on Sunday February 8th from 10 am to 12 noon, when New Hampshire Senate Minority Whip Lou D'Allesandro will be in London to recap the Primary and help us warm up for the UK caucus. D'Allesandro, courted by all candidates during the New Hampshire race, is uniquely qualified to provide us an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign as we head into our caucus the following day.
Come for a privileged look back, and an informed discussion about what it may mean for what's ahead -- along with continental breakfast -- at the Charlotte Street Hotel, 15 Charlotte Street, London SW1. The cost of this event £20.00 per person, to go to our world wide effort to get out the vote. (Students/unwaged admitted at cost: £7.00.)
RSVP here.
----------------------------------------------------
Democrats Abroad UK Presidential Caucus
Monday, February 9Jolly Hotel St. Ermins
Caxton St, London SW1H 0QW
Tel: 020 7222 7888
(Nearest Tube: St. James’s Park)
(across the street from New Scotland Yard)Starts at 7:00 pm
(You must arrive before 7:00 to participate -- come early for a snack or drink to avoid transportation delays.)
Our caucus is where Americans in the UK can vote for the presidential candidate he or she believes should get the Democratic Party's nomination. Through the UK Caucus we will elect delegates, either committed to a candidate or "undeclared", who will represent the UK at our International Caucus which takes place 26-28 March in Edinburgh, Scotland with delegates from around the world. The International Caucus will determine how Democrats Abroad's votes for our party's presidential nomination will be cast at the Democratic National Convention in Boston during late July 2004.
This is guaranteed to be a fun and exciting evening, as the different groups try to broker support for their candidate, especially this year with so many candidates. Some of the candidates will have sent videos to tell us about their positions on various issues and a TV/VCR will be set up to watch whatever we have been sent. We will have a separate area for observers (i.e., journalists or non-Americans).
The more food and drinks we all buy, the less we have to pay for the room hire.
Mark the date in your diary and tell your American friends. We want as many people to be involved as possible and let's make sure George W. gets defeated in 2004!
PLEASE NOTE: Participation is open to all voting age Americans who are registered Democrats (you can register on the evening). As a security measure, we will need to check passports upon entry, so please bring yours with you.
Tell your American friends...
It's been an interesting week out there.
After all of the hoo-ha here with the Hutton report coming out and basically exonerating the British government from the BBC's claims of "sexing up" WMD claims, and that coming on the heels of US chief weapons inspector David Kay initially resigning in frustration at there being no weapons, then just recently turning around and softening the blow in Senate testimony (essentially: we botched the intelligence but so did everyone else), it looks like the "trust your government, they know what's best" folks have gotten a bit of a late Christmas present.
The Bush folks are capitalizing on this, with the Condi Rice offensive being launched in the last couple of days on behalf of President Bush that is starting to seed the line "we may have had flawed intelligence" to anyone who'll listen. This marks a shift from the beating-a-dead-horse "we'll find those WMDs soon" line that was still being trumpeted late into last year. Now, in an effort to defuse one of the Democrats' main angles of attack, the Bush people are now going to sell us on the idea that they made all their decisions based on faulty intelligence - and they're already getting Congress on board with this line. This is a smart move because in part they can shift the blame on the bad intelligence back to the Clinton administration, and say that he left the CIA in such bad shape that they weren't even able to tell that Saddam's own WMD people were lying to him in order to cover their own rear ends. Hence, cherubic Bush turns from aggressor to victim just in time for the hard election campaign push.
Well, I'm choked up. Really.
Don't believe it for a minute. I have no problems with the idea we may have had flawed intelligence, but we knew that our intelligence wasn't perfect, and the idealogical way that the Iraq war was rammed down our throats, and the certainty and conviction that Bush spoke with should have been based on rock-solid, verifiable intelligence. I have no doubt that Bush and his folks didn't lose any sleep over possible faults in the conclusions they drew, or the decision to go to war. But don't you all believe that this was a case of good-faith errors, and don't let these people off the hook. Bush is a bad leader, to paraphrase John Kerry. The way he behaved is inexcusable, and he needs to go.
With the first votes having already been cast in the first primary of the 2004 Presidential Election, we're finally now in proper campaign territory - as the man said, it's magic time, people. Iowa's got pride of place as the first caucus, but when you want to talk about real, concrete countable votes, you've got to look to New Hampshire.
Today will set the tone of the rest of the campaign. Will Kerry solidify his post-Iowa lead (check out the numbers v. Bush)? Will Edwards make another surprising showing? Will Dean put himself back into contention, or scupper his campaign in the first round? Will Clark come from out of nowhere to capitalize on his early success? Well, OK, the last one is a bit of a stretch, but you never know.
I've been asked to mention to you London people an event taking place on Tuesday in London called "Regime Change in the White House":
"Regime Change in the White House"
DJs, MCs, jazz musicians, singers and poets mash it for democracy. Jazz, Hip-Hop, RnB, Spoken Word, Comedy and everything in between.Tues 27 January 7pm - 11.30
The Market Bar, EC3
2 Crutched Friars,
London EC3N 2HT
nearest tubes: Tower Hill, Aldgate, Tower Gateway
nearest BR: Fenchurch St
Tel: 020 7480 7550- FREE -
Attitude-free policycontact webmaster@scribesuk.net for more info
You can't make this up. I suppose, being in Roswell, this exchange could have all kinds of explanations...
Remarks by the President to the Press PoolNothin' Fancy Cafe - Roswell, New Mexico
11:25 A.M. MST
THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.
Q Mr. President, how are you?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.
Q What would you like?
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.
Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.
THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?
Q Right behind you, whatever you order.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?
Q But Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?
Q Ribs.
THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.
Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?
Q An answer.
Q Can we buy some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.
Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.
END 11:29 A.M. MST
Yet again here in the UK I was unable to watch the Dems debate last night, and have had to make do with the postmortems from the usual sources.
Something caught my eye though - Kerry's attack on Bush's foreign policy was right on. My jury's still out on who I'm supporting, and Kerry's never seemed all that attractive charisma-wise, but he really hit the nail on the head here:
KERRY: As a last resort was the promise of a president. And I wrote in the New York Times at that time, I said the United States of America should never go to war because it wants to. It should only go to war because it has to. And that means building legitimacy and consent of the America people, Brit.Look, I know there is a test as a commander in chief as to when you send young Americans off to war, because I know what happens when you lose that consent.
And you got to be able to look in the eyes of a family and say you exhausted every possibility and you only sent their son or daughter to die because you had no other choice.
I believe George Bush failed that test in Iraq. I said so at the time, and that's what I believe happened.
JENNINGS: Thank you very much.
KERRY: There is the right way to do it and wrong way to do it. He chose the wrong way. And he's run the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.
Well, that was an eye-opener. I spent three weeks at "home" in the midwest after living abroad for a year, and I have to say, it's nice to be back in London. I felt so isolated from the world, and the NEWS! My gosh, the NEWS was NOT news at all! Entertainment, perhaps, Propaganda, definitely, but most certainly not much actual NEWS. Everywhere I looked, there seemed to be indications that the "Terrsts" were coming, they were coming NOW, and if we didn't all submit to invasions of ours and others civil liberties, they were GONNA GIT US! Liberal media bias? Puh-lease. If it existed before, it certainly doesn't now.
Fellow expats (if there are actually are any here and it's not just pro-Bushites ranting), we should be glad to have this opportunity to look at our birthplace with open eyes. The average American living in the U.S. has to search hard and wade through so much to get an inkling of what is happening in the world! Even NPR is much tamer than I remembered.
Due to my marriage to a British man, I am one of those who will probably never move "home". But I'm still concerned for my homeland. I've already sent in my application for an absentee ballot, and I hope all you expats will do the same.
Side note: My brother is here on leave from Iraq, and we went and saw the screening of "Unprecedented", the documentary on the 2000 election. Very critical of both sides. Amazing how so many who've never seen it felt compelled to trash it! But that seems to be the way of the Pro-Bush side, bury everything, hope people forget.
(Luke, when are we all getting together? I feel the need for one of those self-exaulting, liberal back-patting festivals that we're always supposedly having!)
Matt Drudge has been promising an earth-shattering exclusive on John Edwards, and what he has unveiled seems not to amount to much:
In a [campaign website] page titled "seniors," Edwards takes a stand on the controversial issue, declaring how he "strongly opposes recent efforts to privatize Social Security, which would jeopardize benefits by risking our Social Security funds in the stock market."This "exclusive", for lack of a better term, is asinine and without merit. Typical Drudge.But just 5 years ago, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal, Edwards supported investing Social Security funds in the stock market!
In a speech on October 6, 1998 in Raleigh, Edwards told a group of senior citizens that Social Security surpluses - money not needed immediately to pay benefits - should be invested and kept separate. A portion of the money, up to 10 percent, could be invested in the stock market and the remainder put in secure investments such as treasury bills, Edwards explained.
Any of you traded on the stock market over the last 5-6 years? Check. Any of you less optimistic about investing in the stock market than you were 5-6 years ago? Check. Investing differently than you were 5-6 years ago? I thought so. Almost everybody who's even dabbled in the stock market has had a real education in the realities of bubble economics, and, aside from Warren Buffett, almost everyone views the long-term security of, er, securities in a different light than they did before the dot-com meltdown. That Edwards was advocating investing 1/10th of the surplus in the midst of the "information superhighway" hype-a-thon is hardly newsworthy, nor significant. It's to be expected.
By the way, yes, Virginia, there once was such a thing as a Social Security surplus.
A couple of interesting pieces in The Guardian and Talking Points Memo about the apparent state of play post-Iowa and pre-New Hampshire, specifically talking about the changing momenta of the different candidates, and how that relates to real or imagined hype and buzz. All seem to agree (as I do) that the race has gotten a lot more interesting all of a sudden.
A salient point from The Guardian regarding John Edwards and a possible reason for him such a surprising gain:
Edwards cannily avoided the war as a major theme of his campaign, rightly recognising it as a no-win issue for any Democrat wanting to take on George Bush in the fall. And that recognition among the voters above all else is what redrew the contest Monday night. When it comes down to it, Democrats are more motivated by a candidate who will be their best shot against the president, than one who reflects their anger over Iraq. This pragmatism spells danger for Dean and opportunity for those who did not stand in the way of the war, namely Senators Kerry and Edwards.
Some of you may remember me mentioning last month that the US Government is continuing to trial internet absentee voting for some selected counties in a few states (including my own, South Carolina). I mentioned at the time that I was not particularly enthusiastic about the prospects, given my experience with past US Government attempts to "harness the power of the internet" (read: subcontract work to the lowest bidder) and the ongoing problems even digitally upgrading the voting process at the local level.
Now I have been checking the SERVE site from time to time, and I've been unimpressed by the lack of updates, and the fact that they seem not to have opened registration yet, despite the looming primary dates of several of the eligible states. So, already one is not filled with confidence in the system.
Apparently some computer experts serving on an advisory panel for SERVE are similarly unimpressed. Yesterday four of them broke ranks and published a report finding that the system was unsecure, vulnerable to attack, and unsuitable for use as a certifiable vote-counting mechanism. With up to 100,000 voters expected to use the system, isn't that a trifle concerning? I was a bit tempted to participate in this just as a test case, but I think I'll stick to the old-fashioned paper method now - I'd rather my probably-futile Democratic vote in South Carolina be counted properly, thank you.
America this evening is a nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them.Actually, technically, we'll be rising to meet them - the costs of supporting these "great responsibilities", that is. Not now, of course, in this election cycle. But down the line, sooner or later, someone's going to have to pay for all this crazy spending. When even the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, two normally-dependable mouthpieces for the administration, are calling time on these budget proposals, you have to sit up and take notice:
-G.W. Bush, January 20th 2004
The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades. In 2003, total federal spending topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.Fair enough, you say, these are tough times requiring extraordinary measures. But shouldn't there be at least some acknowledgment that new expenditure (new programs) while simultaneously reducing income (taxes) must logically result in some other expenditures being reduced? Apparently not:Amazing as it may sound, the ostensibly small-government GOP seems totally oblivious to the fact that all this spending puts its future economic agenda in jeopardy. Appropriations do mean taxes after all, even if they're deferred taxes. There's also a moral dimension here. Can anybody honestly maintain that working Americans should be coerced to ante up for golf awareness?
Mr. Bush's latest proposals might not, in and of themselves, be that egregious, but critics, including conservatives concerned about spending levels, say they follow three years of big spending bills he has signed into law. They cite Mr. Bush's failure to ever veto a single appropriations measure — including an expansive farm subsidy bill and last year's $400 billion Medicare prescription drugs measure, which made him the first Republican president to sign into law a new federal entitlement, as examples of dangerous precedents.
You could not have predicted Kerry taking Iowa, nor that second place would be... John Edwards? Clearly the rural card was played in his case. Dean is not too happy about coming in third. Gephardt's throwing in the towel.
I wonder if Clark is secretly smiling that he decided to sit this one out?
It's going to be a tight one tonight, folks!
I thought I'd pass along news from Jamey Dumas, chair of Democrats Abroad, about screenings of Unprecedented in London and Oxford this weekend - there are still spaces available:
We will be screening the award-winning documentary Unprecedented about the Florida recount followed by a discussion with the film's co-director Joan Sekler on Saturday afternoon in Oxford and Sunday morning in London. (Details below.) As we have been fortunate enough in London to secure The Screen on the Hill we still have space for people to attend despite over 100 RSVPs. So join us this weekend and help kick off our 2004 voter registration drive.EVENT DETAILS:
UNPRECEDENTED SCREENING WITH JOAN SEKLER
OXFORD: Saturday 17 January at 4:00 p.m. Rothmere American Institute located on South Parks Road, backing onto Mansfield College (see http://www.rai.ox.ac.uk/institute/contacts.html).
LONDON: Sunday 18 January at 11:00 a.m. The Screen on the Hill Haverstock Hill NW3 (nearest Tube Belsize Park) London Screening. Contribution: 10 pounds (or 5 pounds for students/unwaged) goes to expenses and our international Get Out The Vote fund.
RSVP here
For extensive information about the film and its contents, see www.unprecedented.org.
Carol Moseley Braun is to drop out of the race for the President today and endorse Howard Dean, the AP is reporting.
All is not completely rosy in the Dean camp, however: A Zogby poll puts Kerry at 22% in Iowa ahead of the caucus, with Dean and Gephardt tied at 21% each - admittedly well within the 4.5% margin of error, but still a bit surprising. Then again Josh Marshall has some choice words regarding Zogby polls, so take it with a pinch of salt.
Although falling short of a proper endorsement, former President Jimmy Carter will "offer support" for Howard Dean in advance of the Iowa caucuses. Question: Does a Jimmy Carter endorsement/appearance help or harm a Democratic candidate's prospects? And has Jimmy only jumped on board now that it looks like Dean could ride off with both of the important first contests?
Perhaps it was Dean "winning" the irrelevant DC primary (not caucus) that swung Jimmy into his camp.... No, I didn't think so either.
As some of you on the comments have pointed out, Paul O'Neill seems to be waffling a bit. Although he is being quoted as the hand-in-the-cookie-jar source, he goes to pains to stress he is not personally anti-Bush.
Regardless, he has forced the President's hand. Bush, in an attempt to defuse the situation, has admitted only "continuing" the policy of regime change instigated by Clinton. But one of his staffers begs to differ:
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."
Hello all,
I've been in contact with Isabel Cole from American Voices Abroad, who is coordinating the launch of the 100,000 in 2004 initiative, which I've mentioned on this site before.
They're doing a worldwide launch on Monday the 19th of January, and would like to have a launch event in London if they can manage it. I will be out of town on Monday unfortunately, but we thought that perhaps one of our London readers could volunteer to hold a launch event in my absence. If you think you might like to do this, get in touch with me and I'll pass your details on to Isabel and publicize the event here on EAB. I know it's a bit late notice, but it's a chance for some of you to really get on board with a good cause.
A couple of people have written in to me today, asking if the fact that I have only 2 candidates represented in the sidebar sections means that I am only endorsing those two candidates.
Let me be clear: I am not endorsing anyone yet.
The only reason only Dean and Clark sites are linked to the sidebar is that these are the only Expat support sites I could find via the normal Google search methods. Dean and Clark supporters have emailed me in the past to ask me to add the sites. So far no other candidate supporters have notified me of any non-Dean/Clark sites; I would be happy to add them if I was pointed the way.
Just to avoid confusion, I have changed the name of the sidebar section to reflect the Expat nature of the candidate sites. I have also added in a new section called Official Candidate Sites which lists all current candidates' sites.
One of my main points of contention with the Bush administration's handling of post-9/11 foreign policy has been its increasingly hamhanded approach to this nebulous "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) which started from a pretty understandable and justifiable retaliatory attack on Al-Queda and Afghanistan, but then mushroomed out of control and turned into a Frankenstein monster with all sorts of new limbs sewn on, from the dubious preemptive strike on Iraq to all sorts of offences committed against your civil liberties in the name of eliminating terrorism. My feeling has always been that while the stated aim of the GWOT was to reduce the threat of terrorism, in reality the way in which it is being carried out will, in the long term, increase the phenomenon of anti-Western terrorism and reduce the longterm national security of the United States.
It's nice, every once in a while, to see this feeling echoed by those who should know - specifically the U.S. Army War College, which published this damning report on the strategic missteps of the Global War on Terror and the longterm prospects for its success:
Additionally,most of the GWOT ’s declared objectives,which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable.
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has unleashed a series of blistering attacks on Bush and his administration over the weekend. Although it is easy to discern that these attacks are designed to plug a new book released Tuesday about his rise and fall, it should be noted that he's not getting any money out of that book, and there are a lot of inside looks at the inner workings of the Bush administration that give a chilling perspective on how decisions are actually made in today's White House:
According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.Anyone else find this unsurprising?
From his first meeting with the President, O'Neill found Bush unengaged and inscrutable, an inside account far different from the shiny White House brochure version of an unfailing leader questioning aides with rapid-fire intensity. The two met one-on-one almost every week, but O'Neill says he had trouble divining his boss's goals and ideas. Bush was a blank slate rarely asking questions or issuing orders, unlike Nixon and Ford, for whom O'Neill also worked. "I wondered from the first, if the President didn't know the questions to ask," O'Neill says in the book, "or if he did know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange." In larger meetings, Bush was similarly walled off. Describing top-level meetings, O'Neill tells Suskind that during the course of his two years the President was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."This reminds me of one of my university seminars given by a former high-level CIA executive who used to deliver the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) to Reagan every morning in the early 80s, and who had the privilege on several occasions of attending Cabinet meetings. He said that there would be furious debate on various subjects usually relating to the Soviet Union between the various Cabinet members, and Reagan would look on in a detached way. My teacher remembered Reagan interrupting one such debate, telling a story about going fishing, and then getting up and walking out, leaving the Cabinet members to interpret for themselves what they were meant to have inferred from the story. And he had his finger on the button.
But back to the matter at hand. Amongs other things, O'Neill says that the idea of removing Saddam from power was first mooted within 10 days of Bush taking office, which should come as no great surprise:
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”Back in the TIME article, this is discussed further:And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
A White House that seems to pick an outcome it wants and then marshal the facts to meet it seems very much like one that might decide to remove Saddam Hussein and then tickle the facts to meet its objective. That's the inescapable conclusion one draws from O'Neill's description of how Saddam was viewed from Day One. Though O'Neill is careful to compliment the CIA for always citing the caveats in its findings, he describes a White House poised to overinterpret intelligence. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," he tells Suskind. "And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
I feel a rant coming on - indulge me here...
I'm sure you've all been following the news about the tough new border controls being put into place in the US, including digital fingerprinting and facial photos. While this is potentially a boon to terrorist screening measures, there are a number of problems with it (as mentioned in the link) and the exclusion of some countries from having to go through this process has left other countries wondering why they merit inclusion - Brazil in particular has taken such exception that it has retaliated and has now started to fingerprint every US citizen entering the country.
Here in the UK, my British friends took little more than an academic notice of all of this, as the UK is obviously counted among the "friendly" nations who don't have to go through the fingerprinting rigamarole. Until now, that is.
In the last couple of days, word has started to spread about another US immigration restriction which has the potential to cause chaos for UK citizens intending to visit the US later this year. The US has said that after October, any new passport issued in the 27 "friendly" nations will have to carry encoded biometric data (in essence, your fingerprints and facial scan) in a machine-readable form. Any person carrying a passport issued from October onward that lacks the biometric information "will have to travel to their nearest US consulate or embassy for fingerprinting, photographing and a face-to-face interview."
Folks, this is not going over well at all here in the UK - America's staunchest ally. This administration's arrogance is really starting to rub people the wrong way.
All sorts of people go to the US from here for all sorts of reasons - family, business trips, you name it. In fact, New York is the number one non-European weekend holiday break for Britons. Well, until October presumably. That's when you're going to start seeing queues down the block at the American embassy in Grosvenor Square, as little Emma who's going on her first trip abroad with her new passport, or Nigel (who's just replaced the passport he lost in Barcelona last week) join hundreds of others who will spend 4 hours standing in line to pay for the honor of feeling like they're being booked on a felony. They won't be smiling.
Imagine this scene repeated at embassies and consulates all over the other 26 "friendly" countries. How friendly do you think they'll be after going through all of this because their country hasn't met America's arbitrary deadline - which America itself won't meet either:
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, have lobbied Washington hard to postpone the Oct 26 deadline - noting that America's own passport bureau does not expect to produce biometric passports until well into 2005.Given Brazil's example, it's no great leap of the imagination to see these other countries, especially some of the less-well-treated ones (France, anyone?) start to retaliate and impose visa restrictions on all Americans. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the EU will decide to ask all member states to start requiring visas. Any of you who travel frequently will instantly realize the implications here. Major, major disruption.
When will someone bring this administration to heel? Arrogance at the governmental foreign policy breeds immense anger at the grassroots level. Unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions always have a way of breeding more unnecessary and irrational restrictions.
Welcome to your new global village. Now stand in line and smile when the light comes on.
With news that Washington is quietly recalling the 400-strong team responsible for searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there is increasing consensus that the only place Iraq's WMD existed was on paper:
A review of available evidence, including some not known to coalition investigators and some they have not made public, portrays a nonconventional arms establishment that was far less capable than U.S. analysts judged before the war. Leading figures in Iraqi science and industry, supported by observations on the ground, described factories and institutes that were thoroughly beaten down by 12 years of conflict, arms embargo and strangling economic sanctions. The remnants of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile infrastructures were riven by internal strife, bled by schemes for personal gain and handicapped by deceit up and down lines of command. The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.I hate to beat a dead horse here (we'll be hearing so much about WMD claims in the next year, after all), but at some point there has got to be accountability for this from the Bush administration, if even to hold their hands up and say "Well, we thought there was something there, but it looks like we were wrong." If the intelligence services were pressured into "sexing up" items like this to portray them as evidence of a serious threat, it will only be a matter of time before that becomes public knowledge.
The internet is abuzz with discussion of the MoveOn.Org anti-Bush ad competition entries, specifically a couple of since-removed controversial ones comparing Bush's administration to Germany under the Nazis.
Some people are up in arms, outraged that MoveOn.Org would even consider allowing these entries to appear on their website. References to fascist aspects of Bush's presidency are nothing new; they have been made everywhere from the New York Times to Crossfire. This is however a rare instance of a visual link being made between Hitler and Bush, and some would argue that is inexcusable. I would argue that while it is in poor taste, it does make you sit up and take notice. However, I would never consider putting it on television in the current climate - you would alienate way too many people. The founder of MoveOn, Wes Boyd, would seem to agree:
We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.
So what does MoveOn.Org gain from this "slip-up"?
The same thing Britney Spears gained from her little "slip-up" on the weekend. People are talking about them.
By the way, my own personal favorite ad from the finalists is the Polygraph one.
I hope everyone's settling back into the first full work week of 2004 after a much-deserved holiday break.
If you can manage to take time out from your bank account postmortems and worries over already-broken New Year's resolutions, you might want to give some thought to a couple of upcoming Democrats Abroad events.
Here's the text of the email from Jamey Dumas, chair of DA-UK:
Next week on Tuesday 13 January at 1:00 pm British time we will have our second conference call with Senator John Kerry. Less than one week before the Iowa Caucus this will be an excellent opportunity for us to hear from and question one of our Presidential Candidates.You may want to put these in your calendar.We again need individuals to host call groups across the UK. If you can provide a meeting room with a speaker phone which can call a US number please let me know.
We will distribute details for our call locations by the end of the week and expect to host groups in London, Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, and perhaps elsewhere with your help. If you have a question which you would like to ask please submit it to me by Friday 9 February as questions must be coordinated internationally.
Finally, we are completing details for screenings of Unprecedented in Oxford and London on January 17 and 18. Joan Sekler, co-director of this internationally acclaimed documentary, will be joining us to answer questions and talk about what they learned about the 2000 election and recount.
Just so you know, Expats Against Bush UK are looking into holding a screening of Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War sometime in January here in London. I'll let you know more details as they happen.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
Recent Comments