Policy Issues

It's the oil, stupid *

What has so often gotten lost in all the talk about terror and weapons of mass destruction is the fact that for so many of the most influential members of the Bush administration, the obsessive desire to invade Iraq preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. It preceded the Bush administration. The neoconservatives were beating the war drums on Iraq as far back as the late 1990's.  Iraq was supposed to be a first step. Iran was also in the neoconservatives' sights. The neocons envisaged U.S. control of the region (and its oil), to be followed inevitably by the realization of their ultimate dream, a global American empire.. . .The madness took a Dr. Strangelovian turn in the summer of 2002, . . .an influential Pentagon advisory board was given a briefing prepared by a Rand Corporation analyst who said the U.S. should consider seizing the oil fields and financial assets of Saudi Arabia. . . Herbert, NY Times, 7/28/05  MORE

Bush Ignores Genocide *

President Bush is writing a new chapter in [the history of America ignoring slaughter].  Sudan's army and janjaweed militias have spent the last couple of years rampaging in the Darfur region, killing boys and men, gang-raping and then mutilating women, throwing bodies in wells to poison the water and heaving children onto bonfires. Just over a week ago, 350 assailants launched what the U.N. called a "savage" attack on the village of Khor Abeche, "killing, burning and destroying everything in their paths." Once again, there's no good solution. So we've looked away as 300,000 people have been killed in Darfur, with another 10,000 dying every month.  President Bush seems paralyzed in the face of the slaughter. . . .Incredibly, Mr. Bush managed to get through recent meetings [of world leaders] without any public mention of Darfur.  Kristof, NY Times, 4/17/05 MORE

Why Are We in Iraq?

I remember going to Washington in mid-March 2003, nearly two years ago, to cover a demonstration by tens of thousands of protesters [to] prevent the invasion of Iraq. . .Even more clearly than the protests that weekend, I remember the ominous stories in the press about the likelihood that a war in Iraq would embolden Islamic terrorist organizations and strengthen their recruitment efforts. The Times ran a front-page article on Sunday March 16, in which a senior counter-intelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups. And it is a very effective tool." . . .Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, told the committee, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." He added, "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focus on acts of urban terrorism." . . .So tell me again. What was this war about?  Herbert, NY Times, 2/21/05  MORE

Bush Leaves No Mullah Behind *

[T}he Bush energy policy is: "No Mullah Left Behind."  By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that? Friedman, NY Times, 2/13/05  MORE

Bush Causes Terrorism to Increase*

The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London . . .says that the risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries "appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003". . .Al-Qaeda has added Iraq to its list of grievances. With Osama Bin Laden's public encouragement, up to 1,000 foreign jihadists may have infiltrated Iraq." The editor of the report, Colonel Christopher Langton, said there were too few US and other foreign troops in Iraq for the task. . .Success in Iraq would depend on three things, he said. First, it was "essential that Iraqi security forces become the primary instrument of law and order".   At the moment, they number 36,000 and it may take five years for them to obtain the aptitude necessary to guarantee stability," he said. The implication of that comment is that foreign troops might be in Iraq until then.  

Paul Reynolds, BBC News  10/19/04 MORE

Bush's Ignorance Isn't Strength*

 [T]he political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.  How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong?. . The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different. Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.Krugman, NY Times, 10/8/04 MORE

Bush Makes Things Worse*

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf . . .was less enthusiastic in his support for the U.S. war in Iraq, saying the world is less safe in the wake of the invasion.  But the Pakistani president stopped short of calling the invasion a mistake, saying, "I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world."  Musharraf also said that because of the situation in Iraq, he does not foresee Pakistan sending troops to help with the effort.  CNN 9/25/04 MORE
According to the [Iraqi health] ministry, . . .the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -- when the ministry began compiling the data -- until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. . .  Some of the officials say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the U.S.-backed interim government.  NANCY A. YOUSSEF, Free Press, 9/25/04 MORE

Other  Issues

Bush Blinded *

The most important similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that both Democratic and Republican presidents lied to us in wartime. . . . here's how we got out of the Vietnam quagmire:  • Walter Cronkite, CBS-TV news anchor . . . declared, "There is no way this war can be justified any longer." • Johnson lamented to aides, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." He announced he would not run for re-election.  The crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that there is no Cronkite to call Bush's bluff. Without a strong, trusted, non-political voice, too many of us remain Bush-blinded.  Bush tried keeping the wool over our eyes again Tuesday on national TV by repeatedly tying Iraq to 9/11. That charge is as phony as his discredited prewar claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. . . .That's why I'm convinced the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later.
Neuharth, USA Today, 7/1/05 MORE

Bush's Military/Moral Quagmire *

Bush Plans Bombing of Iran *

[A]ward-winning reporter Seymour . . . Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."  One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign." . . .Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations . . . Defining these as military targets. . .will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert activities overseas. Reuters, 1/16/05  MORE

Are We Stingy? Yes

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, [now $350M]  and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. . .[F]or development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion.  NY Times Editorial, 12/30/04  MORE

DOD Reports on Bush Hypocrisy*

[T]he US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, . . .Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.' . . .the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists "  Tom Regan, CS Monitor, 11/29/04 MORE

State vs. NeoCons

Experienced senior officers at the State Department, who must remain anonymous in the current environment in Washington, have a wise perspective on what this all means. They're telling me the following: . .
We will go from an inept, ineffectual, unreal threat from Saddam Hussein to an effective, well-equipped U.S.-trained Iraqi Army – under the leadership of an Islamic government aligned with Iran. . .The Iranians are running circles around us in Iraq. There is no way we can compete with them on the ground amongst the Shia. We are pinned down by the military insurgency – but the short term military victory we seek is being lost by a political game that is being stolen right from under our noses.  Karen Kwiatkowski, MilitaryWeek.com, 11/2/04

Bush Loses Iraq Nuclear Material*

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said the loss of control of Iraq's nuclear sites by the US after it occupied the country was scandalous.  His comments were echoed by former senior US weapons inspector David Kay. . .IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the agency was concerned that sensitive technology might have fallen into the hands of those involved in the black market in nuclear weapons. . .[Blix said,] "All these things were tagged and they were visited by the inspectors, and in comes the United States with 200,000 people on board and occupies the country in order, ostensibly, to take care of weapons of mass destruction, and they lose control and the instruments and equipment that could be helpful in nuclear production disappears."  BBC News, 10/13/04 MORE