« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 28, 2006
Bush thanks Bin Laden for 2004 victory?
Bush said there were "enormous amounts of discussion" inside his campaign about the 15-minute tape, which he called "an interesting entry by our enemy" into the presidential race.Bush's comments in the Washington newspaper were excerpts from the new book "Strategery" by Bill Sammon, a long-time White House correspondent.
"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?" Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes. "Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.
"I thought it was going to help," Bush said. "I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."
Posted by Mike at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 21, 2006
Long Shore Showdown?
President George W. Bush said a Dubai company's bid to manage six major U.S. ports should go forward, threatening to veto legislation that blocks the transaction because of security concerns."After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from a speech in Golden, Colorado. "We believe this is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time send out a signal that we're willing to treat people fairly."
In response to a question, Bush said he would veto any legislation enacted to block the deal.
"I don't view it as a fight, I view it as the right policy," he said.
The administration's approval of the acquisition of London- based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by a firm controlled by the United Arab Emirates has ignited a storm of protests from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and from governors of the states where the ports are located.
Why do I get the feeling that basing rights might be involved?
Posted by Mike at 04:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 20, 2006
Breeding Bin Ladenism, Losing the Long War
If this is what policy makers think, we're all fucked:
Gen. Douglas Lute, director of operations for U.S. Central Command (which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East), dropped by the offices of The Wall Street Journal recently. He noted that bin Ladenism has deep roots in many Islamic countries and that bin Laden isn't the only terrorist leader trying to appeal to populations oppressed by dictators. There are some 18 terrorist organizations that are part of what the military calls al Qaeda and Affiliated Movement. The military, he said, even has an acronym for it: AQAM.To counter bin Ladenism, the military is planning a two-stage war. The first is being fought in open battles in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere and looks a lot like the kind of war most Americans assumed we'd wage on al Qaeda and terror-sponsoring states after the Sept. 11 attacks. The second stage is what senior military planners--including Mr. Rumsfeld--call "the Long War." It involves countering one set of ideas with another.
It is this stage of the war that President Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld and other members of the administration worry isn't well understood by most Americans and therefore is in danger of being lost after Mr. Bush leaves office. At the Press Club, Mr. Rumsfeld reminded the journalists in the audience that al Qaeda and its affiliates have "media relation committees." "Think of that--they get up in the morning, have committee meetings and think about how they're going to manipulate the world's press to their advantage," he said. It's not just that al Qaeda members watch CNN or the Fox News Channel for tactical information, but they have "proven to be highly successful at manipulating the world's media here in this country."
The good news is many Americans have a healthy skepticism when it comes to the media, and, as in the Cold War, the U.S. is well positioned to win the long war on terrorism. What that will require is a better understanding of what such a war involves. For starters, it requires not withdrawing from Iraq. Spreading freedom is the best way to appeal to oppressed people and therefore is essential to undercutting bin Ladenism. It also involves making the military more flexible and able to respond to natural disasters and other crisis in unstable regions. The help America's armed forces delivered after Pakistan's devastating earthquake last year might have done more to build goodwill with ordinary Pakistanis than anything else in the past 50 years. The same is true for tsunami relief in Indonesia and other countries.
Instead of replacing Bin Laden's ideas with another set of ideas, were are making Bin Laden's ideas sound better and better every day. For those unfamiliar with the concept of "screwing the pooch" it is an allegory used to described a situation where someone has done something that leads others to not look at them the same ever again. Another example would be the difference between telling someone his wife is attractive, and telling him that you want to sleep with her.
Killing tens of thousands of Iraqis - after Saddam was deposed. Yeah, that qualifies as screwing the pooch. As a direct result of the decision not to give up control of the occupation and future of Iraq to the UN or Arab League, the most popular Iraqi politician is a sworn enemy of America who supports the caliphate.
As a result of Americas continued support for Israel and for the exact same repressive regimes that Bin Laden opposes, we are rapidly turning the 85% of Middle Eastern Muslims who themselves despise Bin Laden, into Bin Ladenists in terms of their world view. Support for terrorism is not the defining feature of this view, any more than support for death camps was a defining feature of Nazism. By playing both sides of the fence and making a coalition out of the countries Bin Laden opposes, we are in fact creating the conflict he desires.
The central feature of any world view is defining "us" and defining "them" so that it is easy to support killing them, because they will never be like us. As the recent cartoon protests have highlighted, Muslims worldwide have been sufficiently inflamed by American and European aggression in the so-called War on Terror, that they see the differentiation between "us" and "them" more and more each day. Terrorism is a symptom, a tactic. By focusing on it, we overlook the larger conflict. The conflict is not what plays out on American television, as Rumsfeld would have us believe. The conflict is what plays out in the mosques and neighborhood restaurants in the Middle East, where everyday Muslims grow increasingly disenchanted with American policy and increasingly disoriented with American TV.
Instead of helping, our efforts to reach out seem hypocritical when juxtaposed with the reality that Muslims live and breather each day. As a result, while they themselves do not support terrorism, and would prefer not to live under religious rule - they support America even less and are prepared to take up arms against us. In other words, the Long War strategy Rumsfeld advocates is the same strategy that created the Long War, and the same one that will lose it.
To avoid radiation poisoning you might consider moving to New Zealand.
Posted by Mike at 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 19, 2006
Knock, knock, knockin' on Osama's Door
The Washington Post has a five page review of Jawbreaker online. Oddly worded title aside, it is worth a read:
Knocking on Osama's Cave DoorGary Berntsen was known at CIA headquarters as an aggressive field operative, the type inclined to act first and ask permission later. But he possessed the right combination of brawn and brains for tough missions. When summoned to the front office in the Counterterrorist Center in October 2001, Berntsen recalls, his boss's orders were simple: "Gary, I want you killing the enemy immediately."
He left for Afghanistan the next day determined to eliminate one man in particular. By Berntsen's telling, he could have gotten Osama bin Laden -- if only they'd given him the troops and the time to get the job done.
Now whenever he sees the al Qaeda leader threatening attacks against Americans, "I'm horrified," Berntsen says. "I feel haunted by the fact that it wasn't done. I did every single thing I could do there."
So what to do next? Write a book. It seems to be a popular career afterlife for a growing number of spooks. Berntsen's contribution to the genre is "Jawbreaker," his score-settling insider's account of how bin Laden eluded capture at Tora Bora that December. Its cover advertises it as "The Book the CIA Doesn't Want You to Read!"
The world's most notorious terrorist has been in Berntsen's sights since 1998, when he investigated al Qaeda links to the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. In his book, Berntsen recounts a 23-year counterterrorism career, but the headline is this: Bin Laden escaped through snow-covered mountain passes into Pakistan, the ex-spy alleges, because U.S. generals failed to heed his call for 800 troops.
Ha, this is a great line:
Though "Jawbreaker" would seem to capture Berntsen's tough-guy persona, he says it was just a code word spit out by a computer."I'm grateful it came out with something good that I can make use of on the cover of my book." He chuckles. "It could have been 'Doorstop' or something like that."
Interestingly, Door Stop might have been a good code name for another operation, more commonly known as Polo Step:
Mr. President, Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward states that you asked General Franks to start planning for Iraq just two months after 9/11. Your own Vice President told ABC News at the time that he thought Bin Laden was at Tora Bora. Can you explain the timing of this distraction from the hunt for Al Qaeda?
Posted by Mike at 12:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 15, 2006
"It did not fit with the story we wanted to tell"
From page 41 of Shaffer's written testimony:
During the briefing, Congressman Weldon asked Russ Caso, his chief of
staff, to call the 9/11 commission and find out if they (the 9/11
commission) had ever heard of ABLE DANGER. Mr. Caso left the room and
called Chris Cojm at the 9/11 Discourse Project and asked him if they
had ever "heard of something called ABLE DANGER". Chris quickly
checked and told Russ "Yes - we heard of it" - Russ then asked him why
they did not put it in their final report - Cojm's answer was this "It
did not fit with the story we wanted to tell". Russ came back in and
told Congressman Weldon and me of the comment. Both Congressman
Weldon and I could not hide our astonished looks at hearing the news.
This was the beginning of the investigation as to why ABLE DANGER
information was not examined or included in the 9/11 report that has
brought us to where we are today.
Posted by Mike at 11:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 14, 2006
That must have been an interesting conversation
No word if "executive privilege" was mentioned:
Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said that about an hour after Cheney shot Whittington, the head of the Secret Service's local office called the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. "They made arrangements at the sheriff's request to have deputies come out and interview the vice president the following morning at 8 a.m. and that indeed did happen," Zahren said.At least one deputy showed up at the ranch's front gate later in the evening and asked to speak to Cheney but was turned away by the Secret Service, Zahren said. There was some miscommunication that arrangements had already been made to interview the vice president, he said.
Gilbert San Miguel, chief deputy sheriff for Kenedy County, said the report had not been completed Monday and that it was being handled as a hunting accident, although he would not comment about what that meant they were investigating.
He said his department's investigation had found that alcohol was not a factor in the shooting, but he would not elaborate about how that had been determined. The Texas Parks and Wildlife hunting accident report also said neither Cheney nor Whittington appeared to be under the influence of intoxicants or drugs.
Whittington, a prominent Republican attorney in the Texas capital of Austin, was in stable condition at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial and was moved from intensive care to a "step-down unit" Monday. Doctors decided to leave several birdshot pellets lodged in his skin rather than try to remove them.
Let's see. The police were told to wait until the next morning, but somehow they were still able to determine that Cheney was not drunk? If that were your or me, they would call it obstruction of justice.
Anyway, if you think that sounds funny, go listen to this from Jon Stewart. I realize joking about this may be in poor taste, since Whittington could have scars, but so are those cartoons everyone keeps posting and it hasn't stopped them.
Posted by Mike at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 10, 2006
Flawed intelligence or flawed policy?
Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 at the CIA, speaks out:
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar said in an article written for the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs and posted on the magazine's Web site on Friday."If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," he said.
Pillar was not immediately available for comment. A CIA spokesman said Pillar was expressing his own personal point of view and not the official views of the spy agency.
The CIA and other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community have been widely criticized for prewar Iraq intelligence including the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a main justification for the war. No such weapons have been found.
The full article by Pillar is worth the read:
The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policymaking process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments.Public discussion of prewar intelligence on Iraq has focused on the errors made in assessing Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs. A commission chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Senator Charles Robb usefully documented the intelligence community's mistakes in a solid and comprehensive report released in March 2005. Corrections were indeed in order, and the intelligence community has begun to make them.
At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.
In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem: intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades.
Posted by Mike at 01:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 09, 2006
Why politics and religion don't mix
Cartoon controversies aside, Riverbend sums up the situation in Iraq:
At the end of the day, people who follow these figures tell themselves that even if the current leader isn’t up to par, the goal and message remain the same- religion, God’s word as law. When living in the midst of a war-torn country with a situation that is deteriorating and death around every corner, you turn to God because Iyad Allawi couldn’t get you electricity and security- he certainly isn’t going to get you into heaven should you come face to face with a car bomb.The trouble with having a religious party in power in a country as diverse as Iraq is that you automatically alienate everyone not of that particular sect or religion. Religion is personal- it is something you are virtually born into… it belongs to the heart, the mind, the spirit- and while it is welcome in day to day dealings, it shouldn’t be politicized.
Theocracies (and we seem to be standing on the verge of an Iranian influenced one), grow stronger with time because you cannot argue religion. Politicians are no longer politicians- they are Ayatollahs- they become modern-day envoys of God, to be worshipped, not simply respected. You cannot challenge them because for their followers, that is a challenge to a belief- not a person or a political party.
You go from being a critic or ‘opposition’ to simply being a heathen when you argue religious parties.
Americans write to me wondering, “But where are the educated Iraqis? Why didn’t they vote for secular parties?” The educated Iraqis have been systematically silenced since 2003. They’ve been pressured and bullied outside of the country. They’ve been assassinated, detained, tortured and abducted. Many of them have lost faith in the possibility of a secular Iraq.
Then again… who is to say that many of the people who voted for religious parties aren’t educated? I know some perfectly educated Iraqis who take criticism towards parties like Da’awa and SCIRI as a personal affront. This is because these parties are so cloaked and cocooned within their religious identity, that it is almost taken as an attack against Shia in general when one criticizes them. It’s the same thing for many Sunnis when a political Sunni party comes under criticism.
That’s the danger of mixing politics and religion- it becomes personal.
I try not to dwell on the results too much- the fact that Shia religious fundamentalists are currently in power- because when I do, I’m filled with this sort of chill that leaves in its wake a feeling of quiet terror. It’s like when the electricity goes out suddenly and you’re plunged into a deep, quiet, almost tangible darkness- you try not to focus too intently on the subtle noises and movements around you because the unseen possibilities will drive you mad.
Posted by Mike at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 04, 2006
What if they were Jewish cartoons?
Cartoon from Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad. Counter-clockwise from top right: "This one is anti-semitic", "this one is racist", "those fall under free speech".
What the hell is so fascinating about these damn Muslim cartoons? Ethnically offensive cartoons are nothing new. Shit, they've been the lifeblood of white supremist web sites for years. Freedom of speech means you have the right to say what the hell you want and I have the right to tell you to go fuck yourself, too.
Racist cartoons have no place in intelligent public discourse. Why are people defending these idiotic, tasteless Danish comic strips?
If people really think one God is good, the other evil, Allah help us.
In other news from Holland, here is a great quote on Amsterdam's attempt to put up new "No Toking" signs in parts of the city:
"On Wednesday we placed the first sign, and it was gone the next morning," said Wim de Graaf. "We put up a new one Thursday, and it was taken the same night as well. That's when the idea came to us to just sell them."
To bad they didn't put those up in time to save that editor's job....
Posted by Mike at 01:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 03, 2006
Bulldozing the Freeway
Okay, I realize I-90 is a toll road, not a freeway, but this rapid privitization of interstates is just a stupid idea. As if 10 cents a mile for gas was not enough:
Cash-Strapped States Eye Tollway LeasesIndiana officials hope to sign a lease this spring with a Spanish-Australian partnership that would operate the toll road for a profit for the next 75 years.
The company would keep all toll revenue. In return, it would be responsible for maintenance, improvements and other operating costs, and would pay the state $3.85 billion up front — money that would go toward other road and bridge projects.
If state lawmakers approve the deal, it will be the biggest highway-privatization in the country and could embolden other states to enter into similar arrangements.
"At last, we can stop dreaming and start digging," Gov. Mitch Daniels said last week. The Republican has hailed the transaction as "the Louisiana Purchase of our time for Indiana."
Isn't there a saying? "When you're in a hole, first you have to...."
In their own brave effort to place as many stumbling blocks as possible in the path of our economy, Congress is going the distance, too:
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.
The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!"
Posted by Mike at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Judge Reggie to the Rescue
A federal judge on Friday set former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial date in the CIA leak case for January 2007, two months after the midterm congressional elections.
The trial for Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges, will begin with jury selection Jan. 8, said U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton. The judge said he had hoped to start the trial in September but one of Libby's lawyers had a scheduling conflict that made that impractical.Walton said he does not like "to have a case linger" but had no choice because Libby attorney Ted Wells will be tied up for 10 weeks on another case.
Ten weeks, hmm, let's see. It sure would have been a shame if they went ahead with the trial ten weeks earlier, in October 2006....
Posted by Mike at 12:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 01, 2006
MSNBC: Dancing over MLK's grave
That was disgusting. At 12:21 AM tonight, Tucker Carlson proudly declared - not once but twice - that Martin Luther King "never" supported affirmative action and to say that he would have distorts his great legacy! Tucker said this in response Bush's mention of the death of his widow, Coretta Scott King, less than 24 hours ago.
Not a single member of the panel on Hardball corrected him, or even questioned whether he was right. How low can these ingrates go?
Here is the transcript from MSNBC:
ROSEN: Well, and I would go one step further to—you know, George Bush started out his speech with a tribute to Coretta Scott King. When you think at what he‘s doing to the Supreme Court, goes against everything that Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King stood for.MATTHEWS: How so, by the way. Hilary, why do you say that‘s true?
ROSEN: And nobody commented on that.
MATTHEWS: Why do you say that‘s true?
ROSEN: Well, they‘re against affirmative action. They‘re against gay and lesbian rights. They‘re against the voting rights acts extension. I mean, every single thing...
CARLSON: Well, wait. Since when was Martin Luther King for affirmative action?
MATTHEWS: I defy you to...
ROSEN: Well, Coretta Scott King came out very strongly over the last 15 years for affirmative action. So there‘s just no way that we‘re going go...
MATTHEWS: Admit it, Tucker, you have no idea what Coretta Scott King‘s position on affirmative action was.
TUCKER: I actually...
MATTHEWS: I don‘t.
CARLSON: Look, I‘m not taking any stand against Coretta Scott King. I‘m merely saying, to say that Martin Luther King endorsed affirmative action is a total crock.
Here is an excerpt from the speech MLK gave the night before he died:
It's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do.Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people, individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively, that means all of us together, collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles, we don't need any Molotov cocktails, we just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy—what is the other bread?—Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying, they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.
If you want more examples, find a copy of "Where Do We Go From Here" which is the book King wrote which advocates - in addition to affirmative action - far more radical efforts to end poverty such as raising the minimum wage to match the median income, anually and changing zoning laws to prevent de facto segregation by wealth.
Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of himself, and so should MSNBC.
Posted by Mike at 12:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
From murdered to savior of democracy?
Call me skeptical of Al Sadr, who I still think assassinated Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim. Regardless, it seems clear that he is now the leading political force in Iraq, and he wants Americans troops out - or he will take up arms against them:
The Sadrist lawmakers will have about 30 of the Shiite coalition's 128 seats in the new Iraqi parliament, a number equal to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), generally thought to be the most powerful Shiite party.But a splinter Shiite group, known as the Risalyoon, or Messengers, took two additional seats, and is expected to ally with the Sadrists in coming days.
Already Sadr has pushed the Shiite coalition and other Iraqi politicians to take a more intransigent stance on key issues. Agreement to his 14-point code of honor was his precondition to join the Shiite slate. The code demands a short-term timetable for US withdrawal, recognizes the right of armed resistance should it stay, and rejects ties with Israel.
Along with his fellow Shiites, some 200 Iraqi politicians signed on to the document. This support that Sadr has attracted could erode the traditional alliance between other Shiite politicians and the US - a relationship that has helped legitimize the continued American presence in Iraq.
You could look at this as a good thing. Less risk of civil war, and fewer soldiers coming home in flag draped coffins. On the other hand, it's not exactly a beacon for liberty and freedom in the world:
"He will be very extreme, a real die-hard fundamentalist in terms of religion and state issues, and the US occupation, but at the same time when it comes to making some concessions to the Sunnis he can be a moderating force," says Amatzia Baram, an Iraq expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington....Since ending his armed struggle, Sadr, whose critics say he is simply riding his late father's coattails, has kept a low profile while other Shiite factions compete for control of prestigious government posts....
"The health ministry serves half a million people a day. The transportation ministry serves 200,000 to 300,000 people," says Mr. Arraji. "But what does the foreign or interior ministry do for poor Iraqis? These ministries are under the control of the occupation; we have no use for them."
...Baram, the Iraq expert in Washington, calls the Sadrists' approach brilliant grassroots politicking, and warns that four years down the road they're likely to have doubled their strength in parliament.
"In all these ministries they are planting their people on the grassroots social level," says Baram. "They'll control huge government budgets and when they spend this money they'll get all the credit, and it will be very difficult to uproot them later on."
For now, Sadr and his legions are pleased with their piece of the pie, but they clearly have loftier ambitions. "We are like Hamas," says Mr. Rubaie, the Sadrists political tactician. "We will bear arms and will not compromise our right to resistance, but we also help the people and win elections."
Posted by Mike at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tax cuts over text books
Well, he identified the problem but window dressing is not a solution.
More "training" for teachers is not going to fix the problem with our schoools. Students aren't being kept out of AP classes because their teachers aren't qualified. The AP classes are being cut because the school districts can't afford to offer them any more! My own former public high school is talking about dropping AP classes next year! If only students could learn from tax cuts, instead of text books:
And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit -- to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.
Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.
Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.
Posted by Mike at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)