Democrats Abroad New Zealand
2.20.2007
Global Poll Finds Religion and Culture Not to Blame (WorldPublicOpinion.org)
The global public believes that tensions between Islam and the West arise from conflicts over political power and interests and not from differences of religion and culture, according to a BBC World Service poll across 27 countries.
While three in ten (29%) believe religious or cultural differences are the cause of tensions, a slight majority (52%) say tensions are due to conflicting interests.
The poll also reveals that most people see the problems arising from intolerant minorities and not the cultures as a whole. While 26 percent believe fundamental differences in cultures are to blame, 58 percent say intolerant minorities are causing the conflict – with most of these (39% of the full sample) saying that the intolerant minorities are on both sides.
The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that “common ground can be found.”
The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007.
(More ... PIPA > World Public Opinion) ¶ 07:56 0 comments
While three in ten (29%) believe religious or cultural differences are the cause of tensions, a slight majority (52%) say tensions are due to conflicting interests.
The poll also reveals that most people see the problems arising from intolerant minorities and not the cultures as a whole. While 26 percent believe fundamental differences in cultures are to blame, 58 percent say intolerant minorities are causing the conflict – with most of these (39% of the full sample) saying that the intolerant minorities are on both sides.
The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that “common ground can be found.”
The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007.
(More ... PIPA > World Public Opinion) ¶ 07:56 0 comments
2.19.2007
Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on '02 Vote (NYTImes.com)
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 18, 2007
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Published: February 18, 2007
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Labels: 2008 election, Clinton, Iraq, New York Times
¶ 07:57 0 comments
2.17.2007
CIA Agents Face Kidnap Trial in Milan (Guardian.co.uk)
Staff and agencies
Friday February 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr
A passport photo of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in the mid-1990s. Photograph: AP
An Italian judge today ordered 26 Americans, almost all CIA agents, to stand trial on charges of kidnapping a terrorism suspect in 2003 and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.
The Milan judge set a trial date for June 8. Prosecutors allege that five Italian intelligence officials worked with the Americans to abduct Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street in February 2003.
The Americans will almost certainly be tried in absentia.
Article continues
Among those indicted was the former Italian chief of military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari. Mr Pollari, the only defendant who appeared during the preliminary hearing, insisted that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction.
He told the judge he was unable to defend himself properly because documents clarifying his position had been excluded from the proceedings because they contain state secrets.
After his capture, Mr Nasr was allegedly transferred by vehicle to the Aviano air force base near Venice, then by air to the Ramstein air base in Germany, and then on to Egypt, where critics say he was tortured.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Italy)
Friday February 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr
A passport photo of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in the mid-1990s. Photograph: AP
An Italian judge today ordered 26 Americans, almost all CIA agents, to stand trial on charges of kidnapping a terrorism suspect in 2003 and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.
The Milan judge set a trial date for June 8. Prosecutors allege that five Italian intelligence officials worked with the Americans to abduct Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street in February 2003.
The Americans will almost certainly be tried in absentia.
Article continues
Among those indicted was the former Italian chief of military intelligence, Nicolo Pollari. Mr Pollari, the only defendant who appeared during the preliminary hearing, insisted that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction.
He told the judge he was unable to defend himself properly because documents clarifying his position had been excluded from the proceedings because they contain state secrets.
After his capture, Mr Nasr was allegedly transferred by vehicle to the Aviano air force base near Venice, then by air to the Ramstein air base in Germany, and then on to Egypt, where critics say he was tortured.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Italy)
Labels: CIA, Extraordinary Rendition, Guardian
¶ 08:28 0 comments
U.S. Releases Details Against Hicks (news.BBC.co.uk)
Last Updated: Friday, 16 February 2007, 04:33 GMT
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
The US military has released details of its case against David Hicks, an Australian held without trial at Guantanamo Bay for five years.
Mr Hicks is facing charges of providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder.
He was captured in Afghanistan, where he allegedly fought alongside the ruling Taleban against US-led forces.
His continued imprisonment is causing problems for the Australian government, which has faced calls for his release.
Political reasons?
The document released by the Pentagon on Friday sets out its case against Mr Hicks in detail.
It alleges that he took part in an al-Qaeda training course in 2001, and spent weeks learning about covert photography, the use of dead drops and wearing disguises.
Prisoner in cell at Guantanamo Bay
Many Australians are angry that Hicks is still at Guantanamo
It also claims that Mr Hicks used the alias Abu Muslim Australia as he conducted surveillance of the American and British embassies in Kabul.
During that time, it is alleged he drew diagrams of the buildings, windows and doors, and documented the people coming and going.
The Pentagon has claimed before that he travelled to Kandahar airport, and was issued with an AK47 rifle to defend it against American-led forces.
Now US officials say that he also managed to arm himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades.
The timing of these new details may well have a political dimension, because US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrives in Australia next week.
(More ... BBC News > International > Asia-Pacific)
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
The US military has released details of its case against David Hicks, an Australian held without trial at Guantanamo Bay for five years.
Mr Hicks is facing charges of providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder.
He was captured in Afghanistan, where he allegedly fought alongside the ruling Taleban against US-led forces.
His continued imprisonment is causing problems for the Australian government, which has faced calls for his release.
Political reasons?
The document released by the Pentagon on Friday sets out its case against Mr Hicks in detail.
It alleges that he took part in an al-Qaeda training course in 2001, and spent weeks learning about covert photography, the use of dead drops and wearing disguises.
Prisoner in cell at Guantanamo Bay
Many Australians are angry that Hicks is still at Guantanamo
It also claims that Mr Hicks used the alias Abu Muslim Australia as he conducted surveillance of the American and British embassies in Kabul.
During that time, it is alleged he drew diagrams of the buildings, windows and doors, and documented the people coming and going.
The Pentagon has claimed before that he travelled to Kandahar airport, and was issued with an AK47 rifle to defend it against American-led forces.
Now US officials say that he also managed to arm himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades.
The timing of these new details may well have a political dimension, because US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrives in Australia next week.
(More ... BBC News > International > Asia-Pacific)
Labels: Australia, BBC News, Guantanamo
¶ 08:23 0 comments
U.S. Acting Like Terrorists: Ex-Premier (ABC.net.au)
Last Update: Saturday, February 17, 2007. 1:04am (AEDT)
A former Western Australian Labor premier has lashed out at the Australian and US governments over the treatment of terrorism suspects like David Hicks.
Peter Dowding says the US has acted like terrorists by "virtually kidnapping" suspects and using the "rendition" process to take them to countries outside the US justice system where they can be tortured.
Mr Dowding, who is campaigning for justice for Guantanamo Bay detainee Hicks, has told ABC TV Stateline in WA the Government stands condemned for endorsing the US actions.
"It's tolerating outrageous international conduct, the conduct of terrorists is really what the United States Government is engaged in," he said.
"It's tolerating kangaroo courts. Our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General, firstly I believe they have misled the Australian community and not told the truth about the circumstances of Hicks's position and they've done nothing to protect him.
"Moving these people into a position where the courts are not allowed to supervise their incarceration is an absolute outrage and our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General have accepted that that's appropriate conduct.
"It's not appropriate conduct for anybody, it doesn't matter whether they're bank robbers, we don't do that."
He says the activities of the US are also disturbing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
(More ... ABC > News)
A former Western Australian Labor premier has lashed out at the Australian and US governments over the treatment of terrorism suspects like David Hicks.
Peter Dowding says the US has acted like terrorists by "virtually kidnapping" suspects and using the "rendition" process to take them to countries outside the US justice system where they can be tortured.
Mr Dowding, who is campaigning for justice for Guantanamo Bay detainee Hicks, has told ABC TV Stateline in WA the Government stands condemned for endorsing the US actions.
"It's tolerating outrageous international conduct, the conduct of terrorists is really what the United States Government is engaged in," he said.
"It's tolerating kangaroo courts. Our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General, firstly I believe they have misled the Australian community and not told the truth about the circumstances of Hicks's position and they've done nothing to protect him.
"Moving these people into a position where the courts are not allowed to supervise their incarceration is an absolute outrage and our Prime Minister and our Attorney-General have accepted that that's appropriate conduct.
"It's not appropriate conduct for anybody, it doesn't matter whether they're bank robbers, we don't do that."
He says the activities of the US are also disturbing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
(More ... ABC > News)
Labels: ABC (Aus), Australia, CIA, Extraordinary Rendition, Guantanamo
¶ 08:20 0 comments
2.12.2007
Obama Hits Back After Australian PM Slams His Iraq Policy (CNN.com)
POSTED: 0101 GMT (0901 HKT), February 11, 2007
CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday that victory for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his party in next year's presidential election would be a boon for terrorists.
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.
March 2008 is when Obama has said he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, according to legislation he introduced in the Senate.
Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech on Saturday in his home state. (Obama makes his announcement Video)
Howard -- who faces reelection this year -- is a staunch supporter of President Bush and committed Australian troops to help the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like Bush, Howard has come under increased criticism at home for supporting the unpopular war.
Australia has more than 1,000 troops in and around Iraq, many in non-combat roles.
Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."
The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.
"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday that victory for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his party in next year's presidential election would be a boon for terrorists.
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.
March 2008 is when Obama has said he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, according to legislation he introduced in the Senate.
Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech on Saturday in his home state. (Obama makes his announcement Video)
Howard -- who faces reelection this year -- is a staunch supporter of President Bush and committed Australian troops to help the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like Bush, Howard has come under increased criticism at home for supporting the unpopular war.
Australia has more than 1,000 troops in and around Iraq, many in non-combat roles.
Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."
The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.
"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Australia, CNN, Howard, Iraq, Obama
¶ 21:19 0 comments
Obama Questions Rivals on Iraq (WashingtonPost.com)
Candidate Tells Iowans His Stance on War Sets Him Apart
By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A04
CHICAGO, Feb. 11 -- Sen. Barack Obama, circling through Iowa on Sunday before returning here on Day 2 of his presidential launch, challenged his Democratic rivals to lay out specifics for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declared that the thousands of lives lost so far in the war had been "wasted."
The senator from Illinois later said he regretted his choice of words, telling an interviewer that he meant the troops' sacrifices "have not been honored" by an adequate policy.
But Obama indicated in his earliest steps on the campaign trail that he considers Iraq a central distinction between himself and the rest of the Democratic field.
Obama opposed invading Iraq from the outset and has proposed a deadline of March 31, 2008, for removing troops from the country. He called Sunday for other candidates to explain their exit strategies. In particular, he said, he did not see an explicit blueprint for redeployment from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the early Democratic front-runner.
"I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way," he told reporters before a boisterous rally at Iowa State University. "I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president's first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear on."
In his speech at the university, Obama issued an indictment of how Washington dealt with Iraq:
"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
He backtracked in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying: "I was actually upset with myself. Their sacrifices are never wasted; that was sort of a slip of the tongue as I was speaking.
"The sacrifices they have made are unbelievable. What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership," he added.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A04
CHICAGO, Feb. 11 -- Sen. Barack Obama, circling through Iowa on Sunday before returning here on Day 2 of his presidential launch, challenged his Democratic rivals to lay out specifics for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declared that the thousands of lives lost so far in the war had been "wasted."
The senator from Illinois later said he regretted his choice of words, telling an interviewer that he meant the troops' sacrifices "have not been honored" by an adequate policy.
But Obama indicated in his earliest steps on the campaign trail that he considers Iraq a central distinction between himself and the rest of the Democratic field.
Obama opposed invading Iraq from the outset and has proposed a deadline of March 31, 2008, for removing troops from the country. He called Sunday for other candidates to explain their exit strategies. In particular, he said, he did not see an explicit blueprint for redeployment from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the early Democratic front-runner.
"I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way," he told reporters before a boisterous rally at Iowa State University. "I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president's first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear on."
In his speech at the university, Obama issued an indictment of how Washington dealt with Iraq:
"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
He backtracked in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying: "I was actually upset with myself. Their sacrifices are never wasted; that was sort of a slip of the tongue as I was speaking.
"The sacrifices they have made are unbelievable. What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership," he added.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Iraq, Obama, Washington Post
¶ 21:14 0 comments
2.11.2007
Putin's Speech" Back to the Cold War? (news.BBC.co.uk)
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich
The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill.
Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.
Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.
"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.
President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.
"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.
It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."
The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.
(More ... BBC > Europe > News) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich
The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill.
Given the tone and content of Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the gathered defence ministers, parliamentarians and pundits, it is not, perhaps, hard to see why.
Warming quickly to his task after only the briefest of greetings, President Putin accused the US of establishing, or trying to establish, a "uni-polar" world.
"What is a uni-polar world? No matter how we beautify this term, it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said.
President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time.
"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said.
It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force."
The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.
(More ... BBC > Europe > News) ¶ 22:10 0 comments
Obama Pledges New Generation of U.S. Leadership (NZHerald.co.nz)
Sunday February 11, 2007
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, citing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, has pledged to bridge the partisan gridlock in Washington, end the war in Iraq and transform American politics as the first black US president.
Launching his 2008 White House campaign outside the building in where Lincoln began his fight against slavery with a famous 1858 speech that declared "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Obama said it was time to "turn the page" to a new politics.
"Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation," Obama, 45, told a cheering crowd of supporters in Springfield, Illinois, who braved sub-freezing temperatures outside the old state capital building.
"By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail," he said.
Obama, a rising party star and the only black US senator, said the United States had overcome many difficult challenges, from gaining its independence to the Civil War to the Great Depression.
"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," he said.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World)
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, citing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, has pledged to bridge the partisan gridlock in Washington, end the war in Iraq and transform American politics as the first black US president.
Launching his 2008 White House campaign outside the building in where Lincoln began his fight against slavery with a famous 1858 speech that declared "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Obama said it was time to "turn the page" to a new politics.
"Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation," Obama, 45, told a cheering crowd of supporters in Springfield, Illinois, who braved sub-freezing temperatures outside the old state capital building.
"By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail," he said.
Obama, a rising party star and the only black US senator, said the United States had overcome many difficult challenges, from gaining its independence to the Civil War to the Great Depression.
"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," he said.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > World)
Labels: 2008 election, New Zealand Herald, Obama
¶ 22:00 0 comments
After the Disaster of Iraq, Bush Turns His Attention to Algeria (Independent.co.uk)
By Leonard Doyle
Published: 09 February 2007
War, it is said, is God's way of teaching Americans geography. As Iraq sinks into the mire, President Bush's attention is turning to Algeria.
He is, we are told, reading Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace," the definitive account of the French twentieth-century experience of fighting Muslim insurgents. It recounts in detail how the French tortured Algerian combatants and non-combatants alike and how despite winning the Battle or Algiers they eventually lost the war.
There are enough alarming comparison between the two conflicts: compromised officials, porous borders, a hated occupying force to keep President Bush glued to the weighty book.
Horne compares the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of detainees in Guantanamo to French behaviour in Algeria. It ultimately cost France the war, because the wave of public revulsion was such when it was publicised that opinion swung violently against the conflict.
Another cautionary tale about Algeria, is the bloody chaos, the French left behind when they eventually extricated themselves in 1962. There followed decades of civil war and tens of thousands of civilian deaths and human rights abuses on a massive scale by Islamic insurgents and the government forces.
As in Algeria, a major power is faced with an Arab insurgency that has targeted the occupying forces as well as the police, public servants, innocent civilians. The Americans are facing the same issues that the occupying French faced in the Algeria of the 1950s. France had 500,000 troops in Algeria at one point, far more than the numbers of US troops in Iraq.
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Published: 09 February 2007
War, it is said, is God's way of teaching Americans geography. As Iraq sinks into the mire, President Bush's attention is turning to Algeria.
He is, we are told, reading Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace," the definitive account of the French twentieth-century experience of fighting Muslim insurgents. It recounts in detail how the French tortured Algerian combatants and non-combatants alike and how despite winning the Battle or Algiers they eventually lost the war.
There are enough alarming comparison between the two conflicts: compromised officials, porous borders, a hated occupying force to keep President Bush glued to the weighty book.
Horne compares the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of detainees in Guantanamo to French behaviour in Algeria. It ultimately cost France the war, because the wave of public revulsion was such when it was publicised that opinion swung violently against the conflict.
Another cautionary tale about Algeria, is the bloody chaos, the French left behind when they eventually extricated themselves in 1962. There followed decades of civil war and tens of thousands of civilian deaths and human rights abuses on a massive scale by Islamic insurgents and the government forces.
As in Algeria, a major power is faced with an Arab insurgency that has targeted the occupying forces as well as the police, public servants, innocent civilians. The Americans are facing the same issues that the occupying French faced in the Algeria of the 1950s. France had 500,000 troops in Algeria at one point, far more than the numbers of US troops in Iraq.
(More ... The Independent > News > World > Americas)
Labels: Bush, Independent, Iraq
¶ 21:47 0 comments
2.10.2007
Billionaire Offers US$25M Prise to Fight 'Warming' (WashingtonPost.com)
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; 9:52 AM
LONDON, Feb. 9 -- British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, on Friday offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.
Branson, saying that the "survival of our species" is imperiled by current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash inducements that led to some of history's most notable achievements in navigation, exploration and industry.
"I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created," said Branson, who has already pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency," said Gore, who has become one of the world's leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore, who will serve as a judge in the Virgin Earth Challenge, said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs or pressuring politicians to confront "the crisis of our time."
"It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind," Gore said at a packed news conference, where several noted climate scientists and authors attended, provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video-link.
(More ... Washington Post > Nation > Special Reports > Global Warming)
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; 9:52 AM
LONDON, Feb. 9 -- British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, on Friday offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.
Branson, saying that the "survival of our species" is imperiled by current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash inducements that led to some of history's most notable achievements in navigation, exploration and industry.
"I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created," said Branson, who has already pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.
"We are now facing a planetary emergency," said Gore, who has become one of the world's leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore, who will serve as a judge in the Virgin Earth Challenge, said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs or pressuring politicians to confront "the crisis of our time."
"It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind," Gore said at a packed news conference, where several noted climate scientists and authors attended, provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video-link.
(More ... Washington Post > Nation > Special Reports > Global Warming)
Labels: Climate Change, Gore, Washington Post
¶ 13:03 0 comments
2.09.2007
Big Rise in Russian Military Spending Raises Fears of New Challenge to West (Guardian.co.uk)
· Moscow anxious over US missile defence plans
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
Labels: Guardian, U.S. Military
¶ 20:10 0 comments
Democrats Set House Debate to Rebuke Bush Over Iraq Policy (NYTimes.com)
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — House Democratic leaders persuaded members of their party on Thursday to limit the scope of an Iraq war resolution next week to a simple repudiation of President Bush’s troop buildup plan, hoping to temporarily set aside divisive decisions over war financing and troop redeployments.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and other party leaders met privately for more than an hour with other Democratic lawmakers. They sought to reassure Democrats that the symbolic, nonbinding resolution devised to rebuke Mr. Bush was a first step — but not a final one — toward asserting Congressional powers on Iraq.
After winning control of Congress, in part because of discontent over the Iraq war, Democrats are eager to send a strong signal of disapproval to the White House. To make the proposal palatable to at least some Republicans, the Democrats said their resolution would express support for the troops, but reject the plan to send 21,500 more of them to Iraq.
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Published: February 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — House Democratic leaders persuaded members of their party on Thursday to limit the scope of an Iraq war resolution next week to a simple repudiation of President Bush’s troop buildup plan, hoping to temporarily set aside divisive decisions over war financing and troop redeployments.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and other party leaders met privately for more than an hour with other Democratic lawmakers. They sought to reassure Democrats that the symbolic, nonbinding resolution devised to rebuke Mr. Bush was a first step — but not a final one — toward asserting Congressional powers on Iraq.
After winning control of Congress, in part because of discontent over the Iraq war, Democrats are eager to send a strong signal of disapproval to the White House. To make the proposal palatable to at least some Republicans, the Democrats said their resolution would express support for the troops, but reject the plan to send 21,500 more of them to Iraq.
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Labels: Congress, Iraq, New York Times
¶ 20:06 0 comments
Edwards Backs Bloggers After "Anti-Catholic" Comments (CNN.com)
POSTED: 1853 GMT (0253 HKT), February 8, 2007
Story Highlights
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Sen. John Edwards on Thursday stood by two bloggers after a conservative Catholic group demanded they be fired for posting what it called "anti-Catholic" blog entries before joining his presidential campaign.
Catholic League President William Donohue issued a statement this week calling the two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen -- "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash talking bigots."
In response to the criticism, the North Carolina Democrat said that "the tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me."
"It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people," Edwards said in a statement.
"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
In statements also released by the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen said they did not mean to offend anyone's personal beliefs.
In his complaints, Donohue pointed to a Marcotte blog on her Pandagon site regarding the church's opposition to birth control, which she said forces women "to bear more tithing Catholics." Donohue also objected to another entry titled "Pope and Fascists."
Donohue also criticized a post by McEwen that refers to President Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" on the Shakespeare's Sister blog.
The Catholic League president called the language "incendiary" and "inflammatory." "It's scurrilous and has no place being part of someone's resume who's going to work for a potential presidential contender," he said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Story Highlights
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Sen. John Edwards on Thursday stood by two bloggers after a conservative Catholic group demanded they be fired for posting what it called "anti-Catholic" blog entries before joining his presidential campaign.
Catholic League President William Donohue issued a statement this week calling the two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen -- "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash talking bigots."
In response to the criticism, the North Carolina Democrat said that "the tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me."
"It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people," Edwards said in a statement.
"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
In statements also released by the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen said they did not mean to offend anyone's personal beliefs.
In his complaints, Donohue pointed to a Marcotte blog on her Pandagon site regarding the church's opposition to birth control, which she said forces women "to bear more tithing Catholics." Donohue also objected to another entry titled "Pope and Fascists."
Donohue also criticized a post by McEwen that refers to President Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" on the Shakespeare's Sister blog.
The Catholic League president called the language "incendiary" and "inflammatory." "It's scurrilous and has no place being part of someone's resume who's going to work for a potential presidential contender," he said.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, CNN, Edwards
¶ 20:01 0 comments
Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol (WashingtonPost.com)
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01
CHICAGO, Feb. 8 -- When Sen. Barack Obama heads downstate to Springfield on Saturday to announce his candidacy for president, he will speak in lofty tones of America and Abraham Lincoln, but also of a more prosaic topic: his own eight years in the Illinois Senate.
The heart of Obama's political résumé lies in Springfield, where he arrived in January 1997. He was a newcomer to elective politics after time as a community organizer and University of Chicago law professor operating largely outside the city's Democratic machine.
From a district on the South Side of Chicago, he reached Republican-dominated Springfield as a committed liberal, later writing that he understood politics in the capital "as a full-contact sport, and minded neither the sharp elbows nor the occasional blind-side hit."
Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.
Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01
CHICAGO, Feb. 8 -- When Sen. Barack Obama heads downstate to Springfield on Saturday to announce his candidacy for president, he will speak in lofty tones of America and Abraham Lincoln, but also of a more prosaic topic: his own eight years in the Illinois Senate.
The heart of Obama's political résumé lies in Springfield, where he arrived in January 1997. He was a newcomer to elective politics after time as a community organizer and University of Chicago law professor operating largely outside the city's Democratic machine.
From a district on the South Side of Chicago, he reached Republican-dominated Springfield as a committed liberal, later writing that he understood politics in the capital "as a full-contact sport, and minded neither the sharp elbows nor the occasional blind-side hit."
Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.
Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Obama, Washington Post
¶ 19:42 0 comments
2.08.2007
Obama Proposes Candidates limit General Election Spending (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID K. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued an unusual challenge to his rivals on Wednesday. He proposed a voluntary agreement between the two major party nominees that would limit their fund-raising and spending for the general election.
Mr. Obama’s suggestion is notable because the 2008 presidential election is widely expected to be the first campaign since President Richard M. Nixon left office that would be paid for mainly by private donors and waged without legal spending limits.
For the first time in 30 years, the leading candidates in both major parties have indicated that they will not accept public money through the presidential public financing system so that they will not be bound by its spending limits. In previous general elections, the system provided all the money for both major party candidates on the condition that they did not take private contributions.
But the money the public system is expected to provide in 2008 — about $150 million for a candidate’s primary contests, nominating convention and general election campaign — cannot keep up with the flow of private contributions available to the candidates. If the previous patterns hold, the two major party candidates in 2008 could each raise more than $500 million from private contributors, overpowering a nominee who chose to abide by the public financing rules.
Those calculations have already set off a furious fund-raising scramble as well-financed candidates, notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, try to stockpile enough early money to scare off competition.
In a Feb. 1 filing with the Federal Election Commission that was made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would seek enough private donations to remain competitive, but with a twist. He asked the commission if he could begin soliciting private donations with the understanding that he might later return the money to his contributors. If he won the Democratic nomination, he could then strike a deal with the Republican nominee to return their private donations and use only public money for the general election. For 2008, that would limit each general election campaign to about $85 million.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Published: February 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued an unusual challenge to his rivals on Wednesday. He proposed a voluntary agreement between the two major party nominees that would limit their fund-raising and spending for the general election.
Mr. Obama’s suggestion is notable because the 2008 presidential election is widely expected to be the first campaign since President Richard M. Nixon left office that would be paid for mainly by private donors and waged without legal spending limits.
For the first time in 30 years, the leading candidates in both major parties have indicated that they will not accept public money through the presidential public financing system so that they will not be bound by its spending limits. In previous general elections, the system provided all the money for both major party candidates on the condition that they did not take private contributions.
But the money the public system is expected to provide in 2008 — about $150 million for a candidate’s primary contests, nominating convention and general election campaign — cannot keep up with the flow of private contributions available to the candidates. If the previous patterns hold, the two major party candidates in 2008 could each raise more than $500 million from private contributors, overpowering a nominee who chose to abide by the public financing rules.
Those calculations have already set off a furious fund-raising scramble as well-financed candidates, notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, try to stockpile enough early money to scare off competition.
In a Feb. 1 filing with the Federal Election Commission that was made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would seek enough private donations to remain competitive, but with a twist. He asked the commission if he could begin soliciting private donations with the understanding that he might later return the money to his contributors. If he won the Democratic nomination, he could then strike a deal with the Republican nominee to return their private donations and use only public money for the general election. For 2008, that would limit each general election campaign to about $85 million.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Campaign Finance, New York Times, Obama
¶ 21:13 0 comments
Climate Campaign Issues 'Wake-up Call' to World Leaders (Independent.co.uk)
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 07 February 2007
George Bush, Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac are in bed, fast asleep. All around them the evidence of climate change is clear and pressing but nothing can rouse the world leaders from their slumber.
"Global warming is here, but our leaders just won't wake up," says a voice. "Now you can sound the alarm. Go to avaaz.org to send your leader a wake-up call."
These adverts, broadcast this week in Paris, Berlin, Washington and Delhi, represent the opening salvo of a new movement of online activists that already claims to have almost 900,000 members in 198 countries.
Their rather modest aim is to change the world by forming a grassroots organisation with a global reach that can campaign on issues ranging from climate change to Aids in Africa.
"We have been inspired by watching those moments of global consciousness such as the aftermath of 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war," said Ricken Patel, one of the founders of Avaaz, which means "voice" in several Asian languages. "We are trying to build that sort of infrastructure online and to reduce the gap between the world people want and the world we have."
The adverts - timed to coincide with meetings being held in Germany to set the agenda for this summer's G8 meeting in Heiligendamm - are the start of an effort to build the sort of global activism that could genuinely wield influence
The organisers believe that email and letter writing campaigns on a global scale can push governments to act and that its activists can exchange information through the internet and by other instant means such as text messaging.
"Climate change is a pretty classic example of a global problem that requires a global solution," said David Madden, another of Avaaz's founders and an activist previously involved in the Australian group GetUp.org.au.
(More ... The Independent > Environment News)
Published: 07 February 2007
George Bush, Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac are in bed, fast asleep. All around them the evidence of climate change is clear and pressing but nothing can rouse the world leaders from their slumber.
"Global warming is here, but our leaders just won't wake up," says a voice. "Now you can sound the alarm. Go to avaaz.org to send your leader a wake-up call."
These adverts, broadcast this week in Paris, Berlin, Washington and Delhi, represent the opening salvo of a new movement of online activists that already claims to have almost 900,000 members in 198 countries.
Their rather modest aim is to change the world by forming a grassroots organisation with a global reach that can campaign on issues ranging from climate change to Aids in Africa.
"We have been inspired by watching those moments of global consciousness such as the aftermath of 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war," said Ricken Patel, one of the founders of Avaaz, which means "voice" in several Asian languages. "We are trying to build that sort of infrastructure online and to reduce the gap between the world people want and the world we have."
The adverts - timed to coincide with meetings being held in Germany to set the agenda for this summer's G8 meeting in Heiligendamm - are the start of an effort to build the sort of global activism that could genuinely wield influence
The organisers believe that email and letter writing campaigns on a global scale can push governments to act and that its activists can exchange information through the internet and by other instant means such as text messaging.
"Climate change is a pretty classic example of a global problem that requires a global solution," said David Madden, another of Avaaz's founders and an activist previously involved in the Australian group GetUp.org.au.
(More ... The Independent > Environment News)
Labels: Climate Change, Independent
¶ 20:50 0 comments
2.07.2007
Bush Slashes Aid to the Poor to Boost Iraq War Chest (Guardian.co.uk)
· Bill for Iraq conflict will soon overtake Vietnam
· $78bn squeeze on medical care for elderly and poor
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Tuesday February 6, 2007
The Guardian
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
John Spratt, the Democratic chairman of the House budget committee, said: "I doubt that Democrats will support this budget and, frankly, I will be surprised if Republicans rally around it either."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World News > U.S.)
· $78bn squeeze on medical care for elderly and poor
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Tuesday February 6, 2007
The Guardian
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.
The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
Mr Bush said: "Today we submit a budget to the United States Congress that shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes ... Our priority is to protect the American people. And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs."
Although Democrats control Congress and have promised careful scrutiny of the budget over the next few months, Mr Bush has left in them in a bind, unwilling to withhold funds for US troops on the frontline. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the days when Mr Bush could expect a blank cheque for the wars were over but she also insisted the Democrats would not deny troops the money they needed. Democrats could block Mr Bush's proposed cuts to 141 domestic programmes.
John Spratt, the Democratic chairman of the House budget committee, said: "I doubt that Democrats will support this budget and, frankly, I will be surprised if Republicans rally around it either."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World News > U.S.)
Labels: Budget, Bush, Guardian
¶ 20:23 0 comments
2.06.2007
Obama Confronts 'Outsider' Dilemma (WashingtonPost.com)
How to Win Without Losing His Identity
By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01
In the nearly three weeks since Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made his unofficial debut as a presidential candidate, his senior advisers have been holed up in a temporary office on Connecticut Avenue NW, feverishly working to translate the huge excitement about his candidacy into a political strategy.
For all the buzz about his running, Obama did not enter the race with the conventional weapons of a presidential candidate -- a deep database of donors, a tactical road map for winning primaries or even a sign marking the entrance to his ad hoc campaign headquarters. Obama is only now starting to build a political infrastructure that matches his growing support.
But the challenge for Obama is not just assembling the nuts and bolts of a national campaign on the fly. He must, his advisers believe, do so in a way that reflects the distinct, next-generation message of his candidacy, or at least avoids making him look like every other politician in the race. "I would sooner lose the race than lose having him the way he is," said David Axelrod, his chief media strategist.
While acknowledging that there are "certain immutable realities of the process," Axelrod insisted that "the kind of things we do over time will be emblematic of the campaign that we're running. And if we are doing it right, they won't be identical to everyone else's."
That vague mission -- not unlike the one that faced both Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark as relative outsiders who came late to the 2004 presidential race -- is in the hands of a growing group of respected, if not exactly unconventional, operatives who have had to spend an inordinate amount of time in the past few weeks simply mastering logistics. Led by David Plouffe, the campaign manager, the team spent the day of Obama's exploratory-committee announcement answering phones and taking down volunteers' phone numbers.
Now the advisers are beginning to implement a broader strategy. In contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who spent the first two weeks of her official candidacy trying to project strength and inevitability, Obama will seek a more pared-down image that focuses on the substance of his message ("the audacity of hope," as his book title put it) rather than on proving his ability to win a general election.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01
In the nearly three weeks since Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made his unofficial debut as a presidential candidate, his senior advisers have been holed up in a temporary office on Connecticut Avenue NW, feverishly working to translate the huge excitement about his candidacy into a political strategy.
For all the buzz about his running, Obama did not enter the race with the conventional weapons of a presidential candidate -- a deep database of donors, a tactical road map for winning primaries or even a sign marking the entrance to his ad hoc campaign headquarters. Obama is only now starting to build a political infrastructure that matches his growing support.
But the challenge for Obama is not just assembling the nuts and bolts of a national campaign on the fly. He must, his advisers believe, do so in a way that reflects the distinct, next-generation message of his candidacy, or at least avoids making him look like every other politician in the race. "I would sooner lose the race than lose having him the way he is," said David Axelrod, his chief media strategist.
While acknowledging that there are "certain immutable realities of the process," Axelrod insisted that "the kind of things we do over time will be emblematic of the campaign that we're running. And if we are doing it right, they won't be identical to everyone else's."
That vague mission -- not unlike the one that faced both Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark as relative outsiders who came late to the 2004 presidential race -- is in the hands of a growing group of respected, if not exactly unconventional, operatives who have had to spend an inordinate amount of time in the past few weeks simply mastering logistics. Led by David Plouffe, the campaign manager, the team spent the day of Obama's exploratory-committee announcement answering phones and taking down volunteers' phone numbers.
Now the advisers are beginning to implement a broader strategy. In contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who spent the first two weeks of her official candidacy trying to project strength and inevitability, Obama will seek a more pared-down image that focuses on the substance of his message ("the audacity of hope," as his book title put it) rather than on proving his ability to win a general election.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Obama, Washington Post
¶ 21:09 0 comments
The Green-Zoning of America (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 5, 2007
One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.
Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.
In the first article, The Times reported that a new executive order requires that each agency contain a “regulatory policy office run by a political appointee,” a change that “strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.” Yesterday, The Times turned to the rapid growth of federal contracting, fed “by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.”
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Contributors)
Published: February 5, 2007
One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.
Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.
In the first article, The Times reported that a new executive order requires that each agency contain a “regulatory policy office run by a political appointee,” a change that “strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.” Yesterday, The Times turned to the rapid growth of federal contracting, fed “by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.”
These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.
The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.
How should the civil service be defeated? First and foremost, Heritage demanded that politics take precedence over know-how: the new administration “must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Contributors)
Labels: Contracting, Iraq, Krugman, New York Times
¶ 21:02 0 comments
Immigrant Entrepreneurs Shape a New Economy (NYTimes.com)
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: February 6, 2007
Manuel A. Miranda was 8 when his family immigrated to New York from Bogotá. His parents, who had been lawyers, turned to selling home-cooked food from the trunk of their car. Manuel pitched in after school, grinding corn by hand for traditional Colombian flatbreads called arepas.
Jay Chung and his son Joshua, from South Korea, own a company in Manhattan that is one of the city’s leading supplier of tourist items.
Today Mr. Miranda, 32, runs a family business with 16 employees, producing 10 million arepas a year in the Maspeth section of Queens. But the burst of Colombian immigration to the city has slowed; arepas customers are spreading through the suburbs, and competition for them is fierce. Now, he says, his eye is on a vast, untapped market: the rest of the country.
In the long run, like bagels, “you’re going to have arepas in every store,” predicted Mr. Miranda, whose innovations include a “toaster-friendly” version (square instead of round), and an experimental Web site that offers online sales nationwide. “But I don’t have the connections. I don’t know the people who can advise how to take us to the next level.”
As the flow of immigrants to suburban and small-town America outpaces the growth of bustling ethnic centers in New York, many foreign-born entrepreneurs like the Mirandas are facing an unfamiliar crossroads. In the city, rising rents and density hamper growth, while swelling ethnic enclaves in the suburbs generate competitors. Yet in other places, opportunity beckons as never before, as immigrants expand the tastes of mainstream America.
Whether these businesses exploit the new chances to break out or succumb to the new perils, the city’s economy will feel the effects.
“Immigrants have been the entrepreneurial spark plugs of cities from New York to Los Angeles,” said Jonathan Bowles, the director of the Center for an Urban Future, a private, nonprofit research organization that has studied the dynamics of immigrant businesses that turned decaying neighborhoods into vibrant commercial hubs in recent decades. “These are precious and important economic generators for New York City, and there’s a risk that we might lose them over the next decade.”
(More ... New York Times > N.Y. Region > In The Region)
Published: February 6, 2007
Manuel A. Miranda was 8 when his family immigrated to New York from Bogotá. His parents, who had been lawyers, turned to selling home-cooked food from the trunk of their car. Manuel pitched in after school, grinding corn by hand for traditional Colombian flatbreads called arepas.
Jay Chung and his son Joshua, from South Korea, own a company in Manhattan that is one of the city’s leading supplier of tourist items.
Today Mr. Miranda, 32, runs a family business with 16 employees, producing 10 million arepas a year in the Maspeth section of Queens. But the burst of Colombian immigration to the city has slowed; arepas customers are spreading through the suburbs, and competition for them is fierce. Now, he says, his eye is on a vast, untapped market: the rest of the country.
In the long run, like bagels, “you’re going to have arepas in every store,” predicted Mr. Miranda, whose innovations include a “toaster-friendly” version (square instead of round), and an experimental Web site that offers online sales nationwide. “But I don’t have the connections. I don’t know the people who can advise how to take us to the next level.”
As the flow of immigrants to suburban and small-town America outpaces the growth of bustling ethnic centers in New York, many foreign-born entrepreneurs like the Mirandas are facing an unfamiliar crossroads. In the city, rising rents and density hamper growth, while swelling ethnic enclaves in the suburbs generate competitors. Yet in other places, opportunity beckons as never before, as immigrants expand the tastes of mainstream America.
Whether these businesses exploit the new chances to break out or succumb to the new perils, the city’s economy will feel the effects.
“Immigrants have been the entrepreneurial spark plugs of cities from New York to Los Angeles,” said Jonathan Bowles, the director of the Center for an Urban Future, a private, nonprofit research organization that has studied the dynamics of immigrant businesses that turned decaying neighborhoods into vibrant commercial hubs in recent decades. “These are precious and important economic generators for New York City, and there’s a risk that we might lose them over the next decade.”
(More ... New York Times > N.Y. Region > In The Region)
Labels: economy, New York Times
¶ 20:55 0 comments
Edwards Details His Health Care Proposal (NYTimes.com)
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 6, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — John Edwards proposed a detailed plan on Monday to provide health care coverage to the 47 million Americans who now go without, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so.
Mr. Edwards’s plan is ambitious and expensive, adding as much as $120 billion a year to the nation’s health care bill. Money for the proposal would come from increased taxes on well-to-do families, from new fees to be paid by companies that refuse to provide health insurance for their workers and through steps to streamline the delivery of health services.
Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee in 2004.
The Edwards plan is a pastiche of ideas that have been introduced at the state and federal levels, including some that have been derailed by opposition from business groups, doctors and health insurers.
Mr. Edwards, in an interview on Monday, described the American health care delivery system as dysfunctional and said that incremental steps would not cure it. “This proposal embraces the concept of shared responsibility to provide universal health care,” he said.
The plan would be partly financed by eliminating tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year, cuts that Congress approved in the Bush administration. Mr. Edwards said he would also offset the program’s cost by using the estimated $15 billion in capital gains taxes that go uncollected each year by requiring brokerage houses to report capital gains from taxpayers’ stock sales to the Internal Revenue Service, just as interest and dividend income is reported now.
Mr. Edwards also said that billions of dollars could be saved by making the health system more efficient and investing more in preventive care. The Edwards plan would provide tax credits or subsidies to low-income families who cannot afford health insurance, expand Medicare and the federal program of health care for children, and create a federal health insurance agency that could become the basis for a single-payer system that would eventually do away with private health insurance.
Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies the American health care system, praised Mr. Edwards, saying he was the first candidate in the 2008 presidential race to offer a credible and comprehensive plan to cover the uninsured. But Mr. Altman also said the plan faced high practical and political hurdles.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Published: February 6, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — John Edwards proposed a detailed plan on Monday to provide health care coverage to the 47 million Americans who now go without, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so.
Mr. Edwards’s plan is ambitious and expensive, adding as much as $120 billion a year to the nation’s health care bill. Money for the proposal would come from increased taxes on well-to-do families, from new fees to be paid by companies that refuse to provide health insurance for their workers and through steps to streamline the delivery of health services.
Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee in 2004.
The Edwards plan is a pastiche of ideas that have been introduced at the state and federal levels, including some that have been derailed by opposition from business groups, doctors and health insurers.
Mr. Edwards, in an interview on Monday, described the American health care delivery system as dysfunctional and said that incremental steps would not cure it. “This proposal embraces the concept of shared responsibility to provide universal health care,” he said.
The plan would be partly financed by eliminating tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year, cuts that Congress approved in the Bush administration. Mr. Edwards said he would also offset the program’s cost by using the estimated $15 billion in capital gains taxes that go uncollected each year by requiring brokerage houses to report capital gains from taxpayers’ stock sales to the Internal Revenue Service, just as interest and dividend income is reported now.
Mr. Edwards also said that billions of dollars could be saved by making the health system more efficient and investing more in preventive care. The Edwards plan would provide tax credits or subsidies to low-income families who cannot afford health insurance, expand Medicare and the federal program of health care for children, and create a federal health insurance agency that could become the basis for a single-payer system that would eventually do away with private health insurance.
Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies the American health care system, praised Mr. Edwards, saying he was the first candidate in the 2008 presidential race to offer a credible and comprehensive plan to cover the uninsured. But Mr. Altman also said the plan faced high practical and political hurdles.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Edwards, Health Care, New York Times
¶ 20:50 0 comments
2.04.2007
The Fourth Branch: In Washington, Contractors Take on Biggest Role Ever (NYTimes.com)
By SCOTT SHANE and RON NIXON
Published: February 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government’s reflexive answer to almost every problem.
It did not matter that the company they chose, CACI International, had itself recently avoided a suspension from federal contracting; or that the work, delving into investigative files on other contractors, appeared to pose a conflict of interest; or that each person supplied by the company would cost taxpayers $104 an hour. Six CACI workers soon joined hundreds of other private-sector workers at the G.S.A., the government’s management agency.
Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.
Contractors still build ships and satellites, but they also collect income taxes and work up agency budgets, fly pilotless spy aircraft and take the minutes at policy meetings on the war. They sit next to federal employees at nearly every agency; far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the government. Even the government’s online database for tracking contracts, the Federal Procurement Data System, has been outsourced (and is famously difficult to use).
The contracting explosion raises questions about propriety, cost and accountability that have long troubled watchdog groups and are coming under scrutiny from the Democratic majority in Congress. While flagrant cases of fraud and waste make headlines, concerns go beyond outright wrongdoing.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Published: February 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government’s reflexive answer to almost every problem.
It did not matter that the company they chose, CACI International, had itself recently avoided a suspension from federal contracting; or that the work, delving into investigative files on other contractors, appeared to pose a conflict of interest; or that each person supplied by the company would cost taxpayers $104 an hour. Six CACI workers soon joined hundreds of other private-sector workers at the G.S.A., the government’s management agency.
Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.
Contractors still build ships and satellites, but they also collect income taxes and work up agency budgets, fly pilotless spy aircraft and take the minutes at policy meetings on the war. They sit next to federal employees at nearly every agency; far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the government. Even the government’s online database for tracking contracts, the Federal Procurement Data System, has been outsourced (and is famously difficult to use).
The contracting explosion raises questions about propriety, cost and accountability that have long troubled watchdog groups and are coming under scrutiny from the Democratic majority in Congress. While flagrant cases of fraud and waste make headlines, concerns go beyond outright wrongdoing.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Washington)
Labels: Bush, Contracting, New York Times
¶ 20:05 0 comments
2.02.2007
Florida Shifting to Voting System with Paper Trail (NYTimes.com)
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: February 2, 2007
DELRAY BEACH, Fla., Feb. 1 — Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of Florida’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.
Voting experts said Florida’s move, coupled with new federal voting legislation expected to pass this year, could be the death knell for the paperless electronic touch-screen machines. If as expected the Florida Legislature approves the $32.5 million cost of the change, it would be the nation’s biggest repudiation yet of touch-screen voting, which was widely embraced after the 2000 recount as a state-of-the-art means of restoring confidence that every vote would count.
Several counties around the country, including Cuyahoga in Ohio and Sarasota in Florida, are moving toward exchanging touch-screen machines for ones that provide a paper trail. But Florida could become the first state that invested heavily in the recent rush to touch screens to reject them so sweepingly.
“Florida is like a synonym for election problems; it’s the Bermuda Triangle of elections,” said Warren Stewart, policy director of VoteTrust USA, a nonprofit group that says optical scanners are more reliable than touch screens. “For Florida to be clearly contemplating moving away from touch screens to the greatest extent possible is truly significant.”
Other states that rushed to buy the touch-screen machines are also abandoning them. Earlier this week, the Virginia Senate passed a bill that would phase out the machines as they wore out, and replace them with optical scanners. The Maryland legislature also seems determined to order a switch from the paperless touch screens, though it is not clear yet if it will require the use of optical scanners or just allow paper printers to be added to the touch screens.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Published: February 2, 2007
DELRAY BEACH, Fla., Feb. 1 — Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of Florida’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.
Voting experts said Florida’s move, coupled with new federal voting legislation expected to pass this year, could be the death knell for the paperless electronic touch-screen machines. If as expected the Florida Legislature approves the $32.5 million cost of the change, it would be the nation’s biggest repudiation yet of touch-screen voting, which was widely embraced after the 2000 recount as a state-of-the-art means of restoring confidence that every vote would count.
Several counties around the country, including Cuyahoga in Ohio and Sarasota in Florida, are moving toward exchanging touch-screen machines for ones that provide a paper trail. But Florida could become the first state that invested heavily in the recent rush to touch screens to reject them so sweepingly.
“Florida is like a synonym for election problems; it’s the Bermuda Triangle of elections,” said Warren Stewart, policy director of VoteTrust USA, a nonprofit group that says optical scanners are more reliable than touch screens. “For Florida to be clearly contemplating moving away from touch screens to the greatest extent possible is truly significant.”
Other states that rushed to buy the touch-screen machines are also abandoning them. Earlier this week, the Virginia Senate passed a bill that would phase out the machines as they wore out, and replace them with optical scanners. The Maryland legislature also seems determined to order a switch from the paperless touch screens, though it is not clear yet if it will require the use of optical scanners or just allow paper printers to be added to the touch screens.
(More ... New York Times > Politics)
Labels: blackbox voting, New York Times
¶ 19:52 0 comments
2.01.2007
The Future President Clinton (NYTimes.com)
The Right Stuff
January 31, 2007, 6:08 pm
As I survey the political scene, I don’t think it’s too soon to make a firm prediction about the 2008 presidential race. I think Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
The way I see it, the only reason Al Gore and John Kerry didn’t win in 2000 and 2004 is that they ran two of the worst campaigns in American political history. Yet both lost only by the skin of their teeth.
Yes, I know that Gore received more of the popular vote than George W. Bush did, and many people believe the election was stolen from him. But the election never should have been close enough for that to be possible. He was a sitting vice president at a time of peace and prosperity. Consequently, Gore should have won by a margin large enough to preclude any challenge.
While it is true that Bush ran a pretty good campaign in 2000, it wouldn’t have been enough to win had Gore run a half-competent campaign. All he had to do, really, was assure the American people that he would continue Bill Clinton’s economic and foreign policies. People may have had doubts about Clinton’s personal behavior, but they had no doubts about his policies: they liked them. In November 2000, his favorable/unfavorable ratio in the Gallup poll was 63 percent to 33 percent.
For reasons I have never understood, Gore was reluctant to run as Clinton’s heir and tried to reinvent himself. In the process, he essentially threw away all the advantages of incumbency. He lost votes among loyal Democrats who saw his implicit repudiation of Clinton as disloyalty, while picking up none among independents. In the end, Gore couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee — a very rare occurrence in American political history.
Gore should have run the same sort of campaign that George H.W. Bush ran in 1988. Basically, Bush Sr. told the American people that he would simply fulfill Ronald Reagan’s third term. That was good enough, and it would have worked for Gore, too.
In 2004, Kerry lacked Gore’s advantage of incumbency and had to run against a sitting president — a difficult thing to do under the best of circumstances. But like Gore, Kerry seemed reluctant to use the Clinton record to his advantage. Kerry seemed to run as if the election were his to lose, and his campaign never developed a really coherent message except that he was not George W. Bush.
Such a strategy perhaps made sense on paper — Bush’s favorable and unfavorable ratings were both at 47 percent in the days before the election. But in the end, people wanted more from Kerry than he was willing to provide in terms of a vision for the future, and they decided to stick with the devil they knew.
In 2008, I see none of the factors that doomed Gore and Kerry coming into play. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as I expect she will be, I don’t see her running away from her husband’s record; she couldn’t even if she wanted to. She doesn’t need to make a lot of extravagant promises about what she will do in office, because people are ready for a change. All she has to do is convince people she won’t screw things up and will undertake the messy job of cleaning up the messes Bush will be leaving behind in Iraq and at home.
(More ... New York Times > Blogs > The Right Stuff)
January 31, 2007, 6:08 pm
As I survey the political scene, I don’t think it’s too soon to make a firm prediction about the 2008 presidential race. I think Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
The way I see it, the only reason Al Gore and John Kerry didn’t win in 2000 and 2004 is that they ran two of the worst campaigns in American political history. Yet both lost only by the skin of their teeth.
Yes, I know that Gore received more of the popular vote than George W. Bush did, and many people believe the election was stolen from him. But the election never should have been close enough for that to be possible. He was a sitting vice president at a time of peace and prosperity. Consequently, Gore should have won by a margin large enough to preclude any challenge.
While it is true that Bush ran a pretty good campaign in 2000, it wouldn’t have been enough to win had Gore run a half-competent campaign. All he had to do, really, was assure the American people that he would continue Bill Clinton’s economic and foreign policies. People may have had doubts about Clinton’s personal behavior, but they had no doubts about his policies: they liked them. In November 2000, his favorable/unfavorable ratio in the Gallup poll was 63 percent to 33 percent.
For reasons I have never understood, Gore was reluctant to run as Clinton’s heir and tried to reinvent himself. In the process, he essentially threw away all the advantages of incumbency. He lost votes among loyal Democrats who saw his implicit repudiation of Clinton as disloyalty, while picking up none among independents. In the end, Gore couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee — a very rare occurrence in American political history.
Gore should have run the same sort of campaign that George H.W. Bush ran in 1988. Basically, Bush Sr. told the American people that he would simply fulfill Ronald Reagan’s third term. That was good enough, and it would have worked for Gore, too.
In 2004, Kerry lacked Gore’s advantage of incumbency and had to run against a sitting president — a difficult thing to do under the best of circumstances. But like Gore, Kerry seemed reluctant to use the Clinton record to his advantage. Kerry seemed to run as if the election were his to lose, and his campaign never developed a really coherent message except that he was not George W. Bush.
Such a strategy perhaps made sense on paper — Bush’s favorable and unfavorable ratings were both at 47 percent in the days before the election. But in the end, people wanted more from Kerry than he was willing to provide in terms of a vision for the future, and they decided to stick with the devil they knew.
In 2008, I see none of the factors that doomed Gore and Kerry coming into play. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as I expect she will be, I don’t see her running away from her husband’s record; she couldn’t even if she wanted to. She doesn’t need to make a lot of extravagant promises about what she will do in office, because people are ready for a change. All she has to do is convince people she won’t screw things up and will undertake the messy job of cleaning up the messes Bush will be leaving behind in Iraq and at home.
(More ... New York Times > Blogs > The Right Stuff)
Labels: 2008 election, Clinton, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 21:20 0 comments
Germans Charge 13 CIA Operatives (WashingtonPost.com)
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 1, 2007; Page A01
BERLIN, Jan. 31 -- The CIA's clandestine program of abducting suspected terrorists and taking them to secret sites for interrogation unraveled further on Wednesday as German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 agency operatives in the kidnapping of a German citizen in the Balkans in December 2003.
The case is the second in which European prosecutors have filed charges against CIA employees involved in counterterrorism operations. Italian prosecutors have charged 25 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force officer with kidnapping a radical cleric on a Milan street in 2003 and taking him to Cairo, where he says he was tortured.
European law enforcement authorities acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that any CIA officers -- most of whom work undercover, using false identities -- would be apprehended or extradited from the United States. But the arrest warrants, filed in Munich, mark yet another case in which CIA activities in Europe since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have strained diplomatic ties and underscored deep differences between the United States and its transatlantic allies over how to fight terrorism.
Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld, the chief prosecutor in Munich, said the 13 CIA operatives were wanted on suspicion of kidnapping and inflicting bodily harm on Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri has said he was detained by border guards Dec. 31, 2003, while en route to a holiday in Macedonia, and handed over to the CIA, which took him to a secret prison in Afghanistan and interrogated him about his alleged ties to Islamic radicals in Germany.
After five months in detention -- during which, he said, he was physically abused -- Masri was flown back to the Balkans and dumped on a hillside in Albania after his captors apparently decided they had apprehended the wrong man. German prosecutors said they were skeptical when he came to them with his bizarre-sounding story but later corroborated many parts of his account.
Robert Wood, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, declined to comment on the arrest warrants, as did a State Department spokesman in Washington. The CIA also declined to comment.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Europe)
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 1, 2007; Page A01
BERLIN, Jan. 31 -- The CIA's clandestine program of abducting suspected terrorists and taking them to secret sites for interrogation unraveled further on Wednesday as German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 agency operatives in the kidnapping of a German citizen in the Balkans in December 2003.
The case is the second in which European prosecutors have filed charges against CIA employees involved in counterterrorism operations. Italian prosecutors have charged 25 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force officer with kidnapping a radical cleric on a Milan street in 2003 and taking him to Cairo, where he says he was tortured.
European law enforcement authorities acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that any CIA officers -- most of whom work undercover, using false identities -- would be apprehended or extradited from the United States. But the arrest warrants, filed in Munich, mark yet another case in which CIA activities in Europe since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have strained diplomatic ties and underscored deep differences between the United States and its transatlantic allies over how to fight terrorism.
Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld, the chief prosecutor in Munich, said the 13 CIA operatives were wanted on suspicion of kidnapping and inflicting bodily harm on Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri has said he was detained by border guards Dec. 31, 2003, while en route to a holiday in Macedonia, and handed over to the CIA, which took him to a secret prison in Afghanistan and interrogated him about his alleged ties to Islamic radicals in Germany.
After five months in detention -- during which, he said, he was physically abused -- Masri was flown back to the Balkans and dumped on a hillside in Albania after his captors apparently decided they had apprehended the wrong man. German prosecutors said they were skeptical when he came to them with his bizarre-sounding story but later corroborated many parts of his account.
Robert Wood, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, declined to comment on the arrest warrants, as did a State Department spokesman in Washington. The CIA also declined to comment.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Europe)
Labels: CIA, Extraordinary Rendition, Washington Post
¶ 20:21 0 comments
Molly Ivins, Dies at 62 (CNN.com)
POSTED: 9:36 p.m. EST, January 31, 2007
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as "Shrub," died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62.
Ivins died at her home while in hospice care, said David Pasztor, managing editor of the Texas Observer, where Ivins was co-editor.
Ivins made a living poking fun at politicians, whether they were in her home state of Texas or the White House. She revealed in early 2006 that she was being treated for breast cancer for the third time.
More than 400 news organizations, including CNN.com, subscribed to her nationally syndicated column, which combined strong liberal views and populist humor. Ivins' illness did not seem to hurt her ability to deliver biting one-liners.
"I'm sorry to say [cancer] can kill you, but it doesn't make you a better person," she said in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News in September, the same month cancer claimed her friend, former Gov. Ann Richards.
To Ivins, "liberal" wasn't an insult. "Even I felt sorry for Richard Nixon when he left; there's nothing you can do about being born liberal -- fish gotta swim and hearts gotta bleed," she wrote in a column included in her 1998 collection, "You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You."
In a column in mid-January, Ivins urged readers to stand up against Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.
"We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war," Ivins wrote in the January 11 column. "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!"' (Read the column)
More ... CNN > News > U.S.) ¶ 20:12 0 comments
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as "Shrub," died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62.
Ivins died at her home while in hospice care, said David Pasztor, managing editor of the Texas Observer, where Ivins was co-editor.
Ivins made a living poking fun at politicians, whether they were in her home state of Texas or the White House. She revealed in early 2006 that she was being treated for breast cancer for the third time.
More than 400 news organizations, including CNN.com, subscribed to her nationally syndicated column, which combined strong liberal views and populist humor. Ivins' illness did not seem to hurt her ability to deliver biting one-liners.
"I'm sorry to say [cancer] can kill you, but it doesn't make you a better person," she said in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News in September, the same month cancer claimed her friend, former Gov. Ann Richards.
To Ivins, "liberal" wasn't an insult. "Even I felt sorry for Richard Nixon when he left; there's nothing you can do about being born liberal -- fish gotta swim and hearts gotta bleed," she wrote in a column included in her 1998 collection, "You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You."
In a column in mid-January, Ivins urged readers to stand up against Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.
"We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war," Ivins wrote in the January 11 column. "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!"' (Read the column)
More ... CNN > News > U.S.) ¶ 20:12 0 comments
Biden's Description of Obama Draws Scrutiny (CNN.com)
POSTED: 8:37 p.m. EST, January 31, 2007
From Xuan Thai and Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joe Biden planned to spend Wednesday focusing on his official announcement that he was running for president, but the Delaware Democrat instead found himself defending remarks he made to the New York Observer about his Democratic opponents.
In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."
Biden also spoke to reporters in a conference call Wednesday afternoon and said the remark was taken out of context.
"Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I've been around," Biden said on the call. "And he's fresh. He's new. He's smart. He's insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world 'clean.'"
Biden said he was referring to a phrase used by his mother.
"My mother has an expression: clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack," Biden said.
Obama, in a brief off-camera interview in a Senate hallway, said he thinks Biden "didn't intend to offend" anyone.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
From Xuan Thai and Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joe Biden planned to spend Wednesday focusing on his official announcement that he was running for president, but the Delaware Democrat instead found himself defending remarks he made to the New York Observer about his Democratic opponents.
In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."
Biden also spoke to reporters in a conference call Wednesday afternoon and said the remark was taken out of context.
"Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I've been around," Biden said on the call. "And he's fresh. He's new. He's smart. He's insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world 'clean.'"
Biden said he was referring to a phrase used by his mother.
"My mother has an expression: clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack," Biden said.
Obama, in a brief off-camera interview in a Senate hallway, said he thinks Biden "didn't intend to offend" anyone.
(More ... CNN > Politics)
Labels: 2008 election, Biden, CNN, Obama
¶ 20:08 0 comments
