6/24/2005
BushCo: Forget the insurgents! Kill the liberals!
Filed under: Constructive Criticism — MrBogle @ 5:28 pm
A few days, back I wrote about this Administration’s “new” public relations campaign to woo people back into “the Iraq Invasion = great” camp. This past week, BushCo. revealed the details of the plan. It’s pretty awesome.
First, you deny there’s a problem. Second, you ignore the polls and deny that Americans are against the Iraq “war.” Third, you say that, IF there ARE Americans against the “war,” they are aiding the terrorists. Fourth, you say you really care about all the American troops being killed and this whole war thing is “hard.” Fifth, you link Iraq with 9/11 and smush all the facts together as if playing with clay, ignoring and re-inventing history like a Ritalin-dosed five-year-old. Sixth, and most importantly, you attack “liberals” who are against the Iraq quagmire and, somehow, bring in 9/11 and questions about their patriotism. Wow!
This whole deal began last week when BushCo. sent out the Pillsbury DoughBoy’s evil twin, Karl Rove, on the PR circuit. The pasty-faced Texan took his slime-trail, first, to “Hardball,” wherein in a warm-up of what was to come later, declared that, in spite of EVERY SINGLE POLL done in the last three months, Americans support Bush’s illegal invasion and….the polls were wrong.
Declared Rove: “You can find a poll and ask any questions you want, but I believe that if you say to the American people, ‘is it in the interest of the United States to see a stable and democratic Iraq arise at the center of the Middle East and should we do whatever is necessary to make that happen?’ that I’m sure Americans would say yes.”
(NOTE: Only if they could respond after working two or three jobs just to get their mortgage and bills paid and buy schoolbooks for their kids.)
Substitute host (who should be permanent host), NBC Chief White House correspondent David Gregory blinked.
GREGORY: “You don’t think there’s majority opposition to the war?”
ROVE: “I think Americans are concerned about war, its ugly, its dangerous. Anybody who has got a family member who’s gone over there — I know it. I’ve had family members in the MidEast. I know how Americans who have loved ones abroad feel. I can I read, like you. the newspapers and watch the television and it is not a pleasant sight seeing people die. Whether it is (an) Iraqi civilian standing in line at a market or an Iraqi policeman whose goal is to serve his nation, or a US military personnel who is there on behalf of us so that we can fight the insurgents and the jihadists in the Middle East rather than facing them here. But having said that, that’s not the real question.
“The question is ‘is it in the American interest, will the world be safer, will the world be more peaceful if America and our coalition partners stand with the people of Iraq and move towards a democracy, or will we be better off if we turn tail and run?’ I know of only a handful of people in the United States Congress, and I suspect a relatively small number of Americans, who say we ought to pull up stakes and pull out, regardless of what the consequences are, because I think most Americans understand how vital it is for our interests that we have a stable and democratic Iraq.”
NO! THAT WASN’T THE QUESTION!!!! WE DON’T CARE ABOUT IRAQ! WE NEVER DID! Oh, the headaches! Migraines! Where’s my aspirin? Oh, yeah. It got better.
GREGORY: “You’re talking about the goal, there’s also question about the way the war is being run, prosecution of the war and you’re hearing from both sides of the aisle more calls for an exit strategy. This week Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican, was quoted as saying ‘America is losing in Iraq’ and he says the White House is ‘completely disconnected from reality about the war.’ Your reaction?”
ROVE: “I respectfully disagree. This president talks every week (NOT EVERY FRIGGIN’ DAY????) with the commanders in the field by a video link. He gets briefed by the front line every single week. He meets virtually every single day with the sec of defense (OH, GREAT! THIS IS LIKE DOPEY TALKING TO GRUMPY.) who talks with him about the progress of the war in Iraq. He meets with the national intelligence director every single morning to receive a briefing. With all due respect to Senator Hagel, I understand he has strong feelings about this, but this president is in connection, is in touch with the men and women who are on the front line of this war who are making the decisions and making the recommendations about our policy.”
(ACK!)
GREGORY: “The vice president said recently that he thinks the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes —its final throes, do you agree with that?”
ROVE: (Note: This is a good one. Study it. This is the definition of “spin.”) “We know that when a movement like this, a jihadist movement, a terrorist movement, is most dangerous when it is running out of options. We saw, you saw earlier this year Zarqawi and some of the other leaders of Al Qaeda and its affiliates talk about the dangers and about the struggles that they were in. They were complaining about the circumstances in which they found themselves, pressed by on all sides, by U.S. coalition and Iraqi forces. So I do believe the vice president said it correct: we will find these Jihadists and the Al Qaeda most dangerous when they are at the moment of greatest danger for them.”
Amazingly, Gregory’s head didn’t blow up after hearing all this nonsense. Rove went on to blame US for not understanding what’s really going on. “I think more Americans need to do a better job of letting Americans know what is going on there,” he stated, ignoring his slime-trail.
There will be a slight pause while I either smack myself in the head, put on a tin-foil hat or have a stiff drink. WTF? Sigh. Okay. Let’s go on. I’ve done all three.
Rove also stated that Americans are falling into the hands of the enemy — if the polls, which he doesn’t acknowledge as meaning anything, show that Americans are smelling a skunk: “Look, Americans don’t like war. I mean nobody likes war and waking up and seeing on the screen people dying is something that Americans don’t like to see. Whether its American men and women in uniform, or rather it’s Iraqis in uniform or Iraqi civilians. But we need to remember, that’s part of the goal of the insurgents. Their goal is to weaken our resolve by being so violent and so dangerous and so ugly that they hope that we will turn tail and run. They have misjudged the American people though. And they have certainly misjudged this president.”
After subtly bashing liberals for wanting to litigate terrorists, defending Gitmo, and declaring that the Presidunce has always leveled with us about how long and hard this war would be, (Hmmmm. I seemed to remember a “Mission Accomplished” banner. Naaah. Probably just my ‘magination.) he quipped, re: the Bolton as bully vote: “I’m an idealist. I always hold out hope.”
And I’m the fuggin’ Tooth Fairy, Karl. Let me punch-out a tooth and I’ll give you a quarter.
Krafty Karl hit his stride a day later whilst gasbagging in front of a gaggle representing the Conservative Party of New York State, at a site dangerously close to the remnants of the Twin Towers. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war,” he slimed, “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
“I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.”
Referring to Senator Richard J. Durbin’s (D, Illinois) comments about American mistreatment of detainees being equal to those used by Nazis, Soviets or other mad regimes, he oozed: “Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the MidEast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
See the pattern, here?
One day later, Veep Cheney snarled ominously to Wolfe Shitzer on CNN re: liberals: “There were some who opposed what we did in Afghanistan.”
Okay, this is classic Bushit. After the Bishistas ignored all warnings and allowed the Twin Towers to be taken down, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 for a resolution authorizing Shrub to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the act. The lone hold-out was Rep. Barbara Lee, a Dem. from California.
After the vote, Bush said in a statement. “I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message - our people are together, and we will prevail.”
This entire Rove-Cheney riff was designed to distract the American public from the fact that Bush made a gigantic a mistake when he plunged us into invading Iraq and that countless more gallons of American blood will be spilled over there in order for Bush to declare himself a victor. A hero. A peace-maker. A War Preznant.
It should be noted that, at the same time all this verbal crap was being flung, Bush was out on the trail, stumping for his domestic debacles and quipping at one rally in Lusby, Maryland: “I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That’s a pretty cool first name, isn’t it, Mayo. (Five second pause.) Pass the Mayo. (Laughter and applause.) His wife, Molly, appreciated that. (Laughter.)”
Awwww, come on, Sparky. Get a fuggin’ grip.
Also, please note, that two days later, Dubya would be talking about how “hard” it is for him to deal with the families of dead soldiers in Iraq. How about letting us see their caskets? There’s never a rimshot around when you really need one.
And there’s never a reporter with enough balls to call Bush on this crap.
In terms of Rove, the Democrats, who always apologize for saying anything honest, demanded an apology from the slug. No way, said the White House, via sweaty Scott McClellan. The “press conference” following Rove’s declarations, was classic.
Q Scott, you ask us oftentimes for specifics — does Karl have in mind a particular Democratic leader who suggested therapy for the folks who attacked on 9/11?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can look at his remarks, Mark.
Q He didn’t mention any names, and I’m asking you if you know.
MR. McCLELLAN: I know, so you should go look at your remarks.
Q So in other words, there are no —
MR. McCLELLAN: Clearly, there are people who have taken a different approach, and I don’t think we need to get into names.
Q But someone who specifically has suggested therapy?
MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, if you want to make more than it was, then you’re welcome to, but I think you should go back and look at his remarks. I didn’t see his remarks.
Q He didn’t name any names, which is why I’m asking you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and you can go back and look at his remarks and see for yourself what it says.
I’m getting dizzy, how about you? Can we, with intelligence, puke now?
No, save those dry heaves. The Administration is on the march. Oooolp.
Then, there was Rumsfeld, re-writing history and obliterating the facts before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Following the top American commander in the Persian Gulf telling Congress that the Iraqi insurgency has not grown weaker over the past six months, despite a claim by Vice Resident Cheney that it was in it’s “last throes,” Rumsfeld barked: “Those who say we are losing this war are wrong. We are not.”
After Rummy was accused by Senator Ted Kennedy of disassembling the facts and after Ted declared there “was no end in sight” to this quagmire, Rummy smirked: “Well, that is quite a statement. First let me say that there isn’t a person at this table who agrees with you that we’re in a quagmire and that there’s no end in sight.”
“The suggestion by you that people — me or others — are painting a rosy picture is false,” lied Rumsfeld.
Shortly thereafter, a bright red winged monkey flew out of his butt. (The cameras were off by that time. Trust me on this one.)
One day later, after various Administration flunkies kept Rove’s delusions in the news (aided by outraged Democrats, who really should know better than to respond to trite taunts by now) and the winged monkey was given press credentials by Spanky McClellan, our “War Presnent” met Iraqi Prime Minster FUBARi, I mean, Jaafari at the White House.
Afterwards, at a Press Sprint, Dubya opined on the insurgents: “They try to kill — and they do kill innocent Iraqi people, women and children, because they know that they’re — the carnage that they wreak will be on TV. And they know that they are — they know that it bothers people to see death — and it does, it bothers me, it bothers American citizens, it bothers Iraqis. They’re trying to shake our will. That’s what
they’re trying to do. And so of course we understand the nature of that enemy…
“In other words, they figure if they can shake our will and affect public opinion, then politicians will give up on the mission. I’m not giving up on the mission. We’re doing the right thing, which is to set the foundation for peace and freedom…”
Undaunted by a populace that has slowly begun to realize that he lied his ass off to go into Iraq, Bush declared: “I think I said at this press conference here in the East Room, you know, it’s like — following polls is like a dog chasing his tail. I’m not sure how that translates. But my job is to set an agenda and to lead toward that agenda. And we’re laying the foundation for peace around the world.”
So, let’s get this straight, in spite of the fact that the CIA has said Bush’s idiocy has transformed Iraq into the primo spot to train ultra-sophisticated terrorists (Even better than Afghanistan! Yaaay!), in spite of the fact that all American military leaders in Iraq conclude that we’re between A-wreck and a hard place, in spite of the fact that most Americans have woken up and have spotted that BushCo. is dismantling the country and has committed a fatal error of supreme arrogance….everything is fine.
Next Tuesday, Bush will give a prime-time speech in front of the indoctrinated at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Expect nothing but missing your favorite re-runs.
The new PR campaign?
There’s a reason that if you hit “I’m feeling lucky” whilst Googling “worst president” and/or “miserable failure,” you’re taken directly to the official White House biography of George W. Bush.
Let’s see Karl Rove spin that.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Bush's Fiscal Wrecklessness
June 26, 2005
The New York Yimes
A Glide Path to Ruin
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in the world probably doesn't come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war.
Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration's fiscal recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China.
"I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the prescription drug benefit - possibly an $8 trillion obligation - without figuring out how to pay for it.
Mr. Walker, America's watchdog in chief and head of the Government Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an independent since 1997.
Now he's running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America's finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks.
I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker's warning that within five years we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis.
"If we don't get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it's not a question of whether it'll come, but when and how serious."
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very worried."
"I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the probability of a crisis, he added, "but there's a widespread sense in the market that there is a substantial chance."
Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security.
On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America's finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet in a way that betrays their conservative principles.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. ... We have lost our way." He's right.
Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts with data that ultimately proved equally faulty - yet the tax cuts remain cemented in place.
Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush's speech when he presented his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down the debt.
"I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt."
Oh?
More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion.
Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget deficits, since often I'm bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common thread: These are issues that aren't sexy, that don't get television time and that most Americans tune out - yet demand action on our part for both moral and practical reasons.
America's fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren't weeping widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to visualize the victims, think of your child's face, or your grandchild's.
President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth tax" of about $150,000.
That's right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry.
E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Yimes
A Glide Path to Ruin
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in the world probably doesn't come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war.
Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration's fiscal recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China.
"I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the prescription drug benefit - possibly an $8 trillion obligation - without figuring out how to pay for it.
Mr. Walker, America's watchdog in chief and head of the Government Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an independent since 1997.
Now he's running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America's finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks.
I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker's warning that within five years we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis.
"If we don't get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it's not a question of whether it'll come, but when and how serious."
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very worried."
"I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the probability of a crisis, he added, "but there's a widespread sense in the market that there is a substantial chance."
Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security.
On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America's finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet in a way that betrays their conservative principles.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. ... We have lost our way." He's right.
Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts with data that ultimately proved equally faulty - yet the tax cuts remain cemented in place.
Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush's speech when he presented his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down the debt.
"I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt."
Oh?
More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion.
Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget deficits, since often I'm bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common thread: These are issues that aren't sexy, that don't get television time and that most Americans tune out - yet demand action on our part for both moral and practical reasons.
America's fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren't weeping widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to visualize the victims, think of your child's face, or your grandchild's.
President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth tax" of about $150,000.
That's right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry.
E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
K Street lobbyist profits grow under Bush as we struggle to make ends meet
The Road to Riches Is Called K Street
Lobbying Firms Hire More, Pay More, Charge More to Influence Government
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; A01
To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling.
The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.
The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.
"There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help."
Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources."
In the 1990s, lobbying was largely reactive. Corporations had to fend off proposals that would have restricted them or cost them money. But with pro-business officials running the executive and legislative branches, companies are also hiring well-placed lobbyists to go on the offensive and find ways to profit from the many tax breaks, loosened regulations and other government goodies that increasingly are available.
"People in industry are willing to invest money because they see opportunities here," said Patrick J. Griffin, who was President Bill Clinton's top lobbyist and is now in private practice. "They see that they can win things, that there's something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center."
Take the example of Hewlett-Packard Co. The California computer maker nearly doubled its budget for contract lobbyists to $734,000 last year and added the elite lobbying firm of Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC. Its goal was to pass Republican-backed legislation that would allow the company to bring back to the United States at a dramatically lowered tax rate as much as $14.5 billion in profit from foreign subsidiaries.
The extra lobbying paid off. The legislation was approved and Hewlett-Packard will save millions of dollars in taxes. "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House," said John D. Hassell, director of government affairs at Hewlett-Packard. "There is an opportunity here for the business community to make its case and be successful."
The Republicans in charge aren't just pro-business, they are also pro-government. Federal outlays increased nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2004, to $2.29 trillion. And despite the budget deficit, federal spending is set to increase again this year, especially in programs that are prime lobbying targets such as defense, homeland security and medical coverage.
In addition, President Bush has signed into law five major tax-cut bills over the past four years. His administration has also curtailed regulation. Over the past five years, the number of new federal regulations has declined by 5 percent, to 4,100, according to Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., a vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The number of pending regulations that would cost businesses or local governments $100 million or more a year has declined even more, by 14.5 percent to 135 over the period.
Companies have had to redouble their lobbying merely to keep track of it all. "Much of lobbying today is watching all the change that's going on in Washington," Cigler said. "Companies need more people just to stay apprised of what regulators are doing."
At the same time, government activism has presented potential problems for business. "As government grows, unless you're right there to limit it, it can intrude in just about any industry," Livingston said. "There are agencies that love to do things and acquire new missions. People in industry better have good lobbyists or they're going to get rolled over."
But whether it is to protect themselves against harm or to win more benefits, executives and insiders say they have no choice but to hire lobbyists who are deeply rooted in official Washington and its complexities. "Hiring a lobbyist is part of system these days," said Kent Cooper, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan compiler of lobbying and campaign-funding information.
Jonas Neihardt, vice president of federal government affairs for Qualcomm Inc., the San Diego technology company, agreed: "Without professional lobbyists I don't see how a company can monitor everything that's going on or provide the inputs that are necessary to explain why rules and laws have to be changed."
The result has been a gold rush on K Street, the lobbyists' boulevard. Quinn Gillespie has added at least 16 clients and six professionals since its co-founder, Edward W. Gillespie, announced last November that he was returning after a stint as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Barbour Griffith & Rogers LLC, another lobbying firm, increased the number of lobbyists to 15, from eight in 2003.
The owner of a large lobbying shop said that five years ago he could hire veteran Capitol Hill staffers for $200,000 a year or less. Now the going rate is closer to $300,000 a year and the most-sought-after aides can expect even more. In 2002, Susan B. Hirschmann, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), had so many lobbying offers that she enlisted Robert B. Barnett, the attorney for Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), to receive and filter them.
For retiring members of Congress and senior administration aides, the bidding from lobbying firms and trade associations can get even more fevered. Well-regarded top officials are in high demand and lately have commanded employment packages worth upward of $2 million a year. Marc F. Racicot, a former Montana governor who chaired the Republican National Committee, will soon collect an annual salary of $1 million-plus as president of the American Insurance Association.
The fees that lobbyists charge clients have also risen substantially. Retainers that had been $10,000 to $15,000 a month for new corporate clients before President Bush took office now are $20,000 to $25,000 a month or more, lobbyists say.
All-Republican lobbying firms have boosted their rates the most. Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock and the Federalist Group report that at the end of the Clinton administration, $20,000 a month was considered high. Now, they say, retainers of $25,000 to $40,000 a month are customary for new corporate clients, depending on how much work they do.
Such fee inflation is widespread, even by newcomers. Venn Strategies LLC, a bipartisan lobbying firm that opened in 2001, has doubled its retainer for new clients. "When we first started, most of them came in at $7,500 a month or $10,000 a month," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal in the firm. "Now retainers are more in the $15,000- and $25,000-a-month range."
Corporate clients accept the extra cost as the price of success in Washington. At the turn of the year, the American Ambulance Association decided to step up its lobbying and switched to Patton Boggs LLP, the Capitol Hill powerhouse, from a smaller lobbying shop across town. In the process it boosted its lobbying budget by about a third, to more than $300,000 a year.
"It is essential we have a very strong presence," said Robert L. Garner, president of the association. "It's pricey, but it's the cost of doing business in the federal environment."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Lobbying Firms Hire More, Pay More, Charge More to Influence Government
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; A01
To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling.
The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.
The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.
"There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help."
Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources."
In the 1990s, lobbying was largely reactive. Corporations had to fend off proposals that would have restricted them or cost them money. But with pro-business officials running the executive and legislative branches, companies are also hiring well-placed lobbyists to go on the offensive and find ways to profit from the many tax breaks, loosened regulations and other government goodies that increasingly are available.
"People in industry are willing to invest money because they see opportunities here," said Patrick J. Griffin, who was President Bill Clinton's top lobbyist and is now in private practice. "They see that they can win things, that there's something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center."
Take the example of Hewlett-Packard Co. The California computer maker nearly doubled its budget for contract lobbyists to $734,000 last year and added the elite lobbying firm of Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC. Its goal was to pass Republican-backed legislation that would allow the company to bring back to the United States at a dramatically lowered tax rate as much as $14.5 billion in profit from foreign subsidiaries.
The extra lobbying paid off. The legislation was approved and Hewlett-Packard will save millions of dollars in taxes. "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House," said John D. Hassell, director of government affairs at Hewlett-Packard. "There is an opportunity here for the business community to make its case and be successful."
The Republicans in charge aren't just pro-business, they are also pro-government. Federal outlays increased nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2004, to $2.29 trillion. And despite the budget deficit, federal spending is set to increase again this year, especially in programs that are prime lobbying targets such as defense, homeland security and medical coverage.
In addition, President Bush has signed into law five major tax-cut bills over the past four years. His administration has also curtailed regulation. Over the past five years, the number of new federal regulations has declined by 5 percent, to 4,100, according to Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., a vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The number of pending regulations that would cost businesses or local governments $100 million or more a year has declined even more, by 14.5 percent to 135 over the period.
Companies have had to redouble their lobbying merely to keep track of it all. "Much of lobbying today is watching all the change that's going on in Washington," Cigler said. "Companies need more people just to stay apprised of what regulators are doing."
At the same time, government activism has presented potential problems for business. "As government grows, unless you're right there to limit it, it can intrude in just about any industry," Livingston said. "There are agencies that love to do things and acquire new missions. People in industry better have good lobbyists or they're going to get rolled over."
But whether it is to protect themselves against harm or to win more benefits, executives and insiders say they have no choice but to hire lobbyists who are deeply rooted in official Washington and its complexities. "Hiring a lobbyist is part of system these days," said Kent Cooper, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan compiler of lobbying and campaign-funding information.
Jonas Neihardt, vice president of federal government affairs for Qualcomm Inc., the San Diego technology company, agreed: "Without professional lobbyists I don't see how a company can monitor everything that's going on or provide the inputs that are necessary to explain why rules and laws have to be changed."
The result has been a gold rush on K Street, the lobbyists' boulevard. Quinn Gillespie has added at least 16 clients and six professionals since its co-founder, Edward W. Gillespie, announced last November that he was returning after a stint as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Barbour Griffith & Rogers LLC, another lobbying firm, increased the number of lobbyists to 15, from eight in 2003.
The owner of a large lobbying shop said that five years ago he could hire veteran Capitol Hill staffers for $200,000 a year or less. Now the going rate is closer to $300,000 a year and the most-sought-after aides can expect even more. In 2002, Susan B. Hirschmann, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), had so many lobbying offers that she enlisted Robert B. Barnett, the attorney for Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), to receive and filter them.
For retiring members of Congress and senior administration aides, the bidding from lobbying firms and trade associations can get even more fevered. Well-regarded top officials are in high demand and lately have commanded employment packages worth upward of $2 million a year. Marc F. Racicot, a former Montana governor who chaired the Republican National Committee, will soon collect an annual salary of $1 million-plus as president of the American Insurance Association.
The fees that lobbyists charge clients have also risen substantially. Retainers that had been $10,000 to $15,000 a month for new corporate clients before President Bush took office now are $20,000 to $25,000 a month or more, lobbyists say.
All-Republican lobbying firms have boosted their rates the most. Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock and the Federalist Group report that at the end of the Clinton administration, $20,000 a month was considered high. Now, they say, retainers of $25,000 to $40,000 a month are customary for new corporate clients, depending on how much work they do.
Such fee inflation is widespread, even by newcomers. Venn Strategies LLC, a bipartisan lobbying firm that opened in 2001, has doubled its retainer for new clients. "When we first started, most of them came in at $7,500 a month or $10,000 a month," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal in the firm. "Now retainers are more in the $15,000- and $25,000-a-month range."
Corporate clients accept the extra cost as the price of success in Washington. At the turn of the year, the American Ambulance Association decided to step up its lobbying and switched to Patton Boggs LLP, the Capitol Hill powerhouse, from a smaller lobbying shop across town. In the process it boosted its lobbying budget by about a third, to more than $300,000 a year.
"It is essential we have a very strong presence," said Robert L. Garner, president of the association. "It's pricey, but it's the cost of doing business in the federal environment."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Clinton delivers update on tsunami relief efforts
June 22, 2005
The New York Times Editorial
Six Months After
By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
IT has been nearly six months since the tsunami struck 11 nations surrounding the Indian Ocean, killing more than 200,000 people. The tragedy touched the chord of our common humanity. Forty countries committed military forces to provide food, water and shelter to the survivors. Millions of Americans contributed more than $1 billion to the relief effort. Millions of others across the world also sent contributions, and the United Nations and hundreds of charitable organizations rushed to the region.
This rapid response yielded substantial dividends. Widespread starvation was avoided. There were no epidemics.
Of course, the recovery effort has a long way to go. Hundreds of thousands of people remain homeless, and unable to work. Thousands of schools have to be built, and many of the region's children remain frightened and distressed. Fortunately, the United Nations, international financial institutions, governments, businesses and nongovernmental organizations have pledged billions of dollars to help the tsunami generation "build back better."
As the special envoy for tsunami relief for the United Nations, I am working to make good on that commitment. To achieve our goals, I have asked all those involved in tsunami relief to agree to the following agenda:
First, we are developing a joint action plan detailing precisely who will do what, where and when, to avoid duplication of effort, ensure efficient use of resources and leave no person or community behind. For example, we all agree on the need for an early warning system. The plan will identify who is responsible for financing and building the system, where it will be located, how the system will actually alert the public, and who will oversee its maintenance and reliability.
We are also devising a reporting system to ensure that donations are being used appropriately and a unified scorecard to show what we have achieved and what remains to be done.
Second, we will work to restore the livelihoods of the survivors; to finance new economic activities to raise family incomes above their pre-tsunami levels; and to increase the capacity of local governments, nongovernmental organizations and businesses to undertake the gargantuan reconstruction effort.
To diversify the affected economies, we need to make small loans - micro-credit - available for new ventures or for the expansion of existing ones. And we must help restore tourism in the entire region, especially in the Maldives, where destruction of tourism facilities, fishing operations and other enterprises and homes ran up losses in excess of 60 percent of the country's annual gross domestic product. Most tourist operations are open for business, but most potential visitors don't seem to know that.
Jobs for local people in the reconstruction will require large vocational training programs. Thousands of masons, woodworkers, supervisors and laborers are needed.
Third, we must move survivors from tents and barracks to decent transitional shelters as soon as possible. Although there are still some frustrating delays in getting government approval for contracts and for imports of machinery and materials, there are fewer bureaucratic obstacles every day. All of the affected countries have good plans, with able people in charge of executing them.
Still, the housing shortage presents a serious challenge. Last year, before the tsunami, 5,000 new homes were built in Sri Lanka. Now survivors in Sri Lanka alone need almost 100,000 homes. In Aceh Province in Indonesia, 2,000 schools and 200,000 homes must be constructed. Even the United States would have a difficult time getting a million people back into their houses in a year or two.
The construction effort also carries significant environmental risks. Wholesale, unrestricted logging can cause deforestation in some regions, particularly in Indonesia, doing great damage to rainforests and setting the stage for more natural disasters. Timber needs to be obtained legally, and conservation measures, like replanting mangrove trees rather than developing the land from which they were uprooted, should be part of the reconstruction.
The housing problem is further complicated because many ownership records were swept away by the waves. And in many small villages, such documents never existed. In some of the affected countries, up to 90 percent of displaced people have lost their identity documents. The World Bank is financing a "titling" project in Aceh to help Indonesians develop an effective property-rights system - it is an initiative that should be replicated across the region. (Sri Lanka must also resolve conflicts arising out of the government's policy largely prohibiting reconstruction within a "buffer zone" near the water. Many survivors who want to return to their old land oppose the restrictions and their concerns should be taken into account as they are in Indonesia.)
Finally, we must do all we can to assure that the voices of the most vulnerable are heard. Will women survivors be involved in the design and execution of the recovery process? Will their property rights be protected? Will the Dalits (also known as the "untouchables") of India be discriminated against? Will poor families get documentation for their assets and have access to lines of credit? Will national governments give localities greater flexibility to meet their particular needs? Will children who survived be able to get back to school? Will the disaster usher in a new chapter in the peace processes in Sri Lanka and Aceh, thereby making it easier for aid to be distributed and reconstruction to take place wherever it's needed?
Thanks to the generosity of millions of people, we will have the resources to meet these daunting challenges. The World Food Program of the United Nations is feeding more than 700,000 people daily. Unicef is making substantial commitments to meeting the area's large needs for water and sanitation. Other United Nations agencies are doing their part.
But most of the financing for reconstruction and recovery is in the hands of donor governments and charitable groups like the Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, and hundreds of other nongovernmental organizations. In order for the recovery effort to succeed, these groups have to be treated as equal partners in the planning process.
Of course, the reconstruction process will proceed more smoothly in Aceh and Sri Lanka if all parties to the longstanding conflicts there are involved. Cooperation might even lead to greater prospects for peace in both places.
On my most recent trip to the region, I visited the Jantho camp for displaced people in Aceh, where I met a woman who had lost nine of her 10 children. As one of the camp leaders, she introduced me to the youngest camp member: a 2-day-old boy. She said the child's mother wanted me to give him a name. I asked if there was an appropriate Indonesian word for "new beginning" and was told that there was: "dawn," which in their language is a boy's name. I think a lot about that little boy, and our obligation to give him a new dawn. We can do it together.
William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd president.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times Editorial
Six Months After
By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
IT has been nearly six months since the tsunami struck 11 nations surrounding the Indian Ocean, killing more than 200,000 people. The tragedy touched the chord of our common humanity. Forty countries committed military forces to provide food, water and shelter to the survivors. Millions of Americans contributed more than $1 billion to the relief effort. Millions of others across the world also sent contributions, and the United Nations and hundreds of charitable organizations rushed to the region.
This rapid response yielded substantial dividends. Widespread starvation was avoided. There were no epidemics.
Of course, the recovery effort has a long way to go. Hundreds of thousands of people remain homeless, and unable to work. Thousands of schools have to be built, and many of the region's children remain frightened and distressed. Fortunately, the United Nations, international financial institutions, governments, businesses and nongovernmental organizations have pledged billions of dollars to help the tsunami generation "build back better."
As the special envoy for tsunami relief for the United Nations, I am working to make good on that commitment. To achieve our goals, I have asked all those involved in tsunami relief to agree to the following agenda:
First, we are developing a joint action plan detailing precisely who will do what, where and when, to avoid duplication of effort, ensure efficient use of resources and leave no person or community behind. For example, we all agree on the need for an early warning system. The plan will identify who is responsible for financing and building the system, where it will be located, how the system will actually alert the public, and who will oversee its maintenance and reliability.
We are also devising a reporting system to ensure that donations are being used appropriately and a unified scorecard to show what we have achieved and what remains to be done.
Second, we will work to restore the livelihoods of the survivors; to finance new economic activities to raise family incomes above their pre-tsunami levels; and to increase the capacity of local governments, nongovernmental organizations and businesses to undertake the gargantuan reconstruction effort.
To diversify the affected economies, we need to make small loans - micro-credit - available for new ventures or for the expansion of existing ones. And we must help restore tourism in the entire region, especially in the Maldives, where destruction of tourism facilities, fishing operations and other enterprises and homes ran up losses in excess of 60 percent of the country's annual gross domestic product. Most tourist operations are open for business, but most potential visitors don't seem to know that.
Jobs for local people in the reconstruction will require large vocational training programs. Thousands of masons, woodworkers, supervisors and laborers are needed.
Third, we must move survivors from tents and barracks to decent transitional shelters as soon as possible. Although there are still some frustrating delays in getting government approval for contracts and for imports of machinery and materials, there are fewer bureaucratic obstacles every day. All of the affected countries have good plans, with able people in charge of executing them.
Still, the housing shortage presents a serious challenge. Last year, before the tsunami, 5,000 new homes were built in Sri Lanka. Now survivors in Sri Lanka alone need almost 100,000 homes. In Aceh Province in Indonesia, 2,000 schools and 200,000 homes must be constructed. Even the United States would have a difficult time getting a million people back into their houses in a year or two.
The construction effort also carries significant environmental risks. Wholesale, unrestricted logging can cause deforestation in some regions, particularly in Indonesia, doing great damage to rainforests and setting the stage for more natural disasters. Timber needs to be obtained legally, and conservation measures, like replanting mangrove trees rather than developing the land from which they were uprooted, should be part of the reconstruction.
The housing problem is further complicated because many ownership records were swept away by the waves. And in many small villages, such documents never existed. In some of the affected countries, up to 90 percent of displaced people have lost their identity documents. The World Bank is financing a "titling" project in Aceh to help Indonesians develop an effective property-rights system - it is an initiative that should be replicated across the region. (Sri Lanka must also resolve conflicts arising out of the government's policy largely prohibiting reconstruction within a "buffer zone" near the water. Many survivors who want to return to their old land oppose the restrictions and their concerns should be taken into account as they are in Indonesia.)
Finally, we must do all we can to assure that the voices of the most vulnerable are heard. Will women survivors be involved in the design and execution of the recovery process? Will their property rights be protected? Will the Dalits (also known as the "untouchables") of India be discriminated against? Will poor families get documentation for their assets and have access to lines of credit? Will national governments give localities greater flexibility to meet their particular needs? Will children who survived be able to get back to school? Will the disaster usher in a new chapter in the peace processes in Sri Lanka and Aceh, thereby making it easier for aid to be distributed and reconstruction to take place wherever it's needed?
Thanks to the generosity of millions of people, we will have the resources to meet these daunting challenges. The World Food Program of the United Nations is feeding more than 700,000 people daily. Unicef is making substantial commitments to meeting the area's large needs for water and sanitation. Other United Nations agencies are doing their part.
But most of the financing for reconstruction and recovery is in the hands of donor governments and charitable groups like the Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, and hundreds of other nongovernmental organizations. In order for the recovery effort to succeed, these groups have to be treated as equal partners in the planning process.
Of course, the reconstruction process will proceed more smoothly in Aceh and Sri Lanka if all parties to the longstanding conflicts there are involved. Cooperation might even lead to greater prospects for peace in both places.
On my most recent trip to the region, I visited the Jantho camp for displaced people in Aceh, where I met a woman who had lost nine of her 10 children. As one of the camp leaders, she introduced me to the youngest camp member: a 2-day-old boy. She said the child's mother wanted me to give him a name. I asked if there was an appropriate Indonesian word for "new beginning" and was told that there was: "dawn," which in their language is a boy's name. I think a lot about that little boy, and our obligation to give him a new dawn. We can do it together.
William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd president.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Sad But True Stats On Blacks & HIV
HOMOPHOBIA AMONG BLACKS FUELS HIV/AIDS CRISIS
By Cynthia TuckerSat Jun 18, 8:05 PM ET
Black Americans represent only 12 percent of the population, but we account for more than half of all new cases of HIV/AIDS. That frightening fact was one of the headline statistics to emerge from a conference in Atlanta last week held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The highest rate of infection in the country occurs among bisexual black men. And that has implications for black women, who are 19 times more likely to be infected than white women. That's because so many black men have unprotected sex with other men but then conceal that fact and have unprotected sex with women, too.
Yet there has been little activity that would suggest a crisis, especially among those activists who can usually be counted on to draw attention to the suffering of black Americans. Where are the rallies and town hall meetings, the urgent press conferences, the demands for more money for research and prevention? The usual suspects -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the leadership of the NAACP -- have had little to say about a plague spreading like wildfire.
Perhaps that's because they'd have to aim their criticism within, not just at the irresponsible sexual behavior that spreads HIV, but also at the demoralizing prejudice against gays that shares the blame. Black Americans harbor a profound homophobia that assists the spread of HIV by driving men to have sex with other men "on the down low."
Of course, white America shares that prejudice. You only have to recall the outing of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey to remember that some gay white men also engage in surreptitious gay sex and expose their wives and girlfriends to HIV. But black Americans are far more vulnerable in so many ways -- including access to health care -- that homophobia does more damage.
Some sociologists and other observers believe that gay or bisexual black men are more afraid to come out of the closet than whites because they already face racial discrimination and are reluctant to take on the added burden of homophobia. After all, they'd face that in their own homes and churches.
Atlanta writer E. Lynn Harris, who rocketed to fame and fortune with a series of spicy novels about black men who secretly have sex with other men, wrote in Essence: "The truth is that most brothers who are attracted to men are desperately afraid of revealing it. ... Many ... fear that ... they'll be drummed out of their families, destroying their only safe haven in an already unwelcoming society."
Though AIDS researchers have suspected for years that a culture of clandestine gay sex was helping to fuel the epidemic, the "down low" syndrome has only recently become widely known. Last year, J.L. King wrote a book -- "On the Down Low: A Journey Into the Lives of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep with Men" -- about his secret life. And Essence, a magazine oriented toward black women, has published several pieces about the down-low phenomenon.
But those revelations have produced more recriminations than introspection. Some Essence letter writers were furious that the magazine dared broach the subject.
"A brother writes a book and goes on Oprah warning sisters about men who are infecting them with AIDS. This is pointing fingers at black men, who aren't the only people living on the down low," wrote one. Another said: "How dare you print an article shaming our people? (The article) misrepresented the black male, and (it) was repulsive and ignorant."
The gay-bashing from black clergy continues unabated, as well. In December, a leading black Atlanta minister, Eddie Long, staged a march to highlight his opposition to gay marriage. He attracted thousands of black marchers, including Bernice King, daughter of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. (By contrast, his widow, Coretta Scott King, has been among the rare voices condemning black homophobia.)
Fear. Hatred. Secrets and lies. That's the sort of climate in which HIV thrives.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.
By Cynthia TuckerSat Jun 18, 8:05 PM ET
Black Americans represent only 12 percent of the population, but we account for more than half of all new cases of HIV/AIDS. That frightening fact was one of the headline statistics to emerge from a conference in Atlanta last week held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The highest rate of infection in the country occurs among bisexual black men. And that has implications for black women, who are 19 times more likely to be infected than white women. That's because so many black men have unprotected sex with other men but then conceal that fact and have unprotected sex with women, too.
Yet there has been little activity that would suggest a crisis, especially among those activists who can usually be counted on to draw attention to the suffering of black Americans. Where are the rallies and town hall meetings, the urgent press conferences, the demands for more money for research and prevention? The usual suspects -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the leadership of the NAACP -- have had little to say about a plague spreading like wildfire.
Perhaps that's because they'd have to aim their criticism within, not just at the irresponsible sexual behavior that spreads HIV, but also at the demoralizing prejudice against gays that shares the blame. Black Americans harbor a profound homophobia that assists the spread of HIV by driving men to have sex with other men "on the down low."
Of course, white America shares that prejudice. You only have to recall the outing of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey to remember that some gay white men also engage in surreptitious gay sex and expose their wives and girlfriends to HIV. But black Americans are far more vulnerable in so many ways -- including access to health care -- that homophobia does more damage.
Some sociologists and other observers believe that gay or bisexual black men are more afraid to come out of the closet than whites because they already face racial discrimination and are reluctant to take on the added burden of homophobia. After all, they'd face that in their own homes and churches.
Atlanta writer E. Lynn Harris, who rocketed to fame and fortune with a series of spicy novels about black men who secretly have sex with other men, wrote in Essence: "The truth is that most brothers who are attracted to men are desperately afraid of revealing it. ... Many ... fear that ... they'll be drummed out of their families, destroying their only safe haven in an already unwelcoming society."
Though AIDS researchers have suspected for years that a culture of clandestine gay sex was helping to fuel the epidemic, the "down low" syndrome has only recently become widely known. Last year, J.L. King wrote a book -- "On the Down Low: A Journey Into the Lives of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep with Men" -- about his secret life. And Essence, a magazine oriented toward black women, has published several pieces about the down-low phenomenon.
But those revelations have produced more recriminations than introspection. Some Essence letter writers were furious that the magazine dared broach the subject.
"A brother writes a book and goes on Oprah warning sisters about men who are infecting them with AIDS. This is pointing fingers at black men, who aren't the only people living on the down low," wrote one. Another said: "How dare you print an article shaming our people? (The article) misrepresented the black male, and (it) was repulsive and ignorant."
The gay-bashing from black clergy continues unabated, as well. In December, a leading black Atlanta minister, Eddie Long, staged a march to highlight his opposition to gay marriage. He attracted thousands of black marchers, including Bernice King, daughter of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. (By contrast, his widow, Coretta Scott King, has been among the rare voices condemning black homophobia.)
Fear. Hatred. Secrets and lies. That's the sort of climate in which HIV thrives.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.
Repubbies Now Critize The Red Cross & Question Funding, what is next with that group of fools?
Blaming the Messenger
The Nation
June 21
Ari Berman
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned the Bush Administration about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, secret detainees in Afghanistan and the now-confirmed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. So naturally, Republicans are ignoring the findings and blaming the messenger.
A new report by Senate Republicans lumps the 140-year-old, three-time Nobel Peace Prize recipient into the "anti-American" category and calls on the Bush Administration to reassess its funding support. "The ICRC is no longer an impartial and trustworthy guardian," writes the Senate Republican Policy Committee. "It has become yet another clamoring interest group" that has "lost its way" by adopting positions that are in "direct opposition to the advancement of US interests." The report warns, with no hint of irony, that ICRC actions threaten to "sap its credibility."
Senate Republicans thus duly prescribe the full UN-treatment: a comprehensive review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to determine whether the annual US contribution ($1.5 billion since 1990) is advancing American interests and a GAO audit of the ICRC's core and non-core activities. The crimes committed by the ICRC, in Republican eyes, include such ghastly activities as upholding the Geneva Convention and lobbying for the Chemical Weapons Convention and the treaty against landmines. How the group's actions in Iraq or Afghanistan violate the ICRC's founding principles of neutrality and impartiality is anyone's guess. "The paper's purpose appears to be to discredit the ICRC by putting forward false allegations and unsubstantiated accusations," ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger said last week.
"In fact," writes University of Virginia law professor Rosa Brooks, "the real issue underlying the attack is that the ICRC has quietly but firmly pushed back against the Bush Administration's 'anything goes' detention and interrogation policies." Confidential criticisms of ghost detainees, open-ended detentions and the rendition of suspected terrorists to countries employing torture are hardly unique to the ICRC. Anyone outside of Donald Rumsfeld's office, including White House officials who've defended the organization against the Senate report, know that ICRC monitoring helps the American military far more than it hurts.
"For US military commanders, the ICRC is crucial as their feedback loop," says Ruth Wedgwood, an international law expert at Johns Hopkins University. "That's how a commander knows what's happening down in their ranks--even on the night shift. We really do need that function. That's why we pay them a lot of money--not just to assist on tsunamis."
The chickenhawk choir in Congress could clearly use a history lesson, and preferably some combat action.
Copyright © 2005 The Nation
The Nation
June 21
Ari Berman
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned the Bush Administration about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, secret detainees in Afghanistan and the now-confirmed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. So naturally, Republicans are ignoring the findings and blaming the messenger.
A new report by Senate Republicans lumps the 140-year-old, three-time Nobel Peace Prize recipient into the "anti-American" category and calls on the Bush Administration to reassess its funding support. "The ICRC is no longer an impartial and trustworthy guardian," writes the Senate Republican Policy Committee. "It has become yet another clamoring interest group" that has "lost its way" by adopting positions that are in "direct opposition to the advancement of US interests." The report warns, with no hint of irony, that ICRC actions threaten to "sap its credibility."
Senate Republicans thus duly prescribe the full UN-treatment: a comprehensive review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to determine whether the annual US contribution ($1.5 billion since 1990) is advancing American interests and a GAO audit of the ICRC's core and non-core activities. The crimes committed by the ICRC, in Republican eyes, include such ghastly activities as upholding the Geneva Convention and lobbying for the Chemical Weapons Convention and the treaty against landmines. How the group's actions in Iraq or Afghanistan violate the ICRC's founding principles of neutrality and impartiality is anyone's guess. "The paper's purpose appears to be to discredit the ICRC by putting forward false allegations and unsubstantiated accusations," ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger said last week.
"In fact," writes University of Virginia law professor Rosa Brooks, "the real issue underlying the attack is that the ICRC has quietly but firmly pushed back against the Bush Administration's 'anything goes' detention and interrogation policies." Confidential criticisms of ghost detainees, open-ended detentions and the rendition of suspected terrorists to countries employing torture are hardly unique to the ICRC. Anyone outside of Donald Rumsfeld's office, including White House officials who've defended the organization against the Senate report, know that ICRC monitoring helps the American military far more than it hurts.
"For US military commanders, the ICRC is crucial as their feedback loop," says Ruth Wedgwood, an international law expert at Johns Hopkins University. "That's how a commander knows what's happening down in their ranks--even on the night shift. We really do need that function. That's why we pay them a lot of money--not just to assist on tsunamis."
The chickenhawk choir in Congress could clearly use a history lesson, and preferably some combat action.
Copyright © 2005 The Nation
Bush, Inc: Time To Come Clean On iraq
Americans deserve candor, not more hopeful 'updates'
USA Today
Tue Jun 21, 7:09 AM ET
Another day, another round of bombings, electricity cuts, death and destruction in Iraq. Monday's grim tally included a suicide attack in northern Iraq that killed at least 15 traffic policemen and wounded 100. Insurgents' sabotage of water pipes left 2 million sweltering Baghdadis without water.
Nothing, in other words, out of the ordinary. Just more evidence that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, battling a fierce insurgency with the outcome uncertain. More than two years after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, no end is in view for the 140,000 U.S. troops. More than 1,700 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives.
Not surprisingly, public support for the war in Iraq is slipping. Almost six in 10 Americans, in a Gallup poll this month, want some or all troops to come home. For the first time, a bipartisan group of congressmen is beginning to press for an exit deadline.
The White House response? A series of speeches starting this week intended, according to spokesman Scott McClellan, as an "update" for the American people. But far more is needed than another hopeful scenario, or a set of idealistic goals without a hard assessment of the realities on the ground and what has brought the USA to this point.
That sort of assessment has been missing from the Bush administration, which still seems in denial that its Iraq adventure has strayed so far from the original plan.
Instead of candor, the administration has supplied a stream of shifting explanations about the reasons for the Iraq war, realities on the ground, expected costs, duration and outcome.
Start with the primary reason President Bush cited for the war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the USA. No such weapons were found. Nor was any credible connection to al-Qaeda. The administration then switched to the argument that its chief aims were to remove a dictator and bring democracy to the region.
Or the low-balling on costs. Former Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq strategy, early on estimated a "range from $10 billion to $100 billion." The war tab so far tops $200 billion.
Or the too-early declaration of victory. On May 1, 2003, Bush landed on a returning aircraft carrier, declaring major combat operations over against the backdrop of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. The triumph was short-lived as an insurgency took hold.
Since then, officials have repeatedly underestimated the insurgency. Every event that was supposed to derail it - the capture of Saddam, the transfer of sovereignty, the elections in January - has failed to do so. Just three weeks ago, Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes." Tell that to the families of dozens of Iraqis and Americans who've died since.
No battle plan, the military truism runs, survives the first contact with the enemy. But winning the battles, and the wars, requires recognizing misjudgments and recalibrating.
How to recalibrate in Iraq? Start with unflinching answers to three questions:
• What is the right U.S. troop level? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted Iraq to be a showcase for his efforts to transform the military into a lean, high-tech force. The 150,000 combat troops deployed turned out to be enough to topple Saddam - but not enough to secure the peace. Today, reports from Iraq suggest that forces are stretched too thin to overwhelm the insurgency.
Meanwhile, recruiting has become difficult, forces are drawn thin elsewhere and a draft is a political non-starter. Caught in that squeeze, it's fair to wonder where the administration's thinking begins. Does it ask first what's needed to win the war and then supply it? Or does it say this force level is what's politically possible; make do. The latter invites failure.
• When will Iraqis be able to take over? The U.S. strategy, properly, is for Iraqi forces to defend their country. Improving their skills is supposed to ease the pressure on U.S. forces, and their number, 169,000, is impressive. Nonetheless, it hides a dismal reality: They are patchily trained. Minimum competence could take two years or more.
• How long can public support be maintained? Americans have until now generally backed the war, but recent erosion is ominous. Painting more rosy scenarios that are never attained would accelerate that erosion, eventually making the war unsustainable. Americans need to understand what success is supposed to look like, and they need benchmarks they can see achieved.
In our view, there is no choice but to stay the course. Cutting and running would cauterize the losses, but the longer-term risks are alarming: of Iraq becoming a terrorist refuge; of full-scale civil war; of hopes for democracy crumbling in Iraq and the region.
Preventing all that from happening requires looking at the facts as they are, not as some might wish them to be, and adjusting the approach accordingly.
The White House declined to submit an opposing view to this editorial.
Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
USA Today
Tue Jun 21, 7:09 AM ET
Another day, another round of bombings, electricity cuts, death and destruction in Iraq. Monday's grim tally included a suicide attack in northern Iraq that killed at least 15 traffic policemen and wounded 100. Insurgents' sabotage of water pipes left 2 million sweltering Baghdadis without water.
Nothing, in other words, out of the ordinary. Just more evidence that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, battling a fierce insurgency with the outcome uncertain. More than two years after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, no end is in view for the 140,000 U.S. troops. More than 1,700 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives.
Not surprisingly, public support for the war in Iraq is slipping. Almost six in 10 Americans, in a Gallup poll this month, want some or all troops to come home. For the first time, a bipartisan group of congressmen is beginning to press for an exit deadline.
The White House response? A series of speeches starting this week intended, according to spokesman Scott McClellan, as an "update" for the American people. But far more is needed than another hopeful scenario, or a set of idealistic goals without a hard assessment of the realities on the ground and what has brought the USA to this point.
That sort of assessment has been missing from the Bush administration, which still seems in denial that its Iraq adventure has strayed so far from the original plan.
Instead of candor, the administration has supplied a stream of shifting explanations about the reasons for the Iraq war, realities on the ground, expected costs, duration and outcome.
Start with the primary reason President Bush cited for the war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the USA. No such weapons were found. Nor was any credible connection to al-Qaeda. The administration then switched to the argument that its chief aims were to remove a dictator and bring democracy to the region.
Or the low-balling on costs. Former Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq strategy, early on estimated a "range from $10 billion to $100 billion." The war tab so far tops $200 billion.
Or the too-early declaration of victory. On May 1, 2003, Bush landed on a returning aircraft carrier, declaring major combat operations over against the backdrop of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. The triumph was short-lived as an insurgency took hold.
Since then, officials have repeatedly underestimated the insurgency. Every event that was supposed to derail it - the capture of Saddam, the transfer of sovereignty, the elections in January - has failed to do so. Just three weeks ago, Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes." Tell that to the families of dozens of Iraqis and Americans who've died since.
No battle plan, the military truism runs, survives the first contact with the enemy. But winning the battles, and the wars, requires recognizing misjudgments and recalibrating.
How to recalibrate in Iraq? Start with unflinching answers to three questions:
• What is the right U.S. troop level? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted Iraq to be a showcase for his efforts to transform the military into a lean, high-tech force. The 150,000 combat troops deployed turned out to be enough to topple Saddam - but not enough to secure the peace. Today, reports from Iraq suggest that forces are stretched too thin to overwhelm the insurgency.
Meanwhile, recruiting has become difficult, forces are drawn thin elsewhere and a draft is a political non-starter. Caught in that squeeze, it's fair to wonder where the administration's thinking begins. Does it ask first what's needed to win the war and then supply it? Or does it say this force level is what's politically possible; make do. The latter invites failure.
• When will Iraqis be able to take over? The U.S. strategy, properly, is for Iraqi forces to defend their country. Improving their skills is supposed to ease the pressure on U.S. forces, and their number, 169,000, is impressive. Nonetheless, it hides a dismal reality: They are patchily trained. Minimum competence could take two years or more.
• How long can public support be maintained? Americans have until now generally backed the war, but recent erosion is ominous. Painting more rosy scenarios that are never attained would accelerate that erosion, eventually making the war unsustainable. Americans need to understand what success is supposed to look like, and they need benchmarks they can see achieved.
In our view, there is no choice but to stay the course. Cutting and running would cauterize the losses, but the longer-term risks are alarming: of Iraq becoming a terrorist refuge; of full-scale civil war; of hopes for democracy crumbling in Iraq and the region.
Preventing all that from happening requires looking at the facts as they are, not as some might wish them to be, and adjusting the approach accordingly.
The White House declined to submit an opposing view to this editorial.
Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Monday, June 20, 2005
A Compelling Article Of Gay Pride
Articles of Faith: In the Spirit of Pride
The Task Force Media
By Christian de la Huerta
The Pride celebrations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community celebrated across the country during June must seem a strange ritual to outsiders. With a wild mix of go-go boys, drag queens and topless lesbians, all throbbing to tribal drumbeats, this seemingly self-indulgent display causes outrage for social conservatives, and chagrin for those in the gay community who would like to see us acting more conventionally. But perhaps there is another way to look at Pride besides as an exercise in hedonism: perhaps it represents the pressing back of cultural boundaries by a people uniquely qualified for spiritual exploration.
Throughout history, people we today label lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender have been honored for their roles of spiritual service and leadership. In many cultural contexts, gay people have been the healers, teachers, shamans, keepers of beauty, mediators and peacekeepers; those who "walked between the worlds." For queer spiritual practitioners, not only is their homosexuality or gender identity not a sin, sickness or abomination, it is a gift, a blessing and a privilege. It is the element of their personality that has pushed them outside the realm of comfort and conventionality and into the place of mystery inhabited by those who fulfill roles of sacred service. If there is any doubt about the pervasiveness of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in religious leadership roles, it would be a compelling exercise if, on some weekend, every single queer minister, rabbi, music director, teacher or other spiritual functionary stayed home from religious services.
The term "Gay Pride" barely begins to capture the sense of honor and respect this rich spiritual heritage deserves. According to the Dagara tribe in Africa, certain people Westerners would identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are uniquely physically and energetically suited to be "gatekeepers," the guardians of the doorways into other worlds, realms and realities. The Dagara believe that much of the pain and woundedness of the world can be traced to a lack of respect for these spiritual gatekeepers. In fact, author and speaker Malidoma Some says that part of the reason the world is in the shape that it is in is because the gatekeepers "have been fired from their jobs."
Similarly, among Native American peoples, the Two-Spirit were thought to have special powers and played key roles in tribal ceremonies. These people, who lived on the edges of tribal life, were associated with the gift of prophecy and the implementation of rituals, and were said to possess healing powers. Today Two-Spirits are regaining their place of honor among many Native American communities after being annihilated or forced to go underground during the European invasion.
Is it any wonder that mystics and saviors of many spiritual traditions can often be found with those on the margins of society? Perhaps, beyond "healing" the poor, the religiously unclean and the sexually different, these prophets found in these people a spiritual kinship that sustained their ministries. If the historical figures of Elijah, Buddha, or Jesus were to come back today, I would not be surprised to find them in gay bars, with "welfare moms" or with AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. For it is people in the boundary places of the world who are often closest to the Divine.
All this does not mean that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are better than straight people. (After all, heterosexuals should not be blamed for not having a "choice" about their sexual orientation!) It does mean, however, that queer people should have a sense of responsibility to continue bringing light, healing and spirit to the world, even if the world does not yet realize or fully appreciate our value and contributions.
Furthermore, it is time for religious leaders to stop asking queer people to apologize for who we are and to recognize our innate spiritual offerings of service and leadership. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have gravitated to and fulfilled spiritual roles throughout history, in numbers that far exceed our proportion to the overall population. We have contributed tremendously to the evolution of humanity.
For those who snicker or cringe at the fabulous excess of Gay Pride festivals, realize this: These are the outsiders, the spiritual warriors, the scouts of consciousness who are integrating spirit and sexuality for much of the rest of society. We owe these modern-day shamans the latitude they need and the respect they deserve to do this crucial work.
And for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, the world is crying out for us to speak from a place of real power and pride. We must know, in the deepest recesses of our souls, in the very fabric of our tissues, in every one of our cells in every part of our bodies, that we are blessed in the ways we express our love and our passion. Our blessing is that we know love, and we must love deeply, passionately and selflessly. It is our calling as a people. It is our calling as human beings.
This spiritual calling is what I will be celebrating during Gay Pride. I invite all of you who hear this call within you to do the same.
Christian de la Huerta is a member of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He is the author of Coming Out Spiritually, and founder of Q Spirit and Revolutionary Wisdom.
First convened in 1998, the National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is an interfaith collaboration of more than forty denominations and faith-related organizations. The Roundtable seeks to reframe the public religious dialogue on issues involving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community by amplifying the voices of LGBT-affirming people of faith, countering religious voices of bigotry and intolerance, and working to advance full equality for all.
The Task Force Media
By Christian de la Huerta
The Pride celebrations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community celebrated across the country during June must seem a strange ritual to outsiders. With a wild mix of go-go boys, drag queens and topless lesbians, all throbbing to tribal drumbeats, this seemingly self-indulgent display causes outrage for social conservatives, and chagrin for those in the gay community who would like to see us acting more conventionally. But perhaps there is another way to look at Pride besides as an exercise in hedonism: perhaps it represents the pressing back of cultural boundaries by a people uniquely qualified for spiritual exploration.
Throughout history, people we today label lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender have been honored for their roles of spiritual service and leadership. In many cultural contexts, gay people have been the healers, teachers, shamans, keepers of beauty, mediators and peacekeepers; those who "walked between the worlds." For queer spiritual practitioners, not only is their homosexuality or gender identity not a sin, sickness or abomination, it is a gift, a blessing and a privilege. It is the element of their personality that has pushed them outside the realm of comfort and conventionality and into the place of mystery inhabited by those who fulfill roles of sacred service. If there is any doubt about the pervasiveness of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in religious leadership roles, it would be a compelling exercise if, on some weekend, every single queer minister, rabbi, music director, teacher or other spiritual functionary stayed home from religious services.
The term "Gay Pride" barely begins to capture the sense of honor and respect this rich spiritual heritage deserves. According to the Dagara tribe in Africa, certain people Westerners would identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are uniquely physically and energetically suited to be "gatekeepers," the guardians of the doorways into other worlds, realms and realities. The Dagara believe that much of the pain and woundedness of the world can be traced to a lack of respect for these spiritual gatekeepers. In fact, author and speaker Malidoma Some says that part of the reason the world is in the shape that it is in is because the gatekeepers "have been fired from their jobs."
Similarly, among Native American peoples, the Two-Spirit were thought to have special powers and played key roles in tribal ceremonies. These people, who lived on the edges of tribal life, were associated with the gift of prophecy and the implementation of rituals, and were said to possess healing powers. Today Two-Spirits are regaining their place of honor among many Native American communities after being annihilated or forced to go underground during the European invasion.
Is it any wonder that mystics and saviors of many spiritual traditions can often be found with those on the margins of society? Perhaps, beyond "healing" the poor, the religiously unclean and the sexually different, these prophets found in these people a spiritual kinship that sustained their ministries. If the historical figures of Elijah, Buddha, or Jesus were to come back today, I would not be surprised to find them in gay bars, with "welfare moms" or with AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. For it is people in the boundary places of the world who are often closest to the Divine.
All this does not mean that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are better than straight people. (After all, heterosexuals should not be blamed for not having a "choice" about their sexual orientation!) It does mean, however, that queer people should have a sense of responsibility to continue bringing light, healing and spirit to the world, even if the world does not yet realize or fully appreciate our value and contributions.
Furthermore, it is time for religious leaders to stop asking queer people to apologize for who we are and to recognize our innate spiritual offerings of service and leadership. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have gravitated to and fulfilled spiritual roles throughout history, in numbers that far exceed our proportion to the overall population. We have contributed tremendously to the evolution of humanity.
For those who snicker or cringe at the fabulous excess of Gay Pride festivals, realize this: These are the outsiders, the spiritual warriors, the scouts of consciousness who are integrating spirit and sexuality for much of the rest of society. We owe these modern-day shamans the latitude they need and the respect they deserve to do this crucial work.
And for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, the world is crying out for us to speak from a place of real power and pride. We must know, in the deepest recesses of our souls, in the very fabric of our tissues, in every one of our cells in every part of our bodies, that we are blessed in the ways we express our love and our passion. Our blessing is that we know love, and we must love deeply, passionately and selflessly. It is our calling as a people. It is our calling as human beings.
This spiritual calling is what I will be celebrating during Gay Pride. I invite all of you who hear this call within you to do the same.
Christian de la Huerta is a member of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He is the author of Coming Out Spiritually, and founder of Q Spirit and Revolutionary Wisdom.
First convened in 1998, the National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is an interfaith collaboration of more than forty denominations and faith-related organizations. The Roundtable seeks to reframe the public religious dialogue on issues involving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community by amplifying the voices of LGBT-affirming people of faith, countering religious voices of bigotry and intolerance, and working to advance full equality for all.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Finally, A Voice Of Reason for Moderate Christians
June 17, 2005
The New York Times
Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis
IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.
When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.
When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.
We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis
IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.
When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.
When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.
We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Bush & Company: Freedom when it suits them
A Tyrant's Best Friend
The Nation
Ari BermanWed Jun 15,10:54 AM ET
Last week, a bipartisan group of six US senators called on the Bush Administration to support an international investigation of the brutal crackdown last month in Uzbekistan to determine whether US-trained Uzbek special forces opened fire on civilians. "In the aftermath of the Andijan massacre, America's relationship with Uzbekistan cannot remain unchanged," Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Sununu, Joe Biden and Patrick Leahy wrote in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice.
The Bush Administration, as usual, seems to have ignored the advice. Instead, the US and Russia blocked an attempt by NATO to call for an international probe after a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels last Thursday, the Washington Post reported.
"I cannot say we agree on all elements because we do not agree," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after the meeting. Britain and other European countries wanted to include tough language in a joint communique, building off a statement by the European parliament that Washington halt negotiations with Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov over long-term access to an air base in southern Uzbekistan and "to bring those responsible for the massacre in Andijan to trial." Because of close links between Uzbekistan and NATO, the statement would've surely caught Karimov's attention.
Instead, Rumsfeld overruled European officials and Rice's State Department, insisting that the NATO communique discuss only "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan." Of course, it wasn't the first time the stealth hand of DoD has triumphed in inter-Administration disputes, particularly with regards to Uzbekistan. In 2002, State condemned "torture as a routine investigation technique" among the Uzbek security forces. Two years later, Colin Powell tried to cut off $18 million in training assistance over human rights concerns. General Richard Myers protested the cuts, and added $21 million for bioterrorism defense.
"In my view, we shouldn't let any single issue drive a relationship with any single county," Myers said of human rights violations, before the government crackdown in May. "It doesn't seem to be good policy to me." In fact, though, the desire for a permanent military base still trumps all other issues. "What would be the likely fallout from America's deepening relationship with a government that brutally represses its own people?" the six Senators asked. The Pentagon has yet to answer. After the crackdown, State proposed a blanket suspension of cooperation, the Post reports. DoD countered by advocating a case-by-case review, a timid recommendation that ultimately prevailed.
Mr. President, what happened to standing with the forces of freedom?
Copyright © 2005 The Nation
The Nation
Ari BermanWed Jun 15,10:54 AM ET
Last week, a bipartisan group of six US senators called on the Bush Administration to support an international investigation of the brutal crackdown last month in Uzbekistan to determine whether US-trained Uzbek special forces opened fire on civilians. "In the aftermath of the Andijan massacre, America's relationship with Uzbekistan cannot remain unchanged," Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Sununu, Joe Biden and Patrick Leahy wrote in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice.
The Bush Administration, as usual, seems to have ignored the advice. Instead, the US and Russia blocked an attempt by NATO to call for an international probe after a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels last Thursday, the Washington Post reported.
"I cannot say we agree on all elements because we do not agree," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after the meeting. Britain and other European countries wanted to include tough language in a joint communique, building off a statement by the European parliament that Washington halt negotiations with Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov over long-term access to an air base in southern Uzbekistan and "to bring those responsible for the massacre in Andijan to trial." Because of close links between Uzbekistan and NATO, the statement would've surely caught Karimov's attention.
Instead, Rumsfeld overruled European officials and Rice's State Department, insisting that the NATO communique discuss only "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan." Of course, it wasn't the first time the stealth hand of DoD has triumphed in inter-Administration disputes, particularly with regards to Uzbekistan. In 2002, State condemned "torture as a routine investigation technique" among the Uzbek security forces. Two years later, Colin Powell tried to cut off $18 million in training assistance over human rights concerns. General Richard Myers protested the cuts, and added $21 million for bioterrorism defense.
"In my view, we shouldn't let any single issue drive a relationship with any single county," Myers said of human rights violations, before the government crackdown in May. "It doesn't seem to be good policy to me." In fact, though, the desire for a permanent military base still trumps all other issues. "What would be the likely fallout from America's deepening relationship with a government that brutally represses its own people?" the six Senators asked. The Pentagon has yet to answer. After the crackdown, State proposed a blanket suspension of cooperation, the Post reports. DoD countered by advocating a case-by-case review, a timid recommendation that ultimately prevailed.
Mr. President, what happened to standing with the forces of freedom?
Copyright © 2005 The Nation
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Amendment to ban flag burning? Those damn Republicans have bigger fish to fry!
Amendment supporters exaggerate threat to flag
USA Today
Tue Jun 14, 6:46 AM ET
Have you seen any American flags burned recently? Not likely. No one else has, either.
But that isn't stopping some members of Congress from exaggerating the threat. The danger is so dire, they say, that the Constitution must be amended to protect Old Glory. The House of Representatives could vote to do so as soon as this week.
The temptation for politicians to engage in demagoguery in the name of patriotism is a Washington ritual as sure as the arrival of Flag Day today. But this is a phony crisis, and the supposed remedy is pure poison. Congress would, for the first time in 214 years, tamper with the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of American democracy.
And for what? As of Monday, even the leading organization seeking this legislation lists only one flag-burning incident this year. That was a middle-of-the-night act of petty vandalism outside a library in Topeka, with no apparent witnesses. Suspects can be prosecuted for destruction of public property without touching the Constitution.
With patriotic instincts heightened by the threat of terrorism and Americans fighting and dying abroad, insults to the flag are bound to provoke anger. But even if such incidents were more common, amending the Constitution would be a dangerous idea, repudiating the lessons of American history.
The Founding Fathers, fresh from oppression and revolution, realized that for their fledgling democracy to succeed, it would need safety valves to release political pressure in times of strife. First among those was the freedom to speak freely and criticize the government without fear.
Wisely, they did not entrust that freedom to legislators who, they knew, would blow with the political winds.
Instead, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, they reserved that right for the people - to be abridged only if two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three quarters of the states agreed.
The Founders never mentioned flag burning, but the Supreme Court, in 1989 and 1990, ruled that free speech included a right for people to express their grievances by abusing the flag.
Since then, flag-desecration incidents have dropped to almost nothing. But that hasn't stopped those who think they know better than the Founders from trying to rewrite their work. Five times since 1995, the House has approved constitutional amendments that would bar desecration of the flag.
What's next once that precedent is set? An amendment to bar desecration of the Bible? A prohibition on other speech that makes Congress unhappy?
If popularity is the test of free speech, then the right does not exist.
Fortunately, the proposed amendment has failed each time in the Senate - so far. But turnover leaves the potential vote in the Senate much more in doubt this year.
While polling on the subject varies, there's no public outcry for a flag amendment. A study released Friday by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Nashville found 63% opposed to such a constitutional amendment. That's up from 53% a year ago.
Millions of Americans rightfully infuriated by the sight of a burning flag will draw no solace from those numbers, but they have another option. By waving 10,000 flags for every one that's burned, they would say far more than fining a flag burner ever could. They would honor the flag's meaning, too.
Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
USA Today
Tue Jun 14, 6:46 AM ET
Have you seen any American flags burned recently? Not likely. No one else has, either.
But that isn't stopping some members of Congress from exaggerating the threat. The danger is so dire, they say, that the Constitution must be amended to protect Old Glory. The House of Representatives could vote to do so as soon as this week.
The temptation for politicians to engage in demagoguery in the name of patriotism is a Washington ritual as sure as the arrival of Flag Day today. But this is a phony crisis, and the supposed remedy is pure poison. Congress would, for the first time in 214 years, tamper with the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of American democracy.
And for what? As of Monday, even the leading organization seeking this legislation lists only one flag-burning incident this year. That was a middle-of-the-night act of petty vandalism outside a library in Topeka, with no apparent witnesses. Suspects can be prosecuted for destruction of public property without touching the Constitution.
With patriotic instincts heightened by the threat of terrorism and Americans fighting and dying abroad, insults to the flag are bound to provoke anger. But even if such incidents were more common, amending the Constitution would be a dangerous idea, repudiating the lessons of American history.
The Founding Fathers, fresh from oppression and revolution, realized that for their fledgling democracy to succeed, it would need safety valves to release political pressure in times of strife. First among those was the freedom to speak freely and criticize the government without fear.
Wisely, they did not entrust that freedom to legislators who, they knew, would blow with the political winds.
Instead, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, they reserved that right for the people - to be abridged only if two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three quarters of the states agreed.
The Founders never mentioned flag burning, but the Supreme Court, in 1989 and 1990, ruled that free speech included a right for people to express their grievances by abusing the flag.
Since then, flag-desecration incidents have dropped to almost nothing. But that hasn't stopped those who think they know better than the Founders from trying to rewrite their work. Five times since 1995, the House has approved constitutional amendments that would bar desecration of the flag.
What's next once that precedent is set? An amendment to bar desecration of the Bible? A prohibition on other speech that makes Congress unhappy?
If popularity is the test of free speech, then the right does not exist.
Fortunately, the proposed amendment has failed each time in the Senate - so far. But turnover leaves the potential vote in the Senate much more in doubt this year.
While polling on the subject varies, there's no public outcry for a flag amendment. A study released Friday by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Nashville found 63% opposed to such a constitutional amendment. That's up from 53% a year ago.
Millions of Americans rightfully infuriated by the sight of a burning flag will draw no solace from those numbers, but they have another option. By waving 10,000 flags for every one that's burned, they would say far more than fining a flag burner ever could. They would honor the flag's meaning, too.
Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
The debate's over: Globe is warming...does Bush know this yet?
The debate's over: Globe is warming
Politicians, corporations and religious groups differ mainly on how to fix the problem
By Dan Vergano
USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.
General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.
They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.
The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by 2100. A “middle of the road” projection is for an average 5-degree increase by the end of the century, says Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
What the various factions don't necessarily agree on is what to do about it. The heart of the discussion is “really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it's happening,” says energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. “What are my company's options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Are there new business opportunities associated with addressing climate change? Those are the questions many businesses are asking today.”
GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt recently announced that his company, which reports $135 billion in annual revenue, will spend $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Joining him for the announcement were executives from such mainline corporations as American Electric Power, Boeing and Cinergy.
Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. “Global warming is a universal moral challenge,” the partnership's statement says.
And high-profile politicians from both parties are getting into the act. For example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases that heat in the atmosphere.
To be sure, many companies — most notably oil industry leader ExxonMobil — still express skepticism about the effects of global warming. And the Bush administration has supported research and voluntary initiatives but has pulled back from a multi-nation pact on environmental constraints.
The administration was on the defensive last week when The New York Times reported that a staff lawyer has been softening scientific assessments of global warming. White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended such action as a routine part of a multi-agency review process.
Nonetheless, the tides of change appear to be moving on.
“As big companies fall off the ‘I don't believe in climate change' bandwagon, people will start to take this more seriously,” says environmental scientist Don Kennedy, editor in chief of the journal Science. Companies aren't changing because of a sudden love for the environment, Kennedy says, but because they see change as an opportunity to protect their investments.
“On the business side, it just looks like climate change is not going away,” says Kevin Leahy of Cinergy, a Cincinnati-based utility that reports $4.7 billion in annual revenue and provides electricity, mostly generated from coal, to 1.5 million customers. Most firms see global warming as a problem whose risks have to be managed, he says.
Power companies want to know what sort of carbon constraints they face — carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas — so they can plan long term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties in the future, he says.
Climate scientists say this acceptance comes none too soon. “All the time we should have been moving forward … has been wasted by arguing if the problem even exists,” says Michael Mann of the University of Virginia.
The IPCC estimates that rainfall will increase up to 20% in wet regions, causing floods, while decreasing 20% in arid areas, causing droughts. The Environmental Protection Agency says melting glaciers and warmer ocean waters will likely cause an average 2-foot rise in sea level on all U.S. coasts by 2100.
Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. There are now about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the end of the century, atmos-pheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.
Moving ahead with solutions looks like the hardest part of the equation for the United States. The Bush administration's stance has frustrated advocates of a more aggressive response.
Bush explained in a 2001 speech why he opposed joining the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to curb greenhouse gases: “The (Kyoto) targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases.”
Instead, the administration “harnesses the power of markets and technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation,” former Energy Department head Spencer Abraham wrote last year in Science. He pointed to tax incentive programs, climate research and technologies such as “FutureGen,” the Energy Department's 10-year,$1 billion attempt at creating a coal-fired power plant that emits no greenhouse gases.
Other administration efforts:
•The $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative announced two years ago in Bush's State of the Union address.
•A $49 million carbon “sequestration” initiative with 65 projects to see whether carbon dioxide can be stripped from emissions.
•Participation in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source.
The administration has encouraged voluntary efforts. Fourteen trade groups representing industrial, energy, transportation and forest companies have signed up for a program aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 18% by 2012.
So why isn't this enough to assuage critics?
Rick Piltz, a science policy expert who resigned in protest from the administration's Climate Change Science Program in March, says the reliance on voluntary measures and long-term technology breakthroughs is a roadblock against simple conservation steps that could curb emissions now. Piltz provided the edited documents that were the subject of last week's story in The New York Times.
Commonly cited examples of the conservation steps Piltz mentions:
•Incentives for emission controls on the oldest and least efficient power plants.
•More stringent mileage and tailpipe requirements on vehicles.
•Expanded tax credits for more efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and appliances.
Political leaders will support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the economy, says William Reilly, co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former head of the EPA under President George H.W. Bush. “But there is a lot going on, and I think we will be seeing some movement on this.”
Away from the political arena, other irons are in the fire:
•More people are advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that “nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”
•Immelt called for the United States to adopt an emissions-trading plan for greenhouse gases. Taking a cue from the EPA's policy of having companies buy and sell permits to release sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, economists suggest that such a scheme would limit carbon dioxide by making emissions economically less feasible. In Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would commit the country to such a plan.
Pressure for reforms may come most strongly from “socially responsible” investors. “We make bottom-line arguments to companies to make decisions in the interests of their shareholders,” says John Wilson of Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $3.5 billion in investor funds. The firm advises 1,000 Catholic institutions, such as churches, schools and hospitals.
A Christian Brothers resolution in May asked ExxonMobil “to explain the scientific basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change.” The resolution garnered 10.3% of shareholders' votes, representing 665 million shares worth more than $36 billion, despite the opposition of management.
“The future of energy is plainly moving away from fossil fuels and we want the companies (that) we invest in to explain how they plan to adjust,” Wilson says.
Dooley, of the Battelle Institute, says: “We need a whole series of ‘home runs' and maybe even a couple of ‘grand slams' to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play.”
“No one seriously talks about trying to address climate change with one technology,” Dooley says. “Everyone understands that there isn't a ‘silver bullet' out there waiting to be discovered.”
Politicians, corporations and religious groups differ mainly on how to fix the problem
By Dan Vergano
USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.
General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.
They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.
The U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global temperatures will rise 2 to 10 degrees by 2100. A “middle of the road” projection is for an average 5-degree increase by the end of the century, says Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
What the various factions don't necessarily agree on is what to do about it. The heart of the discussion is “really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it's happening,” says energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md. “What are my company's options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Are there new business opportunities associated with addressing climate change? Those are the questions many businesses are asking today.”
GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt recently announced that his company, which reports $135 billion in annual revenue, will spend $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Joining him for the announcement were executives from such mainline corporations as American Electric Power, Boeing and Cinergy.
Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. “Global warming is a universal moral challenge,” the partnership's statement says.
And high-profile politicians from both parties are getting into the act. For example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases that heat in the atmosphere.
To be sure, many companies — most notably oil industry leader ExxonMobil — still express skepticism about the effects of global warming. And the Bush administration has supported research and voluntary initiatives but has pulled back from a multi-nation pact on environmental constraints.
The administration was on the defensive last week when The New York Times reported that a staff lawyer has been softening scientific assessments of global warming. White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended such action as a routine part of a multi-agency review process.
Nonetheless, the tides of change appear to be moving on.
“As big companies fall off the ‘I don't believe in climate change' bandwagon, people will start to take this more seriously,” says environmental scientist Don Kennedy, editor in chief of the journal Science. Companies aren't changing because of a sudden love for the environment, Kennedy says, but because they see change as an opportunity to protect their investments.
“On the business side, it just looks like climate change is not going away,” says Kevin Leahy of Cinergy, a Cincinnati-based utility that reports $4.7 billion in annual revenue and provides electricity, mostly generated from coal, to 1.5 million customers. Most firms see global warming as a problem whose risks have to be managed, he says.
Power companies want to know what sort of carbon constraints they face — carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas — so they can plan long term and avoid being hit with dramatic emission limits or penalties in the future, he says.
Climate scientists say this acceptance comes none too soon. “All the time we should have been moving forward … has been wasted by arguing if the problem even exists,” says Michael Mann of the University of Virginia.
The IPCC estimates that rainfall will increase up to 20% in wet regions, causing floods, while decreasing 20% in arid areas, causing droughts. The Environmental Protection Agency says melting glaciers and warmer ocean waters will likely cause an average 2-foot rise in sea level on all U.S. coasts by 2100.
Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. There are now about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the end of the century, atmos-pheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.
Moving ahead with solutions looks like the hardest part of the equation for the United States. The Bush administration's stance has frustrated advocates of a more aggressive response.
Bush explained in a 2001 speech why he opposed joining the Kyoto Protocol, a global agreement to curb greenhouse gases: “The (Kyoto) targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases.”
Instead, the administration “harnesses the power of markets and technological innovation, maintains economic growth, and encourages global participation,” former Energy Department head Spencer Abraham wrote last year in Science. He pointed to tax incentive programs, climate research and technologies such as “FutureGen,” the Energy Department's 10-year,$1 billion attempt at creating a coal-fired power plant that emits no greenhouse gases.
Other administration efforts:
•The $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative announced two years ago in Bush's State of the Union address.
•A $49 million carbon “sequestration” initiative with 65 projects to see whether carbon dioxide can be stripped from emissions.
•Participation in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source.
The administration has encouraged voluntary efforts. Fourteen trade groups representing industrial, energy, transportation and forest companies have signed up for a program aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 18% by 2012.
So why isn't this enough to assuage critics?
Rick Piltz, a science policy expert who resigned in protest from the administration's Climate Change Science Program in March, says the reliance on voluntary measures and long-term technology breakthroughs is a roadblock against simple conservation steps that could curb emissions now. Piltz provided the edited documents that were the subject of last week's story in The New York Times.
Commonly cited examples of the conservation steps Piltz mentions:
•Incentives for emission controls on the oldest and least efficient power plants.
•More stringent mileage and tailpipe requirements on vehicles.
•Expanded tax credits for more efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and appliances.
Political leaders will support such measures only if the benefits come at a low cost to the economy, says William Reilly, co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former head of the EPA under President George H.W. Bush. “But there is a lot going on, and I think we will be seeing some movement on this.”
Away from the political arena, other irons are in the fire:
•More people are advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that “nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”
•Immelt called for the United States to adopt an emissions-trading plan for greenhouse gases. Taking a cue from the EPA's policy of having companies buy and sell permits to release sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, economists suggest that such a scheme would limit carbon dioxide by making emissions economically less feasible. In Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would commit the country to such a plan.
Pressure for reforms may come most strongly from “socially responsible” investors. “We make bottom-line arguments to companies to make decisions in the interests of their shareholders,” says John Wilson of Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $3.5 billion in investor funds. The firm advises 1,000 Catholic institutions, such as churches, schools and hospitals.
A Christian Brothers resolution in May asked ExxonMobil “to explain the scientific basis for its ongoing denial of the broad scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change.” The resolution garnered 10.3% of shareholders' votes, representing 665 million shares worth more than $36 billion, despite the opposition of management.
“The future of energy is plainly moving away from fossil fuels and we want the companies (that) we invest in to explain how they plan to adjust,” Wilson says.
Dooley, of the Battelle Institute, says: “We need a whole series of ‘home runs' and maybe even a couple of ‘grand slams' to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play.”
“No one seriously talks about trying to address climate change with one technology,” Dooley says. “Everyone understands that there isn't a ‘silver bullet' out there waiting to be discovered.”
Sunday, June 12, 2005
BUSH? Can you hear us?
A Growing Public Restlessness
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 12, 2005; B09
The number 58 appears frequently in the latest Post-ABC News poll, sending a clear warning signal to President Bush and the Republicans.
The June survey found that 58 percent of its 1,002 respondents now disapprove of the way Bush is handling both the economy and the situation in Iraq. The same number now believe that, weighing the costs and the benefits to the United States, the war was not worth fighting. And the same number, when asked about their own and the president's priorities, say that Bush is mainly concentrating on things that are not important to them personally.
The individual ratings for the president are among the worst since he took office. Support for the war is the lowest yet recorded in this poll. Never before have Bush's priorities been as far out of kilter with public opinion.
There's not much good news for the president in the rest of this poll or in a separate survey taken a couple of weeks earlier by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The two surveys put Bush's overall job disapproval scores at 50 percent and 52 percent -- the worst ratings in a long series of polls.
Five months into his second term, the storm signals are clearly flying. Were this the Clinton administration, it would be safe to assume that the man in the Oval Office would be badgering his political advisers for ideas on how to halt the decline. But Bush prides himself on pushing ahead, whatever the obstacles, and there are no signals that he is about to change course on any of his major policies.
But pushing on leaves him vulnerable to events that he cannot control. That is most obviously the case in Iraq, where the continuing violence clearly has sapped support for his decision to go to war. Seventy-three percent in the Post-ABC poll now say the military casualties in Iraq have become unacceptable. That number has doubled since the spring of 2003.
For the first time in this survey, a majority of respondents -- 52 percent -- said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States. But at this point Bush has no choice but to play out his hand. Withdrawal is not an option, and he is limited on how fast he can spur Iraqis to meet their security needs or complete the construction of their government.
But Iraq is only in second place when it comes to the public's priorities. The No. 1 concern is the economy and jobs.
And here is where Bush ought to be considering a new game plan. Although Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan declared the economy to be "on a reasonably firm footing" the other day, six out of 10 of those in the Pew survey said jobs are hard to find in their local areas -- including almost half of those with household incomes over $75,000. Three out of 10 said they did not have enough money last year to pay for their medical and health care needs.
Bush has had relatively little to say about these economic anxieties. His economic initiatives, including the plea to make past tax cuts permanent, would mainly benefit the affluent. Instead, Bush has devoted his energies to selling a Social Security reform that the public views with deep suspicion. By a 2 to 1 margin, it thinks Bush's proposals would not improve the long-run financial stability of Social Security, and nearly as many people think they would reduce the retirement income most seniors will receive.
On economic policy and Social Security, it may be up to Republicans in Congress to give voice to the policy message that Bush has either ignored or mishandled so far. And they have reason to do so. Seventeen months before the midterm elections, Democrats have, for the first time since April 2001, gained a lead, of five points, over Republicans as the party that respondents say will do a better job coping with the main problems facing the country.
Newt Gingrich, who has been touring the country to promote his new novel, told me last week that he sees "a lot of parallels between the restiveness of European voters," who have handed losses to the ruling parties in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, "and what I feel when I'm on the road.
"If Ford and General Motors are rated as junk bonds and United Airlines can't pay its pensioners," the former Republican speaker said, "people feel there is something wrong. Both parties are hurt, but the governing party is at greater risk."
davidbroder@washpost.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 12, 2005; B09
The number 58 appears frequently in the latest Post-ABC News poll, sending a clear warning signal to President Bush and the Republicans.
The June survey found that 58 percent of its 1,002 respondents now disapprove of the way Bush is handling both the economy and the situation in Iraq. The same number now believe that, weighing the costs and the benefits to the United States, the war was not worth fighting. And the same number, when asked about their own and the president's priorities, say that Bush is mainly concentrating on things that are not important to them personally.
The individual ratings for the president are among the worst since he took office. Support for the war is the lowest yet recorded in this poll. Never before have Bush's priorities been as far out of kilter with public opinion.
There's not much good news for the president in the rest of this poll or in a separate survey taken a couple of weeks earlier by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The two surveys put Bush's overall job disapproval scores at 50 percent and 52 percent -- the worst ratings in a long series of polls.
Five months into his second term, the storm signals are clearly flying. Were this the Clinton administration, it would be safe to assume that the man in the Oval Office would be badgering his political advisers for ideas on how to halt the decline. But Bush prides himself on pushing ahead, whatever the obstacles, and there are no signals that he is about to change course on any of his major policies.
But pushing on leaves him vulnerable to events that he cannot control. That is most obviously the case in Iraq, where the continuing violence clearly has sapped support for his decision to go to war. Seventy-three percent in the Post-ABC poll now say the military casualties in Iraq have become unacceptable. That number has doubled since the spring of 2003.
For the first time in this survey, a majority of respondents -- 52 percent -- said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States. But at this point Bush has no choice but to play out his hand. Withdrawal is not an option, and he is limited on how fast he can spur Iraqis to meet their security needs or complete the construction of their government.
But Iraq is only in second place when it comes to the public's priorities. The No. 1 concern is the economy and jobs.
And here is where Bush ought to be considering a new game plan. Although Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan declared the economy to be "on a reasonably firm footing" the other day, six out of 10 of those in the Pew survey said jobs are hard to find in their local areas -- including almost half of those with household incomes over $75,000. Three out of 10 said they did not have enough money last year to pay for their medical and health care needs.
Bush has had relatively little to say about these economic anxieties. His economic initiatives, including the plea to make past tax cuts permanent, would mainly benefit the affluent. Instead, Bush has devoted his energies to selling a Social Security reform that the public views with deep suspicion. By a 2 to 1 margin, it thinks Bush's proposals would not improve the long-run financial stability of Social Security, and nearly as many people think they would reduce the retirement income most seniors will receive.
On economic policy and Social Security, it may be up to Republicans in Congress to give voice to the policy message that Bush has either ignored or mishandled so far. And they have reason to do so. Seventeen months before the midterm elections, Democrats have, for the first time since April 2001, gained a lead, of five points, over Republicans as the party that respondents say will do a better job coping with the main problems facing the country.
Newt Gingrich, who has been touring the country to promote his new novel, told me last week that he sees "a lot of parallels between the restiveness of European voters," who have handed losses to the ruling parties in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, "and what I feel when I'm on the road.
"If Ford and General Motors are rated as junk bonds and United Airlines can't pay its pensioners," the former Republican speaker said, "people feel there is something wrong. Both parties are hurt, but the governing party is at greater risk."
davidbroder@washpost.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
A Commitee Needed: THE BUSH administration unable to effectively control prisoners of war
Beyond Guantanamo
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 12, 2005; B08
THE BUSH administration's policies and practices for detaining and interrogating foreign prisoners remain desperately in need of reform. The hundreds of suspected enemy combatants who have been held incommunicado or subjected to abuse and torture, and the scores who may have been unlawfully killed, represent the single greatest failing of the United States in the war on terrorism. Yet there has been shockingly little corrective action. Though the Army has announced some administrative reforms, there has been no truly independent investigation of the abuses. No senior officers or officials have been held accountable. Most seriously, many of the policies that have led the CIA and military to systematically violate international laws and human rights standards remain unaltered.
Frustrated by the administration's intransigence and outraged by the latest reports of abuse -- this time involving desecration of the Koran -- several senior Democrats, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and former president Jimmy Carter, have embraced the idea of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where some 520 detainees are now held. The proposal is worth considering, mainly because Guantanamo has become a global symbol for U.S. abuse of prisoners. But a much broader and more systematic agenda of reform is needed, one that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could and should embrace.
The first step must be to impose legality and outside control on the most shameful part of the detention system -- which is not Guantanamo Bay but the secret network of detention facilities maintained by the CIA. The dozens (at least) of prisoners in this network, including the most important terrorist leaders, are being held without any legal process, outside review, family notification or monitoring by the International Red Cross. Moreover, the administration has declared that such prisoners may be subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, such as mock executions and simulated drowning, even though the United States has ratified an international treaty prohibiting such practices. It also insists on the right to transport these prisoners to countries where torture is practiced, again in contravention of international law.
All of these prisoners should be held in facilities operated by the United States and visited by the Red Cross; the grounds for their detention should be subject to regular outside review. When possible, they should be charged and tried. As is the case for all other detainees in American custody, treatment that would violate the U.S. Constitution should be illegal.
Prisoners at Guantanamo are already entitled to reviews of their detention, a system of military tribunals has been established and the Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction. But these legal mechanisms are inadequate, as one federal judge has already ruled in a case now on appeal. Both the reviews of detention and the tribunals need to be changed so that defendants have more rights; the best approach would be to adopt the existing system of military justice. At a minimum, Congress should mandate that testimony obtained through torture not be admissible.
The abandonment of Guantanamo would alleviate a public relations problem. But it also might lead prisoners to be housed under poorer conditions and with less possibility for judicial review than exists now. It may be necessary for the United States to detain enemy combatants for many years in the future, if not at Guantanamo then somewhere else. Such prisoners cannot always be charged or tried, but they should be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions -- which the Bush administration wrongly and unnecessarily abandoned.
The proper way to hold enemy fighters in a shadowy and unconventional global war is a new and difficult issue. That is one good reason to create a bipartisan commission, as was recently proposed by Mr. Biden, to investigate what has happened since 2001 and to make recommendations. The country needs to forge a consensus about how it can effectively hold and question enemy combatants without bringing shame to its democratic system. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it can't accomplish that vital mission on its own.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 12, 2005; B08
THE BUSH administration's policies and practices for detaining and interrogating foreign prisoners remain desperately in need of reform. The hundreds of suspected enemy combatants who have been held incommunicado or subjected to abuse and torture, and the scores who may have been unlawfully killed, represent the single greatest failing of the United States in the war on terrorism. Yet there has been shockingly little corrective action. Though the Army has announced some administrative reforms, there has been no truly independent investigation of the abuses. No senior officers or officials have been held accountable. Most seriously, many of the policies that have led the CIA and military to systematically violate international laws and human rights standards remain unaltered.
Frustrated by the administration's intransigence and outraged by the latest reports of abuse -- this time involving desecration of the Koran -- several senior Democrats, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and former president Jimmy Carter, have embraced the idea of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where some 520 detainees are now held. The proposal is worth considering, mainly because Guantanamo has become a global symbol for U.S. abuse of prisoners. But a much broader and more systematic agenda of reform is needed, one that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could and should embrace.
The first step must be to impose legality and outside control on the most shameful part of the detention system -- which is not Guantanamo Bay but the secret network of detention facilities maintained by the CIA. The dozens (at least) of prisoners in this network, including the most important terrorist leaders, are being held without any legal process, outside review, family notification or monitoring by the International Red Cross. Moreover, the administration has declared that such prisoners may be subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, such as mock executions and simulated drowning, even though the United States has ratified an international treaty prohibiting such practices. It also insists on the right to transport these prisoners to countries where torture is practiced, again in contravention of international law.
All of these prisoners should be held in facilities operated by the United States and visited by the Red Cross; the grounds for their detention should be subject to regular outside review. When possible, they should be charged and tried. As is the case for all other detainees in American custody, treatment that would violate the U.S. Constitution should be illegal.
Prisoners at Guantanamo are already entitled to reviews of their detention, a system of military tribunals has been established and the Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction. But these legal mechanisms are inadequate, as one federal judge has already ruled in a case now on appeal. Both the reviews of detention and the tribunals need to be changed so that defendants have more rights; the best approach would be to adopt the existing system of military justice. At a minimum, Congress should mandate that testimony obtained through torture not be admissible.
The abandonment of Guantanamo would alleviate a public relations problem. But it also might lead prisoners to be housed under poorer conditions and with less possibility for judicial review than exists now. It may be necessary for the United States to detain enemy combatants for many years in the future, if not at Guantanamo then somewhere else. Such prisoners cannot always be charged or tried, but they should be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions -- which the Bush administration wrongly and unnecessarily abandoned.
The proper way to hold enemy fighters in a shadowy and unconventional global war is a new and difficult issue. That is one good reason to create a bipartisan commission, as was recently proposed by Mr. Biden, to investigate what has happened since 2001 and to make recommendations. The country needs to forge a consensus about how it can effectively hold and question enemy combatants without bringing shame to its democratic system. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it can't accomplish that vital mission on its own.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Another British expose: Bush boys no plan to deal with post-war Iraq
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; A01
A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.
The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.
In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.
In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.
The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.
Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.
In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.
The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.
Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.
The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.
A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."
About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."
Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."
Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."
The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."
The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.
Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.
Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.
Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; A01
A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.
The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.
In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.
In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.
The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.
Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.
In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.
The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.
Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.
The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.
A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."
About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."
Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."
Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."
The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."
The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.
Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.
Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.
Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Media Control: Bush vs Nixon..the winner is?
Excellent article of the tactics of the Nixon administration efforts to control the media compared to the much more dangerous control the Bush administration. But sadly enough, this is our present day reality. The article:
June 12, 2005
The New York Times
Don't Follow the Money
By FRANK RICH
THE morning the Deep Throat story broke, the voice on my answering machine was as raspy as Hal Holbrook's. "I just want you to remember that I wrote 'Follow the money,' " said my caller. "I want to know if anybody will give me credit. Watch for the accuracy of the media!"
The voice belonged to my friend William Goldman, who wrote the movie "All the President's Men." His words proved more than a little prescient. As if on cue, journalists everywhere - from The New York Times to The Economist to The Washington Post itself - would soon start attributing this classic line of dialogue to the newly unmasked Deep Throat, W. Mark Felt. But the line was not in Woodward and Bernstein's book or in The Post's Watergate reportage or in Bob Woodward's contemporaneous notes. It was the invention of the author of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "Marathon Man" and "The Princess Bride."
This confusion of Hollywood's version of history with the genuine article would quickly prove symptomatic of the overall unreality of the Deep Throat coverage. Was Mr. Felt a hero or a villain? Should he "follow the money" into a book deal, and if so, how would a 91-year-old showing signs of dementia either write a book or schmooze about it with Larry King? How did Vanity Fair scoop The Post? How does Robert Redford feel about it all? Such were the questions that killed time for a nation awaiting the much-heralded feature mediathon, the Michael Jackson verdict.
Richard Nixon and Watergate itself, meanwhile, were often reduced to footnotes. Three years ago, on Watergate's 30th anniversary, an ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans couldn't explain what the scandal was, and no one was racing to enlighten them this time around. Vanity Fair may have taken the trouble to remind us that Watergate was a web of crime yielding the convictions and guilty pleas of more than 30 White House and Nixon campaign officials, but few others did. Watergate has gone back to being the "third-rate burglary" of Nixon administration spin. It is once again being covered up.
Not without reason. Had the scandal been vividly resuscitated as the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare. "The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before" was how the former Nixon speech writer William Safire put it on this page almost nine months ago. The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it, any media proprietor like Katharine Graham or editor like Ben Bradlee who might support them and any anonymous source like Deep Throat who might enable them to find what Carl Bernstein calls "the best obtainable version of the truth."
The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including The Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar W.M.D. hype, new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by The London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.
This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. To foster it, Nixon's special counsel, Charles W. Colson, embarked on a ruthless program of intimidation that included threatening antitrust action against the networks if they didn't run pro-Nixon stories. Watergate tapes and memos make Mr. Colson, who boasted of "destroying the old establishment," sound like the founding father of today's blogging lynch mobs. He exulted in bullying CBS to cut back its Watergate reports before the '72 election. He enlisted NBC in pro-administration propaganda by browbeating it to repackage 10-day-old coverage of Tricia Nixon's wedding as a prime-time special. It was the Colson office as well that compiled a White House enemies list that included journalists who had the audacity to question administration policies.
Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt - and not just on Fox News, the cable channel that is actually run by the former Nixon media maven, Roger Ailes. "I want kids to look up to heroes," Mr. Colson said, oh so sorrowfully, on NBC's "Today" show, condemning Mr. Felt for dishonoring "the confidence of the president of the United States." Never mind that Mr. Colson dishonored the law, proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and went to prison for his role in the break-in to steal the psychiatric records of The Times's Deep Throat on Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. The "Today" host, Matt Lauer, didn't mention any of this - or even that his guest had done jail time. None of the other TV anchors who interviewed Mr. Colson - and he was ubiquitous - ever specified his criminal actions in the Nixon years. Some identified him onscreen only as a "former White House counsel."
Had anyone been so rude (or professional) as to recount Mr. Colson's sordid past, or to raise the question of whether he was a hero or a traitor, the genealogical line between his Watergate-era machinations and those of his present-day successors would have been all too painfully clear. The main difference is that in the Nixon White House, the president's men plotted behind closed doors. The current administration is now so brazen it does its dirty work in plain sight.
In the most recent example, all the president's men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book. These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the pièce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers.
At other times the new Colsons top the old one. Though Nixon aspired to punish public broadcasting by cutting its funding, he never imagined that his apparatchiks could seize the top executive positions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Nor did he come up with the brilliant ideas of putting journalists covertly on the administration payroll and of hiring an outside P.R. firm (Ketchum) to codify an enemies list by ranking news organizations and individual reporters on the basis of how favorably they cover a specific administration policy (No Child Left Behind). President Bush has even succeeded in emasculating the post-Watergate reform that was supposed to help curb Nixonian secrecy, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much "gotcha" journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no "gotcha" journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.
Only once during the Deep Throat rollout did I see a palpable, if perhaps unconscious, effort to link the White House of 1972 with that of 2005. It occurred at the start, when ABC News, with the first comprehensive report on Vanity Fair's scoop, interrupted President Bush's post-Memorial Day Rose Garden news conference to break the story. Suddenly the image of the current president blathering on about how hunky-dory everything is in Iraq was usurped by repeated showings of the scene in which the newly resigned Nixon walked across the adjacent White House lawn to the helicopter that would carry him into exile.
But in the days that followed, Nixon and his history and the long shadows they cast largely vanished from the TV screen. In their place were constant nostalgic replays of young Redford and flinty Holbrook. Follow the bait-and-switch.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
June 12, 2005
The New York Times
Don't Follow the Money
By FRANK RICH
THE morning the Deep Throat story broke, the voice on my answering machine was as raspy as Hal Holbrook's. "I just want you to remember that I wrote 'Follow the money,' " said my caller. "I want to know if anybody will give me credit. Watch for the accuracy of the media!"
The voice belonged to my friend William Goldman, who wrote the movie "All the President's Men." His words proved more than a little prescient. As if on cue, journalists everywhere - from The New York Times to The Economist to The Washington Post itself - would soon start attributing this classic line of dialogue to the newly unmasked Deep Throat, W. Mark Felt. But the line was not in Woodward and Bernstein's book or in The Post's Watergate reportage or in Bob Woodward's contemporaneous notes. It was the invention of the author of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "Marathon Man" and "The Princess Bride."
This confusion of Hollywood's version of history with the genuine article would quickly prove symptomatic of the overall unreality of the Deep Throat coverage. Was Mr. Felt a hero or a villain? Should he "follow the money" into a book deal, and if so, how would a 91-year-old showing signs of dementia either write a book or schmooze about it with Larry King? How did Vanity Fair scoop The Post? How does Robert Redford feel about it all? Such were the questions that killed time for a nation awaiting the much-heralded feature mediathon, the Michael Jackson verdict.
Richard Nixon and Watergate itself, meanwhile, were often reduced to footnotes. Three years ago, on Watergate's 30th anniversary, an ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans couldn't explain what the scandal was, and no one was racing to enlighten them this time around. Vanity Fair may have taken the trouble to remind us that Watergate was a web of crime yielding the convictions and guilty pleas of more than 30 White House and Nixon campaign officials, but few others did. Watergate has gone back to being the "third-rate burglary" of Nixon administration spin. It is once again being covered up.
Not without reason. Had the scandal been vividly resuscitated as the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare. "The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before" was how the former Nixon speech writer William Safire put it on this page almost nine months ago. The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it, any media proprietor like Katharine Graham or editor like Ben Bradlee who might support them and any anonymous source like Deep Throat who might enable them to find what Carl Bernstein calls "the best obtainable version of the truth."
The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including The Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar W.M.D. hype, new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by The London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.
This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. To foster it, Nixon's special counsel, Charles W. Colson, embarked on a ruthless program of intimidation that included threatening antitrust action against the networks if they didn't run pro-Nixon stories. Watergate tapes and memos make Mr. Colson, who boasted of "destroying the old establishment," sound like the founding father of today's blogging lynch mobs. He exulted in bullying CBS to cut back its Watergate reports before the '72 election. He enlisted NBC in pro-administration propaganda by browbeating it to repackage 10-day-old coverage of Tricia Nixon's wedding as a prime-time special. It was the Colson office as well that compiled a White House enemies list that included journalists who had the audacity to question administration policies.
Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt - and not just on Fox News, the cable channel that is actually run by the former Nixon media maven, Roger Ailes. "I want kids to look up to heroes," Mr. Colson said, oh so sorrowfully, on NBC's "Today" show, condemning Mr. Felt for dishonoring "the confidence of the president of the United States." Never mind that Mr. Colson dishonored the law, proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and went to prison for his role in the break-in to steal the psychiatric records of The Times's Deep Throat on Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. The "Today" host, Matt Lauer, didn't mention any of this - or even that his guest had done jail time. None of the other TV anchors who interviewed Mr. Colson - and he was ubiquitous - ever specified his criminal actions in the Nixon years. Some identified him onscreen only as a "former White House counsel."
Had anyone been so rude (or professional) as to recount Mr. Colson's sordid past, or to raise the question of whether he was a hero or a traitor, the genealogical line between his Watergate-era machinations and those of his present-day successors would have been all too painfully clear. The main difference is that in the Nixon White House, the president's men plotted behind closed doors. The current administration is now so brazen it does its dirty work in plain sight.
In the most recent example, all the president's men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam's holy book. These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the pièce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend's little-read papers.
At other times the new Colsons top the old one. Though Nixon aspired to punish public broadcasting by cutting its funding, he never imagined that his apparatchiks could seize the top executive positions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Nor did he come up with the brilliant ideas of putting journalists covertly on the administration payroll and of hiring an outside P.R. firm (Ketchum) to codify an enemies list by ranking news organizations and individual reporters on the basis of how favorably they cover a specific administration policy (No Child Left Behind). President Bush has even succeeded in emasculating the post-Watergate reform that was supposed to help curb Nixonian secrecy, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much "gotcha" journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no "gotcha" journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.
Only once during the Deep Throat rollout did I see a palpable, if perhaps unconscious, effort to link the White House of 1972 with that of 2005. It occurred at the start, when ABC News, with the first comprehensive report on Vanity Fair's scoop, interrupted President Bush's post-Memorial Day Rose Garden news conference to break the story. Suddenly the image of the current president blathering on about how hunky-dory everything is in Iraq was usurped by repeated showings of the scene in which the newly resigned Nixon walked across the adjacent White House lawn to the helicopter that would carry him into exile.
But in the days that followed, Nixon and his history and the long shadows they cast largely vanished from the TV screen. In their place were constant nostalgic replays of young Redford and flinty Holbrook. Follow the bait-and-switch.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
