marcosolo, 11. Oktober 2003 um 14:06:29 MESZ

The New York Times - Lessons in Civility

When you're writing a book about this administration, sometimes it's hard to be both honest and polite. By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years - that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life - but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil. Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.

Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."

And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."

What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."

Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.

But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.

On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character - his "honor and integrity" - so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic - that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.

In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.

 

... Link

marcosolo, 10. Oktober 2003 um 20:39:35 MESZ

George W. Bush - Der einsame Raecher

Marc Pitzke, USA Korrespondent, FACTS

Seine Aussenpolitik fuehrt in lauter Sackgassen, seine Innenpolitik ist verheerend. George W. Bush machte sich auf, die Welt zu organisieren. Heute steht er alleine da.

Nichts klappt mehr. Nicht mal das Gruessonkel-Ritual. George W. Bush und die first Lady harren erwartungsvoll am Ende des Kieswegs. Eine Limousine rollt vor, ihr entspringen Bodyguards. Doch wo ist der Staatsgast? Die Autotuer klemmt. Erst ein langes, linkisches Gehampel befreit den hohen Besuch aus dem Ledersitz.

Typische Bilder, eingefangen am Montag vor dem Weissen Haus. Typisch, da sie Bush s wachsendes Ungemach symbolisieren, selbst bei trivialsten Dingen. Typisch, da es fuer ihn erst das vierte Mal ist, dass sich ein Auslaender zum Staatsbesuch bemueht. Typisch, da dieser unersetzliche (?) Aliierte, den Bush so ueberschwenglich begruesst, bei allem Respekt nicht gerade ein Hauptdarsteller auf der Weltbuehne ist (Kenjas Praesident Mwai Kibaki).

Missgeschick, Isolation, dritte Liga. Und nun auch noch der erste Skandal - leakgate, die boesartige Enttarnung einer kritikverdaechtigen CIA-Agentin. Der 43. US-Praesident steckt in der Krise. Der Irak war nur der Anfang.

In allen Wahlkampf-Umfragen rangiert Bush laengst hinter seinen demokratischen Top-Rivalen. Seine Popularitaetsquote ist jetzt auch daheim unter die magischen 50 Prozent gerutscht - erstmals seit jenem Tag, da er auf den Truemmern des WTC zum Krieg rief. Selbst Republikaner ahnen, der Praesident ist in Gefahr.

Er hats sich selbst zuzuschreiben. Besserwisserisch und gnadenlos hat er seine Vision hat er seine Vision vom grossen Amerika durchgepaukt, einer Nation aus Missionaren, die grosse Dinge tun. Doch ist dies keine Vision, sondern nur Flickwerk halbgarer Polit-Coups, gesteuert von seinen ideologischen Ghostwritern. Selbst Bushs persoenlicher Reifeprozess nach 9/11, den manche gerne loben, war Vorwand fuer eine Machtpolitik, die die rechten Neocons schon Jahre zuvor im Oppositionskaemmerlein geplant hatten.

Sie protzten im Alleingang. Den haben sie nun - und muessen merken, dass einsame Raecher einsam sind.

Denn so einfach, wie im Wilden Westen ist die Welt nicht. Weder dort draussen, noch im eigenen Lande. Die Resultate der desastrischen US-Aussenpolitik sind, wie sie das hier nennen, a mess, ein Chaos. Der Irak wird zur Keimzelle des Terrors. Afghanistan brodelt auch schon wieder. Der nahe Osten versinkt im Blut. Afrika im Buergerkrieg. Europa in Indignation. Und Nordkorea spielt unbeaufsichtigt mit dem atomaren Zuendholz. Die Zahl der Amerikaner, die Bushs Weltpolitik kritisieren, ist erstmals seit seinem Amstantritt hoeher als die der Befuerworter.

Und innenpolitisch? Bushs Staatshaushalt, ein schwarzes Loch, der Arbeitsmarkt, eine Wueste. Ansonsten brummt die Konjunktur zwar leise, doch meist zu Gunsten der Reichen - derweil Arme und Mittelstand immer aermer werden. Die einzige innenpolitische Initiative Bushs, die feudale Steuerreform, wird im Kongress angesichts der 87 Miliarden Dollar Irak-Spesen schon wieder zerpflueckt.

Nur noch jeder dritte Amerikaner mag Bush s Wirtschaftspolitik, klassisches Hauptthema der US-Wahlkaempfe. Zahlen, die an Vater Bush erinnern, der nach dem ersten Golfkrieg wegen der Wirtschaftslage aus dem Amt gekippt wurde. Viel Zeit bleibt dem Sohn nicht, zu verhindern, dass sich die Geschichte wiederholt. US-Waehler bilden sich traditionell im Fruehjahr des Wahljahres ihre Meinung ueber die Wirtschaft. Und aendern sie danach auch nicht mehr. Egal, ob die Lage besser wird oder nicht.

Das alles koennen die Spinnmeister im West Wing noch hinwegspinnen, vielleicht mit einer choreographischen Posse wie im Mai, als Bush II an Deck eines Flugzeugtraegers das Ende des Golfkrieges II verkuendete, woraufhin mehr Soldaten im Irak starben, als vorher. Die Sache mit Valerie Platte jedoch, die laesst sich nicht mehr schoenreden. Die Gattin des Ex-Botschafters Joseph Wilson, eine Undercover-Dame der CIA, sah ihre Identitaet ploetzlich in der Zeitung enthuellt, nachdem sich Wilson auf Seiten der Bush-Kritiker gestellt hatte. Die anonyme Quelle fuer diesen Racheakt - eine Art militaerischer Vergeltungsschlag in den eigenen Reihen / sitzt in Bushs engstem Dunstkreis.

Damit hat das Weisse Haus nicht nur Plattes Leben in Gefahr gebracht und sich ein Ermittlungsverfahren des Justizministeriums aufgehalst, wenn nicht gar den ersten Sonderermittler seit der Clinton-Hasser Ken Starr. Sondern es hat sich zugleich auch seine eigene Identitaet enthuellt / die eines skrupellosen Machtkluengels, der vor nichts zurueckschreckt.

Der New Yorker portraetiert Bush diese Woche als Cowboy, der durchs Tal des Todes galoppiert - doch nicht das Pferd traegt die Scheuklappen, sondern der Reiter. Von den naechsten Wochen, so ein Bush-Vertrauter, haengt seine Wiedrewahl ab. Dabei kommt es auf den Gewinner aber eigentlich gar nicht mehr an. Verloren hat schon jetzt die Demokratie, die in Washington laengst ersetzt worden ist von einem parteiuebergreifenden Filz aus PR und Pressionen, Luegen, Scheinwahrheiten und Korruption. Welcher Gruessonkel da am Ende des Kiesweges der naechste Staatsgast Limousine harrt, ist egal.

 

... Link

marcosolo, 16. Mai 2003 um 22:14:43 MESZ

Congress Considering Building

Tell Them There Are No "Usable" Nukes, Stop This Dangerous And Expensive Folly

(You can send a free fax to your Senators and Congressperson telling them to vote against this link):

www.truemajority.com

Note from Ben: For this alert I asked Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan to tell you what is going on. Here is his amazing insight:

When I was on active duty in the Navy back in the '60's and '70's we had nuclear weapons on our ships that were designed to be used in battle. The idea was that if we ever got into real trouble we could wipe out Soviet submarines and bombers with a few nuclear depth charges and nuclear surface to air missiles - hopefully without igniting a full scale nuclear holocaust.

The only problem was we all knew that was hogwash. I actually simulated firing off a bunch of these during military exercises and the results were so devastating I knew 3 things: First, these things were so powerful we could never really use them in battle without damaging ourselves. One nuclear depth charge would blind our submarine detection instruments in an entire ocean, for example. Second, once we went nuclear there was no way the Soviets wouldn't. And third, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and it would always be immoral to use them. Pres. Bush the elder eventually removed these nukes from our ships and out of the hands of at sea operational commanders. Congress finally made it illegal to create new "mini-nukes" in 1993 when they passed the Spratt-Furse provision.

Now Pres. Bush the younger and Congress are working to create a whole new generation of "usable" nukes. They are trying to repeal the Spratt-Furse provision so they can build a bunch of mini-nukes. They also want to spend millions to create a new high yield nuclear weapon to put on top of our conventional bunker busters, a weapon that already works fine.

The thought of this keeps me up at night for two reasons. First, America signed the global Non-Proliferation Treaty with over a hundred other nations. The deal was simple: If you don't have nuclear weapons, you can't build them; in exchange, those of us who do will work to get rid of ours. How can we complain that countries like North Korea shouldn't build new nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty when the Bush Administration proposes doing the very same thing? Second, with a trigger-happy White House that believes our country can win "pre-emptive wars" on the cheap, those folks might actually use these things if they ever got their hands on them.

Do the world a favor, send Congress faxes telling them you think there is no such thing as a "usable" nuke and they shouldn't try to build any. Just click this link:

www.truemajority.com

Then send this email to your friends and ask them to do the same.

Thanks,

Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan (Ret.)

Here is the letter we'll send to your Members of Congress:

Dear Senator/Representative:

I am writing as a constituent because I am deeply concerned about the direction our government is taking regarding nuclear weapons. I think most Americans want to live in a world with fewer, not more nuclear weapons. I know you are going to have the opportunity to vote on a defense bill that increases the likelihood that the United States will develop more nuclear weapons. Isn't that why we are condemning other countries?

Please let your colleagues know that your constituents do not want their tax dollars spent on provocative nuclear weapons that make the U.S. less, not more, safe. I am asking you to take any opportunity to oppose any effort to repeal the Spratt-Furse provision banning mini-nukes and to block funding to develop the RNEP ("bunker buster") in the defense authorization bill.

Sincerely, (We'll put your name and address here)

 

... Link