 |
 |
 |
|
politics>
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
11.18.02 MEMO MENOS In a shocking development, the newly empowered Republican leadership failed in their first efforts at ramming through legislation in the hastily called lame duck session of congress. The House unexpectedly rejected a much lobbied Bankruptcy Reform bill in a procedural vote on the rules for the legislation, 243-172. An astonishing 87 Republicans broke rank with party leadership in voting against the rules, essential for bringing the bill to a vote. In a panic, the House leaders quickly jettisoned the abortion provisions from the bill which were the cause for the rejection, and passed the legislation at 2am Friday morning. But the Senate refused to schedule a vote during this lame duck session, and experts agree it will take a great effort to resuscitate the reforms next year. The bill had been coveted by banks and credit card lenders for years, as it would have made discharge of credit card debt by personal consumers more difficult. Passage was stalled by Democratic Senators, chiefly CHARLES SCHUMER, on the surprisingly thorny issue of discharge of court imposed penalties against anti-abortion activists. But Congressman HENRY HYDE, the Republicans point man in the anti-abortion movement, had championed a compromise that cleared way for passage of the bill in the Democratically controlled Senate. TOM DASCHLE had dragged his feet so that a vote was not scheduled on the bill in lieu of the other pressing matters the Senate handles as the session came to a close, but passage, particularly in light of the recent election results, was deemed a forgone conclusion. President BUSH has been waiting to sign the legislation into law. So, it was a great surprise that Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, and newly elected majority leader TOM DELAY made such a major miscalculation. The religious right, giddy with the prospects of newfound power, apparently got a bit greedy. They figured they could jettison the compromise language in the bill for a hard line position essentially giving anti-abortion activists a safe harbor in bankruptcy as a way to escape any criminal sanctions they may receive as a result of their activities in frustrating the operations of abortion clinics. In the past those activities have included blocking access to clinics, bomb threats, actual bombings and even attempted and actual murder of doctors who perform these functions. So the question is, why is the religious right so concerned about protecting criminals? After all, abortion in this country is legal. And if a court of competent jurisdiction imposes criminal sanctions upon a criminal wrongdoer, what possible justification could there be for allowing that individual to escape culpability through bankruptcy. I mean, if we are going to shackle Americans with the burdens of their debts arrived at perhaps through illness without adequate insurance, or debts incurred as a result of a failed entrepeneurial effort, or even piled up bills because of irresponsible spending, then surely we should expect someone who flaunts the authority of the laws in this country to pay whatever fines a court finds to be owing. I can stomach the idea that Republicans go to bat for corporations who really don’t need a voice in Washington. MBNA and CAPITAL ONE are really hurting you know. But if the newly gained Republican majorities are going to be using their influence to come to the aid of criminals in this country, then we may be due for another watershed Republican embarrassment along the lines of Watergate. Greed and power nearly always lead to a big fall, and the religious right is going to give President GEORGE W. BUSH a run for his money. Let’s see if he has the leadership savvy to keep them in check. Meanwhile, look for another attempt at bankruptcy reform next year. MBNA and CAPITAL ONE aren’t going away that easily. 10.21..02 MEMO MENOS If you are a Sunday news show junkie like I am, you’re probably ticked off that NBC, ABC and FOX NEWS CHANNEL all run their weekly political programming at the very same time Sunday morning. I sure am. CBS is wise enough to sneak FACE THE NATION in just before the others, at 7:30am on the West Coast and CNN runs LATE EDITION after the rest, but who can stomach WOLF BLITZER? The well-being of these networks surely can’t depend on the success of these shows. So, why the cut-throat programming? Come on veeps, stagger the start times so those of us who care about public affairs programming, and about our country for that matter, can gain the benefits of these vital programs. For years the networks considered this kind of television a public service. Before the Tarot card sniper, life inside the Beltway was of little concern to the rest of the country, particularly early on Sunday mornings. Ratings now for these shows have been gaining, with MEET THE PRESS leading the pack with some 4 million viewers each week. If the shows were staggered, that number might double or triple, as would viewership for the others. That’s a good thing in a lot of ways, and it’s got to beat the paid programming that runs for much of the rest of Sunday mornings. So, there I was jumping from station to station last Sunday morning, only to find COLIN POWELL was the lead guest on all three shows, MEET THE PRESS, THIS WEEK, and FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Now, never mind my disdain with the discovery that the shows were not live. (Being from California, it’s hard to accept the reality that television plays to the East Coast as a priority and feeds California sloppy seconds.) That disappointment was quickly replaced with disgust at hearing COLIN POWELL espouse the same crap nearly word for word to all three hosts. POWELL would have us believe first, that one resolution on Iraq would be sufficient for President BUSH to act in the event of non-compliance by SADDAM HUSSEIN. And, second, that the revelations about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program were not relevant to the recent and contentious vote in Congress over the resolution to give President BUSH authority to enforce U.N resolutions on Iraq. POWELL went on to try and "sell" the notion that there was no plot by the administration to withhold this information from Democratic leaders. Wow! On the first point, why go through the United Nations at all if we are going to act unilaterally to bring about our intentions in the end anyway. The whole point of gaining an international coalition, and going through international channels of world diplomacy, is to give respect to those conventions of international law, and international relationships. To whip up the forces, and go in like JOHN WAYNE with a posse is in complete contravention of all the good intentions expressed in getting the resolution in the first place. You don’t get it both ways, and POWELL knows this. He was being disingenuous in revealing this "clever" interpretation by the BUSH administration. Second, of course the newly released information on North Korea was relevant to the vote taken by Congress last week. After all, the vote was to give President BUSH authority to go after weapons of mass destruction that might possibly exist in one of the axi of evil, Iraq. If the BUSH administration knew that weapons of mass destruction did actually exist in another of the axi, North Korea, and further that said weapons were developed and acquired in direct violation of agreements between our two countries, the priority of going to Iraq might very well have been reviewed. For POWELL to not realize this is nonsense. The Secretary of State went on to carefully describe how some members of Congress had been notified, and that others were not for various reasons, including time constraints. The leaders of the Democratic parties, RICHARD GEPHART in the House and TOM DASCHLE in the Senate were not notified, despite the fact that POWELL and BUSH knew of these developments for months. At best, this is a glaring oversight, at best. At worst, it is outright fraud and misrepresentation. POWELL was really piling it on high Sunday morning, and his presence on all three of these shows, with CONDOLEEZA RICE on the other two, is testimony to just how important this spin was to the White House. Perhaps HARRY BELAFONTE was right. POWELL and RICE were clearly sent out, on this day, to shovel a pile of crap for the administration. It’s a shame, too, because both POWELL and RICE are intelligent, respectable individuals in apparent, devoted service to their country. They’re just in with the wrong crowd. That’s all. I wonder if they know… And, by the way, don’t all "freedom loving" people have the right to acquire nuclear weapons for their self-defense, including unilateral pre-emptive first strikes against those they might consider "axi of evil". Or is that right only inherent to Americans? Just a thought. 10.16.02 MEMO MENOS What a remarkable performance! Did you see HARRY BELAFONTE on LARRY KING LIVE last night? LARRY, quick to capitalize on controversy, had MR. BELAFONTE on to respond to growing furor over the singer’s remarks on COLIN POWELL. BELAFONTE had referred to COLIN POWELL as an "Uncle Tom" with regard to his performance as Secretary of State within the BUSH administration. He extended his reach to include National Security Advisor CONDOLEEZA RICE. LARRY KING had COLIN POWELL on his show several days ago to respond to BELAFONTE’S criticisms. POWELL appeared shaken by the statements. Watching last night, the drama was palpable, and one expected BELAFONTE to back down, as so many others embroiled in similar situations do. But, HARRY would have no part of it. Instead of back pedaling on the issue, he redoubled his efforts. It seems Mr. BELAFONTE knows of what he speaks. He proceeded to recite the world political and humanitarian experience from which he operates. He fought in World War II, he worked with ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, he marched with MARTIN LUTHER KING, he was a vocal opponent of ROBERT F. KENNEDY, helping shape him into the civil rights advocate he eventually became as Attorney General. BELAFONTE currently works for the United Nations. He is no loose cannon; his aim is true. BELAFONTE made no apologies for his comments. He just kept on with them. Why shouldn’t he criticize POWELL and RICE? Why should blacks be happy with two prominent members in the BUSH administration, when they are catalyst and support for policies, which are not only bad for Afro-Americans, but also bad for the world over? He made a compelling argument. "It’s about the policies of this administration, not the man…It’s about the things he embraces and the policies he supports." He even ventured to quote Shakespeare, an endeavor not without risk given BARBRA STREISAND’S recent misquoting of the legendary playwright at a recent democratic fundraiser in Hollywood: "It is the time’s plague when mad men lead the blind." The mad men are no doubt OSAMA BIN LADEN and SADDAM HUSSEIN. Guess who might be the blind? BELAFONTE went on to state that the policies of the United States internationally " …have helped to instigate terror." He cited hundreds of thousands of deaths in Rwanda in several months time that went unnoticed by the US. He referred to the many thousands of people worldwide who live in poverty, or hunger, or terror. Terror, he said, was not the exclusive experience of those victimized by September 11th. And, of course he is right. Immoral actions by the United States in response to 9-11 are not justified, according to BELAFONTE. And, to act unilaterally and unprovoked would be immoral in his eyes. He did say unequivocally, that if the United Nations recommended military action he would support it. And he said forcefully that criticism and dissent are important. "What is wrong with it?" It was a riveting tour de force by a man who is so much more than an actor and singer. (LARRY reminded viewers that BELAFONTE’S CALYPSO album was the first 1 million seller in the music business. Really?) HARRY didn’t even back down when challenged by angry callers, offended by his "attack" of POWELL. He did equivocate to some degree, saying his quote from a radio interview was "caught in a passionate moment, but I spoke my peace." His views are clearly "not without reason." To the contrary, we need more leaders with the experience, and the strength, and the reason!
Former President BILL CLINTON told Britain’s ruling Labor party today that SADDAM HUSSEIN has every incentive, now, not to use weapons of mass destruction, nor to give them away to terrorists who might use them. But, "facing certain defeat, he would have every incentive to use them." The speech was the strongest language yet from the former President expressing opposition to the policy of President BUSH for a preemptive first strike and regime change in Iraq. CLINTON further stated that, even if such a strike was successful in the short term, there would most certainly be devastating effects for the US in the long term. He also warned that "no matter how precise our weapons are, and I’ve made these kinds of decisions, innocent people will die." The words were the latest in a growing tone of dissent from Democrats to a war with Iraq. Senate majority leader TOM DASCHLE started the ball rolling with a fiery speech from the Senate floor, decrying BUSHES politicization of the war. President BUSH has been turning the screws on the Democrats, citing them for dragging their feet and placing special interests ahead of the security of the country. Senator EDWARD KENNEDY responded with a speech Friday disputing whether an attack from Iraq was eminent, and challenging the policy of a preemptive first strike. Sunday, on THIS WEEK, Congressmen JIM McDERMOTT and JOHN BONIOR, both war veterans, spoke out against President BUSH from Iraq itself, as they concluded a mission to convince the Iraqis to submit to inspections. Previous comments by CLINTON had been carefully chosen in support of President BUSH, confirming the danger of SADDAM HUSSEIN. Today’s remarks are a clear departure. It is extremely rare for ex-presidents to place themselves in the midst of foreign policy matters, particularly on foreign soil. 9.25.02 MEMO MENOS When we last checked, they were not readying the quarry for the bust of GEORGE DUBYA  BUSH at Mount Rushmore. Despite his shameless photo op with the majestic site in the background recently, there is still a treacherous path for BUSH to negotiate to gain re-election in 2004, much less a favorable dispensation from history.As we sit today, we are at war with terrorists around the world; we are desperately trying to restructure the American intelligence community to more adequately deal with the threat of terror on our home soil; we are embarking on a massive restructuring of the government to create a cabinet department for homeland security: and, we are preparing to go to war with Iraq under a newly espoused doctrine of first strike preemption. The Middle East is in the midst of a meltdown, with no solution in sight. And OSAMA BIN LADEN and thousands of his legions remain at large, eluding capture and disposition by American might. The stock market is in record decline, shrinking this week to levels not seen since the early 90’s. News from the Census Bureau today is that the number of people living in poverty is on the increase in the United States, and what’s more, income levels for the middle class have fallen for the first time since 1991. Crime is on the rise, and more disturbing, hate crime is increasing. Health care coverage for Americans is worse, not better than in 2000 despite the campaign promises from candidate BUSH. Clinics, which provide services to the bottom half of the country, those with little or no insurance, are closing. America is under a threat level yellow and advised to be vigilant. President BUSH has a real handful of critical issues to deal with as the midterm elections approach, yet all he seems focused on is war with Iraq. Does anyone really believe an attack from IRAQ is imminent? Such a war can only damage whatever credibility we have internationally for our fight against terrorism, not to mention the devastating effects on our sputtering economy. The administration has yet to balance a budget, and the deficits can only increase if the military establishment is in control of foreign policy over the next how many years. There is no talk of exit strategies if we do invade Iraq. How long will it take to clean house and institute a regime change? Nobody knows. Wasn’t it President CLINTON who was accused of "wagging the dog" in 1998, prior to the elections? How ridiculous that now seems. We were in the midst of an economic boom, crime was dropping and incomes were rising, everyone had jobs. CLINTON and the Democrats didn’t need a war to run on, they had a record. This administration had better get to work on one. And, if it is going ridding the world of terrorists, then so be it. But they at least ought to get that right. Where is BIN LADEN? Is he alive? We need answers to this, and soon. What of the rest of the terrorist organizations in the Middle East? If we’re going ride herd on these guys let’s get to it! Just what is the policy on YASSER ARAFAT and the Palestinians? Our problems with the Muslim world will not be solved without at least an attempt to provide an independent state for these people. We cannot side with ISRAEL when it is convenient, and then oppose them as we did this week with resolutions in the UN. We need a cohesive, coherent and determined policy to bring about peace in the region. To ignore the linkage of turmoil in the Middle East and the current terror threat we live under is naïve. Establishing a Palestinian state would seem to be the logical path to peace, yet BUSH has taken no steps in that direction. Ousting SADDAM HUSEIN, and setting up shop in IRAQ to divvy up oil for FRANCE and RUSSIA, among others, in return for their support for American imperialism will do nothing to improve Arab-American relations, even if we rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. To the contrary, it will only make matters worse. Much worse. If we are at a yellow stage of alert now, get ready for red baby. And what do we think is going to happen to ISRAEL once we begin bombing Bagdad? And, if the new BUSH doctrine of preemptive strikes is allowed, how can we possibly oppose it when CHINA wants to "prevent" war with TAIWAN, or NORTH KOREA does it to SOUTH KOREA, or RUSSIA to GEORGIA, or, or, or. President BUSH needs to take some bold leadership steps if he is to ever be mentioned in the same breath as LINCOLN or WASHINTON. He has shown the ability to grow in the office he holds. He has the support of the American people and the attention of the world. Going to war is not the path to greatness. How about sitting down face to face with SADDAM? If, as Secretary RUMSFELD states "we do not covet his land", then why not make some attempt at diplomacy, mano y mano. President REAGAN did it with GORBACHEV when our two countries were bitter enemies. It started us down a path to glasnost and the eventual crumbling of the "evil empire". Indeed, it is REAGAN’S legacy, the defeat of communism and the successful culmination of the Cold War. How about BUSH going to ARAFAT’S compound and standing with him in his recent efforts to condemn terrorism in Palestine and enlisting his efforts to identify HAMAS and other terrorist Islamic groups? In return BUSH could make real and concrete gestures towards the establishment of a homeland for these oppressed-the Palistinians. Perhaps then BUSH could get real support from the moderate Arab states, to stand up in unison and really make a difference in the growing schism around the world between extremist Muslims and Americans. Now that would be the stuff of legacy and legend. 4.18.02 Towards the end of the CLINTON administration, there was all too much talk about BILL and his legacy. Never mind that he had the parties in the Middle East closer than ever before to an historic, and incredibly important peace settlement. Hindsight reveals that all so clearly, now. Never mind the impossible hours and the Herculean effort that our former president expended. The cynical press along with a cadre of vocal conservative partisans pounded BILL CLINTON on his way from office. They said he was shamelessly trying to pad his "legacy". They said he was trying to divert attention from the scandals of his administration. And CLINTON keeps on taking the hits, recently being blamed for the state of affairs in Palestine by both ARI FLEISCHER and President BUSH, their belated apologies notwithstanding. So it is interesting to speculate on what kind of legacy GEORGE DUBYA may achieve. Just last evening conservative DICK MORRIS, one of CLINTON’S advisors (before the prostitute scandal), mused on CNN’S NEWSNIGHT that BUSH might one day end up on Mt. Rushmore. As laughable as that is, it could come true should the President succeed in his war on terrorism. That battle grows more difficult each day. Secretary of State COLIN POWELL has returned, having accomplished little or nothing. While, certainly, BUSH cannot be blamed for failing to bring peace to a region that has been at war for eternity. It is his policies that have failed. They have been inconsistent if not incoherent. He has critics on both the left and right on his handling of the Middle East. And BUSH has an ever-expanding heap of other trouble on his hands, none of which lends itself to a favorable legacy, much less a chiseled profile in granite. Events of this past weekend indicate an administration reacting to world developments in a fumbling manner. On Friday Venezuelan President HUGO CHAVEZ was toppled in a military coup, after his polices and the eventual killings of protestors eroded his support from the armed forces. CHAVEZ was elected with the strong backing of the poor yet his policies were beginning to smack of cronyism and corruption. He is cozy with CASTRO, and proposed to place the oil business in his country, the major export from Venezuela, in the hands of some unsavory people close to him. This didn’t sit well with demonstrators, though it appealed to the BUSH administration. They failed to timely denounce the coup and were very slow to support the democratically elected CHAVEZ. Talks were had with his successor, administration sources have since reluctantly admitted. Yet the very next day, to the surprise of the administration, CHAVEZ was reinstated to power by an uprising from the very poor that elected him. It’s not the first time BUSH officials made the wrong political calculus. In the California gubernatorial election BUSH handpicked former Los Angeles mayor to be the Republican challenger to Governor GRAY DAVIS. Just one little problem, BILL SIMON beat him in the primary. The point man for President BUSH on Latin American policy is OTTO REICH, who as it were, was not approved by the Democratically controlled Senate, but rather installed by BUSH when the Senate was out of session. I seem to recall President CLINTON catching all kinds of hell for making similar appointments during his term. Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD, the main detractor to the appointment of REICH, says the administration’s performance on the issue is lacking "more adult supervision". REICH is not new to controversy. He was an official in the REAGAN administration and deeply enmeshed in the IRAN-CONTRA scandal. His inaction on the ARGENTINE financial collapse has drawn criticism as well. He is favored by BUSH no doubt for his ultra-conservative stance on Cuba, but his performance in Latin America is so far less than stellar. The BUSH administration is facing pressure from throughout the world for two recent actions pertaining to trade. The President recently imposed tariffs of up to 30% on steel imports which has the WTO and the European Union poised to retaliate with similar levies on steel exported by the US. Similar action was taken on textiles, to the dismay of Pakistan which had hoped its cooperation in the war on terror would leave them in better stead vis-à-vis trade with the United States. Textiles are the main industry in Pakistan, and the decision earlier this year has Pakistanis feeling betrayed to say the least. That decision doesn’t bode well for the stalled war on terror. Could we have toppled the Taliban without the courage and support from Pakistan’s President MUSHAREEF? Is this how we repay him? The Defense Department, despite daily tour de force performances by Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD, is on the retreat. The Washington Post this week is reporting that the BUSH administration screwed up by not capturing OSAMA BIN LADEN at Tora Bora. He remains at large, as do nearly all of the top commanders of Al Queda, despite months and months of what we are being told is a successful war in Afghanistan. OSAMA taunts us, now daily, with newly released video slaps in the face. Yesterday, in Afghanistan the military killed 4 Canadians in a friendly fire mishap, injuring twice that many, all of them involved in a training mission there. It is not the first such friendly fire incident. And the international community continues to kick and scream about the administration’s position that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have no right to lawyers and can be held indeterminately without being charged. How long can we show such disdain to the principles of our own Constitution, international treaties and basic human rights? Worse still, just when and how badly will this come back to bite us in the ass when our own soldiers or citizens are at the behest of others less principled than we? Army Secretary THOMAS WHITE refuses to step down despite a list of burgeoning scandals in which he may have been involved as an Enron executive. Did he violate insider-trading laws when he profited more than $12 million from his sale of that company’s stock. Did he use government aircraft to fly around the country looking for homes to purchase? And was he responsible, or did he have of the faulty accounting practices that led to the massive failure of the company. Arthur Andersen, the entire firm, has been criminally indicted in that scandal which cost so many people their life savings and vast others, their jobs. Meanwhile a top ranking general, who is supposed to report to Commander-in-Chief BUSH, refuses to step down, and apparently fails to acknowledge any sensitivity to the ethical conduct becoming a government employee at such altitudes. Speaking of Enron, how is it there is no independent counsel to investigate this scandal. It has trails that lead around and about the White House, the President, the Vice-President, and members of his cabinet and armed services, yet it apparently draws little interest from Attorney General ASHCROFT. Explain to me once again why a President that steals away for some quick sex in the White House merits an international investigation leaving no stone unturned, while the collapse of one of the country’s largest companies as a result of fraud, corruption and misrepresentation, with devastating financial results effecting literally thousands if not millions of people has not yet resulted in an indictment of even one Enron official? It is absolutely baffling to me! Note, not a word on the economy, which is less than blazing; the looming bankruptcy of Social Security which hasn’t benefited from the BUSH tax cut or the vanishing surplus; skyrocketing health care costs along with the growing gaps in coverage; and the budget deficit and the prospect of years of deficit spending to fund the unlimited and exorbitant defense and homeland security needs. What chance is there for favorable resolution of these issues given the fact that BUSH’S strengths lie in the foreign policy realm? I’d say the jury is still out on the Rushmore thing. 4.8.02 GEORGE W. BUSH has demanded Israeli troops withdraw from occupied territories "without delay." COLIN POWELL and CONDOLEEZA RICE interpreted those words for the Sunday morning news shows as "now". Could those terms be any less ambiguous? Yet for 2 days ARIEL SHARON has scoffed at the American position, stepping up action in a number of Palestinian cities. He did concede he would speed up the process. Just what is the process? Israeli troops are going door to door arresting Palestinian men. Some 1500 are currently being detained, as far as we know. And those are the fortunate ones. The less fortunate are being murdered in the streets. Journalists are even being fired upon, and one American reporter was expelled from the region because Israel didn’t like the bias of his stories. What is going on? Exactly how are Israeli troops determining who is and who is not a terrorist in this terrorist "cleansing"? And more importantly, what do they think the result of this bullying is going to be? Does SHARON really believe that by bulldozing refugee camps, crumpling automobiles in the streets, arresting men and boys of fighting age for indeterminate sentences, and killing woman and children, that the rage of an entire people will disappear? Do Israelis think that the Arab world will look the other way as it commits genocide on their Arab brothers? As COLIN POWELL arrives in the region, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain, not to mention Iraq and Iran, and even France. There is no exit strategy from this reckless act of retribution. The suicide bombers are no longer Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant, radical groups. They are straight A girls and boys who see no hope in their world, no future for which to go on living. Will the Israeli tactics do anything to alter that reality? To the contrary… Even Britain’s Prime Minister TONY BLAIR seemed uncomfortable standing alongside President BUSH as he reiterated his administration’s goals to eliminate SADDAM HUSSEIN. The weekend at the ranch produced the incredulous result of BUSH admonishing SHARON, and bellowing at HUSSEIN, despite the Arab League’s resolution that an attack upon Iraq is an attack on all of the Arab states. BLAIR’S body language indicated his unease, as did his lack of any ringing endorsement for BUSH’S cowboy diplomacy. HUSSEIN responded by cutting off oil production. With the US getting 9% of its’ crude from Iraq, and gasoline prices already climbing out of control, things could get interesting. If BUSH loses BLAIR, America’s staunchest ally thus far in the war on terror, things could get downright scary. Why hasn’t BUSH cashed in on his new coziness with President PUTIN of Russia? After all, PUTIN spent a weekend on the very same ranch. And Russia is in a position to exert some pressure on Iran and Iraq among other players involved in the Middle East crisis. Russia also could play a part in neutralizing any cutbacks in oil production. And most importantly, an express and open alliance between Russia and the United States might be just the thing that could put a little stability onto a world disaster that is careening more out of control than is usual. That would also give BUSH a great deal of cache, not to mention emboss his signature on a new world order in a legitimate and thoughtful way. Perhaps that’s asking for too much . "I am the son And the heir Of a shyness that is criminally vulgar I am the son and heir Of nothing in particular You shut your mouth How can you say I go about things the wrong way ? I am Human and I need to be loved Just like everybody else does" THE SMITHS PATHWAY TO PEACE? 4.4.02 And he’s plying a pathway to peace. When he speaks up he shows just how little he knows His foreign policy is a disaster. GEORGE W. BUSH made it all too clear that he thought the approach the CLINTON administration took to bringing about peace in the Middle East was a waste of time and energy. It was just weeks ago that his spokesman ARI FLEISHER blamed CLINTON for the rapidly escalating violence there. That position was quickly reversed, but the current administration is careening out of control on the issue. Just last week they sent Vice-President DICK CHENEY to the region to attempt to get the parties to the table, and to tout the formation of an Arab summit to endorse a recent Saudi Arabian proposal for peace. That summit turned out to be a complete disaster, with YASSAR ARAFAT not even being allowed to attend. Other Arab nations withdrew from the meetings, and in the most striking development to result from the summit, all of the Arab nations joined in a resolution that any attack upon Iraq would be considered an attack on all Arab nations. No peace plan, no peace talks, and no end to the precarious conflict, which rages on. Instead, BUSH now has the specter of a war with the entire Arab world in the event he wishes to pursue his stated goal of ridding the world of Sadam Hussein. Is this the result BUSH and CHANEY intended? To make matters worse, BUSH’S policy is completely incoherent. His original idea to leave well enough alone has reaped terrible results. So on Saturday, the US delegation led an effort in the United Nations to call on Israel to cease-fire and withdraw from occupied territories in Palestine. But the very next day BUSH said from his ranch in Texas Israel has the right to defend itself from suicide bombers. In the very same statements he called upon Israel’s Prime Minister SHARON to keep open a "pathway to peace" whatever that means, and that the "pathway to peace" goes through YASSAR ARAFAT. BUSH admonished ARAFAT to do more to stop the suicide missions, at a time when ARAFAT was confined to 3 rooms in his compound, cut off from electricity, water and phone lines by the encircling Israeli forces. SHARON has decided ARAFAT is a terrorist, is responsible for the actions, which have killed nearly 100 Jews in the last week, and as such must be isolated. Meanwhile Secretary of State POWELL was quoted in the last few days as saying, "ARAFAT is not a terrorist." The administration has apparently made no attempts to get advice or counsel from any of the preceding Secretary’s of State, including MADELINE ALBRIGHT who spent nearly 8 promising years exclusively devoted to this troublesome situation. Sunday on LARRY KING LIVE, ALBRIGHT expressed her disappointment on BUSH’S lack of effort in this area. She suggested, if he didn’t approve of the policies of the CLINTON administration, at least he could fall back to former Secretary JAMES BAKER, who jumpstarted the peace process during his tenure 10 years ago. Recall BAKER was such an indispensable advisor to BUSH during the campaign and the intense battle for Florida’s electoral votes. Why not call upon him now? On Monday, despite widespread speculation that COLIN POWELL was being dispatched to the region, the Secretary of State did the morning rounds on the talk shows to state he would not be going to the Middle East. Somehow he kept a straight face when he pointed to he Arab summit as an example of a Bush administration accomplishment in the region. On this morning, President BUSH reversed that position, and went to the Rose Garden to criticize Israel and announce POWELL would go. Who’s running this circus, anyway? It’s becoming more and more clear there can be no resolution of the war on terror without a resolution of the Middle East situation. Indeed, the entire cancer spreads from this very conflict. It is also quite obvious that the hands-off approach since BUSH took office has been a dismal failure. And as hope for peace dwindles, it’s hard to imagine how these matters could have been handled any worse. Dark shadows looming over souls There walks a president we all know Whose judgement daily takes a toll His touch no longer turns to gold And so we listen very hard Perhaps some sense will come at last When we are all one and one is all To be a jock and not a pol And he’s plying a pathway to peace. send us your comments/complains: bill@manmademultimedia.com |
||||||||||
|
|
back to top