 |
 |
 |
|
politics>
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
COMPASSIONATE DISASTER-FROM BLOW JOBS TO WORLD WAR III? Memo Meños 3.5.03 What a sea change the America has undergone in the last several years. We went from the ridiculous folly of impeaching a President (or at least trying) for having pseudo "sexual relations" in the White House, to compassionate conservatism and the brink of nuclear world war. How tame those days before the millennium seem, when we were so worked up over a presidential blowjob. We now await our president who may set in motion actions which could blow all of our minds. Just take a moment and contemplate what is happening. President BUSH is days away from initiating a war against a beehive nation of terrorists and anti-Americans. The premise of the preemptive attack, unprecedented in our history, is that it will make Americans safer. On its face the proposition is laughable. The underlying goals of regime change alongside democratization and nation building in the Middle East are equally absurd. In the process, BUSH is embarking on a campaign to trivialize and neutralize THE UNITED NATIONS and NATO. He has publicly challenged their viability and effectiveness, hinting at their obscelesence if the US must act without their support and approval. Talk about the height of arrogance. How do we rebuild these vital organizations once we have had our way with war? It is without question we will need NATO and THE UNTIED NATIONS to do our dirty work, if not God’s work around the globe, once the heavy lifting is done. If we had bolstered the efforts of these organizations more thoughtfully over the years, we may not even be in this precarious position. And now, in the midst of our tangle with IRAQ, comes NORTH KOREA. For so long a non-entity in world affairs, President BUSH found a way to elevate KIM JONG IL to a major player on the global stage. So much so that today’s LA TIMES reports that "the BUSH administration has concluded that it cannot prevent NORTH KOREA from developing nuclear weapons." Moreover, the axis of evil nation has missiles capable of delivering said weapons to the shores of the United States. They have every incentive imaginable to market these instruments of mass destruction to terrorists around the world, since their economy is sputtering, in part because of our policies of economic sanctions against the nation. MOLLY IVANS sums up the BUSH administrations mishandling of NORTH KOREA in her article "HARD TO FATHOM HOW BUSH COULD MAKE A BIGGER MESS OF KOREA CRISIS". Now MOLLY is no BUSH fan, as you may know. She is a journalist from Texas where she has kept a close eye out for "shrub", as she likes to refer to the younger BUSH. But her analysis of the myriad mistakes in the foreign policy towards NORTH KOREA and KIM JONG IL are enlightening, albeit frightening. NORTH KOREA, according to IVANS, was "sending signals it was ready to deal", until BUSH came into office and humiliated SOUTH KOREAN President KIM DAE JUNG, by renouncing his "sunshine policy" efforts to reopen a dialogue with their communist neighbor. BUSH went on to alienate the eccentric KIM JONG IL by calling NORTH KOREA a rogue state, and professing his loathing for its "pygmy" leader on a "visceral level". The icing on the cake was the inclusion of NORTH KOREA in the "axis of evil" triad and we now face a nation that truly is a threat to the safety of Americans right here in our own backyard. KIM JONG IL may be producing nuclear weapons at the rate of one per day, and we are "loathe" to do anything about it, short of embarking on World War III. Meanwhile AMERICANS are arrested here at home for wearing t-shirts that are critical of the war. Celebrities are lambasted for speaking out against the president, and ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT and the Justice Department gather more and more power. Power, which is slowly being used to restrict and reverse civil liberties, which are the core of our so-called freedom. It is that very same freedom for which terrorists are alleged to hate us. It couldn’t be that they just want a place to live in peace and a hope for a prosperous future? Nah, it’s their hate for freedom. What dreamy times those days in the 90’s now seem. The nation was awash in the guilty pleasure of watching BILL CLINTON squirm out of the sticky mess into which he got himself. We all gossiped about the deposition, or the blue dress, or MONICA’S weight. Now, compassionate conservatism has us wondering if we can ever travel beyond our borders, or if we dare disagree with our President and his rush to war. Will there be riots in the street? Are Democrats and Republicans embarked on a bitter period of hate and distrust? How many Americans will come home in body bags? And what terror lies in store for the United States, and unwitting other locales, like the Philippines, Indonesia and Nigeria? If this is what a compassionate conservative America is all about, I’d rather have president’s getting blowjobs in the White House. It seems a whole lot safer, not to mention kinder and gentler. memo menos 2.4.03 Another week has gone by, and there are dozens of presidential outrages to scream about. Not least of which is the president’s budget, submitted to congress yesterday, calling for deficits of $304 billion this year, and $307 billion in excesses next year. The red ink will pass a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. (BUSH parted from the traditional practice of budget estimates going out 10 years, no doubt to hide what could be multiple trillion-dollar losses.) And get this, the costs of a war with Iraq, or God forbid, a war with North Korea are not even included. President BUSH has estimated a military conflict in Iraq could run between $50 billion and $300 billion, but who really knows. BUSH indicates if it is necessary, he will ask congress for an emergency expenditure to cover such military expenses. What he needs is an emergency bailout to save his budget. Democrats call it the most fiscally irresponsible budget in decades. Former majority leader TOM DASCHLE said. "The president’s budget is worse than a bad movie that no one wants to see twice. It’s a budget-busting epic disaster." DASCHLE in noting the rapid decline from the $5.6 trillion surplus projected by CLINTON called it "the worst fiscal collapse in our history." Senator KENNEDY called it a "ripoff for the rich." Praise for the budget among republicans was scarce. Senator DON NICKLES called it an "excellent starting point." But none of the republicans who had the courage to face the media about the budget would commit to its’ full support. It all sounded swell in his State of the Union speech last week. He had proposals and programs for everyone and everything, including Aids relief for Africa. Aside being one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard, I wondered aloud as he delivered it: "Where is the money coming from?" Particularly in light of his announcement later in the week that he would propose a plan whereby savings account earnings, interest income, would no longer be taxed. Say what? Are you kidding? Why not just open a millionaires assistance office where the rich and powerful can pick up a weekly dividend check from the Bush government? Not only are we diving headlong into a war against an opponent which is neither connected to the war on terrorism, nor an imminent threat, but we are destroying our once surplus rich economy. The tax system is being made more and more regressive. That means a bigger percentage of the burden of government will fall upon the middle and lower income populations. Now that’s conservatism without the compassion. And true to form, the BUSH administration is doing all it can to privatize our national parks. Some 70% of the Department of the Interior’s paid employees are being looked at for phase out. Not only has BUSH rolled back key regulations that CLINTON put in place to protect the environment, he is rapidly implementing his own policies to facilitate its’ exploitation by private industry. BUSH is hell bent on opening federally protected lands to drilling and logging. Last week the administration tried to slide through Arctic drilling legislation in a budget bill. The device was a way to get around possible filibuster maneuvers by democrats. But to BUSH’S surprise, 6 republican senators blocked the effort. Republicans McCAIN, COLLINS, SNOWE, CHAFEE, FITZGERALD, and DeWINE sent a letter to the republican leadership in the senate advising that the drilling measure had serious ramifications for the environment, and stating it should be considered apart from the budget considerations. Why doesn’t BUSH understand this? And why won’t Attorney General ASHCROFT leave states to decide whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes? In a much-watched case in San Francisco, ED ROSENTHAL was convicted in federal court for possession and conspiracy to cultivate the drug, a crime that could land him in jail for 10 years to life. ROSENTHAL is a bit of a legend in the medical marijuana field, advising users how to grow, cultivate and use the drug for relief from the effects of cancer drugs, Aids, glaucoma, and other maladies. Californians in 1996 passed by public initiative Proposition 215 legalizing the drug for medical use. The federal judge in the case refused to allow the jury to know ROSENTHAL’S involvement was in this medical nature. What business does ASHCROFT have in setting aside the will of the people. I though republicans were for less government. I guess that only applies to those situations where government infringes upon the interests of the rich and powerful. So we wait, anxious and concerned for what comes next from our president. His audacity, both in the scope of the programs he hopes to implement, and the boldness for which he is attempting to reward the rich and further burden the poor, is stunning to say the least. What is more stunning is the ease with which he is doing it. Memo Menos 1.9.03 A day doesn’t go by that I am not dumbfounded by the machinations of the BUSH administration. The announcement Tuesday that DUBYA was going to push for no tax on dividends, as part of his economic stimulus package is not so much surprising as it is typical. A Republican president trying to implement sweeping tax reforms that have as their ultimate result, vast savings for the wealthy few that for the most part make up the Republican right. Look for the estate tax to be jettisoned if BUSH is reelected in 2004. As far as the economic plan, BUSH was shrewd enough to sprinkle in some interesting bones for the masses. The $3,000 employment accounts for those who get themselves off the unemployment rolls is a unique wrinkle. It sure beats just paying for people to sit around unemployed. For the most part it is just a gimmick, but it does the trick, distracting the have-nots with the lure of $3,000, while sliding huge and continuing tax savings for the haves. You’ve got to hand it to DUBYA, he’s not just stumbling through. There are other aspects of the plan worth merit, namely the exemption from tax-free dividends, those companies who pay no income tax. On first blush, that seems the right thing to do. Also, the reduction of income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers. Who can be against that? No matter that the voodoo economics of the REAGAN administration, and that his father’s subsequent brief run in the White House nearly destroyed the American economy with deficits and rising numbers of those living in the poverty level. How quickly we forget those heady times of the CLINTON administration when people were moving out of poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor was narrowing, unemployment was a thing of the past, crime was on the wane, budgets were finally balanced budgets giving rise to government surpluses, and the economy was booming. Those days appear to be gone, if not forever, then at least until we get another Democrat in the White House. But what is really troubling is the audacity with which BUSH, and ASHCROFT are dismantling the civil rights of Americans, and the rest of the citizens of the world. On the same day that BUSH announced his tax cuts, he also quietly re-nominated a batch of extremely controversial judges for confirmation by his now Republican controlled Senate. The most glaring of those nominations is CHARLES PICKERING, who was already rejected by the Senate in its’ last term. PICKERING is a fellow Mississippian, and a good friend of Senator TRENT LOT. What’s more, he shares his questionable background on civil rights issues. He was criticized by the last Judiciary Committee for a case where he went out of his way to provide a lenient sentence to a man who burned a cross on the lawn of a mixed race couple. In years past before he was a judge, CHARLES PICKERING advocated the illegality of mixed marriages, and switched his political affiliation over racial issues pertaining to the national democratic conventions in 1964. After the brouhaha the country went through over LOTT’S insensitive remarks (not to mention his historical record of insensitivity on racial issues), it is bold, if not outrageous that President BUSH would seek to have someone who is considered of the same elk, to be a permanently installed as a federal appellate court judge. Whether or not this was a move to help LOTT save face, or to rehabilitate PICKERING’S image, or even to appease the right wing base of the Republican party, it is the wrong thing to do. Surely there are plenty of qualified judicial nominees who don’t cart around this kind of racial baggage, even if it may be overstated by PICKERING’S detractors. And more importantly, closing the racial divide that exists, and was exacerbated by the LOTT fiasco is far nobler than servicing the egos of a senator and a federal court judge. Hellloooo! So much for new Senate leader BILL FRISTS’S sentiments that "our agenda is inclusive of all Americans." And then today, the papers announce the news that the BUSH administration and JOHN ASHCROFT have won a ruling in the federal appeals court allowing them to hold American citizens indefinitely, whilst denying them legal representation or even so much as notice of the charges for which they are being held. All because BUSH claims we are at war and the detainee is a combatant. This is really scary my friends. I mean, think about it. Are we really at war? The act of terrorism that occurred on 9-11 was an act of illegality. It was a crime. We should have sought prosecution in the world court. It was not any different in legal terms than the blowing up of the federal building in Oklahoma by TIMOTHY McVEIGH. He was found, prosecuted, and sent to jail. The same should happen to those in Al Queda who participated in the World Trade Center tragedy. We are not at war with anybody, really (at least not yet. Sometimes I think the war with Iraq is a tool to allow the BUSH administration free range in its’ investigative tactics in the "war" on terrorism.). And to use that nomenclature to justify the imprisonment of American citizens, or anyone for that matter, and the holding of them indefinitely without notice of charges against them or any contact with legal representation is as revolting to the principles of democracy and freedom as I can imagine. It is just wrong, period! It is unbelievable that this goes on, right under our noses, on our own soil, with the blessing of the federal courts, the same federal appellate courts BUSH wants to load up with more conservatives with disdain for civil rights. And we just go about our business. Meanwhile, BUSH’S popularity continues to rise. It is shocking. When will Democrats speak up? Where are the voices of reason, JOHN KERRY, JOHN EDWARDS, JOE LIEBERMAN, DICK GEPHARDT? Pull your heads out and lead! Stay tuned, as the BUSH burns…
Movie Stars and Celebrities joined with former top military officials this past week to challenge President Bush administration’s Iraq policy. The coalition "Artists United to Win Without War" held a press conference to announce their opposition against Bush’s War Policy. "We stand as loyal Americans who want to win the war against terrorism and believe that an unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq will harm our country and divert resources from our nation’s number one security priority: preventing future terrorist attacks" said Jeaneane Garofalo. A letter signed by over 100 celebrities and military officials titled "Win Without War" was unveiled at the conference in what organizers referred to as an "unprecedented outpouring" of support from the entertainment industry. "I always believed war is based on despair, and in this case this is not a war on despair," said Martin Sheen. "We need to think about educating and fixing up our school systems, not fighting a war," said Mimi Kennedy star of Dharma and Greg. "It’s not moral and it’s not humble," she said. "Artists United to Win Without War," was co-founded by actor Mike Farrell and director Robert Greenwald to bring attention based on several concerns about War. One concern is that the American security can be protected without the human and economic costs of war; that the U.S. should not break 200 years of precedence by launching a pre-emptive strike, and the President should keep his nation’s attention focused on winning the War against terrorism. "The breadth of support within the entertainment community for this statement in opposition to war is unprecedented," said Mike Farrell. This reflects the deep concern that so many have had about the dangers of a military invasion and expresses their firm desire to see Iraq disarmed without War," he said. Martin Sheen quote: "This is not a war based on despair" Mike Farrell quote: "This reflects the deep concern so many have had about the dangers of military invasion. Eugene Carroll quote : We need to protect our country Mimi Kennedy quote: It’s not moral and it’s not humble 12.19.02 MEMO MENOS Who would have thought that after the Republicans’ stunning, and devastating victories in midterm elections, that we’d be witnessing a public humiliation and political execution of one of the most influential Republican leaders, TRENT LOTT, barely a month later. The display is amazing; not only in the speed in which LOTT has disintegrated, but also in the ravenous appetite the Republican cannibals have exhibited. President GEORGE BUSH is the most prominent of the attackers. His public rebuke of the Senate leader, and then lack of any show of support despite the unending apologies and transformations by LOTT is quite telling. The White House clearly doesn’t want LOTT to survive. How could they, he is a pariah now, and will serve no purpose as the point man in the Senate for the BUSH conservative agenda. CHARLES PICKERING, the beleaguered nominee to the federal appellate bench, and a c lose friend os Senator LOTT is a good case in point. His nomination was a lightning rod in the last congress, with Democrats succeeding in defeating his nomination, to the bitter disappointment of Republicans and the administration. One of PICKERING’S peccadilloes was his insensitivity to the race issue in some of his rulings from the Federal District Court in his home state of Louisiana. Republicans, giddy from their newly acquired control of the Senate, had vowed to resubmit PICKERING for approval to the appointment. How can they possibly do that now? Even if LOTT is forced out of his leadership post, the issue is red hot right now, and BUSH would be foolish to try PICKERING again. For that matter, the Republicans will be hard pressed to float any nominee with any racial issues in his background. And there are several, including CAROLYN KUHL, who fought to preserve the tax exempt status of BOB JONES UNIVERSITY during the REAGAN administration, and TERRENCE BOYLE, a protégé of Senator JESSE HELMS. Somehow, TRENT LOTT has managed to give life to an issue, segregation, which for all intents and purposes Republicans had put behind them long ago. And, LOTT is talking full support for affirmative action for goodness sake. BUSH and conservatives must be pulling their hair out. Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT was poised to file briefs in a racial affirmative action case which will be decided by the Supreme Court next year. BUSH would be crazy to proceed with that now. What’s more, LOTT has promised to co-sponsor civil rights legislation with black members of the House, and he will be touring burial sites of slaves and other prominent leaders of the African-American community who perished in the civil rights battle. This is not exactly what the right had in mind when they swept the elections a little over a month ago. So, why is it then that PRESIDENT BUSH is allowing LOTT to twist in the wind doing the piñata shuffle? He should cut him down, but quick. But there are no easy choices. If the Republicans abandon LOTT too quickly, he may bolt the Senate altogether, unhappy with serving out his term as a backbencher senator. The taste of power is hard to get over. LOTT’S governor in Mississippi is a Democrat, so if TRENT were to commit hare kare and leave altogether, a prospect which is incredulous but possible, then his successor would almost certainly be a Democrat. And then, control of the Senate, which the Republicans thought just last month was finally in their grasp, would fall to some amorphous circumstance and complicated set of rules with a 50-50 split of power. Again, not what the Republicans were dancing in the streets about just 45 days ago. And whom does the White House back in place of LOTT? Do they throw behind even more conservative, and perhaps equally vulnerable to the race issue, DON NICKLES? The irony in all this is that it is the conservatives who have given life to the LOTT controversy. BUSH or any other prominent Republican could have stopped this bleeding at any time. In their greed, the right wanted a new, more conservative leader of the Senate, one who would not compromise on legislation with the Democrats. They may win the battle but lose the war on this one. And so, does BUSH go full bore and back NICKLES? Or must he now reach out and mend fences with minorities, particularly African-Americans and Latinos, with presidential elections fast approaching? Senator BILL FRIST is said to be a kinder, gentler Republican. Conservatives must be livid. It is quite astounding, given the election results. Democrats thought they would be on the run, particularly with AL GORE talking about making another run for the presidency. But everything seems to have turned, and now liberals have the prospect of fresh new faces to challenge for the White House in 2004. And they have ample ammunition to keep the reigns on runaway Republicans for the next 2 years. Already there is talk of advancing legislation to revive a hate crime bill, extend unemployment benefits, and there’s new leverage to skew tax cuts towards minority interests. What is most interesting, particularly after the lambasting Republicans gave President CLINTON when he did this dance, is that a prominent Republican is now doing the piñata shuffle. Just watch him twist and turn. LOTT is nothing, if not defiant in the face of the growing furor. "I am hanging in there; I am going to fight through this.," he told reporters yesterday. It won’t be long, now. He’s going to blow, and the hopes of Republicans for a runaway train of conservative legislation for the next 2 years will spill out all over the political stage. Ain’t politics grand? 12.11.02 MEMO MENOS At the risk of sounding like a Bitter Betty, what the hell is going on in this country! The Republican leader, Senator TRENT LOTT has lost his mind. What was he thinking, saying this country would be better off if bigoted, segregationist STROM THURMOND had been president? And then he shrugs it off with a half-assed apology, only now to have to explain why he said nearly the exact same thing 20 years ago at a rally for President REAGAN. The man is evil. And wasn’t it back in REAGAN’S heralded reign that this country first came to grips with "supply side" economics. That voodoo nearly bankrupt our nation with huge deficits, skyrocketing unemployment and inflation. Why are we right back to where we started on this? President BUSH has clearly failed at economics in his first term. Hence the sacking of his economic team, to little regard. Now comes word that one of his appointments, STEPHEN FRIEDMAN, is being held up by conservatives because he doesn’t embrace "supply side, deficit laden" economic policies. First of all, why would he? The stuff doesn’t work. But more frightening, what are conservatives doing dictating policy for President BUSH. Who’s driving this careening bus, anyway? Interesting enough, conservatives didn’t have a peep to say about BUSH’S other appointment, JOHN W. SNOW. As CEO of CSX, a nationwide rail company, SNOW got huge salaries and perks, whilst calling for corporate ethics and responsibilities from business leaders. Say what? Do what I say, not what I do, like $36 million in salary over 4 years and $24 million in forgiven loans. All of which may be legal, but as Secretary of the Treasury, does it make for a good appearance. CSX earned $1 billion in pretax profits for those 4 years, but didn’t pay any taxes in 2 of the 4. Appearances, who needs them! After all, SNOW has agreed to resign his membership in Augusta. You know Augusta, it’s that good ole boys country club in once segregated Atlanta that doesn’t allow women, the one TIGER WOODS is catching all the heat about. Couldn’t BUSH find a single nominee that didn’t have bigotry and bias, and good ole boy stink on his hands? Why is it that Republicans always seem to miss the boat when it comes to the appearance of wrongdoing in their control of political power? They just don’t get it. A BUSH appointee to the federal bench this week got Vice President DICK CHENEY off the hook, if only temporarily, by dismissing the General Accounting Office’s lawsuit to seek disclosure of who CHENEY met with to shape energy policy in this country two years ago. The information is of some interest, not only because the administration had the audacity to think it could be kept form the public’s view, but also because of the virtual lack of any policy, not even to mention an effective one. They have eased clean air restrictions and fuel emission standards, and done all they could to help big business at the expense of the consumer and the environment, including proposing drilling in the pristine forests of Alaska. Some policy. Meanwhile, ENRON and it’s fat cat executives, good ole boys by the dozens, have depleted the pocketbooks of California residents in blatant criminal wrongdoing, and eroded the retirement funds of their employees, whilst bankrupting the one of the nation’s largest corporations. All the while, the good ole boys have been jet-setting around the world, skiing and living the high life, and I don’t mean Miller time. Shouldn’t people go to jail for this kind of stuff? Not good ole boys, apparently. You bet we want to know what those meetings were about, and how many of them were with ENRON executives? All of this, and President BUSH is still enjoying remarkably high approval ratings. The country supports him on starting a war with Iraq, and somehow, a majority feels we aqre winning the war on terrorism. BUSH has the congress, both the House and the Senate in his pocket. Look for the good ole boy trickle down to really get into full swing-more war, more deficit spending, more ridiculous apologies and half-truths from ethically challenged leaders like TRENT LOTT, more unemployment, higher interest rates, more corporate shenanigans, and a whole lot more good ole boy trickle down hocus pocus. Didn’t we learn this lesson in the 80’s? Trickle down is a bunch of crap. The only good thing about supply side theory-eventually the bullshit, the lies, the greed, and the mendacity leads to the Republican leadership tumbling, not trickling down. 11.21.02 MEMO MENOS TOM DASCHLE, yesterday invited the media to a bitch session on the "shrill" tone of Republican partisanship. He specifically cited the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show as a reason for an increase in threats received by Democrats in public life. DASCHLE’S comments came as he summed up the congressional session that marks the end of his role as Senate majority leader. The reality is that Democrats need to find themselves some new and vital leaders. DASCHLE is a good guy, but hardly the presence and meaningful speaker that BILL CLINTON was. The same can be said for DICK GEBHARDT, the Democrats leader in the House, who saw fit to step down as this session came to a close. NANCY PELOSI, the first woman to hold such a position, was elected to GEBHARDT’S post Monday. But if the Democrats are going to regain their relevance, they will have to put forward leaders who have something to say, leaders who have the guts to take a stand on positions, and put their necks on the line. There were plenty of such issues in this congressional term. Our country is mired in deficits once again, with little hope of the budget surpluses that the CLINTON administration diligently achieved. Those surpluses may indeed have been a significant factor in the booming economy for the last 8 years. We are now on the verge of a double dip recession, with prospects of an endless and expensive war against terrorism and Iraq. Civil liberties are under an all out attack. The government is expanding its power to wire tap, to arrest, to hold indefinitely and to keep secret its’ actions. United States unmanned aircraft summarily killed 5 people in Yemen, one of whom was an American citizen, just on the suspicion that they were Al Queda suspects. What have things come to? Does the constitution have any meaning at all anymore? Beyond that, do we care about how we are perceived around the world? Would we tolerate actions of another state if they went around killing "suspects"? Get real! There are issues, which could be the focal point of a Democratic message. DASCHLE and GEBHARDT were just not "shrill" enough in conveying them. As a result of the Republicans gains in the midterm elections, there will be more. Legislation favoring big business will be flying through congress, as will conservative judicial nominations. Look for the deficits to increase and the economy to decline. Democrats need to do less whining, and more leading. Along those lines, Boston was picked as the site for the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Massachusetts happens to be home to Senator JOHN KERRY, Vietnam War veteran and moderate. He, along with North Carolina Senator JOHN EDWARDS and Vermont governor HOWARD DEAN have expressed an interest in running in 2004. They’d better get themselves out front on some of these issues, and say something that inspires Democrats, lest we find ourselves having to suffer through another run by AL GORE. Now I’d get shrill over that one. 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|