posted on May 17, 2002 12:01:58 PM new
In his concise exposition I think that Murray conveys an accurate view of world opinion about our present administration, or perhaps more precisely, those who control the puppet strings.
Perhaps the most remarkable irony that I have ever observed is that those who summarily dismiss analysis of, or calls for investigation into, the actions of the current administration by labelling them "conspiracy theories" at the same time unquestioningly support domestic and foreign policy primarily predicated upon conspiracy theories. I suppose that once doublespeak has been mastered, doublethink would be inevitable. Hail Orwell!
The Axis of Nonsense
Andrew Murray
Wednesday May 15, 2002
The Guardian
Washington's war is going à la carte. Each passing week is placing both new targets and new justifications for attack on the menu for military action. There is now not the slightest pretence that the scope of the US's regime-change wishlist is in any way tethered to the attacks of September 11. Instead, the world is witnessing the rapid emergence of a plan to dispose of any government hateful to the sight of US ultra-conservatism.
First there was the Taliban. Beyond them lay the improbable axis of evil - at the apex of which is Iraq, clearly still the next target for the unilateral attentions of the Pentagon. Now the administration's planning has moved "beyond the axis of evil", in the words of John Bolton, one of the creatures of the night occupying sub-cabinet rank in the Bush regime. The under- secretary of state identified Syria, Libya and, above all, Cuba as states that needed to come round to Washington's view of the world before Washington comes round to them, guns blazing.
The rationale behind the Bolton addendum to the axis - threadbare is perhaps too kind a word for it - is that the latest "rogue" trio are preparing to threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore paradoxical that Mr Bolton's boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, was at almost the same time asserting that weapons of mass destruction were no longer really here nor there. When it comes to removing Saddam Hussein from power, Powell said, the issue of weapons inspection was now to be considered "separate and distinct and different" from the need for "regime change".
That may seem prudent: with no justification to hand, why not make it clear that justifications are no longer required? So rumours of possessing weapons of mass destruction may serve as sufficient pretext to get a regime on to the "must change" list, but the subsequent provable absence of them will not get it off again. Only the British government is still playing along with the pretence. Everyone else has twigged that this is not a "war on terrorism", nor a "war on weapons of mass destruction". Nor can the nudge-and-a-wink sponsors of the coup against Venezuela's elected government convince anyone other than hapless Foreign Office junior Denis MacShane that they are leading a "war for democracy".
It is instead an open-ended war to make the world congenial for the most chauvinistic elements in US public life. Every government in the world they dislike is to be removed, every grudge they have been nursing from the cold war (there can be no other reason for targeting Fidel Castro) is to be exorcised. Military force may be used in some cases; while in others the well-tried methods of destabilisation, sanctions and coup will be deployed.
Where evidence and argument fail, the administration relies on effrontery. The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, demanded that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "respect the constitution" on the day he was restored to office, following the failure of the US-backed military coup against the constitution. Bolton, Rice et al seem to regard themselves as masters of the universe, and show every sign of planning to implement their maximum global programme before the US people gets the chance to elect anyone slightly more sensible.
Optimistic Europeans have clung to the illusion that September 11 would help Bush rediscover the rest of the world. If it has, then that world is to be called Texas. That may recommend itself to a British prime minister eager to dock benefits from the impoverished parents of children who truant, a Lone Star idea if ever there was one. However, he is almost alone. Even governments and peoples who may admire the US economic and political system increasingly fear the brazen lawlessness of this administration, and worry at the implications of the endless war, with its ever-expanding list of governments to be ousted.
Already the axis of evil embraces governments of widely differing kinds on three continents. Now, three more countries have been casually added to the hitlist. And who can believe that this represents the limit of US ambitions? The Bush administration and its friends don't seem to like Europeans much either. Tony Blair may imagine that by supporting the war to make the world safe for the US, he is helping in some way to make the US safe for the world. Every utterance from John Bolton and his cronies exposes the hollowness of that pretension. Britain appears to be determined to defend the ever-increasingly indefensible - right over the edge of the abyss.
posted on May 17, 2002 01:19:55 PM new
It is helpful to liken the world to a giant playground and each country's leader as a kid playing in the sand or on the swing set. It has long been stated that if the kids on the playground are only toddlers and the United States is the size of a pre-teen, then by rights shouldn't the U.S.A. be "in-charge" of those other countries?
Enter the Democrats, with a large wooden paddle peeking out briefly from the rear of the USA kid. The Kid from the USA tells others what to do and how they want it "for their own good". The threat that the Kid might back up the statements with the Paddle is ominous enough and very real. "Speak Softly and carry a Big Stick" advised Teddy Roosevelt when referring to diplomacy.
Enter the Modern Republicans, rushing in with Paddles Blazing! Since the USA Kid is the biggest Kid around, the Kid becomes the Playground Bully. Any other kid who doesn't do what the USA Kid wants "for OUR own good - not yours!" is going to get not only both sides of the Paddle, but some blows from the edges as well.
Enter the Other Kids. Not a single one of them wants to be hit with the Kid's Paddle. Since the One Rule is that a Kid must have done something to deserve the Paddle, the USA Kid can't hit them. And since none of them are doing much to deserve the Paddle, the Kid is walking around, threatening other Kids, seeing who jumps back. And we all know that Bush is Smirking when they do that. Oh, What Fun!
The USA has gone from being the World's Policeman to being the World's Bully.
posted on May 17, 2002 04:00:12 PM new
Greetings Antiquary!!! I've been planting tomatoes today and missed all the good threads. First we had to travel 100 miles down the road to buy plants because my husband is convinced that a little place in Annapolis has better plants. HaHaHa! Now that they are planted we just heard that a flood alert is in the forcast tonight so the plants may be floating tomorrow LOL!
That's a good article, Antiquary. I used it a couple of days ago in Borillar's thread, "Bush's Paranoia Getting Out of Control".
Bush has so many countries lined up for anihilation with so many irrelevant attempts at justification that it makes your head swim. I think that he knows that he can't use the terrorism justification because it's clear that a world wide network of terrorists cannot be removed by bulldozing a few countries. So, now we are going after countries that may have weapons of mass destruction or some other equally nebulous excuse.
George Bush needs a war. War is his reason and his corporate buddies reason to be. Without war George is too obviously nothing but a bungling fool. So, as long as he is in office we will be at war with somebody. Justification be damned.
posted on May 17, 2002 04:02:24 PM new
One of the ironies of Rice's statement that Chavez should respect the constitution is it was Chavez that promised and delivered the constitution to Venezuelan voters.
posted on May 17, 2002 05:12:53 PM new
The way that I look at it, if Republicans dislike sending in a Democrat/Jimmy Carter, then have them send in one of their own! All that they are doing so far is criticising Carter for being forthright and honest. In that case, they really should have sent in one of their own.
posted on May 17, 2002 05:29:17 PM new
Snowy, Rice doesn't seem to be gifted with an agile wit, does she? The necessity for all this spin control coming at once must be taxing. Or perhaps guilt from Bush administration projection into its own future?
Helen, you've allowed yourself to fall victim to us tomato cultists. A hundred miles! I understand your concerns with the rain; I've seen new transplants floating about once before. I raised some Radiator Charlies and Brandywines from seed this year -- snowyegret guilted me into it -- and they're doing well, so I'll be able to judge if the produce is as desirable as the legend.
Sorry that I duplicated your reference. I should have read the other threads more carefully before I posted it, but it's reassuring to know that Murray's words have the merit I thought.
Ken, I thought that the gif of the Revolutionary drum and fife corps was very clever. You should have left it.
Borillar, the playground analogy is apt. I tend to think of the Bully character as also having another behavior as well, the collecting of protection money or its facsimile in good, services, or support. Actually, the analogy that has been coming to my mind a lot since Bush ascended to the presidency is the economic structure of Imperial Rome.
Another irony that just recently struck me is that descriptive phrases that used to be used here and abroad, at least among other democratic nations, to describe the Soviet Union are now being used to describe our government.
Edited to supply an omitted phrase
[ edited by antiquary on May 17, 2002 05:32 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2002 10:20:55 PM new
With a little sleuthing I discovered the location of your trouble-making, Rawbunzel. Godiva's reporting certainly riled the BushBots; proper spin control must not have filtered down yet. You handled well the rather odd demands to support an assertion that you never made. The attempts to blame Clinton were funny. After eight years of blaming him for everything from hangnails to lost golf balls it's become an automatic reflex for some.
posted on May 21, 2002 05:31:11 AM new
This article from yesterday's NYT seemed shareworthy. The calm and cool discussion/analysis by the top professionals on public opinion polling is refreshing; I wish that I had a transcript of the meeting.
U.S. Attitudes Altered Little by Sept. 11, Pollsters Say
By ADAM CLYMER
T. PETERSBURG BEACH, Fla. May 19 — Authorities on public opinion meeting here this weekend expressed doubt that the attacks of Sept. 11 had led to fundamental changes in American attitudes.
Even the nation's willingness to restrict civil liberties after Sept. 11 followed historical patterns, except for resistance to singling out American Muslims, which contrasted with attitudes toward Japanese-Americans in World War II and German-Americans in World War I.
As academic and news media pollsters discussed shifts in public opinion since Sept. 11 at the 57th annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, they repeatedly reacted skeptically to the aphorism that "everything has changed."
Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center said, "Many things changed remarkably, but many things never changed." For example, Dr. Smith said, the crisis did not change attitudes toward capital punishment and gun control.
G. Donald Ferree Jr. of the University of Wisconsin said that while people spoke of religion being increasingly important to the nation after Sept. 11, their patterns of church attendance and reports of the relevance of religion to their own lives had not changed.
Kimberly Downing of the University of Cincinnati reported that after Sept. 11, people polled in the Cincinnati area were able to define what they meant by freedom more specifically. But, Dr. Downing said, only greater definition was overlaying "a relatively stable set of attitudes."
Robert J. Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health said at one session that research over more than 50 years showed that "during periods of crisis, when security against serious foreign or domestic threats becomes more important, the public will support substantial limits on civil liberties."
"This includes limits on freedom of speech, the press, right to a fair trial and individual privacy, even as they affect average citizens," Dr. Blendon said. But support for such curbs is "cyclical" and declines after the threat recedes, he added.
In that context, he said, public support for the use of military tribunals or for eavesdropping on lawyers' conversations with clients was consistent with curbs on liberties the public supported in World War II and at the height of the cold war.
But the country had changed dramatically since then in terms of its attitude toward minorities, he said, and the support for putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps found no parallel in attitudes toward Muslims today.
Chase Harrison of the University of Connecticut reported that polls showed the public was scarcely readier to restrict the freedom of Muslims than of other Americans. This was demonstrated, Mr. Harrison said, in a survey that identified the targets of possible restrictions, like being jailed without a warrant, as "Muslim or Arab" to half of those polled, but without any specific identification to the other half. The percentages supporting the restrictions were about the same in both groups, he said.
One group that has not supported new government powers is African-Americans, said Sarah L. Dutton and Jennifer De Pinto of CBS News.
Combining data from CBS News and New York Times/CBS News Polls, the two concluded that "blacks were much more alarmed about the possible loss" of civil liberties than whites were, though none of the Bush administration proposals in the survey focused on them.
George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati argued that several reported changes in public opinion, including trust in government and approval of President Bush's handling of his job, were not changes in attitudes.
The higher numbers expressing trust in government, Dr. Bishop said, reflected only changes in the context in which those polled heard the question. For Mr. Bush and "government in Washington," he contended, people were concentrated on how he and the government were dealing with terrorism. Contrary to the interpretations of some analysts, he said, there was no sudden affection for big government.
Dr. Bishop's view of trust in government was supported by Gary Langer of ABC News, who said his polls showed that when people were asked if they trusted the government to deal with terrorism, their answers reflected the same levels of trust as when they were asked an unspecific question about trusting government.
Dr. Bishop said pollsters had an obligation not to make too much of answers to "the vague questions that have become our stock in trade" like "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president?" He said pollsters had an obligation to follow up and ask people "what they mean when they say they approve or disapprove."
posted on May 22, 2002 10:37:02 AM new
We continue to learn from the Bush administration that Justice should never have been depicted as blind, though she currently embodies a condition that in less politically correct times was known as being deaf and dumb. Ever mindful of the public good in the Information Age, Ashcroft lowered and lengthened the protective cover so that we would never have to be offended by seeing the naked truth.
In the olden days, before I recognized the symbolic significance of Ashcroft's cover-ups of the naked truth at the DOJ and consequently converted and rededicated my life to new order Bushism--though I'm still only an apprentice BushBot--I would have seen the DOJ's release in the article below as almost farcially token. Hopefully the details of the entire investigation will be quickly classified so there'll be no further time wasted in refusing to answer questions about it.
Justice Dept. to File 5 Suits on Voting Problems in 2000
By LYNETTE CLEMETSON
WASHINGTON, May 21 — The Bush administration today announced plans to file five lawsuits saying there had been voting rights violations in the 2000 presidential elections. Three of the lawsuits will be filed against counties in Florida, center of the bitter dispute that ultimately secured the Bush presidency.
Accusations in the cases include discriminatory treatment of minority voters, purging of voter rolls, failure to provide access to disabled voters and failure to provide assistance to voters with limited English proficiency, said Ralph Boyd, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division.
The two other suits involve cities in Missouri and Tennessee.
The lawsuits will not seek to overturn the results of the 2000 election but are intended to induce the counties and cities involved to ensure that minority voters are not disenfranchised in the 2002 elections. Still, the lawsuits would place the Bush administration in agreement with complaints of civil rights leaders like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who contended that minority voters in Florida were discriminated against in the 2000 presidential balloting.
The cases will be filed "well in advance of the primaries for the 2002 elections," Mr. Boyd testified in a combative hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pressed for a more specific timeline, Mr. Boyd said it was "likely and probable that the cases will be filed in the next 30 to 60 days."
Members of groups who contested the election results said they were eager to hear specifics.
"We are certainly glad that they are finally engaged, but the devil is in the details," said Hilary O. Shelton, Washington director of the N.A.A.C.P. "We will be looking very closely at the specifics in their cases, and what remedies they are seeking."
Among the details raising concern is why the administration's action is focused on counties and cities rather than state-level agencies. Some of the accusations by civil rights groups, for example, erroneous purging of voters, were violations said to be conducted by state offices, like the secretary of state. Remedies to those problems, critics charge, can be addressed only at the state level.
Mr. Boyd refused to identify the counties and cities named in the suits or give details. But Murray Greenberg, first assistant county attorney for Miami-Dade County, said he received a call 10 days ago from the Justice Department stating that the administration intended to file suit against the county for its failure to provide language assistance to Creole-speaking voters.
"We're not saying anything specific about the jurisdictions at this point and we have no further guidance on the charges involved until the suits have been filed," a spokesman for the Justice Department said after the hearings.
One reason the Justice Department has refused to discuss the cases is that it is discussing settlements with the Florida counties and cities involved. "My hope, my aspiration and my expectation is that in each of those we'll reach an enforceable agreement prior to the filing of the lawsuit," Mr. Boyd told committee members today.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who spent most of the hearing confronting Mr. Boyd on what they deemed slow and regressive tactics of the Bush administration on a number of civil rights issues, were surprised by the announcement. They were quick to criticize the timeliness of the action.
"I question why these investigations have taken 18 months and why, with the primary season only a few months away, the Department of Justice has not mobilized a plan to make sure these voting rights abuses do not occur again," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a statement after the proceedings.
"There are civil rights organizations that have moved much more quickly than this with much fewer resources," said Senator John Edwards, Democrat of North Carolina, who initially raised the question of the status of voting rights lawsuits to Mr. Boyd during the hearing.
The Justice Department says it was delayed in taking action because of the volume of complaints it received. By January 2001, the civil rights division had received 11,000 complaints involving voting rights violations, Mr. Boyd testified. By Inauguration Day it had narrowed its investigation to 20 cases nationwide, including 12 in Florida. Two more investigations involving Florida were soon added. Justice officials refused to specify when and how they revised their list down to the five cases they announced today.
A coalition of civil rights organizations including the N.A.A.C.P., People for the American Way Foundation, the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights and the A.C.L.U. had filed suit against Florida state and county officials, including Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, in January 2001.
Settlements have already been reached with two counties: Leon, which includes the area in and around Tallahassee; and Broward, which includes Ft. Lauderdale.
