The Kerry campaign is coming to Virginia. Last election post for a while, I promise (well, until I feel compelled to write another one, at least). But this one relates to my home state, that cranky Old Dominion, the Commonwealth of Virginia. Which hasn't gone blue in a presidential election since LBJ in '64, which Bush won by 8 percentage points in 2000...and Kerry's expending resources to try to win with "television spots...biographical in nature". This has disaster written ALL over it. I mean, I'm not against going out on a limb and ignoring traditional wisdom and trying to steal some electoral votes, but could we please concentrate on spending this money to lock up Pennsylvania, Michigan and the other swing states first?

Though if he really wants to try to win Virginia, I'll help.
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 3:26 AM 0 comments

 
Bill Clinton can save John Kerry. I know that's an odd statement, especially considering that the Clintons would rather Kerry lost so Hillary can run in an open election in '08. But I mean it: Bill Clinton can save Kerry. How? By teaching him through his historical example. I spoke at length in previous posts about how Kerry wasn't separating himself from Bush, wasn't detailing every mistake the incumbent made and painting a crystal clear picture of how he would do things differently. Well, Bill Clinton did that to Bush Sr., and he won. Standing on principle, and not tip-toeing around direct and constant criticism, is what set Bill Clinton apart. Circumstances are different twelve years later, but the lessons remain cogent. Take Clinton's announcement of his candidacy for President:

Thank you all for being here today, for your friendship and support, for giving me the opportunity to serve as your Governor for 11 years, for filling my life full of blessings beyond anything I ever deserved.

I want to thank especially Hillary and Chelsea for taking this big step in our life's journey together. Hillary, for being my wife, my friend, and my partner in our efforts to build a better future for the children and families of Arkansas and America. Chelsea, in ways she is only now coming to understand, has been our constant joy and reminder of what our public efforts are really all about: a better life for all who will work for it, a better future for the next generation.

All of you, in different ways, have brought me here today, to step beyond a life and a job I love, to make a commitment to a larger cause: Preserving the American Dream ... Restoring the hopes of the forgotten middle class... Reclaiming the future for our children.

I refuse to be part of a generation that celebrates the death of Communism abroad with the loss of the American Dream at home.

I refuse to be part of a generation that fails to compete in the global economy and so condemns hard-working Americans to a life of struggle without reward or security.

That is why I stand here today...because I refuse to stand by and let our children become part of the first generation to do worse than their parents. I don't want my child or your child to be part of a country that's coming apart instead of coming together.

Over 25 years ago, I had a professor at Georgetown who taught me that America was the greatest country in history because our people believed in and acted on two simple ideas: first, that the future can be better than the present; and second, that each of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.

That fundamental truth has guided my public career, and brings me here today. It is what we've devoted ourselves to here in Arkansas. I'm proud of what we've done here in Arkansas together. Proud of the work we've done to become a laboratory of democracy and innovation. And proud that we've done it without giving up the things we cherish and honor most about our way of life. Solid, middle-class values of work, Will, family, individual responsibility, and community.

As I’ve traveled across our state, I've found that everything we believe in, everything we've fought for, is threatened by an administration that refuses to take care of our own, has turned its back on the middle class, and is afraid to change while the world is changing.

The historic events In the Soviet Union in recent months teach us an important lesson: National security begins at home. For the Soviet Empire never lost to us on the field of battle. Their system rotted from the inside out, from economic, political and spiritual failure.

To be sure, the collapse of communism requires a new national security policy. I applaud the President's recent initiative in reducing nuclear weapons. It is an important beginning. But make no mistake - the end of the Cold War is not the end of threats to America. The world is still a dangerous and uncertain place. The first and most solemn obligation of the president is to keep America strong and safe from foreign dangers, and promote democracy around the world.

But we cannot build a safe and secure world unless we can first make America strong at home. It is our ability to take care of our own at home that gives us the strength to stand up for what we believe around the world.

As governor for 11 years, working to preserve and create jobs in a global economy, I know our competition for the future is Germany and the rest of Europe, Japan and the rest of Asia. And I know that we are losing America's leadership in the world because we're losing the American dream right here at home.

Middle class people are spending more hours on the job, spending less time with their children, bringing home a smaller paycheck to pay more for health care and housing and education. Our streets are meaner, our families are broken, our health care is the costliest in the world and we get less for it.

The country is headed in the wrong direction fast, slipping behind, losing our way...and all we have out of Washington is status quo paralysis. No vision, no action. Just neglect, selfishness, and division.

For 12 years, Republicans have tried to divide us - race against race - so we get mad at each other and not at them. They want us to look at each other across a racial divide so we don't turn and look to the White House and ask, why are all of our incomes going down, why are all of us losing jobs? Why are we losing our future?

Where I come from we know about race-baiting. They've used it to divide us for years. I know this tactic well and I'm not going to let them get away with it.

For 12 years, the Republicans have talked about choice without really believing in it. George Bush says he wants school choice even if it bankrupts the public schools, and yet he's more than willing to make it a crime for the women of America to exercise their individual right to choose.

For 12 years, the Republicans have been telling us chat America's problems aren't their problem. They washed their hands of responsibility for the economy and education and health care and social policy and turned it over to fifty states and a thousand points of light. Well, here in Arkansas we've done our best to create jobs and educate our people. And each of us has tried to be one of those thousand points of light But I can tell you, where there is no national vision, no national partnership, no national leadership, a thousand points of light leaves a lot of darkness.

We must provide the answers...the solutions. And we will. We're going to turn this country around and get it moving again, and we're going to fight for the hard-working middle-class families of America for a change.

Make no mistake - this election is about change: in our party, in our national leadership, and in our country.

And we're not going to get positive change just by Bush-bashing. We have to do a better job of the old-fashioned work of confronting the real problems of real people and pointing the way to a better future. That is our challenge in 1992.

Today, as we stand on the threshold of a new era, a new millennium, I believe we need a new kind of leadership, leadership committed to change. Leadership not mired in the politics of the past, not limited by old ideologies...Proven leadership that knows how to reinvent government to help solve the real problem of real people.

That is why today I am declaring my candidacy for President of the United States. Together I believe we can provide leadership that will restore the American dream - that will fight for the forgotten middle class - that will provide more opportunity, Insist on more responsibility and create a greater sense of community for this great country.

The change we must make isn't liberal or conservative. It’s both, and it's different. The small towns and main streets of America aren't like the corridors and backrooms of Washington. People out here don't care about the idle rhetoric of "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative" and all the other words that have made our politics a substitute for action. These families are crying out desperately for someone who believes the promise of America is to help them with their struggle to get ahead, to offer them a green light instead of a pink slip.

This must be a campaign of ideas, not slogans. We don't need another President who doesn't know what he wants to do for America. I'm going to tell you in plain language what I intend to do as President. How we can meet the challenges we face - that's the test for all the Democratic candidates in this campaign. Americans know what we're against Let's show them what we're for.

We need a new covenant to rebuild America. It's just common sense. Government's responsibility is to create more opportunity. The people's responsibility is to make the most of it.

In a Clinton Administration, we are going to create opportunity for all. We've got to grow this economy, not shrink it. We need to give people Incentives to make long-term investment in America and reward people who produce goods and services, not those who speculate with other people's money. We've got to invest more money in emerging technologies to help keep high-paying jobs here at home. We've got to convert from a defense to a domestic economy.

We've got to expand world trade, tear down barriers, but demand fair trade policies if we're going to provide good jobs for our people. The American people don't want to run from the world. We must meet the competition and win.

0pportunity for all means world-class skills and world-class education. We need more than photo ops and empty rhetoric - we need standards and accountability and excellence in education. On this issue, I'm proud to say that Arkansas has led the way.

In a Clinton Administration, students and parents and teachers will get a real education President.

Opportunity for all means pre-school for every child who needs it, and an apprenticeship program for kids who don't want to go to college but do want good jobs. It means teaching everybody with a job to read, and passing a domestic GI Bill that would give every young American the chance to borrow the money necessary to go to college and ask them to pay it back either as a small percentage of their income over time, or through national service as teachers or policemen or nurses or child care workers.

In. a Clinton Administration, everyone will be able to get a college loan as long as they're willing to give something back to their country In return.

Opportunity for all means reforming the health care system to control costs, improve quality, expand preventive and long-term care, maintain consumer choice, and cover everybody. And we don't have to bankrupt the taxpayers to do it. We do have to take on the big insurance companies and health care bureaucracies and get some real cost control into the system. I pledge to the American people that in the first year of a Clinton Administration, we will present a plan to Congress and the American people to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans.

Opportunity for all means making our cities and our streets safe from crime and drugs. Across America, citizens are banding together to take their streets and neighborhoods back. In a Clinton Administration, we'll be on their side with new initiatives like community policing, drug treatment for those who need it, and boot camps for first-time offenders.

Opportunity for all means making taxes fair. I'm not out to soak the rich. I wouldn't mind being rich. But I do believe the rich should pay their fair share. For 12 years, the Republicans have raised taxes on the middle class. It's time to give the middle class tax relief.

Finally, opportunity for all means we must protect our environment and develop an energy policy that relies more on conservation and clean natural gas so all our children will inherit a world that is cleaner, safer, and more beautiful.

But hear me now. I honestly believe that if we try to do these things, we will still not solve the problems of today or move into the next century with confidence unless we do what President Kennedy did and ask every American citizen to assume personal responsibility for the future of our country.

The government owes our people more opportunity, but we all have to make the most of it through responsible citizenship.

We should insist that people move off welfare rolls and onto work rolls. We should give people on welfare the skills they need to succeed, but we should demand that everybody who can work and become a productive member of society.

We should insist on the toughest possible child support enforcement. Governments don't raise children, parents do. And when they don't, their children pay forever and so do we.

And we have got to say, as we've tried to do in Arkansas, that students have a responsibility to stay in school. If you drop out for no good reason, you should lose your driver's license. But its important to remember that the most irresponsible people of all in the 1980s were those at the top...not those who were doing worse, not the hard-working middle class, but those who sold out our savings and loans with bad deals and spent billions on wasteful takeovers and mergers - money that could have been spent to create better products and new jobs.

Do you know that in the 1980s, while middle-class income went down, charitable giving by working people went up? And while rich peoples incomes went up, charitable giving by the wealthy went down. Why? Because our leaders had an ethic of get it while you can and to heck with everybody else.

How can you ask people who work or who are poor to behave responsibly, when they know that the heads of our biggest companies raised their own pay in the last decade by four times the percentage their workers' pay went up? Three times as much as their profits went up. When they ran their companies into the ground and their employees were on the street, what did they do? They bailed out with golden parachutes to a cushy life. That's just wrong.

Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy didn't hesitate to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency. They changed America by standing up for what’s right. When Salomon Brothers abused the Treasury markets, the President was silent. When the rip-off artists looted our S&L's the President Was Silent. In a Clinton Administration, when people sell their companies and their workers and their country down the river, they'll get called on the carpet. We're going to insist that they invest In this country and create jobs for our people.

In the 1980s, Washington failed us too. We spent more money on the present and the past and less on the future. We spent $500 billion to recycle assets in the S&L mess, but we couldn't afford $5 billion for unemployed workers or to give every kid in this country the chance to be in Head Start. We can do better than that, and we will.

A Clinton Administration won't spend our money on programs that don't solve problems and a government that doesn't work. I want to reinvent government to make it more efficient and more effective. I want to give citizens more choices in the services they get, and empower them to make those choices. That's what we've tried to do in Arkansas. We've balanced the budget every year and improved services. We've treated taxpayers like our customers and our bosses, because they are.

I want the American people to know that a Clinton Administration will defend our national interests abroad, put their values into our social policy at home, and spend their tax money with discipline. Well put government back on the side of the hard-working middle-class families of America who think most of the help goes to those at the top of the ladder, some goes to the bottom, and no one speaks for them.

But we need more than new laws, new promises, or new program. We need a new spirit of community, a sense that we are all in this together. If we have no sense of community the American dream will continue to wither. Our destiny is bound up with the destiny of every other American. Were all in this together, and we will rise or fail together.

A few years ago, Hillary and I visited a classroom in Los Angeles, in an area plagued by drugs and gangs. We talked to a dozen sixth graders, whose number one concern was being shot going to and from school. Their second worry was turning 12 or 13 and being forced to join a gang or be beaten. And finally, they were worried about their own parents' drug abuse.

Newly half a century ago, I was born not far from here in Hope, Arkansas. My mother had been widowed three months before I was born. I was raised for four years by my grandparents, while she went back to nursing school. They didn't have much money. I spent a lot of time with my great-grandparents. By any standard, they were poor. But we didn't blame other people. We took responsibility for ourselves and for each other because we knew we could do better. I was raised to believe In the American dream, in family values, in individual responsibility, and in the obligation of government to help people who were doing the best they could.

Its a long way in America from that loving family which is embodied today in a picture on my wall in the Governor's office of me at the age of six holding my great-grandfather's hand to an America where children on the streets of our cities don't know who their grandparents are and have to worry about their own parents' drug abuse.

I tell you, by making common cause with those children, we give new life to the American dream. And that is our generation's responsibility - to form a new covenant... more opportunity for all, more responsibility from everyone, and a greater sense of common purpose.

I believe with all my heart that together, we can make this happen. We can usher in a new era of progress, prosperity and renewal. We can – we must. This is not just a campaign for the Presidency – it is a campaign for the future, for the forgotten hard-working middle class families of America who deserve a government that fights for them. A campaign to keep America strong at home and around the world. Join with us. I ask for your prayers, your help, your hands, and your hearts. Together we can make America great again, and build a community of hope that will inspire the world.

Contrast that with Kerry's announcement speech. Or, for further evidence, take Clinton's watershed speech regarding the economy wherein he absolutetly indicted the President and laid out an detailed and extraordinarily divergent plan of his own (only excerpts posted here because this is already too long, but i feel that the announcement speech is a key document to illustrate my point):

George Bush looks at America as it is today -- at the decline of the middle class and the explosion of poverty -- and he says, "Do nothing." A few weeks ago, the front page of the Boston Globe carried a headline that said, "Do Nothing on Economy, Bush Advises Lawmakers." Under that headline was a picture of President Bush meeting with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. Kohl was smiling. Maybe because his country is doing something; they have a national economic strategy that is beating our brains in. So does Japan. So do all of the major countries in the world.

But George Bush doesn't. His strategy is, do nothing.

The only time President Bush changes is when the polls change or the pressures mount. Last year, the opponent was David Duke, the issue was civil rights, and George Bush wrongly called the civil rights act a quota bill. Then came Pat Buchanan, and his assault on arts funding. So Bush fired the head of the National Endowment for the Arts. Then critics from Richard Nixon to me criticized him for dragging his feet on aid to the former Soviet Union. So he scheduled a speech within 15 minutes of mine to call for that aid.

Two days ago, the President traveled to Macomb County to talk about a major job training program which I have already proposed but which he has done nothing to enact after three years as President.

And today, after 11 years of an administration that has led an all-out assault on college aid to middle-class students -- one year after he proposed a budget which cut off Pell Grants to every family making more than $10,000 a year -- but just twelve days before the Pennsylvania primary, the President comes here to Pennsylvania to promise universal access to college loans.

And they say I'm slick.

[...]

If we're going to turn this country around, we've got to empower every American with the education and training essential to get ahead. We can only be a high-wage, high-growth country if we are a high-skills country.

I want to build a vibrant, innovating, learning economy in which government ensures opportunities, not results, and equips everyone to win by becoming more productive. That means preschool for every child who needs it, and fully funding Head Start. National standards and testing in elementary and secondary schools, and an annual report card for every state, school district, and school.

It means giving every young American who works hard and plays by the rules a chance to get ahead: A nationwide apprenticeship program for high school students who don't go to college, so they can learn valuable skills and get jobs with rising wages. A national trust fund out of which any American can borrow money for a college education, so long as they pay it back either as a small percentage of their income over time or with a couple of years of national service as teachers, police officers, or child care workers.

But schools alone cannot lead the change; we need help as well from the workplace to ensure that every working American has the opportunity to learn new skills every year. We need to teach every adult to read and give them a chance to get a GED in the next five years. Every working person today should have the chance to hone and upgrade their skills every year. In a Clinton Administration, we'll require firms to invest the equivalent of 1 to 1.5 percent of their payroll on training for everybody, not just top executives, or pay into a fund for training.

[...]

As a nation, we're spending more on the present and the past, and building less for the future. We need a President who will turn our country and our culture around so that we once again begin to take the long view. Elsewhere, I have spelled out my package of incentives to provide long-term economic growth:

* An investment tax credit, and a new enterprise tax cut that rewards those with the patience, the courage, and the determination to invest in new businesses that create new jobs. These ideas are better than a capital gains tax cut because they reward investment in jobs, goods, and services.

* Making the research and development tax credit permanent, so companies can begin to make long-term plans, along with changes to increase investment in real estate and energy conservation.

* And a separate "future budget" for the federal government to make investments that will enrich our country over the long term, to increase our investments in education, environmental technology, research and development, and infrastructure as we reduce the position of our budget going to defense and inflation in health costs...

Could you imagine if Kerry gave these kinds of speechs about Iraq? Or education? Or health care? By god, he could nail Bush to a wall. He would win this election.

Kerry must adopt a new campaign strategy. If he goes back to 1992 and asks Bill Clinton for some advice, he might just end up in the Oval Office come next March.
- posted by Elliot H. @ 1:44 AM 0 comments

 
Ugh, I hate to have to follow up on my last post, but:

"It’s time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil."

--John Kerry, Foreign Policy Address, 5/27/04

Because those are four original, concrete ideas. Which President Bush doesn't stand for. I mean, who DOESN'T agree with those four principles? "No, I think we should de-modernize the military."

Kerry could hardly be doing any worse, sheesh...
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 11:59 PM 0 comments

 
John Kerry is really doing everything in his power to lose this election.

A recent Washington Post report highlights Kerry's lurch towards separating himself from the most conservative President this country has seen since Reagan. Who is whispering in his ear that looking like an unprincipled, opportunistic, sleazy centrist is the best way to contrast with a quasi-reactionary whose entire ethos is shrouded in strong ideals, integrity and religion?

The Post story mentions that:

Over the next two weeks, Americans will mark the opening of the World War II Memorial in Washington, celebrate Memorial Day and commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Those events will provide the backdrop for what Kerry advisers see as his best opportunity to sketch out a competing course with the president. He will devote the next 11 days to national security issues.

But on the central question of the day, the future of Iraq, Kerry may have less to say than some voters expect. Aides said that none of Kerry's speeches, the first of which he will deliver Thursday here in Seattle, will deal directly with Iraq. Instead, he will seek to provide a broader vision of how he sees the U.S. role in the world and reassure voters that he can step into the role of commander-in-chief during a period of war.

[...]

But Kerry will not offer new plans for ending the conflict in Iraq, which could complicate his efforts to distinguish himself in this key area. Kerry advisers said they see no reason to respond to the Bush's Monday night speech in which he outlined his objectives for Iraq. "Our view is there was nothing new in that," said a Kerry foreign policy adviser, "so our view is there is nothing to contrast."

So, in other words, the Kerry campaign has chosen to not make Iraq -- a country where 135,000 of our soliders are under siege every day, where abuse, scandal and corruption is abundant, where the Bush Doctrine lies in the rubble of devastated buildings, where our international reputation has been KOed, where WMDs remain conspicuously absent and America remains conspicuously less safe -- again, Kerry has chosen to NOT make Iraq a main battleground of this election. As those Guiness commercials put it: Brilliant!

The American public has the attention span for about three main issues. So you hammer Bush on three things: 1) Iraq, 2) Education, 3) Health Care (or the Economy, depending how much of a recovery we have). You hammer him, and you hammer him, and you hammer him. Don't let up until every single voter knows how Bush screwed up on those three topics and has a clear vision of how John Kerry is going to do better. This pussy-footing about with six different messages and framing John Kerry: War Hero is a waste of time. I hate to say it, but take a page out of Howard Dean's book! At least he stood for something, and you knew exactly what that was.

The current Kerry strategy ("I might do better than the other guy") is not going to galvanize the traditional Democrat base nor win over droves of undecided voters. The only way Kerry is going to win at this rate is if Bush loses. This election is a referendum on the Bush administration -- make it that! Highlight every mistake Bush has ever made and offer a clear alternative. That's how you win in 2004.
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 1:21 AM 1 comments

 
To follow up on the speech, a great and comprehensive - if somewhat one-sided - analysis of Bush's performance can be found here.
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 11:37 AM 0 comments

 
This is the text of a letter I faxed to my congressmen today.

Dear [Sens. Warner and Allen, Rep. Davis]:

I am writing in regards to the situation in the Darfur province of Sudan. Undoubtedly you are aware of the crisis, in which Arab militias have been carrying out a policy of what a high-ranking United Nations official termed “ethnic cleansing” against Sudanese of African descent. To date, well over a million people have been displaced from their homes; innumerable thousands injured, tortured and raped; hundreds upon hundreds killed. Just recently, reports have come in of a massacre that left over forty men, women and children dead. These are not soldiers participating in a war – these are civilian victims of a slaughter. These are not simply statistics to shake ones head at – these are real people who led real lives, had real jobs, loved real families, and are enduring real suffering.

To date, America’s response – and, indeed, the response of the world – has been muted. Certainly the United Nations has demanded an end to the violence, and President Bush condemned it in the strongest terms. However, words without actions are not enough. The global community learned that lesson the hard way in Rwanda, when it sat quietly by as genocide took life after life. Sadly, it appears that the memory of Rwanda has dimmed, for now that which we swore would never be allowed to happen again is on the horizon: ritual genocide.

America purports to be the indispensable nation, the bastion of hope, liberty and justice. Can we hope to maintain even a sliver of moral legitimacy if we allow Darfur to become the site of more killing fields? Our international standing is at low ebb; what better way to show we are committed to the ideals we preach instead of economic gain than to delve fully into a mission where there is a clear right and a clear wrong? Certainly we do not need to go it alone: in addition to the U.N., our allies have always shown a willingness to participate in humanitarian rescue efforts, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Furthermore, from the standpoint of the war on terror America has strategic interests in restoring order to Darfur. Hotbeds of lawlessness have a frightening tendency to turn into havens for terrorists and other lowlifes, and Sudan is geographically positioned adjacent to the Middle East. In the past, Sudan has been the location for terrorist activity – Osama bin Laden himself once used the nation as a base of operations. In this interdependent world where the most innocuous land such as Afghanistan can prove to be a critical player, our eye should not slide lightly over a potential threat to America and its friends.

[Sir], you are a leader in this country, and I ask you now to embrace that role and lead the charge for increased U.S. involvement in Darfur. Diplomatically, politically, economically and (if needed) militarily, America must turn its attention to Sudan. To do any less would be a disservice to the legacy, reputation and security of this great nation.

Regards,
Elliot Haspel
- posted by Elliot H. @ 7:55 PM 0 comments

 
So, the President's speech. I thought it was well-written, but as everyone's been pointing out, it contained not a shred of new policy, save that we're going to tear down Abu Ghraib, a prison we helped make the symbol of oppression that it is.

Indeed, the common refrains were all there -- we must maintain our focus; the insurgency is nothing but terrorists, foreign fighters and Saddam loyalists; America will not be deterred. Regarding the handover, just as many questions remain as before. Who will make up the transitional government? How will we ensure the TG is perceived as legitimate by the Iraqi people? What happens the first time an Iraqi army battalion and an American army battalion want to pursue conflicting courses? How do we make certain that the democracy which arises in Iraq is liberal and protects individual freedoms? When do our troops come home?

It seems that President Bush hopes that by repackaging his old speeches into a coherent, organized plan, the world will be duped into thinking America has a comprehensive strategy for Iraqi democracy and subsequent American exit. The broad plan, as it stands, seems at least sound: involve the U.N., involve the Iraqis at every stage, phase over into democracy, etc. But the devil is in the details, as they say.

Regarding the insurgency, I don't know how much longer we can decry them as this malicious cadre of terrorists who hate freedom. The resistance began with Saddam loyalists and Al Queda elements, no doubt, but it has since blossomed to where there are overtones of both populist and nationalist revolution. Certainly the vast majority of Iraqis don't believe in the methods (and perhaps goals) of the insurgency, but riddle me this: if there is no popular support for the insurgency, how can they hide so effectively amongst the general population? Iraqis aren't giving them up, which is surely a metric of their appeal.

In essence, the speech tonight accomplished little. It is good, as Madeline Albright put it, that President Bush has decided its time to talk to the American people, but I would rather he come up with something substantive to say.

One last note: the line "...this vile display [re: Nicholas Berg] shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare, and all the bounds of civilized behavior," is not appropriate given the revelations surrounding Abu Ghraib these past weeks. You can't simply assume the moral high ground right now, Mr. President. That's a trust that we have to earn back.

Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 12:31 AM 0 comments

 
Commentary on the Bush speech to follow, but for now: Robert Mugabe is disturbed.

These excerpts come from this lengthy interview he recently conducted with SkyNews. Let me say up front that I wish we had reporters like Stuart Ramsay in the U.S. -- talk about grilling questions and following up. Too bad Mugabe doesn't have any scruples about lying through his teeth.

STUART RAMSAY: It is not just Britain [that has criticized you] of course, it is not just Commonwealth, Botswana has been critical in the past, South Africa and the Sadak nations, another club that you are a member of.
ROBERT MUGABE: Critical of what?
STUART RAMSAY: Critical of the fact that for example 1.3% of its economic growth in South Africa didn't happen almost as a direct result of...
ROBERT MUGABE: No, no.
STUART RAMSAY:...20 to 30,000 jobs didn't happen.
ROBERT MUGABE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
STUART RAMSAY: Trade declined by 15 billion rand.
ROBERT MUGABE: No, we were not the cause of that, we are not the South African economy.
STUART RAMSAY: But you were vitally linked to it at one point but now'
ROBERT MUGABE: Our trade with them has always been good, and they admit it, that in spite of the sanctions the trade has been rising, rising, rising in terms of volumes and all of the...
STUART RAMSAY: What trade is that? It's declining, not increasing.
ROBERT MUGABE: The what?
STUART RAMSAY: The trade is declining it's not increasing.
ROBERT MUGABE: No, no, no, you go and ask Irwin, he will tell you that in spite of all that has, you know, been done to Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe's trade with South Africa has always been rising, not declining.

[...]

STUART RAMSAY: You alluded to personal attacks and [highly, highly respected] Archbishop Desmond Tutu described you as a cartoon figure of the archetypal African dictator. Now why would a well respected man of the church say that?
ROBERT MUGABE: He is an angry, evil and embittered little bishop, you see, who thinks that his own view should hold.

[...]

STUART RAMSAY: The World Food Programme says that urban food shortages are approaching critical. A United Nations memo to say that you could reach the level of tonnage that is being estimated is complete nonsense and quite impossible. The farms, outsiders say, simply aren't producing enough food. You've got bread prices that the state media says could go up by 50%.
ROBERT MUGABE: So what is WFP wanting us to do?
STUART RAMSAY: What they are saying is you need food aid and therefore...
ROBERT MUGABE: We need food aid and not the land to produce, we don't need to produce?
STUART RAMSAY: No, they are saying you need produce more and you need food aid. You're saying you don't need food aid. In fact last week you were saying you would produce 2.3 million tons which far exceeds anything ever produced before. You are saying you do need food aid?
ROBERT MUGABE: We have produced that before.
STUART RAMSAY: You are not going to produce it this year though.
ROBERT MUGABE: We are producing it this year, definitely. Our estimates are there and they are showing us we will have enough food for the country and with a surplus.
STUART RAMSAY: 800,000 tons the shortfall is estimated.
ROBERT MUGABE: Why is WFP wanting to feed us when we are saying that...
STUART RAMSAY: Because they don't want people to starve.
ROBERT MUGABE: We are not hungry. It should go to hungrier people, hungrier countries than ourselves. They need the food and we urge it to go and do good work there.
STUART RAMSAY: The Archbishop of Bulawayo....
ROBERT MUGABE: Why foist this food upon us? We don't want to be choked, we have enough.
STUART RAMSAY: He says that as many as 10,000 people died as a direct result of starvation, lack of food, perhaps illnesses.
ROBERT MUGABE: No, no. That's another Tutu, the bishop, an unholy man, he thinks he is holy and telling lies all the day, every day. Oh come on, 10,000 people, where did they die? Even show me a single person who died of hunger that is.

[...]

ROBERT MUGABE: The whites who were here were mere actor farmers, ill educated and we brought in a system which is much more enlightened than the system they had, you see. Go everywhere and you will see agronomists, you will see our agritects, exchanging officers who are well educated and they give us these estimates across the country.
STUART RAMSAY: Why is it always a race issue, why is this?
ROBERT MUGABE: Well this is what we wonder. Why is it that white men always think white. There are also black men on this continent you know and they also matter, that's what you must tell Blair.

[...]

ROBERT MUGABE: …But if you are going to say I'm right when others say you are wrong, you will get self opinionated and that is what the likes of Bush and Blair are, you see.


So, there you have it. Zimbabwe is doing great, and Tony Blair is a racist egomaniac out to get the noble and democratic Mugabe.

America treats Zimbabwe as a "regional problem," and essentially leaves it to South Africa to play traffic cop in the region. I don't know what makes us think that someone with Mugabe's mindset is not going to happily consort with terrorists somewhere down the line. He was/is good friends with Lybia's Ghaddafi. Can we honestly afford to completely ignore Zimbabwe? Setting aside all humanitarian arguments, from a national security standpoint, can we afford to ignore it? I hope we don't find out that answer the hard way.

The United States must take a proactive stance in regards to Zimbabwe. Mugabe cannot be percieved as anything but a threat just waiting to manifest. For further proof, I refer you to my September 2003 column on the matter.
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 10:57 PM 0 comments

 
This is a Letter to the Editor I wrote to the Washington Post in response to this op-ed in Sunday's Outlook.

To the Editor:

While Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristol invoke historical examples to call for the use of massive force against the insurgents in Iraq (“Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” May 23), a survey of contextually similar precedents show this policy to be disastrous. On a cultural and historical level, one cannot compare the American Civil War or World War II with a Middle Eastern nationalist revolution – that would be akin to citing the Ming Dynasty in a discussion about the Tudors.

Indeed, the most apt parallel that can be drawn with today’s Iraqi insurgency is that of Israel and Palestine. For half a century Israel has been attempting to win “decisive military victories” against the Palestinian fighters. Yet, no matter the number of missile strikes and incursions, the Palestinian intifada remains alive and well; in fact, Israel’s constant application of overwhelming force has served to foment and strengthen the Palestinian cause. This pattern holds true for European powers as well: when the French attempted to forcefully put down an Algerian uprising in 1954, they found themselves faced with a full-fledged revolution that lasted for the next eight years.

If we hope to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, it must be done through subtle means. Marginalize Moqtada al-Sadr and elevate moderate Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to that populist stature; Ensure everyday Iraqis have basic sanitation and electricity and feel less sympathetic toward the insurgents; Make true amends for the Abu Ghraib prison debacle instead of offering lip-service apologies. Going in with guns blazing will do nothing but harden the backbone of the insurgency and give them free recruiting material – just ask Israel or France.

Elliot Haspel
[Contact Information]

I could have gone on, but I figured if they're going to run it, they'll probably cut some already. I'll add this though: when the Algerian revolution began, France's Interior Minister declared, "The only negotiation is war." Eight years later, the last French troops left Algeria, defeated.

You don't use overwhelming force and hope to defeat a populist/nationalist revolution that's fighting against a percieved invader. Especially not in the Middle East.

Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 3:03 PM 1 comments

 
It appears the previous story has some veracity to it.

U.S. admits to secret interrogation site in Baghdad

Friday, May 21, 2004 Posted: 6:37 PM EDT (2237 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As hundreds of detainees were released from Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, a senior U.S. official Friday confirmed that a previously undisclosed U.S. military interrogation facility at or near Baghdad International Airport does indeed exist.

The official said the site was run in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and all detainees were afforded their rights under that international document.

"That's not to say somebody didn't get their head dunked in the water," he said.

U.S. Special Forces participated in running the site, he added...

No new commentary, just a news update. Stay tuned.
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 12:33 AM 1 comments

 
Ok, this is getting really, really interesting now.

New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal?

By Campbell Brown
Correspondent
NBC News

Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET May 20, 2004 BAGHDAD - With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.

The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad’s airport. The battlefield interrogation facility known as the “BIF” is pictured in satellite photos.

According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.

These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.

In Washington Thursday evening, a senior Pentagon official denied allegations of prisoner abuse at Battlefield Interrogation Facilities operated by Delta Force in Iraq. And he said the tactics described in this report are not used in those facilities...

Between this, the previous article on a Sergeant claiming military intelligence was directing the abuses, and the Hersh report, I think it's fairly safe to say that the Bush Administration's party line of "a few soldiers who went out of control," is starting to look less and less pristine. And it's early yet. Every day it seems more information gets out, and more people are speaking up.

The story is starting to snowball, and the Administration - whose fatal mistake was never grabbing control of the story in the first place - is going to start looking awfully sheepish. Officials all the way up to President Bush have stated on the record repeatedly that this was a small group of bad-apple soldiers, nothing more. If that turns out to be a lie, it will be a massive breach of trust, one the President doesn't need six months before the election.

Unlike the ironclad nature of the Bush Administration throughout the first half of his term, there now appear to be innumerable fractures. The military, intelligence community, and civilian policymakers (read: Neocons) are NOT on the same page, and President Bush has been remarkably coy throughout the maelstrom. A dysfunctional bureaucracy is the last thing America needs going into what is sure to be a tumultuous handover of power in Iraq. At the same time, the splintered nature of the Administration is going to make it that much harder to put a tourniquet on the scandals.

However the abuse scandal pans out, there are going to be serious domestic and international ramifications. I have to wonder how badly our international standing has been/is going to be set back; how does America intervene anywhere, after this? Sooner or later, I think Secretary Rumsfeld is going to have to go. We'll see.

As a final note, some of the most graphic descriptions of the abuses to date have surfaced. Viewer discretion advised.

Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 12:01 AM 0 comments

 
Well I was wondering how long it would take until something like this broke:

Sergeant Says Intelligence Directed Abuse

By Josh White and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 20, 2004; Page A01

Military intelligence officers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq directed military police to take clothes from prisoners, leave detainees naked in their cells and make them wear women's underwear, part of a series of alleged abuses that were openly discussed at the facility, according to a military intelligence soldier who worked at the prison last fall.

Sgt. Samuel Provance said intelligence interrogators told military police to strip down prisoners and embarrass them as a way to help "break" them. The same interrogators and intelligence analysts would talk about the abuse with Provance and flippantly dismiss it because the Iraqis were considered "the enemy," he said...

I think the bell just rang on Round 2...
Related Link - posted by Elliot H. @ 1:27 AM 0 comments

 
Just to illustrate my previous point, the front page (above the fold) of the Washington Post on Wednesday contained four headlines. They had these words in them:

Despair (Iraqis about Governing Council member assassination)
Decline (Sonya Ghandi's rejection of the Prime Minister post)
Failure (U.S. troops becoming disheartened)
Kill (Palestinians dead)
- posted by Elliot H. @ 12:01 AM 0 comments

 
Every day, the news seems to get bleaker. Huge bolded headlines scream obscenities at the reader: "Twenty dead in Palestine," "Car bomb kills head of Iraqi Governing Council," "One in four South Africans infected with AIDS," "Sudan massacres bring back haunting memories of Rwanda,"...on and on. The morbid stories eventually blur together into an opaque sheet of suffering, daunting and by all accounts impenetrable. The 24/7 deluge of negative news that floods Americans through the internet, television, and newspapers has sensitized the public - and made too many people stop caring.

What's the solution to this? You can't go in and change the fundamental culture of media. At least not directly. Sensationalism sells, and good news is no news. There is absolutely no incentive for the media to change the way they operate. So what can you do? Demonstrate that there is another way. Demonstrate the viability of nuanced reporting. Complexity and metrics of hope are not vices that should be considered taboo - they are an integral part of expanding America's worldview.

The case for meshing a positive layer into media may not be obvious. Simply put, when facing a hopeless situation, few people will seriously care about it. The poverty and AIDS epidemics serve as perhaps the best example of this. For instance, the number of Africans who are stricken by malnutrition and disease is staggering. Tens and tens of millions. But those are statistics in a situation that will never truly improve - or at least that's the impression you would get by reading the newspapers. As a result, if it can't be fixed, why should Joe American care about pumping his tax dollars into it? The U.S. government is providing aid and there are dozens of humanitarian organizations at work already.

Now imagine reporting which uses the successes of those aid workers as a lens through which to highlight the work that has to be done. Reporting which shows what has worked, what can work, what needs to happen for efforts to work better. Op-ed pieces which instead of simply criticizing, criticized constructively. Human interest stories which put faces to the statistics, showing not only showing slack-ribbed children eyed by vultures, but the new school that was just built as well. This isn't just about the various crises overseas - far too many people endure hardship in America as well. Or, if you like, apply it to Iraq.

I am not proposing we gloss over fact or pamper the reader. All I am proposing is that the news be delivered in such a way that the reader doesn't walk away feeling at once distraught and helpless. That reader may frown, but he or she is not going to do anything, because it seems there's nothing a single citizen can do.

All it takes is one newsmagazine to lead the way, something to show the media conglomerates that nuanced reporting is viable, that it still sells, that it informs and elucidates even better than the status quo.

I see no reason why the University of Virginia can't be the founding location for such a project. Mr. Jefferson would be proud. Make it a biweekly or monthly supplement to the Cavalier Daily, perhaps. Or begin it independently through the COUP. Focus it half on [inter]national topics and half on local topics? Contain submissions from people all over the country at different colleges, or adults too? There are any number of options, any number of details that can be determined later.

There are many ways to affect policy in this country, but the most terrifyingly powerful method is to rouse the electorate. An electorate which is knowledgeable and cares about current events within and without the United States is one which can move mountains. I don't know a better way to sting that bear awake than to couch those current events in a light which makes them appear solvable.

Who's with me?

--Elliot
ehaspel@virginia.edu

- posted by Elliot H. @ 12:20 AM 0 comments