World Affairs: October 2002 Archives

"The Iraq Research and Documentation Project (IRDP) website is a collection of resources documenting the government, politics, and society of modern Iraq. IRDP is engaged in the gathering of information of diverse content and format (official government documents, maps, citizen testimonies, reference sources, chronologies, bibliographies, notable articles, human rights reports, photographic and other images, audio and video materials). This online collection is made available to the public to provide a window into the inner workings of the repressive state system evolved under the aegis of the Iraqi Ba'th Socialist Party in Iraq since 1968."

This site looks like a useful reference.

"viameta"

"Five years after Mohammad Khatami was propelled to a landslide victory on a platform of liberalizing Iran's Islamic system, the charismatic president is losing his sheen. There is widespread frustration over the pace of his reforms.

Few doubt his decency or sincerity or blame him personally. They know his efforts have been thwarted by an unelected hard-line minority that still controls key institutions such as the courts, the armed forces, and the broadcast media.

But Mr. Khatami's supporters have been urging him to stand up to the old guard. The president has finally thrown down the gauntlet: Last month Khatami presented two bills to the Iranian parliament that would end his opponents' stranglehold on power. Whether the bills are passed or blocked, they are likely to mark a major turning point in Iranian politics."

Signs of life from democratizing forces in Iran. 

"The United States National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS), introduced on September 11, 2002, authorizes the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to keep track of the arrival and departure of non-immigrants to the United States who were born in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, or Syria or who may be citizens of those countries. NSEERS requires that these individuals be photographed and fingerprinted and have their entry into and exit out of the United States verified. In addition, individuals who were born in or who have the citizenship of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen could also attract special attention from American immigration and security authorities.

In these circumstances, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade advises Canadians who were born in the above countries or who may be citizens of these countries to consider carefully whether they should attempt to enter the United States for any reason, including transit to or from third countries. In addition, all Canadians should be aware that NSEERS activity by the Immigration and Naturalization Service may lead to delays at U.S. immigration checkpoints."

Canada is warning its middle-eastern citizens to reconsider travel to the US. 

"viadrudge"

"In the future we'll have to practice "supply side security" and ask questions we ignored when we looked only at the world as consumers of security. What are the sources of enmity against us, and how could those sources be reduced? How can we increase the supply of goodwill which is ultimately the most stable and plentiful source of security? What could be done to cause others to see us as important allies in meeting their own critical needs?

We'll have to take seriously the goal of hearing and understanding needs; building economies, schools, hospitals; earning a reputation for deep commitment to the well-being of all and accountability to the world community.

There's an old saying: If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything you see is a nail. It's time for America to demonstrate that we have more tools than big hammers. Our task is to leave no doubt that we care as much about the survival and well-being of others as our own. And we don't even need to be generous to do this.

The truth is, our own survival is at stake."

A good article in the Christian Science Monitor on what I agree to be our only possible future course of action in a world where pretty much anyone will be able to get their hands on the weapons to kill thousands.

Dear Mr. President:

I represent a small consortium of voters who are deeply concerned over your proposed {or, if appropriate, ongoing} military action in Iraq. Given the amount of public speech and political rhetoric you have devoted to this issue in past months, it seems to us as though you are more interested in playing commando than in fighting an actual war with actual human casualties.

Enclosed with this letter, we have sent you some small gifts: one PlayStation 2 game console, one copy each of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs and Conflict: Desert Storm, a memory card and an extra controller for Mr. Cheney's use. We ask that you accept these gifts and use them, rather than the lives of Iraqi civilians and our U.S. servicemen, to fulfill any militaristic fantasies.

Respectfully,

Mikel Reparaz
Chairman
Buy Bush a PlayStation 2 Campaign

"Cronkite said he fears Americans are learning less and less about what their government is doing, and worse, they do not seem to care.

He cited recent presidential elections that have seen less than half of registered voters go to the polls. The result has been leaders who are chosen by about a quarter of the electorate.

“That means we don’t have a democracy,” he said. “We’ve got an oligarchy here, not a democracy. Our democracy is in some danger if we don’t concentrate on educating the populace.”"

Walter Cronkite is worried about what unilateral action on Iraq could mean to the world.  He's even more worried about the fact that his fellow American's don't seem to care.

"viadrudge"

"The fact is that less than a year after the celebrated demise of the Taliban, Afghanistan is experiencing a low-grade war, a bubbling pot of violence and anarchy that only the U.S. military presence is keeping from boiling over. The moment the international presence scales down in the capital, the very second that U.S. military attention drifts away and westward toward Iraq, ambitious men within the new Afghan government will kick off a bloody snatch-and-grab operation, leaving a large number of civilians dead, and they will take anything that is not bolted down and then shell the rest, a replay of the mid-'90s when Kabul was laid to waste. It will be the same people doing it, another tragic irony. No one can predict the future, but this is how it feels in Kabul, and everyone I asked, whether journalist or Afghan national, agreed that this was what was coming. Conflicts are breaking out all over the country, but Afghanistan isn't a story any more, so most of these battles and the reasons they are being fought are going unreported. And as Iraq looms, Afghanistan will shrink even more. When I left Kabul, the big agencies were already scaling back their news bureaus, the great unblinking eye of the media making plans to look at something else. "

The US is obviously very concerned about pariah states hosting international terrorist organizations.  This is why we are ignoring Afghanistan. 

"The Task Force identified six critical mandates that deserve the nation's immediate attention:

• Empower front-line agents to prevent terrorist attacks and make first responders ready to respond; 650,000 local and state law enforcement officers are operating in a counterterrorism information vacuum, and first responders are not nearly ready enough to respond to catastrophic events.
• Make trade security a global priority; the system for moving goods affordably and reliably around the world is ripe for exploitation and vulnerable to mass disruption by terrorists.
• Set critical infrastructure protection priorities; some potential targets pose a graver risk for mass disruption than others.
• Enhance America's public health system so that it is able to quickly detect and respond to biological attacks.
• Move quickly to clear federal obstacles to forging effective private-public security partnerships by addressing industry concerns with respect to potential antitrust conflicts, public release of sensitive security information by way of the FOIA, and liability exposure.
• Fund, train, and equip the National Guard to make homeland security a primary mission. "

The CFR brings together Hart and Rudman for a reprise of their last report, which was widely ignored in Washington when it was presented in March of 2001.  Hopefully this time around they'll have a more receptive audience.

"viameta"

“In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I’m one of them,” said Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998. “And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good.”

Some experts are wondering about who really was behind the anthrax attacks.  Conveniently for the administration, the article points to Iraq.  If true, I'm all for attacking, but our president has so botched up this process that any evidence he comes up with is going to sound suspicious.

Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife and a daughter died Friday in a small plane crash near Eveleth, Minnesota, Democratic sources said.

8(

"This essay proposes to confront this case for preemptive war on Iraq head on. My argument stresses principles and long-term structural effects rather than prudence and short-term results. It rests not on judgments and predictions about future military and political developments, which I am not qualified to make, but on a perspective missing from the current discussion, derived from history, especially the history of European and world politics over the last four centuries. Rather than criticizing the proposed preemptive war on prudential grounds, it opposes the idea itself, contending that an American campaign to overthrow Hussein by armed force would be an unjust, aggressive, imperialist war which even if it succeeded (indeed, perhaps especially if it succeeded), would have negative, potentially disastrous effects on our alliances and friendships, American leadership in the world, the existing international system, and the prospects for general peace, order, and stability. In other words, a preemptive war on Iraq would be not merely foolish and dangerous, but wrong.

This essay attempts to build a case against the war on systemic grounds; it cannot for reasons of space hope to treat all-important aspects of that systemic case or answer all possible questions and challenges. It talks about the damage a preemptive war would do to the existing international system, but not about the equally important impacts it could have in terms of side effects on nascent changes in the international system needed to meet new problems already looming on the horizon. It draws on international history in regard to preemptive wars, but will not take up a legitimate though tricky question of counterfactual history, i.e., whether certain preemptive wars, had they been waged in the past, might have averted disasters as the advocates of such a war against Iraq claim a war will do now. (1) While examining the official case for a war on Iraq, it will not take up, except in passing fashion in the last footnote, what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy – security for Israel."

A very interesting article in Pat Buchanan's new magazine, The American Conservative.  Its not just those on the left that have problems with this war.  Anyone with a reasonable sense of history should have some concern over what our President is trying to do.

"viadrudge"

The Post's endorsement of incumbent Republican Wayne Allard in 1996 urged him "to seek compromise and moderation to keep the country moving." We've been deeply disappointed on both counts. Allard has chosen strict party-line voting rather than the Colorado-style moderation we sought - and the country, far from moving forward, is in a serious economic downturn. Traditionally, The Post has continued to stand by incumbents we have supported in the past. Our endorsement is, quite frankly, theirs to lose. To our sorrow, Sen. Allard, by failing to show any instinct for centrism, conciliation or independence, has lost our support. Indeed, on almost every major issue, challenger Strickland's positions and ideas are markedly more attuned to Colorado than those of his opponent.

Allard (R) vs Strickland (D) is one of the key races for control of the Senate this year.  Thankfully, the Post has realized the mistake of its ways back in 1996 and endorsed Allards challenger.  Tom Strickland is no great shakes -I'm not a big fan of lobbyists - but at least he seems to think for himself, although there's no solid evidence that this will be the case should he be elected.  In Allard's case however, his voting record speaks directly to the problem:

[via Joe Conason's Journal]

"So how about using the same shock-value tactics the administration uses in the drug war to confront the public with the ultimate -- and much more linearly linked -- consequences of their energy wastefulness? Imagine a soccer mom in a Ford Excursion (11 mpg city, 15 mpg highway) saying, "I'm building a nuclear bomb for Saddam Hussein." Or a mob of solo drivers toodling down the freeway at 75 mph shouting in unison, "We're buying weapons that will kill American soldiers, Marines and sailors! Yahoo!" "

Good Arianna Huffington column on Salon today.  She asks why it's so unreasonable to crank back our oil usage a bit.

"Would it be so painful for us to slow down the intravenous drip of oil that keeps these hideously anti-American regimes alive? There are car companies with electric and hybrid cars already on the market. And a little pressure on our wasteful ways could unleash a new wave of good old American inventiveness."

Officials said U.S. intelligence has determined that Al Qaida is supported by 12 financiers, most of them Saudis. They said the Bush administration is sharing the findings with Washington's allies in NATO and the European Union.

BTW, these are the same folks that run the subscription only geostrategy-direct, which I've posted from here before and has a LOT of good information.

"The challenge is clear: Exercise a deeper form of patriotism, one rooted in an uncompromising devotion and love of country that calls for examining and changing conduct in political life. Each of us must assume responsibility for this task. The time to act is now."

"One journalist described to me an anti-American demonstration held last April in Baghdad to celebrate Saddam's sixty-fifth birthday. She saw the same high school students pass by several times, simulating an endless stream of angry protesters. When her colleagues turned their cameras on, officials with bullhorns instructed the crowd to increase the volume of their chants. "Everyone knows they're a sham," says the journalist. "But CNN in Atlanta is telling Nic Robertson that he has to file a story. He doesn't have anything else to work with. So he shows the demonstration." "

A very good article in the New Republic on the price of being a foreign journalist in Iraq.  CNN in particular gets pointed to as a particularly compliant organization.  A good demonstration of why modern mass-media news is fairly empty.  Ahhhh, pseudo-events.

"viablogcritics"

"The new antiwar movement is in danger of being hijacked by bizarre extremist groups -- and most protesters don't even know it."

A very good article (subscription only) on the group behind the recent "Not In Our Name" protests.  Their views are rather extreme.  To quote from their "Three Main Points":

1) The whole system we now live under is based on exploitation-- here and all over the world. It is completely worthless and no basic change for the better can come about until this system is overthrown.

2) Many different groups will protest and rebel against things this system does, and these protests and rebellions should be supported and strengthened. Yet it is only those with nothing to lose but their chains who can be the backbone of a struggle to actually overthrow this system and create a new system that will put an end to exploitation and help pave the way to a whole new world.

3) Such a revolutionary struggle is possible. There is a political Party that can lead such a struggle, a political Party that speaks and acts for those with nothing to lose but their chains: The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Just take a look at the resolutions passed by Congress: HJ Res. 114 -- SJ Res. 45

In summary Congress finds that:

• Iraq sponsors international terrorism
• Iraq harbors terrorists
• There is a "high risk" that Iraq is planning a "surprise attack"
• against the United States
• Any non-Iraqi terrorists are hereby declared to be Iraqi surrogates
• The invasion of Iraq is, therefore, hereby found to be
• (i) "defensive" and (ii) just part of the "war on terrorism" anyway
• Furthermore, the Congress hereby declares that George W. Bush has
• full Constitutional authority to do whatever he pleases, militarily,
• just as long as he claims he's doing it for "national security"
• reasons.
• Pursuant to this, "national security" is hereby defined to include
• the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace
• and security", and such interests will now include the
• entire "Persian Gulf region."

Notice that this states THE ENTIRE PERSIAN GULF REGION. Yes, that is the authority Bush has been given. He has been authorized to declare war as he sees fit against any country in the Persian Gulf region.

Is it just me, or do the resolutions say nothing of the sort about declaring war against "any country in the Persian Gulf region."  Am I missing some subtle wording? 

The Senate resolution is a bit vague, although it still refers to the "threat posed by Iraq":

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES

ARMED FORCES.

The President is authorized to use all means that he
determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to
enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions
referenced above, defend the national security interests of
the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and
restore international peace and security in the region.

But the House resolution has no such vague wording.

The point that open season is being declared on the whole Persian Gulf is highlighted, when in fact no such evidence exists.  The quoted phrase, "Persian Gulf region" is only used in reference to the fact that Iraq poses a threat to it.

What am I missing?  Or is Rebecca Knight (and some others I've seen making the same assertion) just making stuff up?

[note, I edited to clarify what I meant by 'any country']

"My thesis is that how well we come through the era of globalization (perhaps whether we come through it at all) will depend on how we respond ethically to the idea that we live in one world. For the rich nations not to take a global ethical viewpoint has long been seriously morally wrong. Now it is also, in the long term, a danger to their security."

A great article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the responsibilities that come with reaping the benefits of globalization.  I found this article in a thread on Plastic.  The thread contains several other interesting articles on globalization and an American empire.  Not too many comments in the thread yet, but that will hopefully change as the day passes.

"I hope it all goes down the crapper. I would never take another deal in the record business, which means I may not record again, or I have to figure out a way to sell over the Net or do something else. But I'll be damned if I'll line their pockets."

Joni Mitchell on the music biz.

"viablogcritics"

A report by the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said the Bush administration and Congress appear to have launched the first reassessment of U.S. relations with the Arab world. The report said that longtime relationship was based on the United States ignoring Arab totalitarianism and human rights violations in return for plentiful oil from the Middle East.

I haven't been able to find the report mentioned on the CEIP web page, but the Middle East Newsline brief unfortunately doesn't give the title of the report.  I'm going to keep an eye out for it however, since this could be a longer term good sign of some understanding penetrating the thick skulls of our leaders.

""Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.""

Its taken me longer than I would have liked, but my read through the document does not strike me as anywhere near as sinister as alleged in this article, at least not militarily.  I don't really see this as a call to invade Iraq for its oil, rather it cites Iraq as an example of the problem over-reliance on volatile regions for our energy can cause.  In fact, here are some of the reports recommendations

• "Minimize public conflicts with OPEC and other independent oil-exporting countries."
• "Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions"

I'm still a bit disturbed at its use of the energy crisis in California as a justification for all sorts of things, especially with Ken Lay's involvement in the task force, but thats a whole other mess. 

All-in-all, this may be a smoking gun of some sort, but its not about invading Iraq.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been hired to help rid Mexico City of its infamously high rates of kidnappings, robberies and murders.

From America's Mayor to Mexico's Crime Czar.  This should be interesting.

Senate Remarks:  A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq

Senator Robert C. Byrd
October 10, 2002

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

So said the Persian poet Omar Khayyam in the 11th century.  So say I today.  The Senate has made clear its intent on the Iraq resolution.  The outcome is certain; the ending has been scripted.  The Senate will vote, and the Iraq resolution will pass.

I continue to believe that the Senate, in following this preordained course of action, will be doing a grave disservice to this nation and to the Constitution on which it was founded. In the newly published  National Security Strategy of the United States – the document in which the President outlines the unprecedented policy of pre-emptive deterrence which the Iraq resolution will implement – he asserts that the Constitution has served us well, as though it were some dusty relic of the past that needs to be eulogized before it is retired.  He is wrong.  The Constitution is no more dated in the principles it established than is the Bible. The Constitution continues to serve us well, if only we will take the time to heed it.

I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution and is instead poised to hand off to the President the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace.

I do not, in my heart of hearts, believe that this is what the American people expect of the Senate.  I have heard from tens of thousands of Americans – people from all across this country of ours – who have urged me to keep up the fight.  I am only one Senator from a small state, yet in the past week I have received nearly 20,000 telephone calls and nearly 50,000 e-mails supporting my position.

I want all of those people across America who took the time to contact me to know how their words have heartened me and sustained me in my efforts to turn the tide of opinion in the Senate. They are my heroes, and I will never forget the remarkable courage and patriotism that reverberated in the fervor of their messages.

As the apostle Paul said, "I  have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." There are Americans all across this country who have joined in spirit with me and a small band of like-minded Senators in fighting the good fight. We could stay here on the floor and continue to fight, and it is certainly a fight worth the effort.  But there is also a point at which it becomes time to accept reality and to regroup.  It is clear that we have lost the battle in the Senate, but we have not yet lost the war.

The next front is the White House, and I urge all those people who are following this debate, and who have encouraged me in my efforts, to turn their attention to the President. Call him, write him, e-mail him.  Urge him to heed the Constitution and not short-circuit it by exercising the broad grant of authority that the Iraq resolution provides.

The President has said on many occasions that he has not yet made up his mind to go to war.  When he does make up his mind – if he does – then he should come back to Congress and seek formal authorization. Let him use this Iraq resolution as leverage with the United Nations, if that is what he wants it for, but when it comes time for the United States to undertake military action, let him come back to the Congress for authorization.

I continue to have faith in our system of government.  I continue to have faith in the basic values that shaped this nation.  Those values do not include striking first against other nations.  Those values do not include using our position as the strongest and most formidable nation in the world to bully and intimidate other nations. Those values do not include putting other nations on an enemies list so that we can justify pre-emptive military action.

Were I not to believe in the inherent ability of the Constitution to withstand the folly of such actions as the Senate is about to take, I would not stop fighting.  I would fight with every fiber of my body, every ounce of my energy, with every parliamentary tool at my disposal.  But I do believe that the Constitution will weather this storm. The Senate will weather the storm as well, but I only hope that when this tempest passes, Senators will reflect on the ramifications of what they have done and understand the damage  that has been inflicted on the Constitution.

In this debate, the American people seem to have a better understanding of the Constitution than those who are elected to represent them.  Perhaps it is that their understanding of the Constitution is not filtered through the prism of election year politics.  For whatever reason, I believe that the American people have a better understanding of what the Senate is about to do, a greater respect for the inherent powers of the Constitution, and a greater comprehension of the far-reaching consequences of this resolution than do most of their leaders.

I thank my colleagues who have allowed me to express at length my reasons for opposing this resolution.  I thank those Senators who have stood with me, supported me, and encouraged me.  I thank those Senators who have engaged in thoughtful debate with me.  I do not believe that the Senate has given enough time or enough consideration to the question of handing the President unchecked authority  to usurp the Constitution and declare war on Iraq.  But I accept the futility of continuing to fight on this front.

I say to the people of America, to those who have encouraged me and others to uphold the principles of the Constitution, keep up the fight.  Keep fighting for what is right.  Let your voices be heard.  I will always listen to you, and I hope that the President will begin to listen to you.  May God bless you in your endeavors.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act created the new board to replace the accounting industry's previous, spectacularly ineffectual self-regulation. Since the purpose of the board is to restore investor confidence, it's crucial that its head be someone forceful, with unquestioned integrity. The job was first offered to Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. When Mr. Volcker turned it down, the focus shifted to John Biggs, head of the T.I.A.A.-CREF pension fund and a strong advocate of reform. Indeed, some news reports indicate that Mr. Biggs believed that he had been offered the job, and had already been making arrangements to retire early from T.I.A.A.- CREF.

But apparently it is not to be. Let me just quote The Wall Street Journal on this: "The big accounting firms won't dare speak on the record. . . . All signs suggest they're working instead through Republicans in Congress, specifically Ohio's Mike Oxley. . . . They don't want pension fund chief John Biggs to lead the new accounting board because they fear he might actually force the industry to shape up." What The Journal doesn't point out is the obvious: The accounting industry may have a lot of clout, but this wouldn't matter if the White House made it clear that the S.E.C. must choose an independent board. There's only one possible conclusion: The administration doesn't really want corporate reform.

A good op-ed on an issue that is hopefully going to be getting a lot of press in the run-up to Novembers elections.  Harvey Pitt, Bush's (and the accounting industry's) man at the SEC has backed away from his offer to John Biggs, the soon-to-be former CEO of my employer, and an outspoken advocate for accounting reform.  John Biggs announced his retirement on Monday, and now it looks like he'll have nothing to do with his time.

"To war, to war, to war we're gonna go! A-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-ho!"

Adolf Hitler. "What luck for rulers that men do not think." [Quotes of the Day]

Suppose you're devising a logo for a new wing of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an office charged with developing intelligence tools and integrating the government's existing surveillance networks. Suppose that it has a vaguely sinister name—say, the Information Awareness Office—and that it's to be run by a former Iran-contra conspirator. What would your design be?

This is hilarious.

"viameta"

Thomas Jefferson. "The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper." [Quotes of the Day]

"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis."

The Sunday Herald digs up another story.  This one talks about a report commissioned by James Baker (Bush I's Secretary of State) and submitted to Cheney in April of last year.  The document in question is available here.  I'm not sure its a smoking gun, but its certainly compelling and adds fuel to the fire for Oil being a central factor behind our actions in the Middle East.  The Sydney Morning Herald is also carrying the story.

I'll probably have more to say once I've read the document a bit closer.

One thing I did notice on the initial skimming is the document opens discussing the problems posed by the California energy crisis and the need for more secure sources energy.  This report was written before the complicity of the energy companies, specifically Enron, in California's situation was known.  Interestingly enough however, one of the members of the Independent Task Force which created the report, is Ken Lay. 

"viabix"

"The biggest security concern of Americans today is not Iraq or Osama. It's the fear that America itself could be weakened by short-term, greedy decisions, taken by politicians squandering our hard-won surplus or corporate executives squandering our pensions and undermining our markets. And Americans are right to be concerned. Because without a strong America holding the world together, and doing the right thing more often than not, the world really would be a Hobbesian jungle."

Good op-ed by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.  He's wondering why the Democrats aren't offering us an alternative to the path set before us by Bush and friends.  Me too.

U.S. officials said the president won't reveal any new evidence about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and won't unveil any new U.S. policy but will "urge the American people to make sure they are heard" as the country and the United Nations debate what to do about Saddam.

Bush wants to "talk directly to the American people" about Saddam on Monday.   Based on the accounts I've heard - granted, all from anti-unilateralists in the Congress - public opinion is running strongly against unilateral action.  I wonder if

1. thats actually the case nationwide
2. Bush realized that when he decided to "urge the American people to make sure they are heard."

ps. I said want's.  Beat me with a fork.

"The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?"

Senator Byrd's remarks in the Senate today.  He questions why we're in such a rush to war so close to elections, and without the neccesary evidence to take a dangerous, precendent-setting step.

"We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves. We recognize as well that there is no "one size fits all" answer. Our vision of the future is not one where every person eats Big Macs and drinks Coke -- or where every nation has a bicameral legislature with 535 members and a judiciary that follows the principles of Marbury vs. Madison.

Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe -- and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions. In countries such as Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and Qatar, reform is underway, taking shape according to different local circumstances. And in Afghanistan this year, a traditional Loya Jirga assembly was the vehicle for creating the most broadly representative government in Afghan history."

A speech given by Condoleeza Rice to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.  In it she does a very good job of articulating her views, which seem to form the basis for Bush's National Security Strategy.  It takes many of the points from the preceeding documents (PNAC and DPG) and moderates them, and does a much better job, I think, of presenting a reasonable vision for responsible use of American power.  If what she puts forward here were actually followed, and not corrupted by oil and various other commercial/religious interests, it would seem to make a lot of sense.  I'm just not sure thats possible with the current administration.

Oh, and CSPAN is cool.

"viameta"

"A search of the White House Web site indicates Bush has not made an unprompted mention of bin Laden's name since March 8. That day, at a GOP gathering in Florida, the president spoke of "this bin Laden fellow," and vowed: "We're going to find him." The last time Bush spoke the hated name in any public forum was a July 8 press conference, in which he was specifically asked if he would find bin Laden. "

An interesting article on some of the word games being played by the Administration.

"viameta"

"A clue appeared two days ago in Kommersant, a Russian publication whose correspondent revealed what he had learned on the Debkafile Web site, which claims to have sources at high levels in various intelligence and military services (particularly the Israeli Mossad). According to Debkafile, "the uranium seizure resulted from a joint operation by the [Russian] Foreign Intelligence Service and the CIA which began at the start of August." How interesting. After they played this hoax so big, why aren't the media more curious about the perpetrators? "

Good question.  Probably because it doesn't fit their script.

"Fleischer's unusually colorful remarks created a stir in the White House press corps, and Fleischer called reporters after the briefing to tone down the impact of his words. "I was making a rhetorical point about the cost of the bullet," he said. "The point I'm making is not an administration policy. If the Iraqi people took events into their own hands, the world would not shed a tear. I'm not stating administration policy, I'm stating the obvious.""

The Washington Post take on Fleischer's comments. 

"WASHINGTON - Commenting on the cost of a war in Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) said Tuesday it would be cheaper if President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) simply were assassinated. "

Well, interesting noises coming from the White House.  It also mentions exile as a possibility.  Delving a bit further into the transcript, Ari goes on to comment on the two possibilities.

On exile:

"Q And the second question is, you just said before, the cost of a one-way ticket is less than that, the cost of a single bullet is less than that. Are you suggesting that two perfectly good alternatives, to your mind, would be an exile of Saddam Hussein --

MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld, and many others, including the President, are not shy about saying the Iraqi people -- after all, this was called the Iraqi Liberation Act -- the Iraqi people can help resolve this matter, as well, and the Iraqi military. And so there are many options that the United States is prepared to see, and the President has said the military option is not his first choice, but the President is indeed prepared, if necessary, to use force. And that's why he's asked Congress to authorize it.

Q Will you help in the one-way ticket scenario? is the U.S. government willing to provide assistance in that regard?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's part of regime change, isn't it, if Saddam Hussein is gone? "

On assassination:

"Q You addressed David's question about one-way ticket. What about one-way bullet? Is the White House advocating assassination as a possible option for Saddam Hussein?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that it's fair to say that the Iraqi regime is not satisfied with Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein has created a great many enemies inside Iraq. And it is impossible to last forever as a brutal dictator who suppresses his own people, who tortures his own people, who deliberately brings women in public to be raped, so it can be witnessed by their families. He has not exactly created goodwill among the Iraqi people.

Q If I could follow on that, would the White House like to see Saddam Hussein dead?

MR. FLEISCHER: The policy is regime change. And that remains -- and that remains the American position. Clearly, in the event that there is any type of military operation, command and control would, of course, be issues that would come up.

Q Is the hope, though, that he ends up dead in all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is the policy, in whatever form it takes.

Q I just want to re-ask again then, the question I've been asking for several weeks. Is the administration about to rescind the executive order prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders, and claim that he's an international terrorist, and in fact, put out a hit on him?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. The policy remains in place, per the law.

Q Why is there no consideration to rescinding that executive order?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's just -- because it's not come up as matter that I've heard discussed, Connie. And so I can't tell you why something doesn't get discussed.

Q Could you ask?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't really think it's an issue. The policy remains regime change, as expressed by the Congress."

And then at the end of the briefing:

"Q Ari, could I just clarify the one bullet line -- is the White House from this podium advocating the assassination of Saddam Hussein by his own people, by his military?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the question was about potential costs and different scenarios for costs. And I just cited the fact that Saddam Hussein has survived as a result of the repression and suppression of his own people, and that's a reality about what life is like inside Iraq.

Q But I'm not asking you a question about costs. I'm asking you if you intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqis, person put a bullet in his head?

MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes.

Q So the answer is, yes?

MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you."

"viadrudge"

"Mr. Bush also mused that our children should know about, as he put it with authority, "the nearly impossible victory of the Revolutionary War." One doubts that the presidentially ordained version would include colonists' resolute commitment to guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics in breaking the back of the world's greatest military power, which, in retrospect, severely mitigated the near impossibility of an upstart-American victory. Two-hundred yea