Invading Iraq, benefits of:

There has been considerable discussion by neocons about what Kissinger's position is, and how it was reported in the press - particularly in the New York Times. Those who are pro-invasion point to this OpEd by Henry, and as New York Times (!) columnist Bill Keller wrote:

Among the many blessings Dr. Kissinger sees in a Saddam-free Iraq, he even offers some consolation for possibly anxious business clients: "a better balance in oil policy within OPEC."

The message is that once Saddam Hussein is gone, OPEC will keep oil prices down. Why? Perhaps because the U.S. colossus demands such things. Perhaps out of gratitude.

Or perhaps not.

It would seem that with the constant threat emanating from Iraq, the Saudis and other Gulf States are eager to keep the U.S. on their good side by being moderates within OPEC. After all, they may need help if they're invaded (or simply menaced). But with the removal of Hussein - and the threat(s) he poses - other issues will come to the surface (e.g. Israel/Palestine), and it's entirely possible that OPEC could get uppity and cause trouble.

Now, that's not to say it's a good idea to have a troublemaker around so that your allies stick with you. After all, a troublemaker is a troublemaker. But it's clear that you can't accept blithe assurances of good economic times once he's gone. Especially in a region with so many unresolved tensions as the Middle East.

posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 04:37:00 PM

Word games:

On Friday, August 23, the Los Angeles Times reported on California's Republican gubernatorial candidate thusly:

President Bush arrives in California today to raise desperately needed cash for gubernatorial hopeful Bill Simon Jr., a routine visit that has turned into a political predicament for the White House.

Bush advisors have cringed at the prospect of an appearance by the president, who has professed zero tolerance for corporate wrongdoing, alongside a candidate whose family investment firm faces a $78-million judgment in a case involving alleged fraud.

That was also the language used the same day on the NBC Nightly News.

So, there's a court case, a jury renders a decision, and it's still an alleged offence?

These days, the press won't call a spade a spade. No wonder the electorate has a poor grasp of the candidates' background (and policies). It's pretty much nothing but "horse race" analysis and the occasional gaffe.
posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 01:49:00 AM

Ted Turner put up $5 million for a joint U.S./Russian operation that recently spirited 100 lbs of uranium out of Yugoslavia in order to keep it out of the hands of terrorists. It's hard to imagine Richard Mellon Scaife doing something like that. His interest is funding conservative organizations.
From the Washington Post:

Scaife's trusts and foundations have given at least $146 million to university programs over the last 40 years – the equivalent of $373 million in inflation-adjusted dollars. At least two-thirds of that was directed to supporting conservative intellectuals and funding research on topics of deep interest to conservatives.

Of the two, who spent the money wisely?
posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 12:20:00 AM

Worth a look: Troubletown cartoons.

A new cartoon is available each Monday.
posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2002 11:33:00 PM

This is all you need to know.
From a Salon (Premium) article on Fox, Murdoch, tabloids, and the political discourse these days:

[Progressive politicians and Democrats] repeatedly underestimate the voter's capacity to support measures contrary to the voter's good simply because they are packaged in an entertaining way. They cannot fashion responses to naked charlatanism because they don't take it seriously enough as a political force. They don't understand that it doesn't matter if Bill O'Reilly is really a blue-collar hero as long as he can play one on television. They repeatedly are surprised by how seductive is the fakery of the carnival midway, even though that's how Rupert Murdoch got rich enough to afford a Newt Gingrich of his very own.

And a bit more on the Confidence Men theme, by Joshuah Micah Marshall (of Talking Points Memo), in this Washington Monthly article.

posted by Quiddity at 8/23/2002 08:35:00 PM

Fit or Fat?

Bush runs and runs and runs and runs. From this story in the Washington Post:

"It helps me to clear my mind."

[ As David Letterman said recently, "Mission accomplished!" ]

Bush said he usually runs six days a week ...

A treadmill is ... on Air Force One, where he ran for 90 minutes on a flight to Europe in May.

"It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency."

"... I'm convinced that running helped me quit drinking and smoking ..."

"I expect the White House staff to be on time and sharp and to exercise."

Smoking? Tell us more, George.

Re W.H. staff exercising: Does that include Larry Lindsey and Spencer Abraham?



posted by Quiddity at 8/22/2002 10:26:00 AM

Well, she wasn't really there when McVeigh was being shuttled around in chains, but she is on the record with those thoughts. As reported in the New York Observer.

Kaus: You have 24 hours to repudiate this woman.

UPDATE: Mickey has posted two items in the 48 hours since the Coulter story broke. One, about the New York Times reporting of Kissinger's position vis-à-vis Iraq. (Kaus and conservatives agree: The New York Times is hoplessly biased.) The other, about stock analysts. And the Coulter permalink on his page is still firmly in place. E.g.:

Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough.

TIRESOME UPDATE #2: It's now 72 hours and Mickey has come in with a third item. Yes! It's another attack on the New York Times. Still no comment on Coulter though.


posted by Quiddity at 8/22/2002 02:38:00 AM

Bush receives the kindest cut:

Bush and Rumsfeld took some time out from their defense briefing to speak to reporters.



What actually happened was shown on CBS:

In a report by Bill Plante:

BUSH: ... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider - uh, .. uh, .. uh, .. uh - all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence.

The four seconds where Bush was trying come up with the items he was going to consider were unflattering to the President. He looked hesitant and not focused on the issues.

However, a different George Bush was seen on ABC:

In a report by Terry Moran:

BUSH: ... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider - uh, ^† all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence.

How did ABC do that? Instead of a continuous shot, which would have shown a "jump", the viewer saw Bush at the podium up until the words "we will consider", and then the image was switched (†) to a side view - the four-second fumbling excised - where "all technologies available" was heard as if he spoke whole thing seamlessly.


There is a noticeable difference when comparing two video clips, but it still carries some punch in an audio version which is available as a 250k .wav file here. The first part is CBS / Bill Plante, the second part is ABC / Terry Moran. (The .wav file is as small as possible: 8bit, mono, 8khz sampling.)

Who says the media doesn't polish Bush's image?

Calling Howard Kurtz!

---

UPDATE:

In case you were wondering if the report on ABC was edited by Procrustes, here are some additional details: The total length was 91 seconds (or 90?). The breakdown was as follows:

TIME	VIDEO	AUDIO
00-04	Bush and Rumsfeld arriving in a pickup truck.	MORAN: "The President rolled up to waiting reporters, Secretary Rumsfeld riding shotgun."
05-08	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	MORAN: "The two men made light of invading Iraq."
09-23	Close-up of Bush at podium.	BUSH: "I know there's this kind of intense speculation that's been going on. I don't know how you would describe it. A churning." RUMSFELD:"Frenzy." BUSH: "Frenzy, is how the Secretary would describe it. But the subject didn't come up."
24-28	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	MORAN: "Mr. Bush, once again, as he has in recent weeks seemed to tone down his rhetoric about attacking Iraq."
29-37	Close-up of Bush at podium.	BUSH: "... when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man. And that we will look at all options and we will consider, um"
-	The 4-second edit.	um, um, um,
38-43	Side shot of Bush & Rumsfeld.	BUSH: "all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence."
44-52	Gen. Tommy Franks in Kazakhstan.	MORAN: "But the war talk continues. In Kazakhstan, General Tommy Franks who would lead any campaign against Iraq, said that he was drawing up war plans."
53-71	Fort Hood, Texas	MORAN: "And later, addressing troops at Fort Hood, Texas, Secretary Rumsfeld, who is a leading advocate of going after Saddam Hussein militarily, had this to say." RUMSFELD: "The president has made no such decision that we should go into Iraq. He's thinking about it, but... (chuckles)"
72-91	Terry Moran @ Bush's Crawford ranch. Live (EDT), not tape.	Wrap up commentary by Terry Moran

It's impossible to know for sure why the 4-second edit took place without asking those who did it. However, there was a fair amount of time on atmospherics (arriving in pickup truck, joshing about the "frenzy"), which makes it unlikely that there was a severe time constraint. Also, invading Iraq is a major issue, and presumably less subject to the editing axe. In any event, viewers should be wary whenever ABC shows Bush and cuts from one angle to another while he is speaking.


posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2002 08:54:00 PM

How do you repeal drug laws?

Not with the help of politicians.

Let's look at a case history. The U.S. Constitution specifies the following amendment process:

Article V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution ... [which] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ...

There has been only one amendment ratified by conventions. The 21st, which ended Prohibition (the 18th amendment), and reads:

Amendment XXI - Amendment XVIII repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Even after it was obvious that Prohibition was a disaster, politicians stood aside and let state conventions be the agent for repeal.

Which probably explains why relaxation of laws for marijuana possession - this year in Nevada - is being pursued via the initiative process.

Some things never change.
posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2002 10:28:00 AM

Cursor notes that Bush was sent a letter encouraging him not to attend an Earth Summit conference in Johannesburg at the end of August. This was covered in more detail at the Guardian. There, they note that one of the organizations that signed the letter was The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. This group received $35,000 in 2001 from ExxonMobil as part of a Public Information and Policy Research program. As ExxonMobil puts it, "Funds were assigned to support organizations that address policy alternatives in a balanced, objective, and methodologically sound manner."

Who is The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and what are they all about? It appears to be a two-man operation, but that's besides the point. What's notable is how anti-Green they are. For example, here is the charming graphic that decorates their Green Shot section:



Cute, huh?

Of some interest is their archives collection. In it, we read commentary like:

For eight long years, environmental activists could pull up to the White House, pile out of their VW Things, and expect to shuffle their Birkenstocks across a red carpet right into the West Wing. But now that the lava lamps and "Gore 2000" signs have been removed, things are a little different over at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Who said the 60's are over? Apparently they still live on in the fevered minds of conservatives.
posted by Quiddity at 8/20/2002 06:51:00 AM

Bush visits South Dakota - news item.

posted by Quiddity at 8/19/2002 09:56:00 PM

Sunday Show Round-up. For August 18, 2002, the topic was Iraq, invade or not? Now or later?

Follow the leader -

NBC's Meet The Press:

(Moderator) BRIAN WILLIAMS: Senator Inhofe, what about the growing number of Americans we hear from and read about in opinion polls saying, “You know what? I just haven’t heard the case made yet to the extent that I could support going in, pre-emptively, in Iraq.”

Senator JIM INHOFE, (R-Okla.): Well, first of all, the American people don’t have and shouldn’t have the information that the national security team has. You know, the whole thing’s about leadership. ... Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction—I believe, including nuclear. ... We have the best national security team that’s ever been assembled. I think the star of that team is Condoleezza Rice. We should let them listen to the confidential information they have, the intelligence they have and act and exert leadership and quit worrying about who else is going to join us.

Pay no attention to other opinions. And there's only one task to do in the Middle East -

Fox "News" Sunday panel discussion:

BRIT HUME: Let's be clear about this. We're not talking here about passing a piece of legislation. We're not talking about having a policy that's popular in the polls. We're not talking about getting a Senate resolution that approves the idea of the war. The only thing that matters, only thing that ultimately matters if you attack Saddam Hussein is that you succeed in toppling him. And it's hard to imagine an aftermath in Iraq that would be worse than the present circumstances. Almost impossible to imagine.

...

JUAN WILLIAMS: ... if our priority is, as the President has said, is the war on terrorism, why are we sacrificing the potential, - and here I'm echoing Scowcroft and Kissinger - why are we sacrificing the potential, to have our Arab and Asian allies withdraw and pull away from us in terms of seeking out terrorists?

BRIT HUME: Success in Iraq will take care of all of that.

There you go. Don't think, just do it.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 05:31:00 PM

Did you know?

Argentina's Poor Turn to Gardening for Food

That's the headline of a recent Reuters story. In it, we read:

With unemployment at a record 21.5 percent after a crippling recession forced a devastating public debt default and currency devaluation, thousands of families must find new ways to survive in what was once known as the world's breadbasket -- a country that, according to private estimates, has the capacity to feed 300 million people.

About one out of every four children do not have enough to eat in Argentina -- a major producer and exporter of grains, oilseeds and meat, where half of the population now lives in poverty. Groups of unemployed sporadically block highways to demand food and work.

Which leads to the question of what, if anything, the United States should do about it.

Can Argentina be helped? Does the United States have a program where farmers grow more food than the market demands, a program that could be harnessed for good?

Of course there is. And it was extended, and expanded, when Bush signed the $170 billion Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

Not only would shipping the excess food feed the starving poor, but it would stabilize that country and help avoid another foreign policy headache. It would burnish the U.S. reputation abroad and allow Bush to point to his first genuine case of being compassionate.

Now here at uggabugga, we didn't particularly like the Farm Bill, but as long as we're shelling out big money for excess butter, corn, and peanuts, let's get something in return and use it.

Here's another example of a situation where Bush has a program in place, little or no extra money is needed, but he doesn't use it to help people (the other notorious instance was his refusal to push FERC to stop electricity price scalping).

Feeding starving people (especially children) is the first rung on the compassionate stepladder. Yet Bush won't even do that.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 09:44:00 AM

Concerned about financial scandals? Looking for The Enforcer to insure a just playing field for everybody? All eyes turn to the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Notice anything? How about those Roman numerals? What date is that? 1934?

The SEC is a product of the "socialist" Franklin D. Roosevelt administration! Or at least, that was one of the epithets hurled at the guy. Back then, Republicans claimed he was out to destroy capitalism. Boy, were they wrong.

These days, some conservatives harken to pre-FDR times, but do they want to dismantle the SEC along the way? Probably not, but you can be sure they'd like to remove that irritating date from the seal.
posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2002 01:02:00 AM