Going downhill fast
Gathering at the elite Deer Valley ski retreat, the newly humbled masters of
the universe bemoan the Bush economy but express high hopes for his war.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tina Brown
March 13, 2003 | The masters of the universe are feeling grounded. Last
week I was a guest at a CEO conference, hosted by one of the major banks, at
Deer Valley Resort in Utah. Utah is less chichi than Aspen, Colo., but it
has become the snow venue of choice for many of the big shots who run the
world. It's one of the few places in America where CEOs look forward to
going downhill fast.
This was the conference where, at the turn of the century, irrational
exuberance ran wild. Attendees like Enron's Jeffrey Skilling were kings of
the mountain. In the shadow of war, the economic mood is darkly different.
So is the hair. A cool mogul off-duty ensemble today is a pastel cashmere
sweater and a fully shaved head. (See two of the Dreamworks SKG partners,
Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, sporting cueball pates on the cover of
last week's Forbes Global magazine.)
The moneyed monk look is appropriate for the era of the hair shirt. The
airlines are going bankrupt. Power companies are in tatters. ("Siting your
nuclear plant is tough enough, but now we can't even put up a windmill
without getting a whole lot of shit about the goddam flying squirrels,"
grumbled one oil-and-gas capo.) Retail stinks. Telecommunications is a
wipeout. Theme parks are empty. Baseball? No money in it. Publishing? It's
perishing. The hotel business is down the unscrubbed toilet. Most chains
have cut maintenance costs by 10 percent. If you stay in a supposedly chic
boutique hotel these days it feels about as glamorous as lipstick on someone
else's towel.
Things are not helped by the lack of confidence in the administration's new
secretary of the treasury, John Snow, who replaced the gaffe-prone Paul
O'Neill. As one chairlift-bound hotshot commented with a harsh laugh, "Their
first treasury secretary was in aluminum. This one ran a railroad. What's
the next one gonna be? A blacksmith?"
The only happy campers are the private equity boys. The companies that were
the biggest acquirers, such as Vivendi, AOL Time Warner, Tyco and Enron, are
now the biggest sellers. Between them, the three major equity companies --
Blackstone, the Carlyle Group and Texas Pacific -- have a staggering $10
billion of spare cash, or "dry powder" as it's known in the trade, waiting
idly for the next round of jumbo leveraged buyouts, soon to be upon us. The
first whopper has already happened. The apparently healthy Burger King was
snagged by the Texas Pacific Group for the price of a hamburger -- and the
seller financed half the acquisition.
The Deer Valley crowd represents the cream of American business. Some were
at Yale with George W. Bush or knew him in Houston. At Yale he crossed their
paths only as the animal house undergrad from the lucky sperm club. Later he
was the amiable but butterfingered businessman who was on the board of such
Texas business fiascoes as Caterair, a debt-ridden airline catering company,
known as Crater Air after it disclosed $263 million in losses and
write-offs. They used to shake their heads and marvel at how he stumbled
from one failing oil company to another, beginning with Arbusto -- which
lived up to its name.
Now all their businesses depend on his actions and they are surprisingly OK
with that. They may liken his diplomacy with the allies to a botched merger,
but they give him credit for the way he ran America in its worst crisis in
history. After 9/11, he turned out to be a surprisingly effective executive
who didn't indulge in endless Clintonian seminars before booting out the
Taliban. They think Iraq, too, is "a good bet." The president, after all, is
at the helm of one of the few businesses that still works miraculously well,
the U.S. military. Bush had a road-to-Damascus experience over 9/11, those
who know him say, and he is still in the grip of it.
In Alcoholics Anonymous there is a recovery technique they call "As If."
Every hour of every day, you're supposed to act as if you are a punctual or
committed or hardworking or polite person. Sooner or later, if you do it
enough, the act will stick and become the truth. Perhaps something like As
If has happened in W's case. Which was the truth last week? The steadfast,
religious gaze of the president who thanked the nation for lifting him up in
prayer, or the accomplished political player who halfway through his speech
winked at Sen. Chuck Schumer? Both, probably. There is no doubt that W loved
the clarity of the movie role he played after 9/11 -- the inspirational
leader with the bullhorn, his arm around a fireman at ground zero, called
upon to lead the free world out of its moment of darkness. Dealing with
issues of life and death. Liberated from demeaning domestic hassles like
unemployment insurance or the dismally unheroic healthcare for seniors.
Rumsfeld loved that movie too. Now, with Iraq, they get to do the sequel.
"As If" became "I Am."
America is a proactive culture. It is not in its DNA just to wait to get hit
again. Bush's popularity, despite the nation's profound doubts about the
war, derives from his appeal to a basic American instinct: Do it yourself.
It's the same instinct that makes the housewife in Michael Moore's film
"Bowling for Columbine" say, as she dandles her baby on her knee, that she
carries a gun to protect her family. "I mean, cut out the middleman," she
says. Like the police. Or the U.N.
It's nervous-making. One of the young bankers at Deer Valley told how he
went to buy a Superman costume for his son's 9th birthday party and found
the label weirdly appropriate: "Wearing this Superman costume does not
enable purchaser to fly." He was talking about the economy, but he could
have been talking about Bush.
>IS BUSH NUTS?
>
>By William Thomas
>Senior Reporter, Lifeboat News
>
>Feb. 12, 2003
>
>What drives a man to go against the wishes of his countryfolk and
>the entire world community - including the presidents of Russia,
>China, France and Germany?
>
>How can a professed Christian continue to defy church leaders
>worldwide - including the Bishops of Britain and the Pope? How does
>he rationalize breaking the commandments of his God, which clearly
>prohibit coveting another's property, theft of their oil, and mass
>murder of defenseless populations?
>
>How can he ignore his own generals when they complain, "We're
>advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is
>not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies." [Capitol
>Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]
>
>To those who deem it unseemly to count the bricks on one man's load,
>let us recall that this unelected President is one brick short of
>killing what the UN fears could be up to a half-million people in
>Iraq. This massacre could easily see Pakistan's government - and its
>30 to 40 nukes - falling to an al Qaeda/Taliban majority. Bush's
>announced plans to attack North Korea and Iran have already prompted
>both countries to hit the nuclear gas pedal, virtually assuring a
>"nuclear event". And his $5 trillion blowout has taken the American
>economy to a $2 trillion deficit in two short years. As ignored
>global warming triggers Extreme Weather Events, frightened Nobel
>price-winning economists warn that GW's proposed $600 billion tax
>cut is "fiscal madness" - "a very serious economic error" that will
>collapse the country in exactly the same way the ex-Soviet Empire
>went bust buying and deploying so many arms in so many places. Ditto
>Imperial Rome.
>
>Are these the acts of a rational person?
>
>Not since Nixon's famous freak-outs in the White House, which saw
>National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger ordering military
>commanders to ignore nuclear launch orders from their
>Commander-In-Chief, is it so urgent that we examine a president's
>cognitive capacities. [The Trial of Henry Kissinger]
>
>It might be useful to scrutinize the following findings. While
>everyone "goes nuts" from time to time, the salient question is
>whether traits described below dominate and drive today's
>presidential decisions. Is a man called by other government reps,
>"an idiot" "an imbecile" "dangerously incompetent" and "a moron"
>competent, capable and qualified to direct America's unchallenged
>military might?
>
>Read on. If you dare.
>
>PATTERN RECOGNITION
>
>"Is The 'President' Nuts?" asks Carol Wolman, M.D. "Many people,
>inside and especially outside this country, believe that the
>American president is nuts, and is taking the world on a suicidal
>path." [Counterpunch Oct. 2, 2002]
>
>A board-certified psychiatrist in practice for 30 years, Dr. Wolman
>feels compelled to understand the "psychopathology" of man "under
>tremendous pressure from both his family/junta, and from the world
>at large." Dr. Wolman wonders if GW is suffering from Antisocial
>Personality Disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical
>Manual Fourth Edition:
>
>"There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the
>rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect
>to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that
>are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated
>lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or
>pleasure; 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 7)
>lack of remorse by being indifferent to or rationalizing having
>hurt, mistreated or stolen from others."
>
>DRY DRUNK
>
>GW Bush is highly regarded for "kicking" the twin demons of cocaine
>and alcohol addiction. If he is still off both wagons - and there is
>no proof that isn't - such a triumph, encouraged and aided by his
>wife, is commendable.
>
>When probing the mysteries of GW's brain chemistry, a key point to
>ponder is that damage done to brain cells from drug abuse is
>permanent and irreversible.
>
>Quaker and university professor Katherine van Wormer co-authored the
>definitive, 2002, Addiction Treatment. This expert writes that
>"George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what
>alcoholics in recovery call 'the dry drunk'. His behavior is
>consistent with being brought on by years of heavy drinking and
>possible cocaine use." [Counterpunch Oct. 11, 2002]
>
>"Dry drunk," explains the professor, "is a slang term used by
>members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse
>counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer
>drinking - one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded."
>
>Such an individual is 'dry' but not truly sober. Such individuals
>tend to go to overboard. A good example of Bush' "polarized
>thinking" is his call for "crusades" based on "infinite justice" for
>"evil-doers" comprising an "axis of evil".
>
>Bush's "obsessive repetition" also remind this professor, "of many
>of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated." Van Wormer
>worries, "His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into
>paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him."
>
>Paranoia? Impatience? Rigid judgmental outlook? Grandiose behavior?
>Childish behavior? Irresponsible behavior? Irrational
>rationalization? Projection? Overreaction?
>
>
>- these are all "dry drunk" traits.
>
>Van Wormer observers that Bush's pompous pledge: "We must be
>prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before
>they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction" is a
>projection from the world's leading rogue state preparing to attack
>with nuclear weapons.
>
>"Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality" should be emphasized. Prof.
>van Wormer describes this is as either/or reasoning - "either you
>are with us or against us". A White House spokesperson puts it this
>way: "The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as
>such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an
>act of treason.'' [Capitol Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]
>
>BUSH'S BINGES - HISTORY IMPACTS THE PRESENT
>
>Bush's binges were legendary. Van Wormer describes "years of binge
>drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in
>1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode
>involving theft of a Christmas wreath." She adds:
>
>"The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father,
>sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's
>reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered.
>The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's
>memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's
>laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts
>and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. His military
>record was mediocre as compared to his father's as well. [He went
>AWOL] "
>
>In Fortunate Son, Bush himself explained: "Alcohol began to compete
>with my energies ... I'd lose focus". Though he once said he
>couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a drink, he quickly added the
>giveaway phrase that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic".
>
>Van Wormer notes that "Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he
>made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a
>'born again Christian' - going as usual from one extreme to the
>other." When asked in an interview about his reported cocaine use,
>he answered reasonably, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20
>to 30 years ago".
>
>One motive driving Dubya could be his need "to prove himself to his
>father - to achieve what his father failed to do - to finish the job
>of the Gulf War, to get the 'evildoer' Saddam." Adds van Wormer,
>"His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small
>significance, psychologically."
>
>BRAIN DAMAGE
>
>According to Van Wormer, "scientists can now observe changes that
>occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug
>abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent."
>
>Van Wormer characterizes this damage as "barely noticeable but
>meaningful." Researchers have found that brain chemistry
>irregularities caused by long bouts of drinking or drug abuse cause
>"messages in one part of the brain to become stuck there. This leads
>to maddening repetition of thoughts."
>
>One of these powerful "stuck" thoughts, says van Wormer, is that
>"President Bush seems unduly focused upon getting revenge on Saddam
>Hussein ('He tried to kill my Dad'), leading the country and the
>world into war, accordingly."
>
>Grandiosity is another major trait of former addicts brain-damaged
>by their addiction. Bush has reversed the successful, five-decade
>old U.S. policy of containment and no first strikes. Now he says,
>Americans can attack anyone, anywhere at any time with any weapons
>of their choosing - including banned cluster bomb munitions,
>radioactive explosives and nuclear bombs.
>
>AN AGENT OF ARMAGEDDON?
>
>According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, a person
>suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, "Has a grandiose
>sense of self-importance-exaggerates achievements and talents,
>expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
>achievements."
>
>Sound familiar?
>
>This personality is preoccupied with fantasies of power and being
>loved. Such a person requires "automatic compliance". He or she is
>"exploitative" of others, "lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize
>or identify with the feelings and needs of others." And also "shows
>arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes."
>
>"This set of characteristics," says Dr. Wolman, not too
>reassuringly, "may describe Rumsfeld and Cheney better than Dubya."
>
>For those who, like Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stieglitz, warn that
>Bush "has been captured by a small group of ideologues," Dependent
>Personality Disorder describes someone who "has difficulty making
>everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and
>reassurance from others." [CBC Feb. 10, 2003]
>
>>From a Jungian perspective, writes Dr. Wolman, "Dubya may be
>>identifying with an archetype - something out of Revelations,
>>perhaps, whereby he sees himself as an instrument of God's will to
>>bring about Armageddon." Concurs Katherine van Wormer, "To fight
>>evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical
>>sense."
>
>A PRESIDENTIAL PATHOLOGY
>
>Is Bush's belligerence bent on securing another oil fix? Katherine
>van Wormer believes that a Portland peace protestor's sign, "Drunk
>on Power" nailed it. Says this quiet Quaker, "The drive for power
>can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself."
>
>Senator William Fulbright agrees. His bestseller, The Arrogance of
>Power defined power politics as the pursuit of power. "The causes
>and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with
>politics," Fulbright wrote.
>
>A key "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush, who often describes
>himself as "a patient man", is not. Just four weeks after inspectors
>went into Iraq, he called for obliterating Baghdad. "If we wait for
>threats to fully materialize", Bush pointed out to West Pointers,
>"we will have waited too long". Translations: It's okay to attack
>projections of our own fearful imaginings - in case those phantom
>threats someday become real.
>
>Alan Bisbort's "Dry Drunk - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help?" appeared
>in American Politics Journal. Bisbort believes that Bush's
>"incoherence" when speaking away from prepared scripts is a classic
>sign of addicted brain damage.
>
>For Bisbort, another "dry drunk" tip-off is Dubya's irritability
>with anyone who dares disagree with him - including Germany's new
>leader, who insists he is opposing Bush's folly in Iraq as a
>concerned long-time friend of America. (Schroeder's wife is
>American.)
>
>Another "Dry drunk" sign says van Wormer, is Dubya's "dangerous
>obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other
>things."
>
>Van Wormer's bottom line prognosis: "George W. Bush seems to possess
>the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the
>thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. The fact that some
>residual effects from his earlier substance abuse - however slight -
>might cloud the U.S. President's thinking and judgment is
>frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis."
>
>DON'T LAUGH
>
>The Toronto Star recounts how NYU author and media critic Mark
>Crispin Miller attempted to catalogue GW's verbal gaffes. Some
>favorites: "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the
>country." "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
>
>"The future will be better tomorrow."
>
>"He meant it for a laugh," wrote the Star. "Not now."
>
>The author of Boxed In: The Culture of TV believes "Bush is not an
>imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic
>personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate
>sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator.
>And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a
>lot of people miss."
>
>Miller's judgment - that an unelected president might suffer from a
>clinical personality disorder - is much heavier than being called
>the global village idiot. "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff
>when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence,
>when he's talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his
>chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller mentions. "It's only
>when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism,
>or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."
>
>Bush even has trouble repeating comforting clichés. "Fool me once,
>shame ... shame on ... you," Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me -
>can't get fooled again!"
>
>While the world was laughing, Miller saw something darker. "What's
>revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to
>save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy
>who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude,"
>wrote Miller.
>
>Miller says that Bush saying, "I know how hard it is to put food on
>your family" is not 'cause he's stupid, but "because he doesn't care
>about people who can't put food on the table."
>
>When Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," Miller
>contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean
>nothing to him. "When he tries to talk about what this country
>stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," Miller observes.
>
>According to Miller, this is why GW is so closely watched by his
>handlers. "Not because he'll say something stupid," the Star
>paraphrased, "but because he'll overindulge in the language of
>violence and punishment at which he excels."
>
>"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy," Miller says. "He's much like
>Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he
>makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he
>would lose his temper." Adds this media expert, "It would be a grave
>mistake to just play him for laughs."
>
>DEPRESSION CAN BE DANGEROUSLY DEPRESSING
>
>Confronted by a man who will not listen to anyone but a few
>"chickenhawks" urging worldwide war, why shouldn't we feel
>depressed? Not surprisingly, we do.
>
>Seventy percent of U.S. pastors constantly fight depression. Right
>now, almost three million Canadians are seriously depressed.
>(Multiply by four or five for approximate U.S. figures.) We can't
>blame GW for this. Or the fact that suicide is the 3rd leading cause
>of death in 15 to 24 year olds. But as the man responsible for
>perpetrating a worldwide bummer, George isn't helping!
>[www.tonycooke.org; National Institute of Mental Health]
>
>If it's politically incorrect to ask these questions, how "correct"
>is it to launch 800 cruise missiles and thousands of one-ton bombs
>on a captive urban population already suffering the ravages of
>deliberately imposed hunger and disease?
>
>CHOKA COLA?
>
>Another big clue to Dubya's displays of dementia comes in
>"photo-ops" showing him slugging back diet Coke with other Aspartame
>addicts, like Chicago's mayor Richard Daley. Their beet red faces
>spell either embarrassment over Bush's hijacking of America, or
>aspartame poisoning. [Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 27, 2002]
>
>According to Carol Guilford, an Aspartame expert and support worker,
>the President-Select's "pretzel" pratfall was most likely an
>Aspartame seizure. Bush, like Carter, Al Gore and millions of
>Americans, is addicted to this constant caffeine hit. Among the
>FDA's listed 92 symptoms for Aspartame poisoning are: "Difficulty
>Swallowing", "Fainting" and "Unconsciousness".
>
>Bush's facial lesions, removed as a result of "Too much sun" is
>another sign of Aspartame poisoning. So was his recent knee surgery:
>Aspartame depletes synovial fluid lubricating the joints.
>
>Would you drink 6 to 12 cans of formaldehyde a day? It turns out
>that methanol in Aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the tissues.
>As Guildford wrote to USN Captain Eleanor Marino, Physician to the
>President (Feb. 21, 2002): 10% of a 200mg can of diet soda is
>straight methanol wood alcohol! Methanol is such a gross cumulative
>poison, the EPA's limit for drinking water is 7.8 mg daily. For
>serious addicts like Bush, the methanol intake can exceed 32 times
>the EPA's recommended limit..
>
>Now the punch line: Clinical case studies shows that, among other
>symptoms, Aspartame ingestion results in "mind fog", feeling
>"unreal", poor memory, confusion, anxiety, irritability, depression,
>mania, and slurred speech. [Neurology 1994]
>
>Alcohol-related brain damage is not helped by chugging formaldehyde.
>James Turner, consumer protection lawyer and author of The Chemical
>Feast learned that an Oct. 1980 FDA inquiry found that the
>formaldehyde formed by Aspartame actually eats microscopic holes and
>triggers tumors in the brain.
>
>That finding banned Aspartame from the food supply. But three months
>later, Searle CEO Donald Rumsfeld told that pharma giant's sales
>staff he would get Aspartame approved pronto. The next month, the
>FDA commissioner was replaced by Dr. Arthur Hayes. In Nov. 1983 the
>FDA approved aspartame for soft drinks. Under fire for accepting
>corporate bribes, Hayes went to work for Searle's public-relations
>firm. Searle lawyer Robert Shapiro coined the name NutraSweet.
>Monsanto bought Searle. Rumsfeld received $12 million for his help.
>Shapiro now heads Monsanto.
>
>The same "revolving door" swings wide for arms makers and the oil
>mafia. The Big Question is: Why hasn't Dick warned George that the
>diet drinks he's swilling are eating his brain and making him crazy?
>
>Crazy? Am I calling the President-Select of the Excited States
>crazy? Not me. As a journalist, I can only point out that published
>medical evidence goes frighteningly far in explaining GW's behavior.
>For certain, this good ol' boy should go in for a brain scan before
>being allowed to command more firepower than the next 11 nations
>combined. If George W. Bush is not crazy - he's sure acting like it.
Posted on Mar 13, 2003, 5:35 PM from IP address 4.33.84.242
I have just read your Op/Ed piece in the New York Times. here
& I would like to discuss it w/ you...
John McCain wrote:
> The Right War for the Right Reasons
There is no such thing as a "right war", nor do you need "reasons"; what you need is justification & you have none that would allow you to act unilaterally.
> American and British armed forces will likely soon begin to disarm
> Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. We do not know
> whether they will have the explicit authorization of veto-wielding
> members of the United Nations Security Council. But either way, the
> men and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride in the
> justice of their cause.
Doesn't "justice" exist w/in the framework of "law"? Where then is "justice" when international laws are being wantonly flouted?
> Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime
> would be, in a word, unjust. This opposition has coalesced around a
> set of principles of "just war" principles that they feel would be
> violated if the United States used force against Iraq.
This is non-sequitorial. The issue is not whether it is just or unjust to remove Saddam's regime; the issue is who does it, how it's done, & under which auspices.
> The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means
> to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust
> means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means
> indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different
> arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now,
> with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep,
> Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass
> destruction. Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts in this
> case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence
> is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means
> could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.
Let us side-step the issue of whether he can "give up" something he may not have to begin w/ & focus on this idea of "obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts". You seem to be very keen on an analysis of Saddam's character & track-record; but what if we freely admit that he's both a tyrant & a monster? What if it's painfully obvious that he is in no position to pose a direct threat to the USA? What if the world would accede to his removal by a third-party coalition yet balk at the US taking unilateral action in defiance of international conventions -- which conventions I'll point out have been laboriously constructed over 1/2 a century? Sorry, I'd indeed call that "rushing to war".
> These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate
> between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating
> bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict
> unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss
> of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far
> fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are
> killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the
> constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might
> otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to
> their own lives to prevent civilian deaths.
Great, so following this logic, let's have more & more wars so fewer & fewer people will be killed...
> The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the
> United States for the opening hours of the conflict likely to involve
> more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48
> hours is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is
> intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade
> Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our
> forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further
> atrocities against the Iraqi people. The force our military uses will
> be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to
> face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's
> most destructive weapons.
What would be proportional then? Why not just nuke the bastard & be done w/ it? Or were there certain contracts issued to the people who make MRE's? I note you do not say "injury" yet "threat of injury"; who has assessed this threat, the same bright bulbs who didn't know there were Al Qaeda operatives in the US in the September of 2001? The CIA Middle-East Dept, where no one spoke Arabic? The Masters of Espionage who still haven't located Osama bin Laden & to this day are not sure whether he's dead or alive? Perhaps it was the pogues who decided it was o.k. to leave Saddam in power after Gulf War I? So what is the threat that Saddam poses? He is going to personally mail every US citizen a letter full of anthrax in an envelope purporting to be our promised tax rebates? Senator, did it occur to you that the prospect of 48 hrs of more than 3k precision guided munitions might simply make some Iraqi colonel a trifle... panicky? Or might cause another, once the rain of fire starts, to think, "heck w/ it, I'll take a few w/ me on the way down" -- w/ all due respect, sir; I find your argument here disingenuous in the extreme.
> Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and
> should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only
> body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the
> administration cares more about the credibility of the Security
> Council than do other council members who demand the complete
> disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to
> enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an
> American president from his responsibility to protect the security of
> this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted
> the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is
> all the authority he requires.
The Security Council works by democratic principle... they vote -- perhaps you've forgotten how that system works since it no longer seems necessary for the election of a president. So your argument here is that President Shrub can act w/out the UN to protect America from Saddam... I'm sorry, how was it again that Saddam poses a direct threat to us? It seems to have slipped my mind... The American president has a direct responsibility to maintain collective arrangements which guarantee the security of our citizens & our allies -- otherwise why have them to begin w/? Oh, I see, you are arguing that we don't actually need them. Well, I don't know about you, perhaps you know him better, but it seems to me that Saddam would be quite tickled to imagine that he'd indirectly brought down that pesky UN which had been so troubling him for all this time.
> Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would
> not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to
> be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of
> Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the
> region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam
> Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries,
> used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to
> harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the
> prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to
> abide by the Security Council demands that he disarm.
"Interests & values". Hm... "interests" I understand, I can parse this as "investment"; but I'm having a bit more difficulty w/ this other one, this "values" -- do you mean to say that Saddam is acting contrary to US "values" by scorning international accords, threatening other nations w/ mass-destruction, & sending many of his own citizens to their deaths? I'm sorry Senator, I fail to see any deviation from this administration's "values" in that.
> Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the
> Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant
> Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its
> ruthlessness? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be
> encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by
> Americans rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the critics'
> definition of justice?
You were a POW, weren't you, Senator? I will try to phrase this delicately but, ah... did they perhaps give you something while you were in captivity? A mind-altering substance perhaps? You think "antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world" would diminish in the face of upwards of 400,000 Western troops invading an arab nation, or more than 3k bombs hitting it? The only Islamic elements who will be pleased at this prospect are the Wahabbis & other radicals who will find it a blessing that we've removed the "apostate heretic" from power & get to work immediately at replacing him w/ one of their own.
> Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq a peace built on more
> secure foundations than are found today in the Middle East. Even more
> important, they will fight for the two human conditions of even
> greater value than peace: liberty and justice. Some of them will
> perish in this just cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor
> their sacrifice.
Yeah, right... "Insh'Allah!" I like that bit, "fight for peace", how exactly does that work? Or can I find the answer in Orwell? You wouldn't by chance have a bill up now for the construction of a "Shrine to the Martyrs" somewhere in Arizona, would you? If your fellow senators think this is unfair you can tell them to wait their turn & then they can have their own shrines, once we've dealt w/ Chad & Turkestan...
> John McCain, a Republican, is a senator from Arizona.
...& has consistently demonstrated that while he is fond of using words like "freedom", "liberty", & "justice", he has no conception of what any of them mean. He as already proven that he would chew the Bill of Rights into a spit-ball to prevent a minor from seeing 'pornography' (which of course they can do at any magazine stand) & trade the Constitution in for greater cable-tv access. The AZ baseball team is called the "Diamondbacks", & that's what we have here w/ Senator McCain... a rattlesnake. Shake it harder, John, we're not buying it.
best,
Blackhawk.
Posted on Mar 12, 2003, 4:35 PM from IP address 4.43.254.170
Au revoir to French food names
Politics of culinary nomenclature captivate U.S. House
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, March 11 — Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put “freedom fries” on the menu. And for breakfast they’ll now have “freedom toast.”
Posted on Mar 12, 2003, 3:05 PM from IP address 4.43.254.170
(Gothic News Service, 3/07/03) Two Rangers at Black Rock Mesa the annual site in Nevada for the Burning Man Festival - were greeted by a strange vision this morning. Talking to a Reno newspaperman, one of them reported, "It was sunrise across the playa and we were on our first patrol. When we looked down from the perimeter ridge, we initially saw an astonishingly large grid of either body or garbage bags. Through our binoculars against the rising sun, we could see that they were definitely filled - it could have been potatoes or anything big and lumpy. Each bag was spaced about 30 feet away from the next one - about 50 parallel lines going north and south, and about 40 going east and west. The whole thing made a large rectangular space, about a mile long and a kilometer wide. Frankly I can¹t say if was just spooky, or both spooky and spectacular, to see all those black bags begin to get sun's first rays."
"When we got down inside to the actual site," reported the other Ranger, "You can't believe what we found in each of those bags. Each one had a couple of breathing holes, thankfully, for otherwise they were tied down close with duct tape. I had to use my knife carefully so as not to cut anything inside. Low and behold, when I opened the first one, it was a body. The first one a female and the next one a male, both in their twenties. Each body was in a fetal, curled up shape. Breathing, thankfully, but totally comatose, or so it seemed.
"Yep, not saying a thing," the other ranger interrupted. "Nothing at all. But more strange, on the back of each body - and now we reckon there were over 1,000 - someone had scripted in large, lavender letters, "We Mourn for Iraq".
"When we cut open a few more bags, we realized that the people were of all ages and colors. I don¹t know why, but we both started getting real sad and had to work real hard opening one bag after another - to keep from breaking down and crying. I think we're both still pretty upset."
According to the Reno Newspaperman apart from his interview - nobody from the local Press was allowed to visit, photograph or film the occasion. Park and Regional authorities in contact with Attorney General Ashcroft's office apparently decided that any images of the comatose bodies might represent a national issue. The rangers did report that it took a full day to open the bags and deliver the bodies to a local, unidentified military base. It's not known whether any of the participants have begun to wake up, whether or not they will be charged with any crime and when or from where they will be released by the military.
Posted on Mar 9, 2003, 5:55 PM from IP address 4.43.243.191
that article was a (hauntinly bizarre) hoax, according to Burning Man, there is no such thing as the 'Gothic News Service' (as far as anyone can find), and there have not been 1000 visitors pass through Gerlach this week.
Marc Tuters
Posted on Mar 11, 2003, 3:45 PM from IP address 4.43.242.246
Dow Chemical is going to court this week in India. Not as the defendants for their ongoing responsibility for the Bhopal disaster, but as the plaintiffs: Dow is suing the SURVIVORS of the disaster for protesting at a Dow plant, and--we're not making this up--they're demanding US$10,000 from them... about 10 years of wages at local rates.
But pesky internet activists are showing Dow there is no escape, with a virtual sit-in of Dow's internet Greenwash headquarters, Bhopal.com (http://www.dowethics.com/bhopal.com/).
Dow's unapologetic website, which includes an "incident review," denies that Dow purchased any liability for the disaster when they bought Union Carbide, which was the majority stakeholder in the Bhopal plant (even though Dow did pay up for Union Carbide's asbestos liabilities in the First World). The site also states that "The legacy of those killed and injured is a chemical industry that adheres voluntarily to strict safety and environmental standards." (You may want to read that sentence again just to be sure you got it right.)
After the 1984 gas leak, which has killed 20,000 people to date, Union Carbide abandoned the factory site and fled India. For 18 years since, the toxic wastes left by Union Carbide have been bleeding poisons into the groundwater and affecting the health of the people living near the factory. Dow merged with Union Carbide in 2001 and paid up for Union Carbide's asbestos liabilities, but it refuses to do the same for Bhopal.
Dow has faced may protests since taking over Union Carbide, but suing the victims represent a new low in Dow's attempts to gag its critics. Most of the survivors come from the poorest sections of Indian society. To reinforce its message, therefore, Dow is asking for a monetary settlement from the victims. The amount they seek represents an average Indian's earnings over 10 to 20 years. The cause? Dow's "loss of business".
If Dow sues real-life protesters into silence, protest will spring up elsewhere. This protest hopes to show Dow that the only way to really silence protest will be to spend a small fraction of its US$28 billion annual turnover on cleaning up Bhopal.
A virtual sit-in is simply an automated way of sending lots of traffic to a website. Activists around the world park their browsers on a page which does nothing more than automatically load the bhopal.com site several times a minute. In the same way that a real-world sit-in disrupts traffic, the virtual sit-in makes the target site less responsive and slow. Eventually, the site may become so crowded with protestors that it stops serving information completely.
The virtual sit-in will be located at The Yes Men's hugely successful spoof of Dow's website: http://www.dowethics.com/bhopal.com/. Dow has been playing whack-a-mole with the DowEthics.com site, launching several abortive legal attempts to shut it down, only to have new activists set it up in a new spot on the internet. Other parts of the site explain more honestly why Dow refuses to clean up Bhopal and why image is everything to Dow.
Posted on Mar 10, 2003, 12:56 PM from IP address 4.43.242.130
He & Maureen Dowd are coming into rough agreement (from very different directions) & if this continues maybe someone in the mass-media will have the guts to start running some common sense content.
Posted on Mar 7, 2003, 5:31 PM from IP address 4.33.83.116
The response to our emergency petition to the U.N. Security Council has been nothing short of extraordinary. Less than two days after the petition was launched, over 550,000 people have signed, from over 200 countries. It's a strong message from the peoples of the world that the Security Council should support tough inspections in Iraq, not war. It's also the fastest-growing online petition we've ever seen -- and already one of the largest in history.
You can be a part of this enormous success. Just sign the petition at:
We'll be delivering the petition to the U.N. Security Council on Monday -- that's when our sources at the U.N. tell us it'll make the most waves. We need to send the petition to press on Friday night, but we'd like to have as many signers as possible by that time. By signing the petition and sharing it with your friends, you can help us hit the 750,000 mark. Please take a moment to sign up today.
Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
March 6th, 2003
P.S. Our petition was launched in cooperation with the American Friends Service Committee, who have a terrific website that provides resources and information on the crisis in Iraq. Check it out at:
P.P.S. Yesterday, our local ad went up in over 111 local newspapers across the nation, our billboards are now up in Detroit, San Francisco and L.A., and our "Inspections Work. War Won't." message is on a quarter of all the busses in Washington D.C. The financial support of MoveOn members for these initiatives has been overwhelming -- you funded over 100 local ads in less than a day!
One note of caution about giving to good causes: Never give your
credit card number over the phone in response to any telephone
solicitation. And only give online or by mail to organizations
you know and trust (like us).