Mar. 21st, 2003

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
By Dana "but on the other hand, Gore thinks he's all that" Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A06

Editor's note: This article was withheld from later editions of yesterday's paper to accommodate coverage of the start of the war in Iraq.


After a Newsweek cover story in 1987 titled "Bush Battles the Wimp Factor," the label stuck to George H.W. Bush for years. Now, his son is creating the opposite perception: the Bully Factor.

As the United States wages war this week following a pair of ultimatums to the United Nations and Iraq, the airwaves and editorial pages of the world have been full of accusations that President Bush and his administration are guilty of coercive and harrying behavior. Even in typically friendly countries, Bush and the United States have been given such labels this week as "arrogant bully" (Britain), "bully boys" (Australia), "big bully" (Russia), "bully Bush" (Kenya), "arrogant" (Turkey) and "capricious" (Canada). Diplomats have accused the administration of "hardball" tactics, "jungle justice" and acting "like thugs."

At home, where support for the war on Iraq is strong and growing, such complaints of strong-arm tactics by the Bush administration nonetheless have a certain resonance -- even among Bush supporters. Though the issues are vastly different, Republican lawmakers and conservative interest groups report similar pressure on allies at home to conform to Bush's policy wishes.

Although all administrations use political muscle on the opposition, GOP lawmakers and lobbyists say the tactics the Bush administration uses on friends and allies have been uniquely fierce and vindictive. Just as the administration used unbending tactics before the U.N. Security Council with normally allied countries such as Mexico, Germany and France, the Bush White House has calculated that it can overcome domestic adversaries if it tolerates no dissent from its friends.

In recent weeks, the White House has been pushing GOP governors to oust the leadership of the National Governors Association to make the bipartisan group endorse Bush's views. Interest groups report pressure from the administration -- sometimes on groups' donors -- to conform to Bush's policy views and even to fire dissenters.

Often, companies and their K Street lobbyists endorse ideas they privately oppose or question, according to several longtime Republican lobbyists. The fear is that Bush will either freeze them out of key meetings or hold a grudge that might deprive them of help in other areas, the lobbyists said. When the Electronic Industries Alliance declined to back Bush's dividend tax cut, the group was frozen out when the White House called its "friends" in the industry to discuss the tax cut, according to White House and business sources...
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
keeping a fine old family tradition of enlightened international relations alive into the third generation

The State Department's top lawyer said yesterday that legal authority from the U.N. Security Council exists for war against Iraq, even though the Bush administration failed to win explicit council approval for the use of force.

Iraq violated previous Security Council resolutions that endorsed the use of military action to enforce disarmament demands, said William Howard Taft IV, the department's legal adviser. He said Iraq's failure to comply with three council orders nearly 13 years apart was the principal legal justification for war.

"The basis in international law for the use of force in Iraq today is clear," Taft told the National Association of Attorneys General, challenging critics who contend the opposite is true...


-----

expected by who? or As (representatives of the majority of those of the 50,000 citizens who vote in elections on) the Marshall Islands (in spirit) go, so goes the future

As cruise missiles and U.S. troops headed into Iraq yesterday, the Bush administration had three messages for the American people, repeated over and over again: The war might be longer than expected. There might be significant casualties, although every effort would be made to protect innocent Iraqi civilians. A growing number of countries around the world were joining the "coalition of the willing..."


-----

opening up a second front in heaven

Many religious leaders have opposed the war, and many churchgoers have prayed for peace. But as U.S. troops invaded Iraq yesterday, Christian "prayer warriors" across the United States were doing their bit for victory.

In homes and churches, over the telephone and on the Internet, thousands of Christians joined in prayer chains seeking God's protection for President Bush and Americans in uniform. Some adopted names from a list of 83,000 troops whose relatives have asked for the prayers of strangers.

"Unfortunately, there probably are people in other lands who are praying against the president and against us. So I think it's important for us to have our share of prayer warriors," said Terry Posey, 43, of Greenville, S.C...


-----

"coalition" presumably taking advantage of "prayer warrior" option

The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War. But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts.

Yesterday, for instance, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters: "The coalition against Iraq, called Operation Iraq Freedom, is large and growing. This is not a unilateral action, as is being characterized in the media. Indeed, the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

However, the current operation in Iraq is almost entirely a U.S.-British campaign, with virtually no military contribution from other countries except Australia.

"It's a baldfaced lie to suggest that" the coalition for this war is greater than that for the 1991 war, said Ivo H. Daalder, a former Clinton administration official now at the Brookings Institution who supports the war against Iraq. "Even our great allies Spain, Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops...
"

-----

the op-ed page staff clearly missed the meeting

When troops head into battle, the party in power is always tempted to condemn opposition and dissent as forms of treason. Suddenly the president is no longer referred to simply as "the president." He becomes "the commander in chief," a phrase that implies a lot more power.

But the more a president's supporters use the term "commander in chief" to enhance his authority, the more important it is to remember his role as the political leader of a free republic who is not endowed with infallibility, unlimited power or immunity from criticism. That, after all, is the essential difference between our country and Iraq. Our foe in this war is a brutal despot who responds to opponents not with nasty sound bites or 30-second attack ads but with torture and murder. To proclaim the right to dissent is to declare why the United States is a country worth fighting for.

The president's party took an early run this week at shutting down criticism with an all-hands-on-deck attack on Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, a Vietnam-era veteran who had the nerve to criticize the diplomatic failures leading up to this war...


-----

the declarations of war will not be televised, or Let me explain the function of a newsgathering organization in a democratic society to you people, by the eponymous grovel@washpost.com

The White House is vowing a strong retaliatory response after the BBC aired live video of President Bush getting his hair coiffed in the Oval Office as he squirmed in his chair and practiced on the teleprompter minutes before Wednesday night's speech announcing the launch of military operations against Saddam Hussein.

The British network broadcast 1 minute and 37 seconds of presidential primping to hundreds of millions of viewers in 200 countries around the world (and locally on WETA, Channel 26) before Bush's formal address at 10:15 p.m. Yesterday the BBC's White House producer, Mark Orchard, profusely and repeatedly apologized to irked staffers for airing video of an "unauthorized" portion of the pool feed while Washington anchor Mishal Husain chatted up a colleague about the significance of the moment.

CBS News Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, whose news crew was responsible for pool coverage of the speech, also apologized to the White House, explaining that a technician accidentally flipped a switch that fed the images of a not-ready-for-prime-time Bush -- his eyes darting to and fro as a female stylist sprayed, combed and patted down his hair.

A BBC spokeswoman told us that her network promptly realized the video was not for broadcast "but they couldn't pull away because of technical difficulties." Meanwhile, we hear that in Britain, the commercial network ITV also aired the hair-raising feed.

"It was an honest mistake," Leissner told us yesterday -- but the Bushies were not impressed.

"The facts are that it was an unauthorized use of footage and video," a senior White House official told us, asking not to be named. "Both the BBC and CBS have apologized, and it would be understandable if this were the only time this has happened. I'm not suggesting it was intentional, but this kind of thing has happened more than once."

Henceforth, the official said, the White House -- not the networks -- will throw the switches that make pool feeds available to broadcast outlets...


-----

and, you know, even though the chinese don't support our foreign policy, I think we can trust them to control our access to communications, and besides, $600,000. gaul delenda est.

Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters, Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr. Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today.

Mr. Perle, an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is close to many senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who appointed him to lead the policy board in 2001. Though the board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency, it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is considered a "special government employee," subject to federal ethics rules, including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain.

Mr. Perle and his lawyer said yesterday that his involvement with Global Crossing did not violate the ethics rules.

According to lawyers involved in the review and a legal notice that Global Crossing is preparing to file soon in bankruptcy court, Mr. Perle is to be paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government of Singapore.

Lawyers said today that Mr. Perle had been helping Global Crossing for several weeks. They said he was brought in as a prominent Republican with close ties to the current officials. He has taken on a particularly important role, they said, since the company recently pulled back its request for the government to clear the sale in the face of opposition from the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agencies have said that the proposed deal presents national security and law enforcement problems, because it would put Global Crossing's worldwide fiber optics network - one used by the United States government - under Chinese ownership...


-----

that whole informed consent thing is so twentieth century

Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security.

The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006.

Other provisions of Mr. Clinton's order, which was issued in 1995, are already in force. But major changes to them contemplated in the draft would treat all information obtained from foreign governments as subject to classification and end the requirement that agencies prepare plans for declassifying records.

The new policy would also permit reclassification of documents that have already been made public, and give the Central Intelligence Agency special authority to resist decisions by an interagency panel that considers classification appeals, typically from researchers.


-----

via Laura: Shock and Awe not precisely a response to events


Things that made me smile

Krugman opens with the Onion

the consensus on the news coverage at the Agonist

mb's beautiful daughter

mine



the fiery "what band blows" debate rages on

best ever wine reviews from Textism

Chateau Lerys 1996
Fitou

Po-faced and a bit snide at first, it picks up slow speed before gallumphing to a springy sunlight-on-hot-chrome apex, then splitting into rusty metal ringlets that roll and roll and gradually wobble off like the discounted hula hoops in The Hudsucker Proxy. Dominant notes of aspirin and cake...

Profile

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
sisyphusshrugged

November 2016

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789 101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 2nd, 2025 02:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios