.jpg)
THE LISTENING POST UPDATE
“Who will forgive us if we choose to close our eyes and wait until it’s all over?”
| |||||||||||||||||||
Please Contact Your Congressman Re: This Matter! This Is Unacceptable!
Pentagon Red Tape Keeps Medical Records From Doctors of the Wounded (Feb. 16)
By Al Kamen
Friday, February 16, 2007; A21
Department of Veterans Affairs doctors are furious over a recent decision by the Pentagon to block their access to medical information needed to treat severely injured troops arriving at VA hospitals from
The VA physicians handle troops with serious brain injuries and other major health problems. They, rely on digital medical records that track the care given wounded troops from the moment of their arrival at a field hospital through their evacuation to the
About 30 VA doctors in four trauma centers around the country have treated about 200 severely wounded soldiers and Marines. The docs had been receiving the complete digital records from the Pentagon until the end of January, using the Pentagon's Joint Patient Tracking Application.
But on Jan. 25, when Shane McNamee, a physician in the Richmond VA Medical Center, tried to get the full records, he couldn't. He sent an urgent e-mail to VA chief liaison officer Edward Huycke.
"My JPTA account has been disabled within last few days," McNamee wrote. "I called the hotline and was told that all VA accounts have been locked. Could not get a good answer why. Anyhow -- I have 4 [Iraq/Afghanistan] service members to arrive within the next 2 days. This information is terribly important," the doctor wrote.
Thirty-four minutes later Huycke e-mailed back: "Ok, Shane. Will get on it. Not sure what's up."
An hour or so later, a senior VA official forwarded McNamee's e-mail to Lt. Col. David Parramore at the Pentagon, saying that McNamee "needs his access back to JPTA to provide the best possible treatment for soldiers injured in [Iraq/Afghanistan] arriving there in a few days. Can you help?"
Tommy Morris, director of Deployment Health Systems, responded the next morning to Parramore's inquiry, after contacting Ellen Embry, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force health protection. "I spoke with Embry and no agreements, no data sharing via access to JPTA."
The access cutoff came after Morris, in a Jan. 23 e-mail, instructed a colleague: "If the VA currently has access I need a list of persons and I need their accounts shut off ASAP. It is illegal for them to have access without data use agreements and access controls in place by federal regulations and public law."
There have been meetings between VA and Pentagon officials. The Pentagon declined to comment yesterday. VA officials apparently thought it might have been resolved Monday. But an e-mail Monday from Morris to a co-worker said: "The leadership has not authorized the VA accounts to be turned back on, in case someone approaches you about this."
Last week, Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Larry E. Craig (
"For those service members suffering from a traumatic brain injury," they wrote, "VA's access to in-theater imaging is an important and valuable tool for tracking their patient's progress since being wounded or injured." They suggested the VA doctor be given temporary access to JPTA while the data-sharing questions are worked out.
They're still awaiting an appropriate response. McNamee is still waiting for the records.
WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly support congressional action to cap the number of
While six in 10 oppose President Bush's plan to use more troops to try to stabilize
"They're saying the same thing they said in the 2006 elections — that they are against the current policy and they want something done about it," says James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
"They want Congress to debate it; they want Congress to focus on it; they want to bring this war to a close," says Mark Blumenthal, a former Democratic pollster who is now editor of Pollster.com. "We don't want to deny our armed services what they need to do their jobs, but we'd like to bring them home."
Republicans remain supportive of the war; a majority of them oppose any congressional limits. Still, even among those who back Bush's troop increase, nearly a third endorse the timetable for pulling out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush's
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former
"I'm not confident it's all going to turn around," Giuliani told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war.
"I'm confident that we have to try to make a turnaround, and we just can't walk out, and that it is critical to us that things get to the point in
WASHINGTON (AP) -- About $10 billion has been squandered by the
The three top auditors overseeing work in
More than one in six dollars charged by
"There is no accountability," said David M. Walker, who heads the auditing arm of Congress. "Organizations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable."
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.
The
American analysts said recent intelligence showed that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Mr. Zawahri, the analysts said. Mr. bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.
Officials said the training camps had yet to reach the size and level of sophistication of the Qaeda camps established in
The new warnings are different from those made in recent months by intelligence officials and terrorism experts, who have spoken about the growing abilities of Taliban forces and Pakistani militants to launch attacks into
The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.
The concern about a resurgent Al Qaeda has been the subject of intensive discussion at high levels of the Bush administration, the officials said, and has reignited debate about how to address
Last week, President Bush’s senior counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, went to
Officials from several different American intelligence and counterterrorism agencies presented a consistent picture in describing the developments as a major setback to American efforts against Al Qaeda.
A
But debates within the administration about how best to deal with the threat have yet to yield any good solutions, officials in
Some of the interviews with officials were granted after John D. Negroponte, then the director of national intelligence, told Congress last month that “Al Qaeda’s core elements are resilient” and that the organization was “cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders’ secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.”
As recently as 2005, American intelligence assessments described senior leaders of Al Qaeda as cut off from their foot soldiers and able only to provide inspiration for future attacks. But more recent intelligence describes the organization’s hierarchy as intact and strengthening.
“The chain of command has been re-established,” said one American government official, who said that the Qaeda “leadership command and control is robust.”
American officials and analysts said a variety of factors in
The investigation into last summer’s failed plot to bomb airliners in
In a videotaped statement last year, Mr. Zawahri claimed responsibility for the July 2005
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, told the House Armed Services Committee last week that Al Qaeda “is on the march.” He said, “Al Qaeda in fact is now functioning exactly as its founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, envisioned it,” because, he said, Qaeda leaders are planning major attacks and inspiring militants to carry out attacks around the globe.
Other experts questioned the seriousness of
Joint Efforts by Militants
Since 2001, members of various militant groups in
The analysts said that
During a news conference days before last November’s elections, President Bush said of the campaign against Al Qaeda: “Absolutely, we’re winning. Al Qaeda is on the run.”
But in a speech several days ago, Mr. Bush painted a more sober picture of Al Qaeda’s current strength, especially inside
“Taliban and Al Qaeda figures do hide in remote regions of
Officials said that both American and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets. A particular concern is that the camps are frequented by British citizens of Pakistani descent who travel to
In a speech in November, the director general of MI5,
Leaders Appear Secure
Officials said that the
In the past, statements issued by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri referred to events that were sometimes several weeks old, one official said, suggesting that the men had difficulty creating a secure means of distributing the tapes. Now, the statements are more current, at times referring to events that occurred days earlier.
American intelligence and counterterrorism officials said that most of the men receiving training in Pakistan had been carrying out attacks inside Afghanistan, but that Al Qaeda had also strengthened its ties to groups in Iraq that had sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden. They said dozens of seasoned fighters were moving between
Over the past year, insurgent tactics from
Pakistani officials say that they are doing their best to gain control of the area and that military efforts to pacify it have failed, but that more reconstruction aid is needed.
Officials said that over the past year, Al Qaeda had also shown an increased international capability, citing as an example its alliance with the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, an Algerian-based group that has carried out a series of attacks in recent months.
Last fall, the Algerian group renamed itself Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb. Officials in
Mixed welcome for Baghdad surge_Though many Iraqis say they have seen positive steps, the security plan is being judged along sectarian lines.
By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Page 1 of 3
Two days of relative calm in the capital prompted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to declare a "dazzling success" in the security clampdown, as officials reported an 80 percent drop in violence.
The White House: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq Iran Tehran Middle East bet?
Bush Threatens War Against Iran
On February 14, President George Bush claimed that elements within the Iranian government are supplying sophisticated explosive devices that are used to kill
This situation is dangerous and intensifying. The
And now, at the February 14 press conference, Bush threatened to “deal with” the Iranian government—putting out the lie that this is about “protecting
These threats and preparations could erupt suddenly into an open military attack on
The threats by the Bush administration aimed at
Now they are using similar methods as they ratchet up war threats against
Deliberately Distorting Reality: Step back and look at the larger picture:
The Bush regime has illegally and illegitimately invaded and occupied
Bush claims his threats against
This is like a rapist who, while raping and brutalizing a woman decides her sister is somehow “interfering” with him and then claiming that he now has the right to brutalize the sister…in his own ‘‘self-defense’’!
On
Almost exactly four years later, Bush now claims”with certainty” that elements in the Iranian government are behind
But what is truly preposterous is that this man—whose regime lied to the world in order to justify the unprovoked bombardment, invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq—is trying to do it again, this time with accusations aimed at Iran!
Remember the lies about the “weapons of mass destruction” — and all that led to? People can’t be fooled again! And we cannot remain silent and complicit in the face of Bush’s lies that are aimed at justifying an attack against
Let’s look at some basic facts: The overwhelming majority of
Bush admitted on February 14 that he had no evidence that anyone at the “top echelons” of the Iranian government had approved arms transfers to
“What matters,” Bush added, “is that we’re responding.”
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV later explained, in
After the revelations about Abu Ghraib prison and other
Behind
The
Again, there is deliberate distortion by the
First, who actually has nukes and is openly threatening another country with them? Only the
Who has actually used nuclear weapons? Only the
Second, there is no real evidence that
Third, the liars heading the
Anti-semitism is real in the world and it is ugly. But in this case, it is a false issue. What’s going down here is not about
A nuclear Iran would, for example, undermine Israel’s function as the enforcer of U.S. imperialist domination over the Middle East—since much of Israel’s ability to threaten and act with impunity against other states in the region rests on the reality that it is the only country in that region with a major nuclear force. The U.S. imperialists are so worried that a nuclear Iran would upset its future ability to dominate this strategic region that they are willing to consider, threaten and prepare war (including nuclear strikes) in order to prevent this.
The two sides involved in this dangerous and escalating confrontation are both reactionary forces that stand against the interests of the people. On one side, the
And
But let’s be clear: It is the
THE POLITICAL SCENE:
The Contenders: Excellent Link
States race to set earlier primaries _Eager to field stumping presidential candidates, nine states are jockeying for front-of-the-pack dates.
By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor LOS ANGELES - California is poised to play the first card in what experts say will be a national game of "reschedule your state's primary." The stakes: which state can gain significant influence over the presidential nominating process.
California's bid to move its 2008 primary from June to Feb. 5 – already approved by the state Senate and expected to clear the Assembly this week – is intended to force presidential candidates to stump in the Golden State, addressing issues dear to voters here before the contest is all but decided by others. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has said he will sign the bill.
But already, nine states have tentatively scheduled primaries or caucuses for Feb. 5, and more may pile on as states jockey to meet notification deadlines: May for Democrats, September for Republicans. Among the delegate-rich states considering that date: Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas. Florida has a bill pending that would leapfrog them by moving its primary to Jan. 29.
The irony in all the jockeying is that, with so much change afoot, no state may achieve its aim, analysts say. The probable outcome of a front-loaded primary schedule is an early winnowing of the candidate field, with Feb. 5 becoming a do-or-die date, and a clipped-back period of time in which voters can assess presidential hopefuls at town halls and in their living rooms.
"California and other states that are trying to play calendar games are apt to find out that their plans backfire," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "We are courting disaster."
In GOP presidential race, McCain slips; Giuliani gains luster
McCain's favorability has dropped below 50 percent for the first time since 1999, presumably over his support for the Iraq war.
WASHINGTON - In polls, the top two contenders for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination have long been Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
But pundits have tended to discount Mr. Giuliani's chances, given his liberal stands on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. Now, a combination of factors is forcing a new look at both Senator McCain's vulnerabilities, particularly over his steadfast support for an unpopular Iraq war, and Giuliani's potential to overcome weaknesses.
For the first time since October 1999, McCain's favorability rating among American voters has dropped below 50 percent. A Gallup poll taken last month showed him at 48 percent, down 6 points from November, and down from a high of 67 percent in February 2000. Giuliani, in contrast, has held above 60 percent favorability in Gallup polls, most recently at 62 percent. Now that Giuliani has signaled a serious intention to run, stating on Monday "I'm in this to win" as he filed papers with the Federal Election Commission, the comparisons grow in importance.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Tuesday, Mitt Romney becomes the first of the three leading Republicans to declare he's officially running for president.
The three leading Republicans -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- have a lot in common. All three are essentially blue state Republicans who know how to win over Democrats and moderates.
That's good, right?
In a general election, it is. But first they have to get through the Republican primaries. (Watch why conservatives are unhappy with the leading GOP candidates
Giuliani was twice elected mayor of New York, the capital of blue-state America, as a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control. (Ticker: Giuliani, Clinton lead in latest poll of New Hampshire voters)
Now he seems to be modifying his views ever so slightly. Last week, Giuliani told Sean Hannity of Fox News that he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court that were "strict constructionists."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- We have the latest New Hampshire primary polls. It's getting real interesting -- The race on the Republican side is now neck-and-neck!
The CNN/WMUR presidential primary poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, found Sen. John McCain of Arizona the choice of 28 percent of voters who plan to vote in the state's Republican presidential primary next January, compared with 27 percent for Giuliani.
The results were a statistical dead heat, given the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points. (Complete poll results -- PDF)
On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Specifically at issue is whether taxpayers can bring a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s Faith-Based Initiatives. Existing precedent in Flast v. Cohen says taxpayers have standing to challenge government spending in violation of the Establishment Clause. Religious Right groups are using this case as a vehicle to urge the Court to eliminate taxpayer standing, which would significantly undermine the ability of Americans to obtain access to the courts to vindicate their constitutional right to religious liberty.
The speakers are experts in the field of church-state matters, including several representing amici on both sides of the litigation. The panelists will present a variety of perspectives on the case and its broader implications.
The panel will feature:
- Richard Katskee, Assistant Legal Director, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
- Judith E. Schaeffer, Associate Legal Director, People For the American Way Foundation
- Benjamin W. Bull, Chief Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
- Moderator, Melissa Rogers, Visiting Professor of Religion and Public Policy, Wake Forest University Divinity School
When: Wednesday, February 21
12:30 - 2:00 pm
Where: First Amendment Lounge
The National Press Club
13th Floor, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045
Lunch is free and will be available beginning at 12:00.
The Kansas board of education revoked its neo-creationist curriculum guidelines. Advocates of "intelligent design" controlled the board when it imposed the guidelines two years ago. Moderates ousted conservatives in last year's elections, winning enough seats to reverse the policy.
Conservatives say they'll try to take back the board next year, when half its members are up for election again. Conservatives' view: What we tell kids about the origin of life "will shape their views about religion, ethics, morals and even government." Moderates' view: Then let's start by not lying to them. (For Human Nature's takes on the evolution debate, click here, here, and here.)
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Tunisia?There's trouble brewing, and it's our fault.
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007, at 7:13 AM ET
Mokhtar Trifi of Tunisian Human Rights League
TUNIS, Tunisia—"If you wanted to support democracy in the Arab world, why did you begin with your enemies instead of your friends? Why Iraq and Iran? Why not us?"
It's an excellent question, and when it was posed to me a few days ago by Mokhtar Trifi, president of the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights, I found it hard to answer. Trifi, whose dark suit and elegant French make him seem like the statesman he ought to be, does indeed seem a far better candidate for U.S. friendship and support than, say, the current prime minister of Iraq. Because Tunisia also seems, on the surface, much closer to the West than many of its neighbors, it also makes a curious example of what might have been.
Like Turkey, Tunisia is an avowedly secular Muslim state: Women in Tunisia have the right to divorce and to marry as they please. Most do not wear headscarves, let alone veils. The average income has risen in recent decades, and the middle class is relatively well-educated. On a Friday afternoon in the suburbs of Tunis, every other street corner seems to feature a lycée, from which pour crowds of bluejeaned teenagers, boys and girls, chatting and laughing. Ask them, and they will tell you that they feel themselves to be more Mediterranean than Arab, that they have a lot more in common with Parisians than with Syrians or Saudis.
But surfaces are deceiving, as Trifi—whose office is haunted by omnipresent goons, whose visitors are sometimes harassed, and who is occasionally beaten up himself—can testify. One French analyst, Béatrice Hibou, has described how the myth of "reform" has been used in Tunisia to disguise from the outside world the deepening corruption, nepotism, and stagnation of a one-party state, dominated by what is, in effect, a president for life. While French politicians speak of the Tunisian "economic miracle," party cadres connive to keep the best jobs in their own hands. Though the United Nations held its "World Summit on the Information Society" in Tunis in 2005, Tunisia deploys an Internet filtering and control regime draconian even by Arab world standards. The goons hang about the Internet cafes, too, hands stuffed in the pockets of their windbreakers.
Tunisians have also become masters of a certain kind of recognizable, Putin-esque, postmodern political charade, supporting a whole panoply of phony political parties, phony human rights groups, and phony elections. They talk of "democracy" and "reform" and, of course, "anti-terrorism." But break the mold in Tunisia—engage in genuine opposition politics—and you might find you've lost your state health-care coverage or even your private-sector job. The tentacles of the party reach deep, though actual violence is rare. Says Trifi, "It causes too much trouble." After all, violence could damage the benevolent image that draws so many European tourists to Tunisia's beaches.
In the short term, this sort of system has suited lots of people, not merely President's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's friends and relations. Most notably, it has suited France, Tunisia's closest business partner and former colonial power. In 2003, French President Jacques Chirac proclaimed that since "the most important human rights are the rights to be fed, to have health, to be educated, and to be housed," Tunisia's human rights record is "very advanced." More to the point, the French believe that the authoritarian Tunisian government is the only thing preventing a massive wave of illegal immigration to France.
Unfortunately, the authoritarian government is also producing potential émigrés. For, in fact, the most notable product of the Tunisian "economic miracle" is currently a lot of well-educated but unemployed young people. Once upon a time, the educated and the frustrated might have formed the backbone of a democratic revolution, just as they once did in South America and Eastern Europe. Now, the Tunisians look at Iraq and see that "freedom" brings chaos and violence. Which leaves them with two options: emigration or radical Islam. Or perhaps both.
No one knows the true extent of radicalism in Tunisia, because it is in the government's interests to exaggerate the size of the threat. Nor does anyone know the true extent of Tunisian radicalism in the suburbs of Paris. But there have been bombs, arrests, and reports of copycat al-Qaida groups. Thus has an apparently benign authoritarianism produced in liberal Tunisia, as everywhere else in the Arab world, precisely the sort of terrorist inclinations it was supposed to prevent.
So—once again—why didn't the West interest itself in Tunisian democracy 15 years ago, back before "democracy" became a negative term, back before the not-quite-free economy went sour, back before radical Islam became chic among the bluejeaned teenagers? The answers, as Trifi knows well, are clear: because democracy promotion was an afterthought that has never been an important U.S. goal in the Middle East. Because France, which has far more influence in Tunisia than we do, has never been remotely interested. And because no one in the West has ever been very good at thinking through just what the longer-term results of the authoritarian status quo might really be.
Backlash grows against free trade
A record US trade deficit is rekindling the globalization debate. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0216/p01s02-usec.html?s=hns
By Mark Trumbull Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Worries about the dark side of free trade are surfacing in the United States in ways that could affect the course of globalization worldwide.
Don't expect an outright retreat from global commerce just yet, but it is becoming more likely that the US will act to temper and manage its impact. The reason: Free-trade brush fires have recently erupted on economic and political fronts:
This week, the Commerce Department said America's trade deficit rose to $764 billion in 2006, as imports outstripped exports by a record amount for a fifth straight year.
Democrats are in control of Congress, with new lawmakers in their ranks who are especially eager to do something about what they see as unfair trade practices by China. Bipartisan bills introduced this week could result in retaliatory tariffs or revocation of China's trade status with the US.
"There was a time 10 years ago when it seemed like globalization was consensual, and there were very few remaining questions about whether it was ... a good thing," says Jeffry Frieden, an expert on global economics at Harvard University. The reality, he says, includes a caveat: Trade "can make everyone better off, so long as you compensate the losers."
Concern about globalization is hardly limited to the US. From Europe to Latin America to China, the pattern is the same: Not everyone feels better off, and in those regions, political consequences can include riots or the rise of nationalist governments.
Al Qaeda calls for attacks on oil facilities http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0215/p99s01-duts.html?s=mesdu
A Saudi-based Al Qaeda group wants attacks in order to weaken US economy.
By Tom Regan csmonitor.com A Saudi Arabian terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda has called for Muslims around the world to attack oil installations – including those in Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico – in order to stop the flow of oil to the United States.
NBC reports that the group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, posted the message on its online magazine Sawt al-Jihad, or Voice of the Holy War.
Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula said in its monthly magazine posted on an Islamic Web site that "cutting oil supplies to the United States, or at least curtailing it, would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan." The group said it was making the statements as part of Osama bin Laden's declared policy. It was not possible to verify independently that the posting was from the terror faction.
Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for last year's attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Yemen after bin Laden called on militants to stop the flow of oil to the West. The group also was behind the 2002 attack on a French oil tanker that killed one person in the Gulf of Aden.
NBC also reports that until 2004, Al Qaeda had refrained from calling for attacks on oil installations, seeing the money generated by oil as a boon to the Muslim world. But in a message he issued that year, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden called for attacks in order to cripple the Western economy.
"One of the main causes for our enemies' gaining hegemony over our country is their stealing our oil; therefore, you should make every effort in your power to stop the greatest theft in history of the natural resources of both present and future generations, which is being carried out through collaboration between foreigners and [native] agents," bin Laden said. "Focus your operations on [oil production], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this [lack of oil] will cause them to die off [on their own]."
A Very Special RelationshipWhy do U.S. presidents go weak-kneed for their Russian counterparts? http://www.slate.com/id/2160155/fr/nl/
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2007, at 7:27 AM ET
"I have a difficult time explaining that speech. It doesn't accord with either the world as we see it nor with the character of our interactions with the Russians."—Condoleezza Rice, Feb. 15, 2007
Ten days have now passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin made a speech in Munich, Germany, accusing the United States of plunging the planet into "an abyss of permanent conflicts," of deliberately encouraging the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and (this from a country that regularly blackmails and manipulates its neighbors) of having "overstepped its national borders in every way." During that time, the U.S. secretary of state—quoted above—has not been alone in expressing surprise. With varying degrees of shock, commentators and politicians have speculated about the significance of Putin's "new" language, wondering whether it means Russia's road to democracy has reached a fork; whether President Putin was really speaking to his domestic audience; or whether, even, the speech heralds some kind of policy change.
In fact, the only thing continually surprising about President Putin is the surprise itself. For we have long known a great deal about Putin, about his biography—his youth spent as a KGB officer in East Germany, his later years in the government of St. Petersburg—and about his personal philosophy, too. We have long known, for example, that he is a great admirer of Yuri Andropov, the former Soviet leader best remembered for his belief that "order and discipline," as defined by the KGB, would revive the weakened Soviet Union of the 1980s. Way back in 1999 (as I wrote at the time), Putin went so far as to dedicate a plaque to Andropov in a corner of the Lubyanka, once the headquarters of the KGB as well as its most notorious political prison.
Since then, Putin has never ceased to emulate many of the methods of the Andropov-era KGB, including its paranoid suspicion of America. He continues to treat all Western organizations in Russia, whatever their purpose, as "spies and diversionaries." He has used Russian television—all state-owned or state-influenced—to portray the recent mysterious deaths of his critics, including one by polonium poisoning, as part of a nefarious Western plot to discredit his government. In the wake of the September 2004 Beslan massacre, he hinted that American support for Chechen terrorists was to blame. I have heard that claim repeated in Moscow more than once.
Nevertheless, we were surprised, are surprised, and apparently always will be surprised by Putin, just as we were surprised by Boris Yeltsin before him and indeed Mikhail Gorbachev before that. From the beginning of his term in office, President George W. Bush treated President Putin the same way all American presidents treat all Russian leaders: as America's new best friend. President Bush, infamously, looked deep into Putin's eyes, found him to be "straightforward and trustworthy," and invited him to his ranch.
Yet not so many years earlier, when President Yeltsin was up for re-election, President Bill Clinton told his main Soviet adviser, Strobe Talbott, "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." Never mind that Yeltsin was already associated inside Russia with massive theft and economic chaos or that his regime was perceived internally as corrupt and nepotistic: The American president went out of his way to visit Moscow during the campaign, just to make sure Yeltsin won.
It is, if you think about it, an odd phenomenon. After all, American presidents generally don't campaign on behalf of their French counterparts or look deep into the eyes of German chancellors in order to divine their true nature. While at times very friendly, neither Clinton nor Bush appears to have felt a mystical connection to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Yet Russian politicians still seem to make American politicians grow starry-eyed and lose their bearings. Perhaps it's a secret longing for the glamour of those Cold War summits, for the days when it appeared as if the personal relations between superpower statesmen could ward off the destruction of the entire planet. Or perhaps they put something in the vodka—sorry, mineral water—at those elegant Kremlin lunches.
Either way, it's time to kick the habit. True, it is perfectly possible that whoever leads Russia after Putin steps down—if Putin steps down—will be a nicer, friendlier person. It is perfectly possible that we will find areas of mutual cooperation with him, just as we sometimes do now with Putin. But however friendly and cooperative, however much a "democrat" he appears to be, I hope we'll avoid the instant professions of eternal friendship. At the very least, we'll avoid being unpleasantly surprised, yet again, if things turn out otherwise.
Cheney's Influence Lessens in Second Term
Administration More Pragmatic in Foreign Policy, Dealing With Congress
By Michael Abramowitz, Page A05
Mistrustful of North Korea and its willingness to keep promises, Vice President Cheney worked hard in President Bush's first term to prevent talks aimed at halting that country's push to develop a nuclear bomb. At one point three years ago, he even bypassed the State Department to intervene in...
A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Page A11
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton defends S.C. campaign hire
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 19, 9:13 PM ET
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday denied that her campaign traded money for an endorsement from one of South Carolina's most influential black politicians.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton responded to questions about the consulting contract her campaign negotiated with state Sen. Darrell Jackson, who last week endorsed her candidacy rather than of top rivals
John Edwards or Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill.
"Senator Jackson was someone who was involved in my husband's campaigns. He was someone we turned to for political advice and counsel and I'm proud to have him on my team," Clinton told the AP.
Soon after the endorsement, Jackson acknowledged that his media consulting firm had negotiated a $10,000 per month contract with Clinton's campaign. Jackson has said he turned down more lucrative contracts from other candidates.
Although he backed Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, Jackson said he now supports Clinton because she has the best shot of winning the White House.
Mo Elleithee, a Clinton spokesman, said Friday that Jackson's firm will advise the campaign on "political matters in South Carolina, outreach, organizing issues" and purchasing advertising.
Two 2006 House Upset Winners Pass Up Democrats’ Frontline Aid
By Rachel Kapochunas Mon Feb 19, 12:20 PM ET
Most House incumbents preparing for their 2008 campaigns won’t have to be asked twice if national party officials offer additional aid. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had no trouble lining up 29 House Democrats as this election cycle’s first enrollees in its “Frontline” program, which targets extra financial and logistical help to incumbents seen as potentially vulnerable to Republican challenges.
The list, announced last Thursday, might have been even longer but for the fact that at least two freshman Democrats said “no, thank you” to the DCCC’s offer.
What makes the Frontline opt-outs by New Hampshire’s Carol Shea-Porter and Nancy Boyda of Kansas even more interesting is that they both are regarded as among the biggest upset winners of last year’s big Democratic upsurge — and both already know they’ll be dealing with comeback bids by the Republican incumbents they defeated.
Jeb Bradley, the two-term member who lost to Shea-Porter by 51 percent to 49 percent, has told state Republican Party members and CQPolitics.com that he plans to stage a comeback bid in eastern New Hampshire’s 1st District, which includes the state’s population center of Manchester.
Former five-term Rep. Jim Ryun told Congressional Quarterly that he filed the necessary paperwork with the
Federal Election Commission on Friday to formally open his comeback campaign after losing to Boyda in Kansas’ 2nd District last November by 51 percent to 47 percent.
Yet Boyda and Shea-Porter both ran as political outsiders last year, and they aim to maintain that independent posture even as they seek re-election from inside Congress.
“I wanted to stay with the kind of campaign I ran before,” Shea-Porter told CQPolitics.com on Friday. The freshman explained her desire to continue her state’s tradition of “retail politics,” which favors local, door-to-door efforts. “It’s really about building trust and relationships.”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment