In the New York Times, a “glimpse behind the scenes of the Bush Administration’s support for war in Lebanon”:www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10rice.html:
bq.. Washington’s resistance to an immediate cease-fire and its staunch support of Israel have made it more difficult for [US “Secretary of State”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/secretary%20of%20state] Rice to work with other nations, including some American allies, as they search for a formula that will end the violence and produce a durable cease-fire.…
Several State Department officials have privately objected to the administration’s emphasis on Israel and have said that Washington is not talking to Syria to try to resolve the crisis. Damascus has long been a supporter of “Hezbollah”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/hezbollah, and previous conflicts between the group and Israel have been resolved through shuttle diplomacy with Syria.
p. The wars in “Lebanon”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/lebanon and “Iraq”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/iraq are causing irreparable harm to the U.S. image in the Middle East. High-sounding words about democracy ring hollow when we forsake diplomacy.
Quaker Ranter
A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley
Tag Archives ⇒ bush administration
Smoking gun: the oil companies did write America’s energy policy
November 16, 2005
Shortly after the Bush Administration took office, Vice President Dick Cheney held a series of secret meetings in the White House that have guided America’s energy policy over the last four years. The White House has refused repeated requests for a list of participants at the “task force” meetings. All we’ve known for sure is who wasn’t invited: enironmentalists and anyone else who might bring a perspective critical of America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
We’ve long suspected that Cheney’s special guests were top oil company executives and that these consultants largely wrote the energy guidelines that came out of the meeting. The policy strong favor the economic interests of “Big Oil” over environmental or national security concerns. The oil companies have repeatedly denied being at the meetings: Just last week, oil industry officials from Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips testified at a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees that their employees had been part of Cheney’s energy task force.
Liar liar, pants on fire.
The Washington Post has obtained a White House document that executives from Big Oil did indeed meet with the energy task force in 2001. Investigations are in order. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said “The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force.” This issue is important not only to Washington Beltway insiders but to all of us. Disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing quagmire in iraq are fueled by American energy needs. As long as we have Big Oil dictating our energy policy we will continue to have these wars and climate tragedies. People will die, lives will be ruined and we will all be taxed for our oil misadventures.
Bulldozing the U.N.
March 8, 2005
President Bush has nominated a “foe of the United Nations to be its U.S. ambassador”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13790-2005Mar7.html. Ten years ago he declared: “There’s no such thing as the United Nations,” and went on to say “If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” This is a fellow who called his role in withdrawling the U.S. signature on the treaty ratifying the International Criminal Court “the happiest moment of my government service”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13790-2005Mar7.html. The Guardian reports that “fought arms control agreements, a strengthening of the biological weapons convention and the comprehensive test ban treaty”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1432701,00.html?gusrc=rss. With his nomination, the Bush Administration continues its course of unilaterialism and open contempt for the world community. Not a good way to build a last peace.
Cheney Team Trying to Muzzle Al Jazeera
January 30, 2005
Apparently the U.S. is pressuring “Qatar to sell the Al Jazeera TV network”:www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/international/middleeast/30jazeera.html The best line in the New York Times article:
bq. Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other Bush administration officials have complained heatedly to Qatari leaders that Al Jazeera’s broadcasts have been inflammatory, misleading and occasionally false, especially on iraq.
So I suppose Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell have never given out misleading or occasionally false information about iraq?
Al Jazeera is watched by 30 million to 50 million viewers. It’s coverage has been inflammatory and I’m not going to defend that, but it’s the most important media source in the Middle East and should not be shut down by American pressure. Qatar is only considering selling it, but potential buyers for the financially-strapped network are few. And the Cheney team wouldn’t be involved if they weren’t interested in making it’s content more U.S. friendly.
It’s Official: US Abuse at Gitmo
November 30, 2004
While the images of U.S. soliders torturing iraqi prisoners at Al Grahib Prison in Badgdad have been broadcast around the world, US officials have frequently reassured us that conditions at the U.S. detention camp in Guantamano Bay, Cuba, were acceptable and in accord with the Geneva Convention’s rules for treatment of prisoners. As proof the Pentagon and Bush Administration have frequently cited the fact that the International Red Cross regularly inspects prison conditions at Guantamano. They forgot to tell us what they’ve seen.
A confidential report prepared by the International Red Cross this summer found that conditions at Guantamano Bay were “tantamount to torture.” Strong words from a cautious international body. Because of the way the IRC works, its reports are not made available to the public but instead presented to the accused government, in the hope that they will correct their practices. In predicable fashion, the Bush Adminstration privately denied any wrongdoing and kept the IRC findings secret. In a display of incredible audacity it then defended itself _from other accusations of torture_ by citing the IRC’s presence at Guantanamo, conveniently omitting the IRC’s strongly-worded criticisms. Amazing really.
The IRC report is still secret. We only know of it second-hand, from a memo obtained by the _Times_ that quotes from some of its findings (“Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo“http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html, Nov 29). What kind of stuff is going on there? The _Times_ recently interviewed British prisoners who had been detained in Afghanistan and iraq and sent to Guantanamo Bay. Here’s one story:
bq. One one regular procedure was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels.
It’s not needles under fingernails or electrodes to the privates, but it is indeed “tantamount to torture.” While it was hard to believe these prisoners’ stories when they were first published a few months ago, they become much more credible in light of the IRC conclusions.
We still don’t know about what’s happening in the camp. The Bush Administration has the power, not to mention the duty, to immediately release International Red Cross reports. But the United States has chosen to suppress the report. No torturing government has ever admitted to its actions. Saddam Hussein himself denied wrongdoing when _he_ ran the Al Grahib prison and used it for torture. We rely on bodies like the International Red Cross to keep us honest.
There are those who defend torture by appealing to our fears, many of which are indeed grounded in reality. We’re at war, the enemy insurgents are playing dirty, Osama bin Laden broke any sort of international conventions when he sent airliners into the World Trade Center. Very true. But the United States has a mission. I believe in the idealistic notion that we should be a beacon to the world. We should always strive for the moral high ground and invite the world community to join us. We haven’t been doing that lately. Yes it’s easier to follow the lead of someone like Saddam Hussein and just torture anyone we suspect of plotting against us. But do we really want him as our role model?
The empty promise of supporting the troops
November 14, 2003
More on the “myth that is ‘Private Jessica’ ”:www.guardian.co.uk/iraq/Story/0,2763,1081207,00.html, a media creation born of propaganda and racism. I feel sad for the real Jessica Lynch caught up in all this. elsewhere Paul Krugman point out how the Bush Administration isn’t “supporting the troops”:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/opinion/11KRUG.html, “But I also suspect that a government of, by and for the economic elite is having trouble overcoming its basic lack of empathy with the working-class men and women who make up our armed forces.”
Weapons? no. Program? no. Scientists? no. High School Calc? A‑ha!
September 5, 2003
Okay, so the justification for the war on Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had ready to use against the U.S.. The U.S. knew where the weapons were and a war would find them. Well, the war came and no weapons were found. So the story changed. The U.S. attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, which he would then surely use against the U.S. The U.S. knew where the weapons were being developed and they would be uncovered any day now. But five months of inspectors combing Iraq have found nothing.
So now a new story. The U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control tells us that whether Hussein had the weapons “isn’t really the issue.” But the war is still justified because Saddam had scientists who might someday work on a weapons program that might someday build a weapon that might someday be used against the U.S. or one of its allies
Bolton said that Saddam kept “a coterie” of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints.
I’m personally just waiting for the next level of Bush Administration retreat. Wait for Bolton to announce next month that it didn’t matter if Saddam didn’t actually have any trained nuclear scientists, as occupation inspectors had uncovered evidence that North Badgdad High taught calculus for its eleventh graders. “They might go on to work on a weapons program someday, we had to invade before Saddam could teach them Calc II.”
The excuses just get more pathetic as the truth becomes harder to ignore: the Bush Administration lied to the American people. The only winners in this war are the energy companies rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure with U.S. taxpayer dollars. It’s time to connect the dots, to stop paying investigators to comb Iraq for the non-existant weapons. The inspectors should be recalled to Washington to investigate the very real bamboozle (dare I say “conspiracy”?) that foisted a war on the American people. We’ve been played for chumps.
“Darn Good Intelligence”
July 15, 2003
The Washington Post has a remarkably-wrong assertion by George W. Bush. The President says he decided to start the war after he gave Saddam Hussein “a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Memo to Bush: Hussein did let them in (they were there when U.S. troop buildup started in the Mideast). Over the last few weeks the Bush Administration has had a lot of trouble keeping its alibis straight but now the President himself is just being out of touch with reality. (This is starting to feel like the glory days of the Reagan Administration.) He continues to bully reality out of the way, despite the exposure of forgeries and the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction:
“I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision.”