Following the Pentagon announcement earlier this week that President Bush had authorized an "'extraordinary, one-time' deployment of about 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan for seven months starting this spring," tensions between the US and its NATO allies ratcheted up after critical remarks by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
He told the LA Times that "we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations." Although he didn't cite particular countries, according to the paper Gates "compared the troubled experience of the NATO forces in the south -- primarily troops from the closest U.S. allies, Britain and Canada, as well as the Netherlands -- with progress made by American troops in the eastern part of Afghanistan."
A British Ministry of Defence spokesman said the MOD "was told that the British would certainly be last on the list if indeed he was criticising Nato countries. But it is self-evident that Nato does not have a history of counter-insurgency." Gates spoke with Canada's Defence Minister Peter MacKay who said he was "taken aback" by Gates' comments in the LATimes article. He said Gates had expressed "regret and embarrassment" over the article's reported comments. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "officials from the United States at all levels have always conveyed their appreciation and confidence in Canadian Forces and I've heard that from both military and non-military sources and I believe Secretary Gates conveyed that to Minister MacKay yesterday. So there should be no misinterpretation of those comments vis a vis Canada."
As for the Dutch, Labour MP Martijn van Dam said "an apology would not be out of place." According to RadioNetherlands, the LA Times insisted that "the defence secretary had been quoted correctly and that his comments were on tape ... [and that] the interview could not have been published without permission from the Pentagon.
More broadly, however, Gates' comments reveal the lack of a unified NATO approach to Afghanistan. This isn't a new dilemma; NATO countries such as Germany have long criticized the mission focus from the outset. German parliamentarian Hans Reidel, who's also a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, said in 2007 "if we'd had the same approach in the South as in the North there would now be fewer problems with the population because they would see that apart from just military action things are also being done for the population. To put it crudely: I cannot tell someone 'You are my friend but first I'll throw a bomb on your head ... Or first I'll destroy your main source of income without giving you a replacement."
(Of course, it's not in the north where the Taliban are engaged with western troops but the south)
A German official also cited domestic opposition to using German troops in combat as "not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality."
The core of problem regarding the lack of coordination afflicting the NATO approach can be seen in comments made by Britain's Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup: "There is a common misperception that the issues in Afghanistan, and indeed elsewhere around the world, can be dealt with by military means. That's a false perception. The military is a key, an essential element in dealing with those problems, but by and large these problems can only be resolved politically."
To that end Britain entered secret negotiations with Taliban members in an effort to create a wedge and thus split its various factions. But, reported the UK Guardian, "the policy has been resisted by the US military, which is suspicious of attempts to negotiate with "terrorists" and which instead relies heavily on military force. 'The Americans have a way of painting this black and white,' said one European official. 'For them it's like a cowboy film - you're either a good guy or a bad guy. But anyone with any experience in this country knows it's not that simple.'"
No, indeed. As former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) observed, "NATO's internecine fractures are symptomatic of a lack of coordination at the highest levels. NATO allies differ over eradicating Afghanistan's constantly expanding poppy fields. Britain gives its aid to the Afghan government, but the U.S. prefers to entrust its aid to American private contractors."
He concluded, "the American commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul has said that NATO's fate is tied to Afghanistan's. He is right. If NATO cannot summon the will to eradicate the Taliban and give Afghans an opportunity to achieve peace and stability, the alliance's value to the United States, Canada and Europe -- not to mention the rest of the world -- will be in doubt, and it will prove once again the old adage that Afghanistan is easy to invade, but difficult to pacify."
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
How Low We (Well, Some of US) Have Sunk
I received an email the other day from a relative who wanted to illustrate the sort of unspoken (usually though not always) fear and bigotry that continues to haunt this society of ours. Here is the text:
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM From Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. That should be a WARNING sign in itself!!!!
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the president of the United States, one of their own!!!!
Need I say none of this is true, that none of this is factual?
The author of this offense is, of course, unknown. But it and other similar internet "rumors" are widespread enough that Newsweek last week saw fit to devote seven online pages, bearing the title "Sliming Obama," to debunking them.
One of the "rumors" meriting attention (by Newsweek as well) was put forth a year ago by Insightmag.com, a publication that Newsweek reports is "owned by News World Communications, which also owns the conservative Washington Times newspaper."
Note the language used in this site's "article" on Obama:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
How clever! This is the question the Clinton camp is asking! It wasn't asked by the conservative Insightmag.com, no sir.
The entire hit job attributes the "research" to the Clinton campaign.
And who picked this up? Not surprisingly, CNN's Glenn Beck who, as reported by Media Matters, said:
"In today's political climate, it's wise to air your dirty laundry before anybody else does. But the decision to release this absolutely unsubstantiated claim that Barack lied about his past, to imply somehow or another that he's been indoctrinated in radical Muslim ideals, is not only irresponsible, but it reeks of desperation.
Now, who's that desperate? You know, no matter who leaked this statement -- a Democrat, a Republican, a yeti, the Tooth Fairy, I don't know -- there are a few characters out there that have a lot to gain. And there is no one with more to gain than Hillary Clinton.
Now, I am not in any way saying that she released this. Remember, it came from a conservative blog. But if her campaign did smear Obama, then they have set a new high in low blows. Hillary is in old-guard politics, I believe that's the way she is perceived. And a sketchy move like this is even more dated than her hairstyle."
Conservative blog? Note that he didn't mention the Washington Times' ownership, nor that he acquired the language of the site's piece with "now, I am not in any way saying she released this."
Beck's comments and the initial controversy are nearly a year old, but the pervasiveness of such disinformation is such that it has merited coverage last week by Newsweek and today by the NY Times. The Times reported that "the leaders of nine Jewish groups released an open letter on Tuesday condemning what they called 'hateful e-mails' that they said spread lies about Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and his intentions."
The paper added, "the e-mail has been so persistent that Mr. Obama was asked about it Tuesday at the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate in Nevada. He replied: 'I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometime in the United States Senate, when I’m presiding.'"
It's disgraceful that these tactics continue. But, as Newsweek observed, the same sort of thing worked in South Carolina against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2000: "Before the South Carolina primary in 2000, for example, phone calls were made to voters in which the callers claimed to be taking a poll, asking: 'Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?' McCain had done no such thing. He and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget, who has dark skin, as a baby from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. A professor at Bob Jones University also had sent an e-mail message telling South Carolinians that McCain had 'chosen to sire children without marriage,' which wasn't true. McCain lost the 2000 primary, and the Republican nomination, to George W. Bush."
The target audience for these things seems clear--conservative Christian Republicans. I can only hope they look upon what George Bush has wrought in his presidency and think twice about that standard bearer of truth, justice and the American way.
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM From Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. That should be a WARNING sign in itself!!!!
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the president of the United States, one of their own!!!!
Need I say none of this is true, that none of this is factual?
The author of this offense is, of course, unknown. But it and other similar internet "rumors" are widespread enough that Newsweek last week saw fit to devote seven online pages, bearing the title "Sliming Obama," to debunking them.
One of the "rumors" meriting attention (by Newsweek as well) was put forth a year ago by Insightmag.com, a publication that Newsweek reports is "owned by News World Communications, which also owns the conservative Washington Times newspaper."
Note the language used in this site's "article" on Obama:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
How clever! This is the question the Clinton camp is asking! It wasn't asked by the conservative Insightmag.com, no sir.
The entire hit job attributes the "research" to the Clinton campaign.
And who picked this up? Not surprisingly, CNN's Glenn Beck who, as reported by Media Matters, said:
"In today's political climate, it's wise to air your dirty laundry before anybody else does. But the decision to release this absolutely unsubstantiated claim that Barack lied about his past, to imply somehow or another that he's been indoctrinated in radical Muslim ideals, is not only irresponsible, but it reeks of desperation.
Now, who's that desperate? You know, no matter who leaked this statement -- a Democrat, a Republican, a yeti, the Tooth Fairy, I don't know -- there are a few characters out there that have a lot to gain. And there is no one with more to gain than Hillary Clinton.
Now, I am not in any way saying that she released this. Remember, it came from a conservative blog. But if her campaign did smear Obama, then they have set a new high in low blows. Hillary is in old-guard politics, I believe that's the way she is perceived. And a sketchy move like this is even more dated than her hairstyle."
Conservative blog? Note that he didn't mention the Washington Times' ownership, nor that he acquired the language of the site's piece with "now, I am not in any way saying she released this."
Beck's comments and the initial controversy are nearly a year old, but the pervasiveness of such disinformation is such that it has merited coverage last week by Newsweek and today by the NY Times. The Times reported that "the leaders of nine Jewish groups released an open letter on Tuesday condemning what they called 'hateful e-mails' that they said spread lies about Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and his intentions."
The paper added, "the e-mail has been so persistent that Mr. Obama was asked about it Tuesday at the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate in Nevada. He replied: 'I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometime in the United States Senate, when I’m presiding.'"
It's disgraceful that these tactics continue. But, as Newsweek observed, the same sort of thing worked in South Carolina against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2000: "Before the South Carolina primary in 2000, for example, phone calls were made to voters in which the callers claimed to be taking a poll, asking: 'Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?' McCain had done no such thing. He and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget, who has dark skin, as a baby from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. A professor at Bob Jones University also had sent an e-mail message telling South Carolinians that McCain had 'chosen to sire children without marriage,' which wasn't true. McCain lost the 2000 primary, and the Republican nomination, to George W. Bush."
The target audience for these things seems clear--conservative Christian Republicans. I can only hope they look upon what George Bush has wrought in his presidency and think twice about that standard bearer of truth, justice and the American way.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Corporate Monitorships and the Lack of Transparency
A Washington Post article today on "monitorships," described by the paper as "unusual contracts in which an outsider comes into a troubled company with vast power to expose corruption and change business practices," reveals the degree to which the Bush Administration has sought to both conceal corporate wrongdoing while simultaneously increasing the scope and pervasiveness of its "no-bid contract" preferences.
Former Republican Chairman of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Richard Breeden, whom the Post describes as having "engineered a nearly complete overhaul at WorldCom after its top executives faced criminal charges in one of the largest fraud schemes in the nation's history," said "people should be very careful to make sure that monitorships do not become political plums. The key is the person who is monitor has to have a very good understanding of the business they're dealing in."
It's perfectly understandable, then, that former Attorney General John Ashcroft was named by one-time subordinate US Attorney General Christopher Christie to "monitor" an Indiana maker of knee and hip implants. And Ashcroft's expertise with medical implant procedures? Why, that was gained, says the Post, this way: "To prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business, Ashcroft said he recently watched as a replacement knee made by Zimmer was implanted in a cadaver." Voila! Thus is an expert made!
Apart from that obvious "appearance of impropriety," a larger question of legal and public transparency afforded by the actual process of litigation remains unaddressed. If there has been evidence of corporate wrongdoing of publicly traded companies, how do such monitorships remedy damage done to shareholders? If, in the case of Zimmer Holdings (accused of making kickbacks to practitioners), monitorships have foreclosed the ability of patients to seek damages, well, that's certainly one way of getting "tort reform" without fighting any legislative battles.
Yet Ashcroft asks and answers, "we have a cooperative agreement between prosecutors and a vital industry, and the expense is born by the industry and not the public. What's wrong with that picture? There isn't anything wrong with that picture."
Here's one thing wrong: "With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million," according to the New York Times.
It comes as no surprise that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), in a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, requested information on the "practice of deferred prosecution agreeements ... which directly affect billions of dollars in corporate business as well as the livelihoods of millions of Americans employed by these corporations [and] have been completely shielded from review by either the Legislative or Judicial branches of government."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a similar letter to Mukasey in which he requested "a list of all contracts, including dollar amounts, awarded since 2001 to outside lawyers retained by companies for monitoring compliance with out-of-court settlements reached in criminal investigations between companies and the Department. Please also explain the procedure followed to select the person or firm monitoring compliance."
Obviously, the absence of transparency affects more than citizens and shareholders; it affects even the Legislative branch of government.
Former Republican Chairman of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Richard Breeden, whom the Post describes as having "engineered a nearly complete overhaul at WorldCom after its top executives faced criminal charges in one of the largest fraud schemes in the nation's history," said "people should be very careful to make sure that monitorships do not become political plums. The key is the person who is monitor has to have a very good understanding of the business they're dealing in."
It's perfectly understandable, then, that former Attorney General John Ashcroft was named by one-time subordinate US Attorney General Christopher Christie to "monitor" an Indiana maker of knee and hip implants. And Ashcroft's expertise with medical implant procedures? Why, that was gained, says the Post, this way: "To prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business, Ashcroft said he recently watched as a replacement knee made by Zimmer was implanted in a cadaver." Voila! Thus is an expert made!
Apart from that obvious "appearance of impropriety," a larger question of legal and public transparency afforded by the actual process of litigation remains unaddressed. If there has been evidence of corporate wrongdoing of publicly traded companies, how do such monitorships remedy damage done to shareholders? If, in the case of Zimmer Holdings (accused of making kickbacks to practitioners), monitorships have foreclosed the ability of patients to seek damages, well, that's certainly one way of getting "tort reform" without fighting any legislative battles.
Yet Ashcroft asks and answers, "we have a cooperative agreement between prosecutors and a vital industry, and the expense is born by the industry and not the public. What's wrong with that picture? There isn't anything wrong with that picture."
Here's one thing wrong: "With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million," according to the New York Times.
It comes as no surprise that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), in a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, requested information on the "practice of deferred prosecution agreeements ... which directly affect billions of dollars in corporate business as well as the livelihoods of millions of Americans employed by these corporations [and] have been completely shielded from review by either the Legislative or Judicial branches of government."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a similar letter to Mukasey in which he requested "a list of all contracts, including dollar amounts, awarded since 2001 to outside lawyers retained by companies for monitoring compliance with out-of-court settlements reached in criminal investigations between companies and the Department. Please also explain the procedure followed to select the person or firm monitoring compliance."
Obviously, the absence of transparency affects more than citizens and shareholders; it affects even the Legislative branch of government.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Musharraf's Calculation: No News =Good News
The expulsion by Pakistan of journalist/researcher Nicholas Schmidle is the latest Musharraf effort to maintain his fiction that Pakistan is resolute in fighting terrorism and restoring democracy.
Steve Clemons, writing at HuffingtonPost, said "some believe that Schmidle's article (in the NYTimes Magazine) antogonized (sic) Pakistani government officials because he conducted interviews in Quetta where the Taliban are operating in full public. These sources suggest that Pakistan government authorities want to limit exposure to the fact that they have done nothing to shut down the Taliban in Quetta and/or are turning a blind eye to the Taliban's operations theres."
Schmidle's NYT Magazine article, "Next-Gen Taliban," described the internal political machinations in Quetta, in Baluchistan province, and the increasing instability generated by competing groups. "The emergence of Taliban-inspired groups in Pakistan has placed immense strain on the country’s Islamist community, a strain that may only increase with the assassination of Bhutto," he wrote.
That internal conflict and the resulting increase in militarism it's spawned has not spared even the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service. According to Schmidle, an "intelligence officer I met in Dera Ismail Khan, whose area of operations included the Taliban-ruled enclave of South Waziristan, maintains that his contacts with the militants were severed long ago. 'We can hardly work there anymore,' he told me. 'The Taliban suspect everyone of spying. All of our sources have been slaughtered.'"
Schmidle also revealed an interesting particular of what seems to be a desperate American diplomatic effort: US Ambassador Ann Patterson in September 2007 met with Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), described by Schmidle as "a hard-line Islamist party, widely considered a political front for numerous jihadi organizations, including the Taliban," and urged him to form an alliance with Musharraf and the late Benazir Bhutto.
Schmidle also contributed to Slate.com's "Dispatches," and reported on ethnic-inspired militancy in Baluchistan province, as well as the religio-political conflicts elsewhere.
The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Punjab President, Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi, condemned Schmidle's expulsion, saying the "deportation is the continuation of a deliberate policy of persecuting the media since his article comprehensively detailed the intricacies of the establishment-Taliban nexus that has resulted in the strong presence of the Taliban across the length and breadth of the country."
Steve Clemons, writing at HuffingtonPost, said "some believe that Schmidle's article (in the NYTimes Magazine) antogonized (sic) Pakistani government officials because he conducted interviews in Quetta where the Taliban are operating in full public. These sources suggest that Pakistan government authorities want to limit exposure to the fact that they have done nothing to shut down the Taliban in Quetta and/or are turning a blind eye to the Taliban's operations theres."
Schmidle's NYT Magazine article, "Next-Gen Taliban," described the internal political machinations in Quetta, in Baluchistan province, and the increasing instability generated by competing groups. "The emergence of Taliban-inspired groups in Pakistan has placed immense strain on the country’s Islamist community, a strain that may only increase with the assassination of Bhutto," he wrote.
That internal conflict and the resulting increase in militarism it's spawned has not spared even the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service. According to Schmidle, an "intelligence officer I met in Dera Ismail Khan, whose area of operations included the Taliban-ruled enclave of South Waziristan, maintains that his contacts with the militants were severed long ago. 'We can hardly work there anymore,' he told me. 'The Taliban suspect everyone of spying. All of our sources have been slaughtered.'"
Schmidle also revealed an interesting particular of what seems to be a desperate American diplomatic effort: US Ambassador Ann Patterson in September 2007 met with Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), described by Schmidle as "a hard-line Islamist party, widely considered a political front for numerous jihadi organizations, including the Taliban," and urged him to form an alliance with Musharraf and the late Benazir Bhutto.
Schmidle also contributed to Slate.com's "Dispatches," and reported on ethnic-inspired militancy in Baluchistan province, as well as the religio-political conflicts elsewhere.
The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Punjab President, Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi, condemned Schmidle's expulsion, saying the "deportation is the continuation of a deliberate policy of persecuting the media since his article comprehensively detailed the intricacies of the establishment-Taliban nexus that has resulted in the strong presence of the Taliban across the length and breadth of the country."
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Can Bush Make Foreign Policy Even Out of Office?
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh says President Bush "indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race--and any decisions the next president makes in 2009." The policies? They include a long-term "strategic partnership" between the US and Iraq that, says Hirsh, "will become a sworn obligation for the next president [and] would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact."
I don't know about that. As President, Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from a number of agreements, including the ABM treaty with Russia, the "Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" which, as the Washington Post noted in 2005, the US itself had proposed "in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969." These, too, were "sworn obligations" cast aside by the current administration.
Those he hasn't withdrawn from or repudiated, he merely ignores, such as international conventions on torture and, of course, the war against Iraq itself. He's even dismissed his own intelligence agencies' collective effort, the NIE on Iran from December 2007. According to Newsweek, an "anonymous" official said Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" regarding Iran's nuclear program.
It's clear that the Bush Administration had and continues to have no problem disregarding American international obligations that aren't to its liking. Arrogant, to be sure, and utterly non-responsive to the desires of the American voting public. But it's quite another thing for him and those suffering from similar delusions of grandeur to believe that they might enact policy from Crawford, Texas or elsewhere come January 2009.
I don't know about that. As President, Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from a number of agreements, including the ABM treaty with Russia, the "Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" which, as the Washington Post noted in 2005, the US itself had proposed "in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969." These, too, were "sworn obligations" cast aside by the current administration.
Those he hasn't withdrawn from or repudiated, he merely ignores, such as international conventions on torture and, of course, the war against Iraq itself. He's even dismissed his own intelligence agencies' collective effort, the NIE on Iran from December 2007. According to Newsweek, an "anonymous" official said Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" regarding Iran's nuclear program.
It's clear that the Bush Administration had and continues to have no problem disregarding American international obligations that aren't to its liking. Arrogant, to be sure, and utterly non-responsive to the desires of the American voting public. But it's quite another thing for him and those suffering from similar delusions of grandeur to believe that they might enact policy from Crawford, Texas or elsewhere come January 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)