Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« May 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Topic: In these times...

Things spinning down, as if it matters...

Ah, William Butler Yeats - and do you remember this one?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Oh yeah - the second coming and the end of the world as we know it - the times the evangelical Christians long for could be drawing near.

Ah, no way. But there is a bit of a "widening spiral of things" afoot.

Tony Blair is with us still, and one of his strongest supporters dumps this into the mix.

See U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi
Sue Leeman, Associated Press - Wednesday, May 05, 2004- 4:39 PM ET
LONDON - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."

Clwyd, 67, is a veteran politician of the governing Labour Party and a strong Blair supporter who regularly visits Iraq and reports back on issues such as human rights, the delivery of food and medical supplies to Iraqis, and Iraq's Kurdish minority. Her job as Blair's human rights envoy is unpaid and advisory.

"She was held for about six weeks without charge," the envoy told Wednesday's Evening Standard newspaper. "During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey. A harness was put on her, and an American rode on her back."

Clwyd said the woman has recovered physically but remains traumatized.

"I am satisfied the case has now been resolved satisfactorily," the envoy told British Broadcasting Corp. radio Wednesday. "She got a visit last week from the authorities, and she is about to have her papers and jewelry returned to her."
Oh good. All fixed.

Remember, as Rush Limbaugh explains, this is no big deal -
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
Ah, our people just blowing off steam.

But maybe, just maybe, this is not just a few rowdy guys and gals letting their enthusiasm get the better of their judgment. No?

Why would you think the problem is systemic? Bush says its an aberration, and you need to understand we're not like that, as a people, at all. He said that to two Arab television networks today - one funded by us and the other owned by the Saudis. The questioner from the first had become an American citizen the day before the interview. Curious.

Okay, why would you not believe this is an aberration?

Matthew Yglesias lists some reasons.
One: the US government sometimes shipped suspects off to foreign countries in order to have them tortured as a means of procuring information. Two: the US government has gone out of its way to maintain the claim that people detained in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be considered either prisoners of war with Geneva Convention protections or criminals with constitutional rights. Three: the US government wanted to procure information from the people detained at Abu Ghraib.

Now I seriously doubt an explicit order ever came down from on high saying, "sadistically torture these guys," but I'm not sure what other conclusion the people charged with handling the interrogations were supposed to draw from the top leadership's conduct other than that torture would be condoned as long as the people doing it didn't call attention to themselves.
Does Matt have his facts wrong?

Working backwards, we do want information. And last week Ted Olsen argued to the Supreme Court that the court had no jurisdiction over anything the administration wanted to do with the prisoners at Guant?namo - that place was not our soil and anyway, the folks we held were not prisoners of war nor were they criminals, and then too, the two Americans we held here as "enemy combatants" have no rights either as they also were neither criminals nor prisoners of war. New category - thus no court has the right to stop the administration. And then the first item - shipping off folks to places where they could be tortured for information so we could claim we don't do such things.

There are lots of stories about that. Remember that Canadian fellow we picked up by mistake at the Newark Airport - that Maher Arar fellow? Ashcroft and the Justice Department did apologize. So did the Canadians. A little oops thing. So even though he was a Canadian citizen picked up in the United States through a bit of misplaced enthusiasm - he'd done nothing - somehow he got shipped to Syria, to Damascus, and ended up in their military intelligence's Far Falasteen (Palestine Branch) prison - handcuffed and blindfolded, on Oct. 9, 2002. He was "interrogated" there at the request of Canadian and U.S. intelligence agencies. But mild, moderate or even severe torture is not terribly effective when you want information the dude just doesn't have.

Well, he got popped free after six or seven months, as he was useless.

Read all about it.

This is not a case of a few bad apples letting off a little emotional steam - to mix metaphors egregiously. It'd not even a case of steaming emotional apples.

We have not exactly been playing nice on a lot of levels.

See CIA May Have Had a Role in Hiding Iraqi Prisoners
Bob Drogin, The Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2004

Without detail, here's the essence -
WASHINGTON -- The CIA is seeking to determine whether its operatives had a role in the imprisonment of so-called ghost detainees, Iraqi prisoners who were held without names, charges or other documentation at U.S.-run detention facilities across their homeland, intelligence officials said Tuesday.

A little-noticed portion of the military's classified report on the abuse of prisoners in Iraq says that a number of jails operated by the 800th Military Police Brigade "routinely held" such prisoners "without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention."

In one case, the report says, U.S. military police at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad shifted six to eight undocumented prisoners "around within the facility to hide them" from a visiting delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine and in violation of international law," the report adds.

Human rights groups said the practice of keeping prisoners off written lists and physically concealing them from humanitarian aid groups and independent monitors has been well known over the years in dictatorships from Guatemala to Sudan.
Hey, if the International Red Cross doesn't know, well, how can they get all upset with us?

Pretty cool, huh?

Consider a detail from the New Yorker expos? of last weekend -
In November ... an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencies--that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees--was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away." The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison's inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, "and therefore never had a number."
No number, no problem.

So, we will punish a few low-level soldiers. They were, at best, doing really stupid things that embarrassed the whole nation. But we're good people. Bush says so.

So good people, pony up some more money for all this!

Bush Asks Congress for Additional War Funding
$25B Needed for Contingencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Says
Jonathan Weisman and William Branigin, The Washington Post, Wednesday, May 5, 2004; 5:21 PM
Driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, the White House reversed course today and asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October.

... Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate over the war's conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has already approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion, of which $149 billion went to Iraq.

But in recent weeks, military officials publicly stated that U.S. forces were already running into financial problems, and would likely run out of money even before Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Accounting tricks would likely patch those holes, they said, but it was unclear how the military would be able to wait until January or February, when the administration planned to detail its next war request.
Hey, you want to protest any of this?

Don't even think about it. Consider today's big Hollywood story.

How did Oliver Willis sum this up? "First they got Clear Channel to force out Howard Stern, then Sinclair refused to broadcast Nightline's episode about the fallen, and now this."

What is this?

See Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, May 5, 2004

The key points?
WASHINGTON, May 4 -- The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
Well, Jeb won't be offended now. And Jeb won't jet off to the Cannes Festival where this is one of the official entries.

Oh, don't worry. We'll all be able to see it without having to go to France. Someone will distribute it. And make lots of money - even if Disney doesn't want such tainted money. And it's probably as over the top and hysterical as "Bowling for Columbine" was. And that was not a good film. Moore hasn't made a good film since "Canadian Bacon." He can be a buffoon.

But Ezra Klein comments on the implications:
This isn't an isolated incident, it's part of a worrying trend where the corporate friends of the Republican Party are using their positions to help reshape media coverage. When Howard Stern started down his anti-Bush road, Clear Channel forced him off. When Nightline attempted to honor the fallen, Sinclair dropped the episode from their lineup and Fox news promised a night devoted to our accomplishments in Iraq. When Michael Moore inks a deal with Miramax for his new, anti-Bush movie, Disney halts its distribution.

Aside from the worrisome trend towards censorship that Oliver [Willis] identifies, there's a deeper problem with these attempts to curry administration favor. The article on the Disney deal makes clear that Disney fears losing the tax breaks and perks that Jeb and George have given them. It's the cost-benefit analysis here that worries me. These corporations are making moves that will certainly anger the Democratic Party, they must then be looking towards some payback from the right that outweighs the ire of the left. These are corporations, their actions respond to an anticipated profit. When they make public stands like these they're taking a serious risk, what are they expecting in return?
What does a corporation expect in return for leaning far to the right and trying to please the Bush crew? Duh!

And so it goes. Another day in paradise.

Posted by Alan at 22:33 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: Bush

Jonathan Swift is still dead. Parody is a minor subset of satire, but it will do these days...

For connoisseurs of parody, a passage from a parody of Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack" - the book getting all the press recently. Woodward chronicles Bush's activities as we go to war.

See MAN OF ATTACK
Christopher Buckley, The New Yorker - Issue of 2004-05-03 Posted 2004-04-26
... Although Woodward had been in the Oval Office almost three thousand times since the President took office, he always felt a tingling sensation in his amygdala, the almond-shaped mass of gray matter in each hemisphere of the brain which governs feelings of aggression. Thirty years earlier, he had caused a previous occupant of "the Oval" to evacuate it almost overnight and move to California, where he got a clot in his leg and nearly died. Woodward did not blame himself for the clot.

This new President, George W. Bush, understood Woodward's power, and, like many others in Washington, he felt a tightness in his chest, even downright pain, at the words "Bob Woodward on the phone."

However, Woodward had recently published a favorable book about Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, a wretched country ruled by unambiguously odious bearded people who hated America even more than most foreigners do. As a result, Bush felt relaxed in Woodward's presence. As was his custom, he had bestowed a nickname on him: Woodpecker.

Deep down, Woodward had reservations about the President, but he had not communicated this to him, since it might prevent Bush from sharing his innermost thoughts, which Woodward knew could be quite alarming and therefore of considerable interest to the ?lite media A-holes and to the general book-buying public.

Bush informed Woodward that he had just "spoken with the Lord," an apparent reference to Jesus Christ, the first-century-A.D. Jewish religious figure and the subject of a recent sanguinary Mel Gibson movie. Bush then told Woodward that the Lord had instructed him to invade France, a country in "Old Europe" that Bush regarded with disdain. He felt that Frenchmen were insufficiently grateful to America for rescuing them from the Germans. In addition, many of them could still not speak English.

Woodward had already learned about the plan to invade France, which had been developed by Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Libby, along with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, had been planning a U.S. invasion of France since the age of twenty-four, when he had been rudely treated by a ma?tre d' in Paris.

Two weeks earlier, Libby had given a four-hour briefing in the Situation Room, the room in the basement of the West Wing of the White House where people go as the situation requires. The thrust of his briefing was that France was developing snails of mass destruction (S.M.D.). Most of the people in the room had fallen asleep during the presentation. They awoke to find that Wolfowitz had forged their signatures on a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE, pronounced "knee") declaring the U.S. government's intention to "neutralize France's S.M.D. capability even if it does not exist."

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a Vietnam War Navy SEAL and weight lifter whose shirts have to be custom-tailored to fit his thirty-three-inch neck, became so enraged that he ripped out a video monitor and hurled it at Libby, narrowly missing him and briefly concussing Presidential adviser Karen Hughes, who had flown in from her son's football game in Texas.

Now Bush told Woodward, "Everyone is on board. Well, except Colin"--referring to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Probably oughta loop him in at some point."

Woodward asked, "Have you spoken to your father?"

"To the one in Heaven? Yeah."

"What about the one in Kennebunkport?" Woodward said. It was a reference to George Herbert Walker Bush, the forty-first President.

"What does he know?" the President smirked.

As President, Bush's father had liberated Kuwait but had halted U.S. troops before they could pursue the enemy all the way back to Paris. ...
You could read the whole thing. And it really does nail Woodward's style, and his ego.

Posted by Alan at 11:36 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Tuesday, 4 May 2004

Topic: Iraq

"Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." - George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

If you didn't catch clips on the news, Donald Rumsfeld had a press conference today that I suspect he found unpleasant. A typical news item covering it, with video clips if you're so inclined (and if your have a high-speed connection) is here (NBC). I saw a bit of it and he did seem grumpy.

The best analysis of what he said is here from Tom Schaller:

The main points?
We are shocked and outraged. Even though we've known since January that something wrong was happening.

We will get to the bottom of this. CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported this afternoon that there are or were 35 separate investigations underway, 25 that involve prisoner deaths, including two that are homicide investigations -- not to mention at least one male soldier who is alleged to have raped a female Iraqi prisoner, thereby restoring the "rape rooms" the president told us had been banished forever thanks to the invasion. Is that the bottom, Secretary Rumsfeld, or will there be news of something yet worse?

"The system works. The system works." Direct Rummy quote that sounds eerily like Nigel Tufnel's "but these go to 11" Spinal Tap moment... yet according to members of both parties on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who say that in countless meetings and appearances by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, their deputies, and representatives from private contractors in the past few months, the system didn't work because DoD made no mention, not even a whiff, of potential prison problems.

Put it all together -- feigned outrage only after the story is public; the assurance that the matter will now be handled appropriately which means it was therefore bungled up until this point; the insistence that nothing improper or "unsystemic" has occurred -- and you get a nice capsule of how the Bush Administration manages so much of its policy.

Which begs the question that always puzzles me about Republicans, and that is this: Aside from the fact that they are more concerned about running for and winning office than running the government itself (other than into the ground), given that good management makes for good policy, and that both combine to make for good politics, how is it that the Bushies manage, time and again, to prove their ineptness?
Gee, I don't know. It must be a kind of gift.

Schaller offers this explanation of Rumsfeld's discomfort today -
But more puzzling is the fact that, even if he cared not one whit about good war management for management's sake, Cheshire Cat Rummy should have been clever enough to know that this would get out eventually, and had the sense to at least alert somebody in Congress during closed session so he and Bush would now be insulated... which can only lead to this conclusion: Deep down, Rumsfeld thought, if not hoped, it would never get out.
Yeah, well, it did get out.

Reuters actually is reporting - Two Iraqi prisoners were murdered by Americans and 23 other deaths are being investigated in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States revealed on Tuesday as the Bush administration tried to contain growing outrage over the abuse of Iraqi detainees.

Oops.

Who says? Our own Army says -
Army officials said the military had investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and determined that an Army soldier and a CIA contractor murdered two prisoners. Most of the deaths occurred in Iraq.

An Army official said a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of homicide for shooting a prisoner to death in September 2003 at a detention center in Iraq.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a private contractor who worked for the CIA was found to have committed the other homicide against a prisoner.
Yeah, well, we're on it. The Pentagon has sent Major General Geoffrey Miller to Iraq to assess the prison system. You know, he's the former chief of the US detention center at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. Just the right guy.
"We were enormously proud of what we had done in Guant?namo, to be able to set that kind of environment where we were focused on gaining the maximum amount of intelligence," said General Miller, who added that he recently emphasized the message in meetings with American soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

"What I told them was, we are here to be able to enable our forces to win this fight that is ongoing," he said. "Everything we do, we'll do. At the end of the day, you better make sure that what we've done will make America proud."
Well, one wonders.

But Miller may straighten things out at Abu Ghraib, or, as with Guant?namo, we'll just never know anything about anything that happens there from now on.

And maybe "the few bad eggs" will get their punishment.

But consider this from another commentator with history on his mind -
The United States does not have a terrifically good record when it comes to punishing our military personnel for crimes committed in the course of service. Lieutenant William Calley, who ought to be rotting in a small cell even now, runs a jewelry store in Columbus, Georgia; the Marine aviators who killed the cable-car riders in Italy a few years back were (to my mind, incredibly) acquitted; and of course Okinawa natives have more than their share of horror stories pertaining to marauding off-duty Americans. I don't mean to paint an unjustly negative picture of American military justice, nor imply that we are somehow worse than other militaries in this respect. We're not. But that in itself is not good enough, really: there are glaring deficiencies which shine forth on their own, and they ought not be judged solely in comparison to those of others.

I state this as I consider the affair at Abu Ghraib. The first historical parallel that springs to mind is that of the French torture scandals of the Algerian war. And in this sense, the import of Abu Ghraib seems to recede somewhat: torture in Algeria didn't cost France the war ...
And this will cost us this war? Maybe so. Or maybe not.

The line on Fox News (Hume) and on Rush Limbaugh and in many places on the right is that this is not a big deal. Many are suggesting they've seen worse at fraternity hazing sessions - and I'd guess George Bush thinks back to his initiation into the Yale Skull and Bones Club and wonders what the problem is. Just mindless high jinks. Frat boy stuff. What's the problem?

As Rush Limbaugh says, this is no big deal -
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?


Well, Christopher Hitchens - a fellow I've come to detest - does put things in different perspective here.
Just consider for a moment what this bunch of giggling sadists has done, with its happy snaps and recreational cruelties:

~ It has defiled one of the memorials of regime change. I was a visitor to Abu Ghraib last summer, and the stench of misery and evil was still palpable in those pits and cellars. It is as if British or American soldiers had not only executed German prisoners of war, but had force-marched them to Dachau in order to commit the atrocity.

~ It has been like a shot in the back to the many soldiers (active front-line duty, not safe-job prison guards) who were willing to take casualties rather than inflict them and who fought selectively and carefully. What are the chances of the next such soldier who is captured by some gang of Saddamists or Wahabbists or Khomeinists?

~ It seems, at least on its face, to have profaned the idea of women in the military. One does not have to concede anything to Islamist sexism in order to know what the impact of obscene female torturers will have in the wider society.

This is only the rehearsal for one's revulsion. One of two things must necessarily be true. Either these goons were acting on someone's authority, in which case there is a layer of mid- to high-level people who think that they are not bound by the laws and codes and standing orders. Or they were acting on their own authority, in which case they are the equivalent of mutineers, deserters, or traitors in the field. This is why one asks wistfully if there is no provision in the procedures of military justice for them to be taken out and shot.
Gee, Hitchens is rather unhappy.

Oh heck, catch the Charlie Rose show where he interviews Seymour Hersh who broke the story of the Army Report that set off the firestorm - the report prepared by Major General Antonio Taguba on alleged abuse of prisoners by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad - ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Joint Task Force-7, the senior U.S. military official in Iraq, following all these persistent allegations of human rights abuses at the prison. It's now available for anyone - Complete text of Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba - should you wish to read it.

The Seymour Hersh piece in the New Yorker that broke the story that we've been investigating all this since January, and explains this report, is here.

Isn't Seymour Hersh the same fellow who broke the story of the My Lai "massacre" over in Vietnam way back when? The man is a troublemaker.

Anyway, Kevin Drum tells us the topic on Charlie Rose's show was the Iraqi prisoner photographs and two "very intriguing points" came out toward the end of the conversation.

Seymour Hersh indicated that there was one entire wing in Abu Ghraib devoted to women and another one for juveniles. He left the impression that the story involving these women and children prisoners would really go way beyond the story as we know it right now.

Dr. Bernard Haykel revealed that the attack on the prison ten days ago was triggered by widespread rumor that women and children were being molested in there and death would be better than the humiliation for these prisoners.

Both gave the impression that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg and there is much more to come.

Yeah, great.

NBC now reports (Tuesday) that the Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd published four photographs appearing to show U.S. soldiers raping at least two women and forcing them to give oral sex, one of them at gunpoint. The newspaper, apparently not the most reliable around, ran the photos under a banner headline reading, "The Democracy of the American Empire of Evil and Adultery: Gang Rape by Occupation Soldiers of Iraqi Women Under Gunpoint."

Probably not true - a fabrication. But who is buying our denials now?

CBS news reports we're now going for broke on this one -
President Bush's national security adviser said Bush "will speak directly to the Arab world," and a White House official said the president is planning to do interviews with Arab television to underscore his feelings about photographs of naked prisoners and gloating U.S. soldiers.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush will conduct two 10-minute interviews with the U.S.-sponsored Al-Hurra television network and the Arab network Al Arabiya.

"This is an opportunity for the president to speak directly to the people in Arab nations and let them know that the images that we all have seen are shameless and unacceptable," McClellan said.
One would hope he doesn't smirk too much.

But then again, for the second time in two years, our chief diplomat in charge of improving our image around the world, particularly in the Arab world, resigned last Thursday - in a little noticed announcement from the State Department. Margaret Tutwiler, the Under Secretary of State For Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, quit her post to take a senior vice president position with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) effective July 1st. She's no dummy. And with Maggie gone, well, Bush will have to go chat up the Arabs himself.

This does not bode well.

___

And a little recent history, from the April 19, 2002 edition of The Christian Science Monitor
US finds strange bedfellows in UN vote on torture
A proposal including prison inspections is set for a vote today, but Washington says it conflicts with US law.
Peter Ford - Staff writer
PARIS - The United States has aligned itself with some of its fiercest and least democratic enemies in opposing efforts to strengthen an international treaty that outlaws torture, according to diplomatic sources.

Washington has found itself on the same side as Cuba, Libya, and Syria, among other states, in trying to block a proposal before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva designed to give more teeth to the Convention Against Torture.

US diplomats insist they are not opposed to beefing up the 1987 UN convention, to which Washington is a party, but say they disagree with the international prison-inspection regime being proposed by their Latin American and European allies.

... Washington has opposed the idea since it was first raised 10 years ago, arguing that the fourth amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures" meant it could not allow foreign prison inspectors to go where they pleased. "As a matter of principle, unrestricted authority granted to a visiting mechanism is incompatible with the need for checks and balances" argues Steve Solomon, head of the US delegation.
Sigh.

Posted by Alan at 19:43 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Wednesday, 5 May 2004 10:19 PDT home

Monday, 3 May 2004

Topic: Bush

Leadership: The CEO President (folks are getting nervous)

Last week in the magazine - Volume 2, Number 16 of Sunday, April 25, 2004 - Joseph, our American friend in France, commented -
By the way, now that this thing has turned into the fiasco that most of us said it would, I wonder what your "unnamed friend" is saying these days... Hey, the mistake is understandable. We're a nation that admires CEOs, we wanted a CEO president. Now that the nation and the armed services are being run efficiently, like a proper corporation (just forget how far we're in the red) I hope that we're all happy with the result.
And I commented that Bush said he'd run the country as a CEO would, and Bush does have an MBA of course - but every company he was involved with went under. There are CEO's - then there are CEO's.

Robert Kagan, the neoconservative academic and Bush supporter is also thinking on this.

See 'Lowering Our Sights'
Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page B07

Here's Kagan's take on such leadership.
Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain.
Does that sound like a CEO to you?

Kevin Drum, over at the Washington Monthly says it sure does. Kevin must have worked for some pretty bad CEO type folks to say this:
Bush styles himself a "CEO president," but the world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them -- but then consider the job done anyway because they've "delegated" it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they're unwilling to do the hard work of creating one -- all those market research reports are just a bunch of ivory tower nonsense anyway. They work hard -- but only on subjects in their comfort zone. If they like dealing with people they can't bring themselves to read all those tedious analyst's reports, and if they like numbers they can't bring themselves to spend time chattering with distributors about their latest prospect.

And most important of all, weak CEOs are unwilling to recognize bad news and perform unpleasant tasks to fix it -- tasks like confronting poorly performing subordinates or firing people. Good CEOs suck in their guts and do it anyway.

George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right.

So sure: George Bush is genuinely committed to winning in Iraq. He just doesn't know how to do it and doesn't have the skills, experience, or personality to look beyond his own instincts in order to figure it out. America is about to pay a heavy price for that.
So, you don't have the skills, experience, or personality to look beyond your own instincts and you're in a leadership position? What do you do? Delegate... and hope.

Kevin Drum seems to have worked in the same sorts of organizations in which I've worked.

Back in the eighties I worked for a dynamic woman at Hughes Aircraft - the company that later turned into Hughes Electronics, then became part of General Motors, then morphed into DirecTV and last year got sold to Rupert Murdoch. Back then I worked for the Hughes Space and Communications Group, and we had two-thirds of the satellites and satellite payloads in orbit for two decades. This was a class act. The place was indeed full of rocket scientists. Aircraft? No, the Hughes Aircraft name had more to do with history. Heck, the last airplane Hughes made had been nailed together in the mid-forties, the famous Spruce Goose - and it had flown once in 1948 down in Long Beach for all of a half-mile.

Anyway, the reign of my dynamic boss, her time in power, ended badly - and I think it had something to do with her "George Bush" style of managing. She would propose all sorts of grand ideas, and ask how we could implement these ideas. So we'd have long staff meetings over many afternoons trying to figure out how to "make it so" - as the commander of the Starship Enterprise says to his crew.

The problem was those of us on the staff who liked to suggest there were some problems we'd have to solve, that we should have contingency back-out plans and slack in the project schedules for unexpected events, even things as minor as illness keeping key players home for a day or two, or the real possibility a vendor might be late a day or two with something critical we really needed. But we were the problem. She didn't want to hear the negative. She didn't like people who didn't have a positive attitude. She made us remove the slack from the project schedules - and we were told to not tell her, ever, of factors that might slow us down or stop us in any way. She didn't want to hear it. She called this positive leadership - you had to believe anything could be done and not consider any obstacles. The word was we can to this, not we can do this if....

Most everything we did, of course, didn't quite work as planned, or just didn't work at all. Then she'd have a meeting and berate us all for not being sufficiently positive. Our negative attitude had doomed us all. Why couldn't we be more like her? You get the idea.

How did that all end? Oddly enough she was fired for theft of company property, a computer hard drive that she wanted for her Macintosh at home.

When I see how Bush manages our country, I think of her.

___

By the way, Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo read the Kevin Drum item above and adds this:
One of the things I've found difficult about writing about Iraq in recent days is imputing some level of seriousness to the arguments of the president and his retainers who continue to press an optimistic view of what's happening in Iraq. From them, on any given day, you can still hear the argument that, notwithstanding some tough days, things are still getting better in Iraq and the key to success is sticking with it.

At the same time, I talk to, or have conversations related to me with, various foreign policy, intelligence and military experts, all of whom --- across the political spectrum --- seem to believe that things are about as bleak as they can be. On top of this, they seem uniform in the belief -- sometimes based on inference, other times based on direct knowledge -- that the White House is fresh out of ideas about what to do, and basically hasn't any idea how to proceed.

Either the president knows the situation is that bad or he (and perhaps his advisors too) is just too out of touch to have any idea what's happening. Increasingly, I think that the president is just too small-minded and vainglorious a man to come to grips with the situation.

A strong president, a good president, would put his country before his pride and throw himself into saving the situation even if it meant admitting previous mistakes and ditching past policies and advisors. But I don't think this president has the character to do that.

Making a clean sweep, firing some of his most compromised advisors, admitting some past mistakes -- not for effect, but so that those mistakes could be more thoroughly and rapidly overcome -- might well doom the president politically. But I doubt there's any question they'd be in the best interests of the country.

This president seems either disinclined to or unable to do more than preside over a drift into disaster while putting on a game face.
Yeah, well, don't hold your breath, Josh.

Marshall concludes with this:
There's all this talk about what might be the best critique of the president's policies (politically and substantively), what the best alternative policies might be, and so forth. But all of that, I think, misses the point. This president is too compromised by his deceptions, his past lack of accountability and his acquiescence in failed policies, ever to correct the situation. Like C.S. Lewis's metaphor about the road to hell being easy to walk down, but the further walked, harder and harder to turn back upon, this president is just too far gone with misleading the public, covering up and indulging incompetence, and embracing venality ever to make a clean break and start retrieving the situation.
Oh, THAT'S real cheery.

___

Of course, in my local newspaper you get this - a summary of what all these recent books about George Bush show about how he works -

See Books Depict Bush as Instinct-Driven Leader
Political experts say recent works by White House insiders reveal an absence of analysis in the president's decision-making style
Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2004

Key items? Well, there is the CEO business
President Bush styles himself as the first CEO president, applying the rigor and authority of his MBA education to the job of chief executive of the nation.

But that's not the picture that emerges from three recent insider accounts of the workings of the Bush administration, experts in decision-making and presidential management say. On the contrary, they say, the president appears to have a highly personal working style, with little emphasis on systematic analysis of major decisions.

"There seems to be almost an absence of any analytical or deliberative process for mapping the problem or exploring alternatives or estimating consequences," said Graham Allison, a professor of government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

And Bush appears to give greater weight to his own instincts than to experts or other sources of advice and information. The president has a "bias for action," said Roderick M. Kramer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. "I've been struck by [how] Bush's sense of personal identity as a leader shapes his decisions," he said.
Well, many argue a bias for action is a good thing. Remember the words of Marge Simpson - "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." The man has no French in him.

Some paragraphs above I mentioned long meetings. Bush doesn't do those - or memos or any of that sissy stuff. Fred Greenstein, a presidential historian at Princeton University is a bit amazed.
Greenstein said that one striking thing about all three books was what they don't show. There are few examples, for instance, of Bush presiding over meetings in which subordinates presented problems, weighed evidence and aired differing views.

"I think a lot of policy is made on the fly," he said. "It isn't a process in which people assemble and go back and forth in a rigorous way."

Another thing largely missing from the books was any indication that documents or memos weighing policy alternatives are circulated and discussed. Harvard's Allison said one of the few documents the administration did prepare in advance of the Iraq war -- the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iraq probably had weapons of mass destruction -- was quickly compiled and not very well done.

"The more it's examined, it seems quite sloppy," he said. "At this point, if there had been some good analysis of the issues on paper, we would have seen some evidence of it.

"The contrast with the textbook conception of informed decision making is distressing
," he said.
Distressing? Perhaps. But "informed decision making" is probably overvalued. That concept is not as important as resolve and determination. The guy from Stanford's Graduate School of Business explains - Bush is not following what everyone teaches these days in business school, but rather is being what people EXPECT a CEO to be - without the messy details.
Stanford's Kramer said though Bush showed little interest in the kind of number-crunching analysis taught in business school, his style of management does conform to the popular image of chief executives as forceful and "decisive." "There seems to be a lot of value attached to showing resolve and demonstrating resolve," he said.

But Jay Lorsch, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of "Decision Making at the Top," said the decision-making techniques taught at that school -- from which Bush received an MBA -- focus on understanding the nature of decisions, not simplifying them.

"What we teach around here is that you've got to understand the complexity of the territory you're trying to affect," he said. "You don't make a decision until you've surveyed all the possible ramifications. The binary idea that you're either right or wrong is just foolishness."
Foolishness? Bush is not following the Havard Business school methods, or the methods most every CEO actually uses?

Well, let's put it this way: Bush is not really a CEO. He just plays one on TV.

How so? He's got the moves down - Gordon Gecko, the Welch guy who used to run GE, the legendary Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap famous for dismantling Sunbeam and all sorts of other companies - like Donald Trump on his reality show "The Apprentice" - Bush cuts to the chase. He plays the part of the decisive executive, as he understands it.

In the Times a smattering of other business folks weigh in on Bush.
"He doesn't like long meetings. He likes truncated meetings. That means you're not going to have the kinds of sessions ... that are going to bring in lots of different kinds of information."
So? Who needs it?
"The decisiveness part is certainly there. The imperviousness to facts and analysis is also there. So what we have is someone who is going on raw instinct."
So? Facts bog you down.
"Bush appears to rest his confidence in a few people whose judgment corresponds to his gut instincts. He seems to be obsessive about being decisive, but willing to make hard and fast decisions on the basis of ideology more than evidence."
So? He believes in what he is doing. Folks like that about him.

All these people from the top business schools seem to think the president would flunk out of their programs because although he plays at being a fine CEO, he doesn't really get the quite basic concepts of what a CEO actually does.

But he's president, and they are not, and never will be. They can chat with this Times reporter all they want, and complain Bush is giving every CEO in America a bad name. It doesn't matter.

The bottom line - something you think a CEO refers to all the time as he leans across the conference table, sweeps all the paper aside, all the analyses and project plans and contingency documents and all that stuff, scowls at his quivering subordinates and growls, slowly and menacingly, "So, what's the bottom line?" Great drama!

The bottom line here is that the nation prefers the "popular concept" of the decisive leader to the real thing. Image trumps substance every time.

Most folks would vote for Donald Trump for president if he ran for the office. And Trump has considered it. But Trump, to his credit, figured out that although he knows lots about real estate and finance and such things, and knows a lot about fading European models, as he tends to marry those when he can, he doesn't know jack about running the most powerful nation in the world, about international relations and geopolitics, about the history and needs of our allied nations and those who give us trouble, about the ways congress passes laws or doesn't, about the role of the courts and the constitutional questions that keep coming up - all that stuff.

George Bush never did figure out he didn't know much of that stuff, and he doesn't seem to want to learn it now. One would assume he thought that with his father's old friends and advisors as his subordinates all around him that all of those pesky details really didn't matter.

Some of us think they do matter, but like the business school professors, we aren't the president and never will be. Heck, who would want the job?

Posted by Alan at 15:00 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Monday, 3 May 2004 22:33 PDT home

Sunday, 2 May 2004


New issue of JUST ABOVE SUNSET MAGAZINE now online!

No blogging today. Anyway, it was too hot to review events in this sorry world - another day of over a hundred in the shade. A day to hide....

And Sunday is the day I do final assembly and post the week's new issue of this: Just Above Sunset Magazine.

Commentary here will resume tomorrow.

Check it out the new issue of the virtual magazine, the parent publication of the weblog.






This is the "May Day" issue - Volume 2, Number 17

Current Events

War Notes: : How things are going depends on how you look at things, as it is all a matter of having the right attitude...
This is expanded from the "Tinkerbell" items over the last several days here, with commentary from Phillip Raines in Georgia and information on the Hersch revelations that were just published in The New Yorker regarding the Baghdad prison business.

The Dead: A turning point this week? A long road to the final paragraphs that suggest just that...
This is on the ABC "Nightline" broadcast of the roll call of the dead American soldiers in Iraq Friday night - who said what and odd details, and what this all might mean....
This is a new article.

The Zeitgeist: Nathaniel West, cellos and mountain lions... Strange Times as seen from Los Angeles
A tighter version of what originally appeared here....

History Lessons: A minor history lesson from an unlikely source ... Clemenceau jokes around with Woodrow Wilson? Something in praise of Warren G. Harding?
A tighter version of what originally appeared here....

Press Notes: Fox News, Fair and Balanced - Just Not Very Canadian
A Canadian columnist takes on Bill O'Reilly and lives to tell about.
Bill O'Reilly claims France is in ruins, and he helped in this just punishment.
And the other Carlin fellow - Bush want to replace our retiring National Archivist with someone who doesn't like people looking at facts at all.
This is a new article.

Sidebar: Selling ersatz personal responsibility to the masses...
A tighter version of what originally appeared here....

Pythons: The Monty Python survivors (Eric Idle and Terry Jones) speak out ...
Putting the two items Pythons who wrote this week both in one place... in perspective.

Features

Photography: May Day - From our correspondents in Paris and Chicago...
Ric Erickson sends exclusive photos of the May Day parades in Paris, and, for the day, Muguets - that's Lily of the Valley. A tradition. And there's a photo of a deranged cat from Chicago - some odd Paris stuff, and a tree peony shot that's awesome.
This is all new.

Minor Ironies: The Revenge of the French Against America
A tighter version of what originally appeared here with one new detail - that's a 1967 Citro?n, of all things.

Quotes: Two more odd ones... New.

Posted by Alan at 21:37 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 2 May 2004 21:44 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older