The Middle East, cont.
An excellent article from the Royal Institute of International Affairs on American strategy and prospects in the Middle East.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Thursday, June 12, 2003
The Middle East
More Israeli attacks in Gaza as a response to yesterday's suicide bombing. ABC Australia reports that the Israeli Army has been ordered to “'completely wipe out' the Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas”. The Administration said the violence was not surprising and that it remained committed to the peace process. For an Israeli perspective see this article on Ha'aretz.
Iranian students take to the streets in Teheran. The Economist also reports on this story. The Iranian Prime Minister calls for restraint. This comes amidst charges that Iran is harboring Al-Queda leaders who directed the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia.
Unrest in Iraq, as the US mounts a major military operation. Read what Salam Pax and G. in Baghdad say about daily life in the Iraqi capital.
Oil sales are set to resume.
More trouble brewing in Afghanistan according to a Swiss security expert. Here is the story on the latest suicide bombing there.
More Israeli attacks in Gaza as a response to yesterday's suicide bombing. ABC Australia reports that the Israeli Army has been ordered to “'completely wipe out' the Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas”. The Administration said the violence was not surprising and that it remained committed to the peace process. For an Israeli perspective see this article on Ha'aretz.
Iranian students take to the streets in Teheran. The Economist also reports on this story. The Iranian Prime Minister calls for restraint. This comes amidst charges that Iran is harboring Al-Queda leaders who directed the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia.
Unrest in Iraq, as the US mounts a major military operation. Read what Salam Pax and G. in Baghdad say about daily life in the Iraqi capital.
Oil sales are set to resume.
More trouble brewing in Afghanistan according to a Swiss security expert. Here is the story on the latest suicide bombing there.
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Monday, June 09, 2003
Life
I let S. rope my into taking that stupid Fox faux-IQ thing tonight (OK, I really did it to get out of going for a run). I missed 6 questions out of 60, so my faux-IQ is 133. S. got 130, so now I'm walking around the house singing "I'm smarter than you are, I'm smarter than you are".
I know, I know - childish.
I let S. rope my into taking that stupid Fox faux-IQ thing tonight (OK, I really did it to get out of going for a run). I missed 6 questions out of 60, so my faux-IQ is 133. S. got 130, so now I'm walking around the house singing "I'm smarter than you are, I'm smarter than you are".
I know, I know - childish.
News
Two things that might not get buried:
First, NPR and CBS Marketwatch report that an independent study of WorldCom's twisted finances reveal former CEO Bernie Ebber's complicity: “Ebbers was aware, at a minimum, that WorldCom was meeting revenue expectations through financial gimmickry”. The report could be used as a basis for charges against Ebbers.
Good. First Bernie, then Skilling and Lay.
Second, the adminstration is now being forced by the mainstream press to face up to the question of why WMDs haven't been found. Yesterday, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice; today, the President.
Both of these issues deserve a full-court press from the media. Let's see what happens.
Two things that might not get buried:
First, NPR and CBS Marketwatch report that an independent study of WorldCom's twisted finances reveal former CEO Bernie Ebber's complicity: “Ebbers was aware, at a minimum, that WorldCom was meeting revenue expectations through financial gimmickry”. The report could be used as a basis for charges against Ebbers.
Good. First Bernie, then Skilling and Lay.
Second, the adminstration is now being forced by the mainstream press to face up to the question of why WMDs haven't been found. Yesterday, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice; today, the President.
Both of these issues deserve a full-court press from the media. Let's see what happens.
Sunday, June 08, 2003
War and Peace
Opinions from all over the spectrum on those well-hidden WMDs:
Molly Ivins has the best line: “The ex post facto development of tender concern on the part of hawks for human rights is delightful to see”. As always, the humour is matched by the clarity and brevity of her writing.
Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, delivers a rambling, illogical, humorless screed. He does, however, make a good point (finally!) at the end: “In a way, of course, the "Bush lied" stuff serves the Administration's interests, by muddying the waters so that less dramatic, but more pointed, questions are hard to ask”.
Howard Owens does a good job of summarizing the arguments across the board.
The Agonist points to a summary of opinions from the world press. It also points to a claim by a Norwegian weapons inspector that the US provided the UN Security Council with misleading information about Iraq's possession of WMDs.
Finally, the controversy over the WMDs and how it's affecting the British political scene is captured here by the Observer.
My opinion? The "Bush lied" and other conspiracy theories are worthless distractions. So is the right's revisionist argument that we did it to free Iraq from Saddam. I never believed that we went to war because of the threat of WMDs, much less to liberate the Iraqi people or to get Iraq's oil or to go after terrorism. The real reason was always power politics - the desire to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East in a way favorable to US interests and control. The threat of Saddam possessing WMDs was a critical tool in the Administration's P.R. campaign to gain the necessary support for the war. And so their existence and relevance were hyped as an effective way to influence public and political opinion.
And now the outcome (at least so far) doesn't justify the hype. This is causing real fallout in Britain. The PR machine is in full spin cycle here to try to contain the damage to the Administration's credibility. Ideological lines have been drawn - and Reynolds is right: “less dramatic, but more pointed, questions are hard to ask”.
Opinions from all over the spectrum on those well-hidden WMDs:
Molly Ivins has the best line: “The ex post facto development of tender concern on the part of hawks for human rights is delightful to see”. As always, the humour is matched by the clarity and brevity of her writing.
Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, delivers a rambling, illogical, humorless screed. He does, however, make a good point (finally!) at the end: “In a way, of course, the "Bush lied" stuff serves the Administration's interests, by muddying the waters so that less dramatic, but more pointed, questions are hard to ask”.
Howard Owens does a good job of summarizing the arguments across the board.
The Agonist points to a summary of opinions from the world press. It also points to a claim by a Norwegian weapons inspector that the US provided the UN Security Council with misleading information about Iraq's possession of WMDs.
Finally, the controversy over the WMDs and how it's affecting the British political scene is captured here by the Observer.
My opinion? The "Bush lied" and other conspiracy theories are worthless distractions. So is the right's revisionist argument that we did it to free Iraq from Saddam. I never believed that we went to war because of the threat of WMDs, much less to liberate the Iraqi people or to get Iraq's oil or to go after terrorism. The real reason was always power politics - the desire to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East in a way favorable to US interests and control. The threat of Saddam possessing WMDs was a critical tool in the Administration's P.R. campaign to gain the necessary support for the war. And so their existence and relevance were hyped as an effective way to influence public and political opinion.
And now the outcome (at least so far) doesn't justify the hype. This is causing real fallout in Britain. The PR machine is in full spin cycle here to try to contain the damage to the Administration's credibility. Ideological lines have been drawn - and Reynolds is right: “less dramatic, but more pointed, questions are hard to ask”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
