CHINA... SLOW PROGRESS ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS FRONT
How Fast Will Capitalism Push Forward Democracy?
China Jails Woman Over Web Post
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
The Associated Press
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - A woman who posted an article on the Internet criticizing the way China's government handles public complaints has been sentenced to 18 months in a labor camp, a human rights group said Thursday.
Ma Yalian used several Chinese legal affairs Web sites to post the article documenting her fruitless efforts to petition over the destruction of her Shanghai home, New York-based Human Rights in China, or HRIC, said in a statement.
Ma described police violence and harassment of her and other petitioners, the group said. She said some protested by committing suicide outside government offices. (full article)
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
DECLINE OF CNN... OVERALL DECLINE OF CABLE TV
Weakening of Liberal Media... Fox News Channel's Rise to Power
Informative article in The American Thinker:
CNN Loses Half its Viewership
March 31st, 2004
Information is a powerful solvent. It can melt away the illusions created by propagandists. The truth is addictive. People with a hunger for news generally crave the rush they get from learning the "rest of the story" the way a jittery junkie craves a hit of heroin.
This preference for the whole story is the reason why Fox News Channel continues its pattern of winning over viewers at the expense of its left-leaning rival CNN. Newly-reported rating figures confirm that in both times of expanding cable news viewership (driven by war) and times of contracting news viewership (due to the outbreak of less-dramatic peace), FNC is widening its lead. Fox now pulls very close to twice the viewers of CNN. Which clearly makes Fox "dominant" in its chosen field. (full article)
Weakening of Liberal Media... Fox News Channel's Rise to Power
Informative article in The American Thinker:
CNN Loses Half its Viewership
March 31st, 2004
Information is a powerful solvent. It can melt away the illusions created by propagandists. The truth is addictive. People with a hunger for news generally crave the rush they get from learning the "rest of the story" the way a jittery junkie craves a hit of heroin.
This preference for the whole story is the reason why Fox News Channel continues its pattern of winning over viewers at the expense of its left-leaning rival CNN. Newly-reported rating figures confirm that in both times of expanding cable news viewership (driven by war) and times of contracting news viewership (due to the outbreak of less-dramatic peace), FNC is widening its lead. Fox now pulls very close to twice the viewers of CNN. Which clearly makes Fox "dominant" in its chosen field. (full article)
WAL-MART VS. TARGET... UNIONS ARE A DIFFERENCE
Back Home in Chicago... Job Creation Blocked by Unions
Came across this post at The Chapin Nation. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart, but definitely not a fan of most labor unions. Also I clipped a piece of the Chicago Tribune article and posted it afterwards:
Speaking of Wal-Mart. . .
Chicago is currently experiencing its own whoas in battling the behemoth corporation of consumerism. Wal-Mart had plans to open a store on the West Side. For those who don't know, Chicago being the murder capital of the country, the West-Side is the epicenter of that particular problem. Needless to say, the City could have used in no particular order 1) the jobs Wal-Mart would have created, 2) a much needed retail outlet in a blighted neighborhood, 3) the residual retail traffic the store would have most likely created, and 4) the tax revenues.
Unfortunately, not everyone in the City is for job and revenue creation. A group of alderman are against Wal-Mart coming into the City because they employ non-union labor. Guess who funds those aldermaic reelection campaigns? Yup, unions. Oddly, these same alderman have no problem with Target entering the City. Go figure.
Recently, Chicago has experienced a rash of job losses that also resulted in the loss of union jobs, union dues, and ultimately union power. Just yesterday for example, Radio Flyer, the little red wagon people, closed its manufacturing plant in the City that has existed since the company's inception. Ninety union jobs have been lost and sent to Asia. Is this a case of "outsourcing" that is dooming our American economy? No, it's smart business. Unions do two things that are detrimental. One, they create artificial wage inflation which translates into more expensive goods for consumers; and two, they take A LOT of money out of the wage earner's pocket each month through dues that too often go to fund the salaries and political ambitions of the union bosses.
The union jobs in Chicago aren't coming back. That's a sad fact. Unfortunately, it seems that those in the pockets of the unions would rather have people starve than gainfully employed as a result of their dwindling influence.
Posted by CommonSense : 5:31 PM
City loses by rejecting Wal-Mart
Chicago Tribune
Published March 30, 2004
For a city that has lost thousands of jobs in the past decade, Chicago has become awfully picky. Late last year Swedish retailer Ikea ditched plans to build in Chicago and Mayor Daley harrumphed, "It's just another company."
Last week a City Council committee delayed action on a Wal-Mart planned for the West Side, and labor unions would like to deep freeze a Wal-Mart planned for the South Side, because the retailer has a non-union workforce. Others say that Wal-Mart will undercut neighborhood establishments. (full article)
Back Home in Chicago... Job Creation Blocked by Unions
Came across this post at The Chapin Nation. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart, but definitely not a fan of most labor unions. Also I clipped a piece of the Chicago Tribune article and posted it afterwards:
Speaking of Wal-Mart. . .
Chicago is currently experiencing its own whoas in battling the behemoth corporation of consumerism. Wal-Mart had plans to open a store on the West Side. For those who don't know, Chicago being the murder capital of the country, the West-Side is the epicenter of that particular problem. Needless to say, the City could have used in no particular order 1) the jobs Wal-Mart would have created, 2) a much needed retail outlet in a blighted neighborhood, 3) the residual retail traffic the store would have most likely created, and 4) the tax revenues.
Unfortunately, not everyone in the City is for job and revenue creation. A group of alderman are against Wal-Mart coming into the City because they employ non-union labor. Guess who funds those aldermaic reelection campaigns? Yup, unions. Oddly, these same alderman have no problem with Target entering the City. Go figure.
Recently, Chicago has experienced a rash of job losses that also resulted in the loss of union jobs, union dues, and ultimately union power. Just yesterday for example, Radio Flyer, the little red wagon people, closed its manufacturing plant in the City that has existed since the company's inception. Ninety union jobs have been lost and sent to Asia. Is this a case of "outsourcing" that is dooming our American economy? No, it's smart business. Unions do two things that are detrimental. One, they create artificial wage inflation which translates into more expensive goods for consumers; and two, they take A LOT of money out of the wage earner's pocket each month through dues that too often go to fund the salaries and political ambitions of the union bosses.
The union jobs in Chicago aren't coming back. That's a sad fact. Unfortunately, it seems that those in the pockets of the unions would rather have people starve than gainfully employed as a result of their dwindling influence.
Posted by CommonSense : 5:31 PM
City loses by rejecting Wal-Mart
Chicago Tribune
Published March 30, 2004
For a city that has lost thousands of jobs in the past decade, Chicago has become awfully picky. Late last year Swedish retailer Ikea ditched plans to build in Chicago and Mayor Daley harrumphed, "It's just another company."
Last week a City Council committee delayed action on a Wal-Mart planned for the West Side, and labor unions would like to deep freeze a Wal-Mart planned for the South Side, because the retailer has a non-union workforce. Others say that Wal-Mart will undercut neighborhood establishments. (full article)
AIR AMERICA KNOCKS OUT KOREAN RADIO STATION
Where's the Bay Area Uproar?... Hypocrisy Doesn't Sit Well With Me
Sourced from Instapundit. Air America, the newly launched liberal radio station, displaced Chinese and Korean radio programming in the Bay Area. If Rush Limbaugh or any conservative station did this, we all know there would be an uproar within the Bay Area and the majority of Asian American liberals across the U.S. Why not against Air America as with the recent campaign against Details Magazine? Just because they are "liberal" does it mean they are more sensitive to local ethnic radio stations? Obviously not. Whose voice are they concerned with? Obviously not Asian Americans because their voting strength doesn't really hold ground. Hispanics and Blacks are minority votes and voices that count, but not Asians. Wake up, people! Just because they are "liberal" does it mean Asian Americans should turn a blind eye? No. If Asian American liberals already think that conservatives hinder their voice, are they going to let both sides step on them? If so, I have less respect for liberal activists in the Asian American community. Where are the petitions now? The flurry of emails? I think I have to start my own campaign.
Where's the Bay Area Uproar?... Hypocrisy Doesn't Sit Well With Me
Sourced from Instapundit. Air America, the newly launched liberal radio station, displaced Chinese and Korean radio programming in the Bay Area. If Rush Limbaugh or any conservative station did this, we all know there would be an uproar within the Bay Area and the majority of Asian American liberals across the U.S. Why not against Air America as with the recent campaign against Details Magazine? Just because they are "liberal" does it mean they are more sensitive to local ethnic radio stations? Obviously not. Whose voice are they concerned with? Obviously not Asian Americans because their voting strength doesn't really hold ground. Hispanics and Blacks are minority votes and voices that count, but not Asians. Wake up, people! Just because they are "liberal" does it mean Asian Americans should turn a blind eye? No. If Asian American liberals already think that conservatives hinder their voice, are they going to let both sides step on them? If so, I have less respect for liberal activists in the Asian American community. Where are the petitions now? The flurry of emails? I think I have to start my own campaign.
U.N.'S OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL
What Walks Like a Duck, Looks Like a Duck... Kofi Annan's Son
Even more disturbing is the $10.1 billion that the General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein was able to salt away "in illegal revenues related to the Oil-for-Food program."
The French, Russia, and others were probably involved... picture getting clearer now. Maybe the Dems were involved too! :)
Turtle Bay’s Carnival of Corruption
Digging deeper into the scandalous Oil-for-Food program.
By Claudia Rosett
March 21, 2004
With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finally conceding the need for an independent investigation of the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, the next question is how investigators might begin to get a grip on the U.N.'s central role in this huge scandal.
Naturally, the rampant signs of corruption are important, and leads on graft involving U.N. personnel — including the program's executive director, Benon Sevan — need pursuing. If Sevan did receive oil from Saddam, as it now appears, then the immediate follow-up question is: What might Sevan have done in return, given his responsibilities for "overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq"? (full article)
What Walks Like a Duck, Looks Like a Duck... Kofi Annan's Son
Even more disturbing is the $10.1 billion that the General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein was able to salt away "in illegal revenues related to the Oil-for-Food program."
The French, Russia, and others were probably involved... picture getting clearer now. Maybe the Dems were involved too! :)
Turtle Bay’s Carnival of Corruption
Digging deeper into the scandalous Oil-for-Food program.
By Claudia Rosett
March 21, 2004
With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finally conceding the need for an independent investigation of the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, the next question is how investigators might begin to get a grip on the U.N.'s central role in this huge scandal.
Naturally, the rampant signs of corruption are important, and leads on graft involving U.N. personnel — including the program's executive director, Benon Sevan — need pursuing. If Sevan did receive oil from Saddam, as it now appears, then the immediate follow-up question is: What might Sevan have done in return, given his responsibilities for "overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq"? (full article)
MELANA ZYLA VICKERS' ASSESSMENT OF THE CLINTON YEARS
Excellent Analysis of the Democrats' Efforts Against Terrorism
From Tech Central Station's Melana Zyla Vickers:
The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism
By Melana Zyla Vickers
Until a few days ago, presidential candidate John Kerry was able to take all the shots he wanted at President Bush's record in the war on terror, while remaining out of critical range himself. But last week's 9/11 commission hearings changed all that.
The hearings presented a Democratic record on terrorism that is marred by fundamental policy fumbles and ultimately fatal misjudgments. Of course, some of the errors in fighting terrorism in the 1990s could have been -- and were -- made or repeated by the Republican administration of George W. Bush. But a top-five list drawn from the testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the reports prepared by commission staff, reveals errors that stemmed from what might be described as the post Cold War, Democratic world-view. They include:
- Unwillingness to use force to retaliate against terrorism or pre-empt attacks.
- Inaction in the face of legal obstacles
- Animus toward the intelligence community
- Fear of unpopularity in the court of domestic and foreign public opinion
- Failure to improve the effectiveness of bilateral relations with Arab states and Pakistan. (full article)
Excellent Analysis of the Democrats' Efforts Against Terrorism
From Tech Central Station's Melana Zyla Vickers:
The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism
By Melana Zyla Vickers
Until a few days ago, presidential candidate John Kerry was able to take all the shots he wanted at President Bush's record in the war on terror, while remaining out of critical range himself. But last week's 9/11 commission hearings changed all that.
The hearings presented a Democratic record on terrorism that is marred by fundamental policy fumbles and ultimately fatal misjudgments. Of course, some of the errors in fighting terrorism in the 1990s could have been -- and were -- made or repeated by the Republican administration of George W. Bush. But a top-five list drawn from the testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the reports prepared by commission staff, reveals errors that stemmed from what might be described as the post Cold War, Democratic world-view. They include:
- Unwillingness to use force to retaliate against terrorism or pre-empt attacks.
- Inaction in the face of legal obstacles
- Animus toward the intelligence community
- Fear of unpopularity in the court of domestic and foreign public opinion
- Failure to improve the effectiveness of bilateral relations with Arab states and Pakistan. (full article)
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
NOT GOOD NEWS FOR RIAA
New Study on Music Piracy
Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales
Tue Mar 30, 8:59 AM ET
By David McGuire, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line. (full article)
New Study on Music Piracy
Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales
Tue Mar 30, 8:59 AM ET
By David McGuire, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line. (full article)
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 SPEAK OUT
Against Richard Clarke... Egotistical, Greedy Bastard
Another one I've been meaning to post earlier, so here it is. A great op-ed by the family members who lost loved ones from 9/11:
NO THANKS, MR. CLARKE
New York Post
March 28, 2004 -- WE are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.
Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day. (full article)
Against Richard Clarke... Egotistical, Greedy Bastard
Another one I've been meaning to post earlier, so here it is. A great op-ed by the family members who lost loved ones from 9/11:
NO THANKS, MR. CLARKE
New York Post
March 28, 2004 -- WE are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.
Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day. (full article)
ANNOYING, IGNORANT WHITNEY MCNALLY
What Were You Thinking Details Magazine?
Annoying, ignorant, and not-so-funny feature in Details last month comparing Gays and Asians. What if the comparison was with Hispanics or Blacks? I guess if you're going to make fun of a race it should be Asians since we don't have a strong voice or voting block in the U.S. They should have just made fun of the French and I would feel a whole lot better... maybe they already did. Anyway, I got an email from my friend a few days back with a link to an online petition to the advertisers in Detail, so if you're interested in doing more check it out. Or just email blast Whitney Mcnally.
Also here's more information from a funny site, angry asian man, at its March 30th entry. I think the site was started by a few Northwestern University students.
What Were You Thinking Details Magazine?
Annoying, ignorant, and not-so-funny feature in Details last month comparing Gays and Asians. What if the comparison was with Hispanics or Blacks? I guess if you're going to make fun of a race it should be Asians since we don't have a strong voice or voting block in the U.S. They should have just made fun of the French and I would feel a whole lot better... maybe they already did. Anyway, I got an email from my friend a few days back with a link to an online petition to the advertisers in Detail, so if you're interested in doing more check it out. Or just email blast Whitney Mcnally.
Also here's more information from a funny site, angry asian man, at its March 30th entry. I think the site was started by a few Northwestern University students.
SUMS IT ALL UP... GREAT FLASH AD
From Instapundit... Check it out!
"OKAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE OFFICIAL BUSH CAMPAIGN ADS -- but this freelance effort is better than all the official ads that I have seen."
From Instapundit... Check it out!
"OKAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE OFFICIAL BUSH CAMPAIGN ADS -- but this freelance effort is better than all the official ads that I have seen."
Monday, March 29, 2004
HILARIOUS COMMENTARY BY MARK STEYN
"Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction"
Originally sourced from CommonSense & Wonder. Very funny. The part about Clarke thinking Dr. Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before" cracks me up since she obviously knew a lot about al-Qa'eda (last paragraph below). Since I've been there with arrogant, intellectual wannabes, I believe that facial expression was more like, "Why are you talking to me like I'm a five year old?... I don't believe I'm being lectured by this guy... Here he goes again!... Please someone tell him to stop. Please!" Excerpt:
The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".
Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
.....
The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "
Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."
"A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."
As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke! (full article)
"Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction"
Originally sourced from CommonSense & Wonder. Very funny. The part about Clarke thinking Dr. Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before" cracks me up since she obviously knew a lot about al-Qa'eda (last paragraph below). Since I've been there with arrogant, intellectual wannabes, I believe that facial expression was more like, "Why are you talking to me like I'm a five year old?... I don't believe I'm being lectured by this guy... Here he goes again!... Please someone tell him to stop. Please!" Excerpt:
The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".
Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
.....
The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "
Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."
"A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."
As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke! (full article)
CLARKE GAVE ONLY TO DEMS... SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Gomer Pyle Would Have a Hard Time Stopping His Chant
Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats
Posted March 25, 2004
By J. Michael Waller
Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats. (full article)
Gomer Pyle Would Have a Hard Time Stopping His Chant
Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats
Posted March 25, 2004
By J. Michael Waller
Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats. (full article)
RICHARD CLARKE ON MEET THE PRESS
My Brief and Snide Analysis
Last night I watched Richard Clarke on "Meet The Press" and was impressed by Richard Clarke's even-tempered, stale responses as he avoided answering some of Tim Russert's questions and lied to America on national TV. Does he really believe that Americans are that stupid? Especially about how he had nothing to do with timing of the book release during the 9/11 hearings and how money wasn't a motive. Link, excerpts, and my comments below.
Meet The Press, Transcript for March 28:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, when you resigned, you sent a very polite letter to the president: "It's been an enormous privilege to serve you these past 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm leadership you demonstrated on September 11. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you. You have provided me"--was that just being polite?
MR. CLARKE: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Or are you now just being disloyal?
MR. CLARKE: No. Well, my mother taught me to be polite...
Yes, I was being polite and 'no' I wasn't being disloyal? Great way for Russert to frame the question because if he was just being "polite" then he was being disloyal by slandering President Bush in the media and through his book after serving him in his appointed position. Clarke tries to get out of this dilemma by starting with a displacement on his mother, "Well, my mother taught me to be polite..." What does that mean? Well... well, my mother told me not to be mean and disloyal, but I did it anyway? Almost good, but not good enough Mr. Clarke. You are disloyal and a disgrace to public servants in the U.S.
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No.
Now his pride comes out. A very prideful man, but not surprising if you saw him during the 9/11 hearings and this interview. Very smug attitude and arrogance. Yes, Dick, you were turned down. If you were interviewed (good question by Russert) and you didn't get the position, then you were turned down. Hahahaha... Even his response gives it away since he didn't say that he got the position and rejected it but just says that he is not disgruntled about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Publishers Weekly in January said that your book would come out, as it shows on the screen here, on April 27. It was then released the day before the September 11th Commission hearings. Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I left the White House in February. I started working on the book in March. It's the first time I ever wrote a book. It turns out it's a lot harder to write a book, Tim, than it is to write government memos; had to do a lot of research, and I didn't have any access to my government files. I didn't have any classified papers. So I finished the book in October and had to turn it in to the White House for them to approve it. As a former White House official, your books have to be approved by the White House. And the White House took a very long time to approve my book. As soon as the book was approved by the White House in February, I gave it to the publisher and it was out of my hands after that. The publisher got it out as fast as they could. Our original intention was to...
MR. RUSSERT: Because the White House delayed publication. You had scheduled April 22.
MR. CLARKE: No, I hadn't scheduled anything.
MR. RUSSERT: The publisher had. You moved it up by more than a month to coincide with the hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I didn't. Tim, I turned the book in in February. I have no control over what Publishers Weekly says or when the printing presses are available. I wanted it to be a Christmas book. And I turned it in time for it to get out at Christmas had the White House not sat on it in the White House approval process.
"Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?"
He didn't even answer this question. He avoided the question because his primary answer does not make sense, which Russert pointed out. What does the White House being late on the approval process have to do with him and his publishers getting the book out early from the stated date of April 22nd? Bawhahahaha... cracking a little, Dick? Of course you put it out right before the 9/11 hearings to get maximum exposure. Just admit it, so you don't seem more evil. Greed is one thing, but deception just adds more to your poor character and Gollum-like personality.
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
Again, what's "substantial?" Here Russert should have pushed and asked what do you mean by "substantial?" A few thousand? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? He should have gotten him to make a commitment there. I didn't expect him to say that he will give it all of it away since he's driven by money, but his additional excuse made me sick. He talked about "one line that somebody overheard" how people in the White House are not going to allow him to make another dime. He said that he has to take this into account? Nice excuse to cover your greed. Call Soros and I bet he would hire you in a flash. Please, Dick, how stupid do you think we are? How many think tanks with fat paychecks can you work for now? Especially Democratic ones that will reward you for making a key attack on Bush's campaign and administration? Do the honorable thing and give up all the profits of this partisan book and give it to the families of the victims of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?
MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
MR. CLARKE: That's my business.
Great post in Powerline about his response:
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes:
Sunday on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."
<$BlogItemTitle$>
My Brief and Snide Analysis
Last night I watched Richard Clarke on "Meet The Press" and was impressed by Richard Clarke's even-tempered, stale responses as he avoided answering some of Tim Russert's questions and lied to America on national TV. Does he really believe that Americans are that stupid? Especially about how he had nothing to do with timing of the book release during the 9/11 hearings and how money wasn't a motive. Link, excerpts, and my comments below.
Meet The Press, Transcript for March 28:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, when you resigned, you sent a very polite letter to the president: "It's been an enormous privilege to serve you these past 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm leadership you demonstrated on September 11. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you. You have provided me"--was that just being polite?
MR. CLARKE: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Or are you now just being disloyal?
MR. CLARKE: No. Well, my mother taught me to be polite...
Yes, I was being polite and 'no' I wasn't being disloyal? Great way for Russert to frame the question because if he was just being "polite" then he was being disloyal by slandering President Bush in the media and through his book after serving him in his appointed position. Clarke tries to get out of this dilemma by starting with a displacement on his mother, "Well, my mother taught me to be polite..." What does that mean? Well... well, my mother told me not to be mean and disloyal, but I did it anyway? Almost good, but not good enough Mr. Clarke. You are disloyal and a disgrace to public servants in the U.S.
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No.
Now his pride comes out. A very prideful man, but not surprising if you saw him during the 9/11 hearings and this interview. Very smug attitude and arrogance. Yes, Dick, you were turned down. If you were interviewed (good question by Russert) and you didn't get the position, then you were turned down. Hahahaha... Even his response gives it away since he didn't say that he got the position and rejected it but just says that he is not disgruntled about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Publishers Weekly in January said that your book would come out, as it shows on the screen here, on April 27. It was then released the day before the September 11th Commission hearings. Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I left the White House in February. I started working on the book in March. It's the first time I ever wrote a book. It turns out it's a lot harder to write a book, Tim, than it is to write government memos; had to do a lot of research, and I didn't have any access to my government files. I didn't have any classified papers. So I finished the book in October and had to turn it in to the White House for them to approve it. As a former White House official, your books have to be approved by the White House. And the White House took a very long time to approve my book. As soon as the book was approved by the White House in February, I gave it to the publisher and it was out of my hands after that. The publisher got it out as fast as they could. Our original intention was to...
MR. RUSSERT: Because the White House delayed publication. You had scheduled April 22.
MR. CLARKE: No, I hadn't scheduled anything.
MR. RUSSERT: The publisher had. You moved it up by more than a month to coincide with the hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I didn't. Tim, I turned the book in in February. I have no control over what Publishers Weekly says or when the printing presses are available. I wanted it to be a Christmas book. And I turned it in time for it to get out at Christmas had the White House not sat on it in the White House approval process.
"Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?"
He didn't even answer this question. He avoided the question because his primary answer does not make sense, which Russert pointed out. What does the White House being late on the approval process have to do with him and his publishers getting the book out early from the stated date of April 22nd? Bawhahahaha... cracking a little, Dick? Of course you put it out right before the 9/11 hearings to get maximum exposure. Just admit it, so you don't seem more evil. Greed is one thing, but deception just adds more to your poor character and Gollum-like personality.
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
Again, what's "substantial?" Here Russert should have pushed and asked what do you mean by "substantial?" A few thousand? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? He should have gotten him to make a commitment there. I didn't expect him to say that he will give it all of it away since he's driven by money, but his additional excuse made me sick. He talked about "one line that somebody overheard" how people in the White House are not going to allow him to make another dime. He said that he has to take this into account? Nice excuse to cover your greed. Call Soros and I bet he would hire you in a flash. Please, Dick, how stupid do you think we are? How many think tanks with fat paychecks can you work for now? Especially Democratic ones that will reward you for making a key attack on Bush's campaign and administration? Do the honorable thing and give up all the profits of this partisan book and give it to the families of the victims of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?
MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
MR. CLARKE: That's my business.
Great post in Powerline about his response:
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes:
Sunday on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Andy Grove Speaks... Fixing the Ladder of the American Dream
Intel's Five Stages for Dealing with Problems
Good speech by Grove at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Intel's approach to dealing with problems is also on the money for social and corporate issues:
Grove Challenges the GSB to Remake the American Dream
February 2004
STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — Andy Grove has challenged the Business School to take a leading role in putting some missing rungs back in the ladder leading to the American Dream.
The chairman of Intel recalled a chance meeting recently with a woman named Polly who had been a technician at Intel in its early days. "She said 'I want you to meet my daughter, She's a school counselor and has a PhD in psychology. Intel put her through school,'" Grove recalled. Then she added "Intel also put her son through school. He's an engineer."
Later, Grove said, "I had this image of the American Dream being a ladder, a ladder where Polly starts as a technician at Intel and two generations of accomplished professional people are the result of her work and her opportunity to do a fairly significant job for a startup company. The problem is that a rung or two are being taken out of that ladder and the generational climb is going to be interrupted."
When Grove, a Business School lecturer, and management professor Robert Burgelman teach the MBA elective Strategy and Action in the Information Processing Industry they describe the strategic inflection point, a critical period of huge changes in one or more forces guiding an industry. These periods create tremendous opportunities but also threats to companies that cannot change or are too slow in recognizing the need for change.
Today businesses are faced with "the mother of all strategic inflection points," Grove told the audience at the Business School's February dinner honoring him with the 2004 Arbuckle Award. The inflection, he said, is being caused by the advent of global networks allowing demand for intellectual work to flow out of the United States to countries like India with well educated workforces. This comes at a time when industry is struggling with self-created internal threats that hamper its ability to survive the strategic inflection such as the new wave of corporate criminal conduct and of governance issues. "The key task of governance is to apportion the responsibility for and management of the company, distinguishing the corporation from the personal fiefdom or piggy bank of its managers," said Grove.
However, he said the most serious problem facing American business is its value system. Strong corporate cultures develop strong control mechanisms with less need to supervise and develop policies and procedures for every situation.
"There is an assumption that our business culture and values got worse because of the bubble," said Grove, who with Burgelman has taught his Business School course through two business cycles, the Internet boom, and the following bust. "But I really wonder if that's true.
Society's expectations of business have gotten tougher and more discriminating, he said, but the nation is not responding well to these demands. "We all know that in the absence of strong corporate cultures, companies turn bureaucratic, our business mechanisms, roles, infrastructures become ossified and less competent. Today, this is happening at the very time we as a business society face the strongest competition yet from a lean, hungry, well educated workforce well served by a modern infrastructure.
"I can only describe this as the perfect storm. Coping with the storm requires doing what is necessary for the rungs to be there and for the American Dream to continue.
"At Intel, we see five stages for dealing with a new problem: First you ignore its existence; second is denial; third you blame others for it; fourth you assume responsibility for it, and fifth — a solution is coming. I think it is safe to say we are past the ignore stage and are straddling the deny and blame others stages. It is mandatory for us to figure out ways to assume responsibility and look for solutions.
"What could be a better mission for the Stanford Business School, in association with Stanford Law School, Engineering School, the Hoover Institution, etc., than a unifying mission to move us to stage five and lead the way to an intellectual prescription for putting rungs back in the ladder of the American dream?"
Good speech by Grove at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Intel's approach to dealing with problems is also on the money for social and corporate issues:
Grove Challenges the GSB to Remake the American Dream
February 2004
STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — Andy Grove has challenged the Business School to take a leading role in putting some missing rungs back in the ladder leading to the American Dream.
The chairman of Intel recalled a chance meeting recently with a woman named Polly who had been a technician at Intel in its early days. "She said 'I want you to meet my daughter, She's a school counselor and has a PhD in psychology. Intel put her through school,'" Grove recalled. Then she added "Intel also put her son through school. He's an engineer."
Later, Grove said, "I had this image of the American Dream being a ladder, a ladder where Polly starts as a technician at Intel and two generations of accomplished professional people are the result of her work and her opportunity to do a fairly significant job for a startup company. The problem is that a rung or two are being taken out of that ladder and the generational climb is going to be interrupted."
When Grove, a Business School lecturer, and management professor Robert Burgelman teach the MBA elective Strategy and Action in the Information Processing Industry they describe the strategic inflection point, a critical period of huge changes in one or more forces guiding an industry. These periods create tremendous opportunities but also threats to companies that cannot change or are too slow in recognizing the need for change.
Today businesses are faced with "the mother of all strategic inflection points," Grove told the audience at the Business School's February dinner honoring him with the 2004 Arbuckle Award. The inflection, he said, is being caused by the advent of global networks allowing demand for intellectual work to flow out of the United States to countries like India with well educated workforces. This comes at a time when industry is struggling with self-created internal threats that hamper its ability to survive the strategic inflection such as the new wave of corporate criminal conduct and of governance issues. "The key task of governance is to apportion the responsibility for and management of the company, distinguishing the corporation from the personal fiefdom or piggy bank of its managers," said Grove.
However, he said the most serious problem facing American business is its value system. Strong corporate cultures develop strong control mechanisms with less need to supervise and develop policies and procedures for every situation.
"There is an assumption that our business culture and values got worse because of the bubble," said Grove, who with Burgelman has taught his Business School course through two business cycles, the Internet boom, and the following bust. "But I really wonder if that's true.
Society's expectations of business have gotten tougher and more discriminating, he said, but the nation is not responding well to these demands. "We all know that in the absence of strong corporate cultures, companies turn bureaucratic, our business mechanisms, roles, infrastructures become ossified and less competent. Today, this is happening at the very time we as a business society face the strongest competition yet from a lean, hungry, well educated workforce well served by a modern infrastructure.
"I can only describe this as the perfect storm. Coping with the storm requires doing what is necessary for the rungs to be there and for the American Dream to continue.
"At Intel, we see five stages for dealing with a new problem: First you ignore its existence; second is denial; third you blame others for it; fourth you assume responsibility for it, and fifth — a solution is coming. I think it is safe to say we are past the ignore stage and are straddling the deny and blame others stages. It is mandatory for us to figure out ways to assume responsibility and look for solutions.
"What could be a better mission for the Stanford Business School, in association with Stanford Law School, Engineering School, the Hoover Institution, etc., than a unifying mission to move us to stage five and lead the way to an intellectual prescription for putting rungs back in the ladder of the American dream?"
BUSH DOCTRINE BELIEVERS
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Response
Good editorial response to the 9/11 hearings.
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.
Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.
This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.
We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership. (full article)
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Response
Good editorial response to the 9/11 hearings.
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.
Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.
This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.
We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership. (full article)
Friday, March 26, 2004
HUGH HEWITT'S INTERVIEWS SENATOR ZELL MILLER
Chairman of Democrats for Bush Speaks Out!
Miller: I’ve been watching some parts of them. I haven’t had a chance to really watch them like I’d like to but it’s pretty obvious to me that here is a man that wants to blame others for actions that he himself was responsible for overseeing. I mean he was the head of the counter-terrorism for the government for the whole last decade and he has a lot of gall to come along and try to blame others. (full post)
Chairman of Democrats for Bush Speaks Out!
Miller: I’ve been watching some parts of them. I haven’t had a chance to really watch them like I’d like to but it’s pretty obvious to me that here is a man that wants to blame others for actions that he himself was responsible for overseeing. I mean he was the head of the counter-terrorism for the government for the whole last decade and he has a lot of gall to come along and try to blame others. (full post)
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
"PAX AMERICANA?"... PART III FROM DAVOS
Counterpoint to Tutu... A Real World Approach
I love the comments by Mustafa Ceric below:
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, keynote speaker Dick Cheney made an appeal for unity with Europe when he spoke of "our common understanding that today’s threats must be met where they are or those threats will come to us."
He also stated that the key to security is through prosperity, adding: "But while we know that security and prosperity are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are best achieved. The answer lies in the values of freedom, justice and democracy…Democracies do not breathe the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies to export violence. Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders."
These two issues of security and freedom provoked the most questions from audience members.
Question: My name is Mustafa Ceric; I am the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian people and to [express] gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula. We didn’t have oil. You didn’t have an interest to gain. You came to Bosnia-Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your sense of morality.
Besides this I would like to say that I like from your speech that this year we have heard more about freedom than about security. I hope that in the future Americans will talk more about freedom around the world than about security. Thank you very much.
Question: Can you explain to us exactly how people can be picked up anywhere around the world, be put in Guantanamo Bay,…not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time, and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the name of security is not a good idea and how you link that to a democratic society who believes in the right to a free trial, etc.?
Cheney: These are not people picked up at random. We don’t run up and down the streets of London or Paris or Riyadh saying "He’s a likely looking prospect, let’s put him in Guantanamo." These are people primarily who are picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill our troops. They were in combat.
They are treated very humanely. They are not under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. They don’t qualify as prisoners of war, but they’re treated appropriately in terms of medical care, in terms of food and the conditions that exist for them. We have in fact released some as we’ve been able to go through the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or another they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on terror. We also have a number of people there who I would describe as deadly enemies who are very open and very direct about wanting to kill Americans the first chance they get…Some of them already have been turned over to their country. Some will be prosecuted and tried. Some will be released.
We’ll sort through them. The International Red Cross has visited there. We’ve been very careful in terms of how we proceed and how we do treat them. But we are faced with a situation where the war continues, where people in some cases have come in to the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians, and under those circumstances and given the rules of warfare, we felt we had no choice but to have a repository for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the conflict continues.
Question: Vice President Cheney…in your Christmas card…you quoted Benjamin Franklin: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Do you consider the United States to be an empire?
Cheney: First of all, that quote was selected by my wife. She should have to explain why that was on the Christmas card. [laughter] Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the Almighty in the affairs of man. It should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire. We don’t. There are some fundamental differences between the United States today—the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way we have conducted ourselves over the course of our history—that distinguish us from what might be identified as an empire.
We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and practices. We have had on occasion in the past the opportunity to deploy massive military forces and to put them into the heart of Europe, into the heart of Asia, and then having done that, to create democracies where previously there had been dictatorships and empires, and then withdraw to our own shores without any aggrandizement in terms of territory or other trappings of empire. I think from the standpoint of history we’re unique in that regard.
So I wouldn’t let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted. It’s [not] intended now to talk about the United States as an empire. We don’t see ourselves in that light. We don’t believe we’ve acted that way. I would argue that there are people in the world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in freedom and under democracies because of past activities of the United States. Bosnia is one example. If we were a true empire, we would currently preside over a much greater piece of the earth’s surface than we do. That’s not the way we operate.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Two, he gave his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea.
Counterpoint to Tutu... A Real World Approach
I love the comments by Mustafa Ceric below:
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, keynote speaker Dick Cheney made an appeal for unity with Europe when he spoke of "our common understanding that today’s threats must be met where they are or those threats will come to us."
He also stated that the key to security is through prosperity, adding: "But while we know that security and prosperity are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are best achieved. The answer lies in the values of freedom, justice and democracy…Democracies do not breathe the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies to export violence. Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders."
These two issues of security and freedom provoked the most questions from audience members.
Question: My name is Mustafa Ceric; I am the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian people and to [express] gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula. We didn’t have oil. You didn’t have an interest to gain. You came to Bosnia-Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your sense of morality.
Besides this I would like to say that I like from your speech that this year we have heard more about freedom than about security. I hope that in the future Americans will talk more about freedom around the world than about security. Thank you very much.
Question: Can you explain to us exactly how people can be picked up anywhere around the world, be put in Guantanamo Bay,…not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time, and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the name of security is not a good idea and how you link that to a democratic society who believes in the right to a free trial, etc.?
Cheney: These are not people picked up at random. We don’t run up and down the streets of London or Paris or Riyadh saying "He’s a likely looking prospect, let’s put him in Guantanamo." These are people primarily who are picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill our troops. They were in combat.
They are treated very humanely. They are not under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. They don’t qualify as prisoners of war, but they’re treated appropriately in terms of medical care, in terms of food and the conditions that exist for them. We have in fact released some as we’ve been able to go through the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or another they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on terror. We also have a number of people there who I would describe as deadly enemies who are very open and very direct about wanting to kill Americans the first chance they get…Some of them already have been turned over to their country. Some will be prosecuted and tried. Some will be released.
We’ll sort through them. The International Red Cross has visited there. We’ve been very careful in terms of how we proceed and how we do treat them. But we are faced with a situation where the war continues, where people in some cases have come in to the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians, and under those circumstances and given the rules of warfare, we felt we had no choice but to have a repository for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the conflict continues.
Question: Vice President Cheney…in your Christmas card…you quoted Benjamin Franklin: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Do you consider the United States to be an empire?
Cheney: First of all, that quote was selected by my wife. She should have to explain why that was on the Christmas card. [laughter] Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the Almighty in the affairs of man. It should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire. We don’t. There are some fundamental differences between the United States today—the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way we have conducted ourselves over the course of our history—that distinguish us from what might be identified as an empire.
We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and practices. We have had on occasion in the past the opportunity to deploy massive military forces and to put them into the heart of Europe, into the heart of Asia, and then having done that, to create democracies where previously there had been dictatorships and empires, and then withdraw to our own shores without any aggrandizement in terms of territory or other trappings of empire. I think from the standpoint of history we’re unique in that regard.
So I wouldn’t let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted. It’s [not] intended now to talk about the United States as an empire. We don’t see ourselves in that light. We don’t believe we’ve acted that way. I would argue that there are people in the world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in freedom and under democracies because of past activities of the United States. Bosnia is one example. If we were a true empire, we would currently preside over a much greater piece of the earth’s surface than we do. That’s not the way we operate.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Two, he gave his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea.
MORE FROM DAVOS AND CHENEY
"No Nukes"... Part II from AlwaysOn
In his keynote address at the World Economic Forum, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that democratic countries have three fundamental responsibilities: "First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together…Third, when diplomacy fails we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct threats require decisive action."
The Vice President cited recent developments in Libya as an example of what can be accomplished by adhering to these three principles, stating that "Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible." After his speech, Cheney was peppered with questions from audience members, some of whom asked about other nations that are building weapons of mass destruction.
Question: Andrew Gowers, Financial Times, London. While the dangers have diminished clearly in Libya and other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished. Can you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?
Cheney: Clearly, the jury is still out with respect to North Korea. We’ve worked very hard, particularly with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians. The Chinese have become central to that effort. We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The effort needs to be made…to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice—if they want to have normal commercial relationships with those of us involved in the enterprise—but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We’ve had two meetings in Beijing so far. I would expect there will be more as we continue to move forward. The key is having the Chinese and other nations engaged. Today can I predict the outcome? I can’t. We think we’re approaching this on a sensible basis. This is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people and maintaining some kind of viable economy in the north. They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.
Question: Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal. You said the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran? Specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now, the negotiations with Iran? One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of "the Axis of Evil." Is Iran still a member of that axis?
Cheney: Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends—the Germans, the French, and the British have been most directly involved—working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they have now done. We’ll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny that but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that in fact that’s exactly what they have been doing.
It’s in everybody’s interest, I believe—especially our European friends and allies—to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they have now made: truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA. And that they keep the commitments they’ve made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers. We’ll do everything we can to support that effort.
Question: Last night, Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel. The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to. Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine. Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace. And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.
Cheney: I haven’t had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict. And we haven’t really had a traditional conflict. The problem of course has been in large part generated by terrorism—by suicide bombings and so forth. Somehow we’ve got to find a way to take down the structures of terror…if we’re going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes, and establish permanent peace.
Shimon Peres is a man I’ve known a long time and I have a lot of respect for him. I’m sure he’s doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But at this stage, I wouldn’t want to put a stamp of approval on his proposals. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power in Israel; they speak for the Israelis. We’re always happy to listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately, in terms of our interactions with Israel…clearly, the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay most attention to at present.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Three, he fields questions about the foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the role of the U.S. as the leading world power.
"No Nukes"... Part II from AlwaysOn
In his keynote address at the World Economic Forum, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that democratic countries have three fundamental responsibilities: "First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together…Third, when diplomacy fails we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct threats require decisive action."
The Vice President cited recent developments in Libya as an example of what can be accomplished by adhering to these three principles, stating that "Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible." After his speech, Cheney was peppered with questions from audience members, some of whom asked about other nations that are building weapons of mass destruction.
Question: Andrew Gowers, Financial Times, London. While the dangers have diminished clearly in Libya and other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished. Can you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?
Cheney: Clearly, the jury is still out with respect to North Korea. We’ve worked very hard, particularly with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians. The Chinese have become central to that effort. We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The effort needs to be made…to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice—if they want to have normal commercial relationships with those of us involved in the enterprise—but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We’ve had two meetings in Beijing so far. I would expect there will be more as we continue to move forward. The key is having the Chinese and other nations engaged. Today can I predict the outcome? I can’t. We think we’re approaching this on a sensible basis. This is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people and maintaining some kind of viable economy in the north. They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.
Question: Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal. You said the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran? Specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now, the negotiations with Iran? One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of "the Axis of Evil." Is Iran still a member of that axis?
Cheney: Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends—the Germans, the French, and the British have been most directly involved—working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they have now done. We’ll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny that but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that in fact that’s exactly what they have been doing.
It’s in everybody’s interest, I believe—especially our European friends and allies—to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they have now made: truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA. And that they keep the commitments they’ve made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers. We’ll do everything we can to support that effort.
Question: Last night, Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel. The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to. Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine. Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace. And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.
Cheney: I haven’t had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict. And we haven’t really had a traditional conflict. The problem of course has been in large part generated by terrorism—by suicide bombings and so forth. Somehow we’ve got to find a way to take down the structures of terror…if we’re going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes, and establish permanent peace.
Shimon Peres is a man I’ve known a long time and I have a lot of respect for him. I’m sure he’s doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But at this stage, I wouldn’t want to put a stamp of approval on his proposals. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power in Israel; they speak for the Israelis. We’re always happy to listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately, in terms of our interactions with Israel…clearly, the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay most attention to at present.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Three, he fields questions about the foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the role of the U.S. as the leading world power.
"CHENEY: DEFICITS DO MATTER"... DAVOS INTERVIEWS
From the AlwaysOn NewsTeam
At the World Economic Forum held in Davos earlier this year, one of the most anticipated keynote speakers was Vice President Dick Cheney. The Vice President began his speech by striking an optimistic note, citing the capture of Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a democratic constitution in Afghanistan, and Libya’s decision to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction as hopeful signs of progress.
In his speech, Cheney included this assessment of the Muslim world: "We are told that the culture and beliefs of Islamic people are somehow incompatible with the values…of freedom and democracy. These claims are condescending and they are false. Many of the world’s Muslims today live in democratic societies…The desire for freedom is not just American or Western; it is universal."
This remark prompted the first question to be asked by an audience member in the open session held after Cheney’s speech:
Question: I’m…from Oman. Thank you for those warm words about the Islamic and the Arab world. May we ask, Mr. Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are [conveyed] to Secretary Ashcroft and those who work for him, so that visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country? Thank you sir.
Cheney: I will certainly be happy to pass on messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft. There’s no question that we have tried to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures in the United States. We are aware that there are still glitches in the system; that it is sometimes an onerous process. And we’re doing our best to improve upon it.
Question: Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics. I think it’s fair to say there has been enormous admiration expressed here this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the recovery that is now clearly underway. But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of that recovery and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget position. In fact, there have been several questions about a comment made by your former colleague Paul O’Neill in his new book, when he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman Greenspan had with you, when he recounts you as saying "President Reagan showed that budget deficits don’t matter." Could you comment as to whether that is the philosophy and how you intend to overcome that concern?
Cheney: I guess the way you could look at that whole exercise is that I’m not the best personnel officer in the world. [laughter] The President took my advice on Secretary of the Treasury…of course as part of that he put me in charge of the search for the Vice President and that came out in unexpected ways as well. I believe deficits do matter, but also I am a great believer in the policy we followed. That is to say that it was very important for us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy by way of stimulating growth. The progress we see today with respect to our economy is directly related to that.
Paul did not support the tax cuts that I favored and that the President ultimately decided upon. And that really goes to the heart of the debate. I do think deficits matter; they matter in the long term. We do have to worry about them. Our plan, as the President laid out the other night in the State of the Union speech, is to reduce the deficit in half over the next five years. I think we’ll get there.
If you look at the deficit today, while it’s large, is not that large from a historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP. We think it is manageable, especially given the state we’re in. We’re engaged in a military conflict; we’ve had to increase defense spending. We inherited a recession which caused a falloff in government revenues. So for a lot of reasons, I don’t find it surprising that we have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that clearly will be our long-term goal and objective, but we would not now move immediately to a balanced budget at the cost of adequately funding our military operations or having the kind of pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term revenues for the economy. We think we have it calibrated about right. I wouldn’t believe everything I read in Paul O’Neill’s book.
Question: We spoke yesterday about U.N. reform. You hinted at it in your own speech. Could you share with us what should be done in order to make the global institutional framework more effective?
Cheney: I could get into a lot of trouble right here, I’m sure. Well, from time to time there has been discussion about the need to modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, nearly sixty years ago. We’ve got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations as it’s currently constituted doesn’t necessarily fit with the way the world works and is organized today. There are major powers that are not represented or don’t have as much influence at the U.N. as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing those arrangements. I don’t want to get into any more detail than that. I don’t want to recommend specific changes on a national basis. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be worked out internationally.
In Part Two, Cheney gives his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea, and comments on Shimon Peres’ proposals for peace in the Middle East.
From the AlwaysOn NewsTeam
At the World Economic Forum held in Davos earlier this year, one of the most anticipated keynote speakers was Vice President Dick Cheney. The Vice President began his speech by striking an optimistic note, citing the capture of Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a democratic constitution in Afghanistan, and Libya’s decision to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction as hopeful signs of progress.
In his speech, Cheney included this assessment of the Muslim world: "We are told that the culture and beliefs of Islamic people are somehow incompatible with the values…of freedom and democracy. These claims are condescending and they are false. Many of the world’s Muslims today live in democratic societies…The desire for freedom is not just American or Western; it is universal."
This remark prompted the first question to be asked by an audience member in the open session held after Cheney’s speech:
Question: I’m…from Oman. Thank you for those warm words about the Islamic and the Arab world. May we ask, Mr. Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are [conveyed] to Secretary Ashcroft and those who work for him, so that visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country? Thank you sir.
Cheney: I will certainly be happy to pass on messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft. There’s no question that we have tried to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures in the United States. We are aware that there are still glitches in the system; that it is sometimes an onerous process. And we’re doing our best to improve upon it.
Question: Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics. I think it’s fair to say there has been enormous admiration expressed here this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the recovery that is now clearly underway. But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of that recovery and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget position. In fact, there have been several questions about a comment made by your former colleague Paul O’Neill in his new book, when he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman Greenspan had with you, when he recounts you as saying "President Reagan showed that budget deficits don’t matter." Could you comment as to whether that is the philosophy and how you intend to overcome that concern?
Cheney: I guess the way you could look at that whole exercise is that I’m not the best personnel officer in the world. [laughter] The President took my advice on Secretary of the Treasury…of course as part of that he put me in charge of the search for the Vice President and that came out in unexpected ways as well. I believe deficits do matter, but also I am a great believer in the policy we followed. That is to say that it was very important for us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy by way of stimulating growth. The progress we see today with respect to our economy is directly related to that.
Paul did not support the tax cuts that I favored and that the President ultimately decided upon. And that really goes to the heart of the debate. I do think deficits matter; they matter in the long term. We do have to worry about them. Our plan, as the President laid out the other night in the State of the Union speech, is to reduce the deficit in half over the next five years. I think we’ll get there.
If you look at the deficit today, while it’s large, is not that large from a historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP. We think it is manageable, especially given the state we’re in. We’re engaged in a military conflict; we’ve had to increase defense spending. We inherited a recession which caused a falloff in government revenues. So for a lot of reasons, I don’t find it surprising that we have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that clearly will be our long-term goal and objective, but we would not now move immediately to a balanced budget at the cost of adequately funding our military operations or having the kind of pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term revenues for the economy. We think we have it calibrated about right. I wouldn’t believe everything I read in Paul O’Neill’s book.
Question: We spoke yesterday about U.N. reform. You hinted at it in your own speech. Could you share with us what should be done in order to make the global institutional framework more effective?
Cheney: I could get into a lot of trouble right here, I’m sure. Well, from time to time there has been discussion about the need to modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, nearly sixty years ago. We’ve got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations as it’s currently constituted doesn’t necessarily fit with the way the world works and is organized today. There are major powers that are not represented or don’t have as much influence at the U.N. as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing those arrangements. I don’t want to get into any more detail than that. I don’t want to recommend specific changes on a national basis. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be worked out internationally.
In Part Two, Cheney gives his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea, and comments on Shimon Peres’ proposals for peace in the Middle East.
EU HITS MICROSOFT WITH $613 MILLION FINE
Related to what I blogged about before. Here's the article from News.com:
The European Union on Wednesday issued its ruling in the long-running case against Microsoft, fining the American software giant $613 million, the heaviest punishment in any European competition case to date. (full article)
Related to what I blogged about before. Here's the article from News.com:
The European Union on Wednesday issued its ruling in the long-running case against Microsoft, fining the American software giant $613 million, the heaviest punishment in any European competition case to date. (full article)
MSNBC ANTI-BUSH?
Funny Post by Glenn Reynolds
"Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC:
The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.
Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!") Sheesh. Can you say "Freudian slip?" (full post)
Hahaha... Yeah, I guess Bush could have sent in those Texas Rangers. Yo! Chuck! Why didn't you go over there and kick bin Laden's ass?
Funny Post by Glenn Reynolds
"Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC:
The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.
Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!") Sheesh. Can you say "Freudian slip?" (full post)
Hahaha... Yeah, I guess Bush could have sent in those Texas Rangers. Yo! Chuck! Why didn't you go over there and kick bin Laden's ass?
FURTHER ANALYSIS OF KERRY JR.
Instapundit has a Great Analysis of Clarke
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics. It's the only thing that makes sense.
The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?" (full post)
Instapundit has a Great Analysis of Clarke
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics. It's the only thing that makes sense.
The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?" (full post)
"THE ALBRIGHT DECEPTION"
From Hugh Hewitt... 9/11 Commission Hearings
"This is repugnant in the depth of its deception and sophistry. Asked tough questions, Albright shifted the subject from what the Clinton Administration didn't do and then to the Bush Administration abandonment of Clinton's North Korean and Balkan policies (thank goodness we gave up on the benefits of being hornswaggled by Kim Jong Il) to leave the impression, implicit only, that the Bush Administration abandoned anti-al Qaeda initiatives as well. Initiatives like not trying to take him out when the drone spotted him in the fall? This is a hearing for the historians to mull over, and when they do, it will not go well for Madame Secretary." (full post)
Good Question by Hugh:
"Today's testimony by Madeline Albright was among the most preposterous such appearance by an American official who formerly held high office in the executive that I can recall. It was so transparently self-serving, so obviously an attempt to dodge the culpability for having been part of the Clinton-Gore-Berger-Clarke-Daschle-Biden-Gephardt team that failed, and failed, and failed to act to stop bin Laden's growing fury and capabilities, that it will persuade no one who is serious about the subject matter...
As you read this stuff, keep in mind the CNN video that has Ben-Veniste so upset. And hope that someone asks Ms. Albright or any of her colleagues: "To the best of your ability, and realizing it is a hypothetical, please tell us if you think Al Gore, had he been elected, would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and if so, how?" Of course he couldn't have. Those attacks were operational long before January 20, 2001." (full post)
From Hugh Hewitt... 9/11 Commission Hearings
"This is repugnant in the depth of its deception and sophistry. Asked tough questions, Albright shifted the subject from what the Clinton Administration didn't do and then to the Bush Administration abandonment of Clinton's North Korean and Balkan policies (thank goodness we gave up on the benefits of being hornswaggled by Kim Jong Il) to leave the impression, implicit only, that the Bush Administration abandoned anti-al Qaeda initiatives as well. Initiatives like not trying to take him out when the drone spotted him in the fall? This is a hearing for the historians to mull over, and when they do, it will not go well for Madame Secretary." (full post)
Good Question by Hugh:
"Today's testimony by Madeline Albright was among the most preposterous such appearance by an American official who formerly held high office in the executive that I can recall. It was so transparently self-serving, so obviously an attempt to dodge the culpability for having been part of the Clinton-Gore-Berger-Clarke-Daschle-Biden-Gephardt team that failed, and failed, and failed to act to stop bin Laden's growing fury and capabilities, that it will persuade no one who is serious about the subject matter...
As you read this stuff, keep in mind the CNN video that has Ben-Veniste so upset. And hope that someone asks Ms. Albright or any of her colleagues: "To the best of your ability, and realizing it is a hypothetical, please tell us if you think Al Gore, had he been elected, would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and if so, how?" Of course he couldn't have. Those attacks were operational long before January 20, 2001." (full post)
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
MORE ON RICHARD CLARKE... HOW MUCH WAS HE OFFERED?
Turncoat After Praising Bush... Taking Lessons from Kerry
"Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter":
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."
Updated quotes and comments from Instapundit:
Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."
--Richard Clarke, per the August 4th 2003 issue of the New Yorker.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
--Richard Clarke, on 60 Minutes, March 21, 2004.
Turncoat After Praising Bush... Taking Lessons from Kerry
"Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter":
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."
Updated quotes and comments from Instapundit:
Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."
--Richard Clarke, per the August 4th 2003 issue of the New Yorker.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
--Richard Clarke, on 60 Minutes, March 21, 2004.
Monday, March 22, 2004
MORE ON RICHARD CLARKE
From Taranto... Last One for the Day
The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said . . . no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking. . . ."
Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what Clarke is complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.
In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.
Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."
In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.
From Taranto... Last One for the Day
The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said . . . no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking. . . ."
Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what Clarke is complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.
In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.
Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."
In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.
SILLY TERRORIST MOTIVATION THEORY... TUTU IS DUMB
As My Mother Says, "Low Intelligence, Dear"
Again from Taranto:
South Africa's Jerry Falwell
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, was in America last week, where he made the rounds of the cable talk shows. We caught him on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, and while he was once a leader in a worthy cause, his views on the threats facing the world today are utterly fatuous. He denounced not only the liberation of Iraq but the liberation of Afghanistan, and he espoused a novel theory as to what motivates the terrorists of al Qaeda:
Tutu: It is quite crucial for us to want to look at what are the root causes that enable or make people be ready to engage in desperate acts.
Matthews: What do you think they are?
Tutu: Well, I believe myself that there's no way in which we are likely to win the war against terrorism, as long as you've got conditions of poverty, of disease, of ignorance that can make people so desperate that they believe the only options they have are to engage in acts of that kind.
Matthews: But the people who struck us on September 11 were people who were reasonably well educated. They were technical people. Maybe they didn't have Ph.D.s, but they had educations that would have allowed them to make a living quite well in the Western world.
Tutu: Now, the point is, if precisely people of that sort who look at the inequities of the international economic order--I mean, to think just now that you say to the developing world, in order for you to make it, produce more. So you sell. And they do produce more.
But then the developed world has massive, massive agricultural subsidies that ensure that farmers in those rich countries can produce their stuff cheaply. And there are high tariffs that prevent the developing country from being able to sell their goods. And so you say, these guys are playing a game and they make the rules for the game and they are the referees in this games. It is so lopsided that anyone seeking to be a normal person realizes that the odds are stacked against us so horrendously that people will say, I am ready to do anything to get out of this trap.
We sympathize with Tutu's criticism of Western trade policies, but if he thinks Osama bin Laden and his followers are agitating for free trade, he's nuts. It's reminiscent of Jerry Falwell's comment just after Sept. 11 that the attack was the fault of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way," or George McGovern's suggestion in a December 2002 article that terrorists are angry at America for not adopting a McGovernite foreign policy.
After McGovern's article appeared, we dubbed this "vicarious terrorism": people who should know better claiming that if only we embrace their pet cause, it will appease the enemies of civilization. Falwell at least had the decency to apologize for his remarks. We're not holding our breath waiting for McGovern and Tutu to do the same.
As My Mother Says, "Low Intelligence, Dear"
Again from Taranto:
South Africa's Jerry Falwell
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, was in America last week, where he made the rounds of the cable talk shows. We caught him on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, and while he was once a leader in a worthy cause, his views on the threats facing the world today are utterly fatuous. He denounced not only the liberation of Iraq but the liberation of Afghanistan, and he espoused a novel theory as to what motivates the terrorists of al Qaeda:
Tutu: It is quite crucial for us to want to look at what are the root causes that enable or make people be ready to engage in desperate acts.
Matthews: What do you think they are?
Tutu: Well, I believe myself that there's no way in which we are likely to win the war against terrorism, as long as you've got conditions of poverty, of disease, of ignorance that can make people so desperate that they believe the only options they have are to engage in acts of that kind.
Matthews: But the people who struck us on September 11 were people who were reasonably well educated. They were technical people. Maybe they didn't have Ph.D.s, but they had educations that would have allowed them to make a living quite well in the Western world.
Tutu: Now, the point is, if precisely people of that sort who look at the inequities of the international economic order--I mean, to think just now that you say to the developing world, in order for you to make it, produce more. So you sell. And they do produce more.
But then the developed world has massive, massive agricultural subsidies that ensure that farmers in those rich countries can produce their stuff cheaply. And there are high tariffs that prevent the developing country from being able to sell their goods. And so you say, these guys are playing a game and they make the rules for the game and they are the referees in this games. It is so lopsided that anyone seeking to be a normal person realizes that the odds are stacked against us so horrendously that people will say, I am ready to do anything to get out of this trap.
We sympathize with Tutu's criticism of Western trade policies, but if he thinks Osama bin Laden and his followers are agitating for free trade, he's nuts. It's reminiscent of Jerry Falwell's comment just after Sept. 11 that the attack was the fault of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way," or George McGovern's suggestion in a December 2002 article that terrorists are angry at America for not adopting a McGovernite foreign policy.
After McGovern's article appeared, we dubbed this "vicarious terrorism": people who should know better claiming that if only we embrace their pet cause, it will appease the enemies of civilization. Falwell at least had the decency to apologize for his remarks. We're not holding our breath waiting for McGovern and Tutu to do the same.
TYPICAL FRENCH... ANTI-ISRAEL
From James Taranto... Best of the Web
Lots of good stuff from Taranto today. Here's the first one:
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the genocidal maniac who serves as Hamas's "spiritual leader," is dead, killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin was quite a prolific murderer. "Over the past 3 1/2 years, . . . Hamas has, in 425 attacks, killed 377 Israelis and wounded 2076," notes the Jerusalem Post. "Hamas perpetrated 52 suicide attacks, in which 288 people were killed and 1646 were wounded."
.....
Reuters quotes France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin: "France condemns the action against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence." Of course, if Hamas hadn't killed hundreds of innocent people, Israel would have had no cause to kill Yassin. But there are limits. "Germany avoided condemnation of the helicopter rocket attack," the "news" service notes. We suppose it would be awkward for Germany, of all countries, to mourn the death of a mass killer of Jews.
Meanwhile, London's Guardian reports that "Yasser Arafat has apologised to the father of a young Arab man who was shot dead in Jerusalem in a botched attempt by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to murder a Jewish settler":
George Khoury, a 20-year-old economics student at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and the son of a prominent lawyer, was jogging through a neighbourhood mostly populated by Jews when gunmen shot him in the head, neck and stomach on Friday night.
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
As far as we know, European leaders have issued no outraged condemnations of Khoury's murder. To guys like de Villepin, it would seem, Arab lives are cheap unless they are devoted to the murder of Jews.
From James Taranto... Best of the Web
Lots of good stuff from Taranto today. Here's the first one:
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the genocidal maniac who serves as Hamas's "spiritual leader," is dead, killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin was quite a prolific murderer. "Over the past 3 1/2 years, . . . Hamas has, in 425 attacks, killed 377 Israelis and wounded 2076," notes the Jerusalem Post. "Hamas perpetrated 52 suicide attacks, in which 288 people were killed and 1646 were wounded."
.....
Reuters quotes France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin: "France condemns the action against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence." Of course, if Hamas hadn't killed hundreds of innocent people, Israel would have had no cause to kill Yassin. But there are limits. "Germany avoided condemnation of the helicopter rocket attack," the "news" service notes. We suppose it would be awkward for Germany, of all countries, to mourn the death of a mass killer of Jews.
Meanwhile, London's Guardian reports that "Yasser Arafat has apologised to the father of a young Arab man who was shot dead in Jerusalem in a botched attempt by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to murder a Jewish settler":
George Khoury, a 20-year-old economics student at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and the son of a prominent lawyer, was jogging through a neighbourhood mostly populated by Jews when gunmen shot him in the head, neck and stomach on Friday night.
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
As far as we know, European leaders have issued no outraged condemnations of Khoury's murder. To guys like de Villepin, it would seem, Arab lives are cheap unless they are devoted to the murder of Jews.
SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT
Foolish and Stupid Move by the Opposition
Got this email and article from my friend, Mingi, at Time Magazine:
"Below is the best op-ed piece on Korea I've read to date HANDS DOWN. Whether a lefty or a righty, it would be difficult for anyone knowledgeable of Korean affairs to disagree with Eberstadt on this one. Also, the ending is ABSOLUTELY sweet!"
I mentioned when the impeachment occurred over a week ago that I would write my response, but I just didn't give it much thought because it was very straight-forward and clear to me and I didn't think about it again until Mingi's email. The basis of President Roh's impeachment was weak and not justified. No matter how much I think Roh to be an idiot, not qualified for such an office, and taking a very dangerous approach with North Korea, the opposition parties in South Korea set a horrible precedent by impeaching their president based on a weak violation of campaign law (stumping for his intended political party, the Uri Party, and the National Elections Commission ruled it was illegal but a minor infraction and not warranting criminal charges).
As public officials in a modern democracy, the standards they create have to bear the weight of public opinion and history. The members of the Grand National and Millennium Democratic parties rushed into the impeachment process without truly thinking of the consequences. It is just a petty game to them? Do they know what responsibility they hold before their country and its future?
Even on a practical level, what were they thinking? Even if Roh suffered from very low approval ratings (~30%), did they even ask or poll their constituents what they thought if they moved to impeach the president based on his recent campaign violations? Obviously not since almost 80% of South Koreans thought the impeachment was wrong. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the article by Nicholas Eberstadt below, he brings up a great point on how this can affect South Korea's relationship with North Korea and the hope of reunification. There should be a definite change of position within South Korea's foreign policy. The "sunshine" policy stands on weaker ground and if there was any hope of it in being effective I believe it has been washed away by the tide of the recent impeachment revealing the weak frame that holds South Korea's democracy together. A glimmer of hope from the "sunshine" approach can reach for a possible solution a hundred years from now, but I believe reality will soon dictate a stronger position that will lead towards a possible reunification under South Korea's democracy - hopefully strengthen by then - within my lifetime.
Democracy's Demons
An impeachment exposes the sordid opportunism of South Korean politics
BY NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
TIME MAGAZINE
"A republic, if you can keep it." That was Benjamin Franklin's response to an inquiry at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention about the type of government the founders of the U.S. had just created. The remark is usually cited as an example of Franklin's renowned wit, but he was deadly serious. He understood the experiment in constitutional governance to be a delicate thing: one that is difficult to maintain, and easy to destroy. We are reminded of this once again as we observe the sad and tawdry constitutional crisis that has suddenly engulfed South Korea because of the March 12 impeachment of President Roh Moo Hyun.
South Korea's foreign allies, including the U.S. government, are bravely pretending that the impeachment drama unfolding in Seoul is unexceptional and is perhaps even proof of South Korea's "strong, vibrant democracy." Let's not kid ourselves. By voting to strip President Roh of power and leaving it to the country's Constitutional Court to determine his ultimate
political fate, South Korea's National Assembly has demonstrated the frightful weakness of the country's purported democracy and has dealt that already frail structure another grave blow from which it is not yet clear it can recover.
To date, South Koreans have not been famously successful at keeping their republics. They have had six of them since the formal establishment of the modern South Korean state in 1948 and they are currently living under a Republic of Korea constitution that is in its ninth version. And yet many Koreans and foreign observers had hoped the demons that possessed the South Korean body politic were finally exorcised back in 1987, when the country held its first open and competitive presidential election heralding a transition from de facto military rule to a framework of constitutional
democracy.
Three subsequent presidential elections seemed to substantiate those hopes. The victor of the 1992 contest, Kim Young Sam, was a lifelong civilian politician, not a military surrogate. The 1997 election went to Kim Dae Jung, a lifelong dissident politician. And the 2002 election led to the inauguration of Roh, a human-rights lawyer and outspoken critic of the "old
style" of South Korean cronyism.
But the spectacle of Roh's impeachment puts paid to any notion that the country's constitutional democracy has grown sturdy roots. The National Assembly is dominated by two opposition parties that loathe the current occupant of the Blue House. They voted to suspend the elected President on the flimsiest of pretexts. Officially, the offenses for which Roh is to be tried, and for which he is already being punished, are some otherwise innocuous comments about the upcoming April 15 National Assembly election. Roh, who had renounced his membership of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party last fall, let it be known that he hoped candidates from the Uri Party would do well, and that he thought he might eventually join that organization. Lawmakers were shocked! What the President would dare sully the nation's pristine electoral process through such nefarious interference. Their reading of the law held Roh's words to be a violation of election rules preventing the President from using the power of his office to influence parliamentary contests. The ploy was utterly transparent, but the written constitution gave them all the formal authority they needed to proceed with the motion.
The truth is that the impeachment had nothing to do with the rule of law. The country's National Election Commission had already ruled Roh's faux pas to be a minor one. However, what the National Assembly provided was a perfect example of "rule by law", the opportunistic, unprincipled and entirely situational use of legal statutes by the powerful to gain political advantage. Such a practice has been the bane of unscrupulous Confucian governments throughout East Asian history.
With this patent misuse of its important right and responsibility, the National Assembly has exposed the weakness in contemporary South Korean democracy. If you or I learned that a beloved friend or relative had been found wandering naked in the street, our first reaction would probably be of horror, but then we might think back and recognize that there had been warning signs of the impending breakdown. So it is with South Korea's democratic system: signs of trouble were there, whether or not we cared to take them seriously. We might now remember how former President Kim Dae
Jung, that avowed champion of openness, law and democracy, launched tax probes against local media, a move many saw as an attempt to intimidate publications that criticized his policies. (In 1999, the International Press Institute in Vienna even sent the future Nobel Laureate a letter begging him to desist from his campaign against South Korea's free press.) Then there was the acclaimed Kim Dae Jung-Kim Jong Il summit in Pyongyang in June 2000, the supposedly historic "peace breakthrough" that later turned out to have been purchased furtively and illegally, with a price tag of at least $100 million, through the transfer of South Korean taxpayer money to the Dear Leader's bank accounts.
Roh's triumph in the December 2002 presidential plebiscite was itself testimony to the weakness of South Korea's democracy. His main selling point was not his allergy to the U.S. (genuine as that may be), but rather his outsider's resume his manifest lack of experience in Seoul's payola-driven politics, a system that the great majority of voters already viewed with distrust and disdain. Once in office, Roh's amateurish and inconstant performance, as well as his own cynical attempts to game the system, did little to allay popular misgivings about the health of the democracy. Recall that, after barely eight months in office, a frustrated and tactically outclassed Roh toyed with pulling a coup d'etat against himself by demanding an extra-constitutional referendum to back his policies and threatening to resign from the presidency if the vote didn't turn out to his liking.
In the event, Roh himself quickly dropped the idea of exiting from office before his term was up. His enemies did not follow suit. Now the impeachment process must grind forward, and from the standpoint of the endangered democratic system, none of the possible outcomes are reassuring. On one hand, the court may rule that Roh has violated his oath of office and must step down, in which case a perilously low threshold for rejecting the legitimacy of the people's highest elected representative will have been established for all future leaders of South Korea. On the other hand, the court may let Roh keep his job. Then the public will be forced to choose between a President they know to be too small for his office, and a National Assembly they no longer trust.
There is, of course, a winner in this tragedy. His name is Kim Jong Il. With South Korea in political turmoil, North Korea's degree of freedom in its nuclear confrontation with the Western world expands quite nicely. In the immediate future, the North need no longer worry about coordinated international efforts to press Pyongyang for nuclear compliance, because those efforts would inevitably require coordination with the now dysfunctional government in Seoul.
Over the longer term, the South's current travails will only reinforce the North's appetite for an unconditional Korean reunification, in the North's terms. For nearly six decades, North Korean doctrine has maintained that the South Korean political system is riddled with rot, tottering under its own contradictions and ready for a fall. That propaganda sounds uncomfortably plausible today. For their own sake, and the world's, South Koreans must prove Kim Jong Il wrong. It is still their republic, if they can keep it.
Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.'s American Enterprise Institute
Foolish and Stupid Move by the Opposition
Got this email and article from my friend, Mingi, at Time Magazine:
"Below is the best op-ed piece on Korea I've read to date HANDS DOWN. Whether a lefty or a righty, it would be difficult for anyone knowledgeable of Korean affairs to disagree with Eberstadt on this one. Also, the ending is ABSOLUTELY sweet!"
I mentioned when the impeachment occurred over a week ago that I would write my response, but I just didn't give it much thought because it was very straight-forward and clear to me and I didn't think about it again until Mingi's email. The basis of President Roh's impeachment was weak and not justified. No matter how much I think Roh to be an idiot, not qualified for such an office, and taking a very dangerous approach with North Korea, the opposition parties in South Korea set a horrible precedent by impeaching their president based on a weak violation of campaign law (stumping for his intended political party, the Uri Party, and the National Elections Commission ruled it was illegal but a minor infraction and not warranting criminal charges).
As public officials in a modern democracy, the standards they create have to bear the weight of public opinion and history. The members of the Grand National and Millennium Democratic parties rushed into the impeachment process without truly thinking of the consequences. It is just a petty game to them? Do they know what responsibility they hold before their country and its future?
Even on a practical level, what were they thinking? Even if Roh suffered from very low approval ratings (~30%), did they even ask or poll their constituents what they thought if they moved to impeach the president based on his recent campaign violations? Obviously not since almost 80% of South Koreans thought the impeachment was wrong. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the article by Nicholas Eberstadt below, he brings up a great point on how this can affect South Korea's relationship with North Korea and the hope of reunification. There should be a definite change of position within South Korea's foreign policy. The "sunshine" policy stands on weaker ground and if there was any hope of it in being effective I believe it has been washed away by the tide of the recent impeachment revealing the weak frame that holds South Korea's democracy together. A glimmer of hope from the "sunshine" approach can reach for a possible solution a hundred years from now, but I believe reality will soon dictate a stronger position that will lead towards a possible reunification under South Korea's democracy - hopefully strengthen by then - within my lifetime.
Democracy's Demons
An impeachment exposes the sordid opportunism of South Korean politics
BY NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
TIME MAGAZINE
"A republic, if you can keep it." That was Benjamin Franklin's response to an inquiry at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention about the type of government the founders of the U.S. had just created. The remark is usually cited as an example of Franklin's renowned wit, but he was deadly serious. He understood the experiment in constitutional governance to be a delicate thing: one that is difficult to maintain, and easy to destroy. We are reminded of this once again as we observe the sad and tawdry constitutional crisis that has suddenly engulfed South Korea because of the March 12 impeachment of President Roh Moo Hyun.
South Korea's foreign allies, including the U.S. government, are bravely pretending that the impeachment drama unfolding in Seoul is unexceptional and is perhaps even proof of South Korea's "strong, vibrant democracy." Let's not kid ourselves. By voting to strip President Roh of power and leaving it to the country's Constitutional Court to determine his ultimate
political fate, South Korea's National Assembly has demonstrated the frightful weakness of the country's purported democracy and has dealt that already frail structure another grave blow from which it is not yet clear it can recover.
To date, South Koreans have not been famously successful at keeping their republics. They have had six of them since the formal establishment of the modern South Korean state in 1948 and they are currently living under a Republic of Korea constitution that is in its ninth version. And yet many Koreans and foreign observers had hoped the demons that possessed the South Korean body politic were finally exorcised back in 1987, when the country held its first open and competitive presidential election heralding a transition from de facto military rule to a framework of constitutional
democracy.
Three subsequent presidential elections seemed to substantiate those hopes. The victor of the 1992 contest, Kim Young Sam, was a lifelong civilian politician, not a military surrogate. The 1997 election went to Kim Dae Jung, a lifelong dissident politician. And the 2002 election led to the inauguration of Roh, a human-rights lawyer and outspoken critic of the "old
style" of South Korean cronyism.
But the spectacle of Roh's impeachment puts paid to any notion that the country's constitutional democracy has grown sturdy roots. The National Assembly is dominated by two opposition parties that loathe the current occupant of the Blue House. They voted to suspend the elected President on the flimsiest of pretexts. Officially, the offenses for which Roh is to be tried, and for which he is already being punished, are some otherwise innocuous comments about the upcoming April 15 National Assembly election. Roh, who had renounced his membership of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party last fall, let it be known that he hoped candidates from the Uri Party would do well, and that he thought he might eventually join that organization. Lawmakers were shocked! What the President would dare sully the nation's pristine electoral process through such nefarious interference. Their reading of the law held Roh's words to be a violation of election rules preventing the President from using the power of his office to influence parliamentary contests. The ploy was utterly transparent, but the written constitution gave them all the formal authority they needed to proceed with the motion.
The truth is that the impeachment had nothing to do with the rule of law. The country's National Election Commission had already ruled Roh's faux pas to be a minor one. However, what the National Assembly provided was a perfect example of "rule by law", the opportunistic, unprincipled and entirely situational use of legal statutes by the powerful to gain political advantage. Such a practice has been the bane of unscrupulous Confucian governments throughout East Asian history.
With this patent misuse of its important right and responsibility, the National Assembly has exposed the weakness in contemporary South Korean democracy. If you or I learned that a beloved friend or relative had been found wandering naked in the street, our first reaction would probably be of horror, but then we might think back and recognize that there had been warning signs of the impending breakdown. So it is with South Korea's democratic system: signs of trouble were there, whether or not we cared to take them seriously. We might now remember how former President Kim Dae
Jung, that avowed champion of openness, law and democracy, launched tax probes against local media, a move many saw as an attempt to intimidate publications that criticized his policies. (In 1999, the International Press Institute in Vienna even sent the future Nobel Laureate a letter begging him to desist from his campaign against South Korea's free press.) Then there was the acclaimed Kim Dae Jung-Kim Jong Il summit in Pyongyang in June 2000, the supposedly historic "peace breakthrough" that later turned out to have been purchased furtively and illegally, with a price tag of at least $100 million, through the transfer of South Korean taxpayer money to the Dear Leader's bank accounts.
Roh's triumph in the December 2002 presidential plebiscite was itself testimony to the weakness of South Korea's democracy. His main selling point was not his allergy to the U.S. (genuine as that may be), but rather his outsider's resume his manifest lack of experience in Seoul's payola-driven politics, a system that the great majority of voters already viewed with distrust and disdain. Once in office, Roh's amateurish and inconstant performance, as well as his own cynical attempts to game the system, did little to allay popular misgivings about the health of the democracy. Recall that, after barely eight months in office, a frustrated and tactically outclassed Roh toyed with pulling a coup d'etat against himself by demanding an extra-constitutional referendum to back his policies and threatening to resign from the presidency if the vote didn't turn out to his liking.
In the event, Roh himself quickly dropped the idea of exiting from office before his term was up. His enemies did not follow suit. Now the impeachment process must grind forward, and from the standpoint of the endangered democratic system, none of the possible outcomes are reassuring. On one hand, the court may rule that Roh has violated his oath of office and must step down, in which case a perilously low threshold for rejecting the legitimacy of the people's highest elected representative will have been established for all future leaders of South Korea. On the other hand, the court may let Roh keep his job. Then the public will be forced to choose between a President they know to be too small for his office, and a National Assembly they no longer trust.
There is, of course, a winner in this tragedy. His name is Kim Jong Il. With South Korea in political turmoil, North Korea's degree of freedom in its nuclear confrontation with the Western world expands quite nicely. In the immediate future, the North need no longer worry about coordinated international efforts to press Pyongyang for nuclear compliance, because those efforts would inevitably require coordination with the now dysfunctional government in Seoul.
Over the longer term, the South's current travails will only reinforce the North's appetite for an unconditional Korean reunification, in the North's terms. For nearly six decades, North Korean doctrine has maintained that the South Korean political system is riddled with rot, tottering under its own contradictions and ready for a fall. That propaganda sounds uncomfortably plausible today. For their own sake, and the world's, South Koreans must prove Kim Jong Il wrong. It is still their republic, if they can keep it.
Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.'s American Enterprise Institute
ICANN UNDER FIRE
Father of the Internet Speaks Out
Vint Cerf interview at News.com: "Who should govern the Net?" By Declan McCullagh
Father of the Internet Speaks Out
Vint Cerf interview at News.com: "Who should govern the Net?" By Declan McCullagh
Sunday, March 21, 2004
JOHN KERRY COMEDIAN
Hilarious article by Mark Steyn, from the Chicago Sun-Times. Got the link from Lucianne.com:
...Then there was the senator's clumsy attempt to declare himself America's ''second black president.'' Bill Clinton was at least canny enough to get himself anointed as the first black president by an actual black person, the novelist Toni Morrison, who declared that he displayed ''every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.'' It's harder to pull that off when you're a Swiss finishing school boy from Massachusetts. Many's the night John and the other boys in his dorm would lie awake dreaming of their freedom as they murmured one of the traditional spirituals of their people: ''Swing by, sweet limousine, comin' for to carry me home.'
.....
What else? For over a year, there've been jokes about the ponderous way the senator brings Vietnam up at every opportunity. Ask him about John Edwards' pretty boy bangs, and Kerry says solemnly, ''I know something about bangs for real.'' But he's beyond satire now. The Humane Society sends him a questionnaire asking ''Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?'' Instead of citing any of the ginger toms, gerbils and cockatoos that have passed through the Kerry household in the last four decades, he goes back to those four months in Vietnam and recalls a pooch named VC who accompanied him on his swift boat missions.
Is it normal to take a yappy mutt on a swift boat patrol through enemy territory? Especially a mutt named after the enemy. Calling out ''Over here, VC'' in the middle of the jungle seems a good way to get taken out by friendly fire. Come to that, how many folks name their dogs after the enemy? Did British Tommies stumble across stray French poodles on the beach at Normandy and think, ''Aw, cute li'l feller. I'll call him SS''?
Hilarious article by Mark Steyn, from the Chicago Sun-Times. Got the link from Lucianne.com:
...Then there was the senator's clumsy attempt to declare himself America's ''second black president.'' Bill Clinton was at least canny enough to get himself anointed as the first black president by an actual black person, the novelist Toni Morrison, who declared that he displayed ''every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.'' It's harder to pull that off when you're a Swiss finishing school boy from Massachusetts. Many's the night John and the other boys in his dorm would lie awake dreaming of their freedom as they murmured one of the traditional spirituals of their people: ''Swing by, sweet limousine, comin' for to carry me home.'
.....
What else? For over a year, there've been jokes about the ponderous way the senator brings Vietnam up at every opportunity. Ask him about John Edwards' pretty boy bangs, and Kerry says solemnly, ''I know something about bangs for real.'' But he's beyond satire now. The Humane Society sends him a questionnaire asking ''Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?'' Instead of citing any of the ginger toms, gerbils and cockatoos that have passed through the Kerry household in the last four decades, he goes back to those four months in Vietnam and recalls a pooch named VC who accompanied him on his swift boat missions.
Is it normal to take a yappy mutt on a swift boat patrol through enemy territory? Especially a mutt named after the enemy. Calling out ''Over here, VC'' in the middle of the jungle seems a good way to get taken out by friendly fire. Come to that, how many folks name their dogs after the enemy? Did British Tommies stumble across stray French poodles on the beach at Normandy and think, ''Aw, cute li'l feller. I'll call him SS''?
RICHARD CLARKE... GRUMPY OLD MAN II
Sandy Berger Crony? Kerry Supporter? Yes
Great finding by Powerline on Richard Clarke, author of the recent book "Against All Enemies" and bitter bureaucrat. Of course some media outlets label him as a Bush insider to add credibility to his views against Bush or fizz to the soda, but it seems his leanings have always been towards the Dems:
There you have it: Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Sandy Berger Crony? Kerry Supporter? Yes
Great finding by Powerline on Richard Clarke, author of the recent book "Against All Enemies" and bitter bureaucrat. Of course some media outlets label him as a Bush insider to add credibility to his views against Bush or fizz to the soda, but it seems his leanings have always been towards the Dems:
There you have it: Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
JOHN KERRY... GRUMPY OLD MAN
What a Jerk!... Him and Dean are Cut from the Same Mold
Hugh Hewitt has a funny post on Kerry's snowboarding mishap:
John Kerry went snowboarding yesterday, and collided with a Secret Service agent. The New York Times account: "When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply 'I don't fall down,' then used an expletive to describe the agent who 'knocked me over.'"
Lovely. Kerry turns on the guy who will take bullets for him and torches him to the world, using another of Kerry's marvelous storehouse of barbs to add to the agent's problems. I am sure the collision was already bad news for the agent, but rather than come up from the fall trying to save the guy some grief at headquarters, Kerry's instinct was to blame and curse him. I am sure the military as well as the Secret Service relish the thought of working for this guy.
The Democrats have made their choice. And he's a world class jerk.
What a Jerk!... Him and Dean are Cut from the Same Mold
Hugh Hewitt has a funny post on Kerry's snowboarding mishap:
John Kerry went snowboarding yesterday, and collided with a Secret Service agent. The New York Times account: "When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply 'I don't fall down,' then used an expletive to describe the agent who 'knocked me over.'"
Lovely. Kerry turns on the guy who will take bullets for him and torches him to the world, using another of Kerry's marvelous storehouse of barbs to add to the agent's problems. I am sure the collision was already bad news for the agent, but rather than come up from the fall trying to save the guy some grief at headquarters, Kerry's instinct was to blame and curse him. I am sure the military as well as the Secret Service relish the thought of working for this guy.
The Democrats have made their choice. And he's a world class jerk.
Friday, March 19, 2004
ANOTHER VIEW ON FOOD AID TO NORTH KOREA
Mingi Sends Me a Timely Article... Origin Unknown
Hahaha... a couple days after I post a plug for the Eugene Bell Foundation, my friend Mingi, who is a reporter at Time, sends me the article below. To my knowledge, Dr. Linton does a good job of tracking and securing the delivery, but it sounds like this is a rare situation and a small shipment compared with the tons of food that is stolen by the North Korea's miliary. Very informative article and I guess we should be cautious on where and how we donate food and money to, and not just to North Korea. Mingi's email didn't contain where the article was from and a quick Google search brought up nothing. Anyway, here is the whole article below by William Triplett:
Aiding Kim
International food help props up a vulnerable regime.
By William C. Triplett
Jane Harman is a hard-working congresswoman from California who is now the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Her district is filled with American defense contractors and she has served on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees of the House. She has made it her business to know and understand military and intelligence matters.
In August 1997, she made a trip to North Korea to examine the progress of the international aid program. Stopping in Seoul on her return she told a news conference of her concern that "some food aid has probably ended up in the hands of the [North Korean] military and the other elite."
In less than a day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's press spokesman, Jamie Rubin, was expressly denying Harman's concern. "I can say that our experts are confident that there is no significant diversion of the assistance we have provided," Rubin told the press.
What Mr. Rubin did not know was that exactly as he was speaking, a U.S. military team inspecting a captured North Korean submarine was finding the remains of tinned food provided by an American church from Virginia. The label on the cans read "Food for Relief, in the name of Christ" and "Donatable food, not for resale." The North Korean submarine had run aground off the east coast of South Korea. Half the crew committed suicide and the other half engaged in a shootout with the South Korean Army and police. By the time it was over, twenty-four North Korean commandoes and fourteen South Koreans were dead. The single surviving commando told authorities his team was on a military reconnaissance and rehearsal mission to probe South Korean defenses.
INTERNATIONAL AID TO KIM'S RESCUE
Here was clear evidence that international food aid to North Korea was being diverted to the military. This leads to some questions about the realities of the North Korean famine and the international food aid that was sent to save the North Korean people.
Was there a famine in North Korea from 1995-1998? Yes, although some observers, including the CIA, doubted it at the time. There is now enough physical evidence of malnourished children to confirm the reports from refugees. The best estimate is that two to three million people died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.
Were the reports of people resorting to cannibalism credible? Yes. Refugees streaming into Manchuria reported this. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz obtained a confirmatory Top Secret American intelligence document, which he
included in an appendix to his book Betrayal.
What was the cause of the famine? Only about 20 percent of North Korea's land is suitable for agriculture. Communist-style collectivization and mismanagement made the situation worse. Prior to 1990, North Korea was exchanging its low-quality industrial goods with China and the Soviet Bloc for food at subsidized prices. When that ended, famine was almost inevitable.
How did the North Korean government respond to the food crisis? Kim Jung Il ensured that the military and the Communist elite were fed and left the rest of the population to fend for themselves. The North Korean government then appealed for international food aid under the excuse of a natural disaster — severe flooding. While there was some truth to that claim, the famine was mostly man-induced. The Imjin River runs through the DMZ to the sea on the western side. Standing on the south bank of the river, in South Korea, and looking across the river into North Korea, one immediately notices that the northern bank and the hills beyond have been completely stripped of trees and shrubs. This kind of practice has led to extreme environmental damage in North Korea and loss of agriculture.
What was the international response to the North Korean famine? The World Food Program, an arm of the United Nations, organized an international program that included major donations from the United States, Japan, South
Korea, and the European Union. The World Food Program is currently soliciting donations for 2003-2004.
Was it necessary for the North Koreans to seek international aid? A high-ranking North Korean defector reported that the Dear Leader spent almost a billion dollars on a Memorial Hall glorifying his dead father. These sorts of projects continued unabated throughout the worst of the famine. In 1996, the Agency for International Development, an arm of the State Department, hired an experienced researcher, Sue Lautze, to examine the food situation in North Korea. She traveled over much of the country including the border region. When her draft report concluded that the Kim regime had the foreign currency reserves to pay for its own food imports but that these financial reserves had been spent on weapons instead, the State Department, then headed by Secretary Albright, ordered a revision of the report before releasing it.
Was the international food aid diverted for illicit purposes? The diversion of international food aid in North Korea is much more serious than a few cans of American food found in a submarine. The World Food Program lacked any management or control of the distribution. In 1998 a number of highly respected international aid groups, including Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and the International Federation of Red Cross Societies, "decided not to supply any food aid to the communist state because this food had often been turned over to the military of its own use." In one instance, the North Korean military commandeered five thousand tons of food aid at gun point right in front of WFP officials. In 2001 another UN agency, the UN Commission on Human Rights, received a damning report from Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stating that it "gradually became clear that most of the international aid was being diverted by the army, the secret services, and the [North Korean] government."
A North Korean army defector has pointed out just how easy it was to fool the WFP. He told a South Korean magazine that because of the "military-first" policy, the KPA has carte blanch for whatever it wants at the ports.61 His unit simply put on civilian clothes and changed from military to civilian license plates whenever the WFA inspectors were around.
"Since South Korean rice was of high quality, it all went to high-ranking figures," he said with regard to a 1999 shipment. The defector recalls that, "Soldiers also ate all of that rice. North Korea is based on military-first politics....There is no need to pay attention to the residents."
There is also the question of whether North Korea became a food exporter during this famine period. A Japanese visitor to the Kim palaces reports seeing a letter of thanks for food aid donated to an African country. There were also unconfirmed rumors of North Korea trading food for arms.
What effect did the famine have on the Kim family and its supporters? Almost none at all. In the summer of 2003 the memoirs of the Dear Leader's Japanese chef were published in Japan. The chef revealed that Kim and his children (who were known as "Princes" and "Princesses") continued to live the high life while his subjects starved. His menu includes the most expensive delicacies from around the world. He had 40,000 bottles of imported wine in his cellars. When his jet ski wasn't fast enough, he ordered a bigger and faster one. When he wanted to get around one of his extensive estates, he just picked out a Honda motorcycle from a catalogue and it appeared as if by magic. For entertainment there was fishing, horseback riding, bowling, billiards, satellite TV, and films in the private screening rooms.
The Communist elite did all right as well. The Korean Bar-B-Que restaurants in Pyongyang were constantly filled. An American observer noted that a high school for the elite had healthy children "comparable with those in South
Korea or Japan."
Some of the food aid did manage to find its way to children and average North Koreans. But substantially fewer North Koreans received aid than the World Food Program claims.
What did communist China do during the famine? The communist Chinese were total opportunists in this tragedy. They refused to cooperate with the UN so no one really knows how much food aid they actually gave. China secretly admitted to the UN that their aid was specifically designed to keep the North Korean military happy so they would not overthrow the Kim dynasty.
Did the international relief effort moderate North Korean behavior? No. The international food aid program and North Korean aggression against others existed in parallel universes. While the massive effort to help the North Korean people was in full swing, the following occurred:
- Two submarine-launched espionage operations were detected in South Korea
- North Korea fired a ballistic missile across the Japanese islands
- North Korea continued to traffic narcotics trafficking to Japan and South Korea
- North Korea continued to send nuclear weapons and missiles to terrorist countries
- North Korea continued to engage in espionage and sabotage rehearsals in Japan and South Korea
- The North Korean secret uranium enrichment program prospered.
The amount of physical and mental suffering that occurred during the North Korean famine is more than we can really imagine. A substantial portion of the older generation simply disappeared. An American observer passing through a North Korean city noted the total absence of older or even middle-aged people. The reason? Grandparents and parents had given their rations to their children while they, themselves, either starved to death or died of malnutrition-related illnesses. When they could get it, people drowned themselves in alcohol.
Sadly, it may be that the international food aid program saved the North Korean regime at a moment when it was most vulnerable. If there had been no international food aid at all or if the United Nations officials had demanded openness and an equitable distribution for the food, Kim's regime may have collapsed. Andrew Natsios, the American administrator of the Agency for International Development, offers the following analysis:
Had the ration even in these very lean years been evenly distributed among the entire population, people might have been able to use their coping mechanism to avoid famine. Such an egalitarian ration, however, would have shaken the tenuous foundations of the state. It would have caused panic among the party cadres, internal security apparatus, and the military who might have seen themselves starving as the rest of the population did, and it was on these three groups that the survival of the Kim dynasty depended. But the UN made no such demands. Likewise, the Clinton administration did not demand an end to North Korean aggression as a condition for sending American food aid, nor did it pressure the Chinese to use their leverage on Pyongyang. By utter ruthlessness in Pyongyang, aided by weakness in Washington and at the UN, Kim's regime remained in place. The hypocrisy continues today. In the fall of 2003, an American government official had a meeting with a senior North Korean diplomat in New York. His mission was to try to persuade Pyongyang to be more open on the distribution of recent shipments of international food aid to North Korea. The North Korean diplomat dismissed him with contempt. Nothing has changed.
William C. Triplett, a national-security expert, is the author of Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America.
Mingi Sends Me a Timely Article... Origin Unknown
Hahaha... a couple days after I post a plug for the Eugene Bell Foundation, my friend Mingi, who is a reporter at Time, sends me the article below. To my knowledge, Dr. Linton does a good job of tracking and securing the delivery, but it sounds like this is a rare situation and a small shipment compared with the tons of food that is stolen by the North Korea's miliary. Very informative article and I guess we should be cautious on where and how we donate food and money to, and not just to North Korea. Mingi's email didn't contain where the article was from and a quick Google search brought up nothing. Anyway, here is the whole article below by William Triplett:
Aiding Kim
International food help props up a vulnerable regime.
By William C. Triplett
Jane Harman is a hard-working congresswoman from California who is now the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Her district is filled with American defense contractors and she has served on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees of the House. She has made it her business to know and understand military and intelligence matters.
In August 1997, she made a trip to North Korea to examine the progress of the international aid program. Stopping in Seoul on her return she told a news conference of her concern that "some food aid has probably ended up in the hands of the [North Korean] military and the other elite."
In less than a day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's press spokesman, Jamie Rubin, was expressly denying Harman's concern. "I can say that our experts are confident that there is no significant diversion of the assistance we have provided," Rubin told the press.
What Mr. Rubin did not know was that exactly as he was speaking, a U.S. military team inspecting a captured North Korean submarine was finding the remains of tinned food provided by an American church from Virginia. The label on the cans read "Food for Relief, in the name of Christ" and "Donatable food, not for resale." The North Korean submarine had run aground off the east coast of South Korea. Half the crew committed suicide and the other half engaged in a shootout with the South Korean Army and police. By the time it was over, twenty-four North Korean commandoes and fourteen South Koreans were dead. The single surviving commando told authorities his team was on a military reconnaissance and rehearsal mission to probe South Korean defenses.
INTERNATIONAL AID TO KIM'S RESCUE
Here was clear evidence that international food aid to North Korea was being diverted to the military. This leads to some questions about the realities of the North Korean famine and the international food aid that was sent to save the North Korean people.
Was there a famine in North Korea from 1995-1998? Yes, although some observers, including the CIA, doubted it at the time. There is now enough physical evidence of malnourished children to confirm the reports from refugees. The best estimate is that two to three million people died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.
Were the reports of people resorting to cannibalism credible? Yes. Refugees streaming into Manchuria reported this. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz obtained a confirmatory Top Secret American intelligence document, which he
included in an appendix to his book Betrayal.
What was the cause of the famine? Only about 20 percent of North Korea's land is suitable for agriculture. Communist-style collectivization and mismanagement made the situation worse. Prior to 1990, North Korea was exchanging its low-quality industrial goods with China and the Soviet Bloc for food at subsidized prices. When that ended, famine was almost inevitable.
How did the North Korean government respond to the food crisis? Kim Jung Il ensured that the military and the Communist elite were fed and left the rest of the population to fend for themselves. The North Korean government then appealed for international food aid under the excuse of a natural disaster — severe flooding. While there was some truth to that claim, the famine was mostly man-induced. The Imjin River runs through the DMZ to the sea on the western side. Standing on the south bank of the river, in South Korea, and looking across the river into North Korea, one immediately notices that the northern bank and the hills beyond have been completely stripped of trees and shrubs. This kind of practice has led to extreme environmental damage in North Korea and loss of agriculture.
What was the international response to the North Korean famine? The World Food Program, an arm of the United Nations, organized an international program that included major donations from the United States, Japan, South
Korea, and the European Union. The World Food Program is currently soliciting donations for 2003-2004.
Was it necessary for the North Koreans to seek international aid? A high-ranking North Korean defector reported that the Dear Leader spent almost a billion dollars on a Memorial Hall glorifying his dead father. These sorts of projects continued unabated throughout the worst of the famine. In 1996, the Agency for International Development, an arm of the State Department, hired an experienced researcher, Sue Lautze, to examine the food situation in North Korea. She traveled over much of the country including the border region. When her draft report concluded that the Kim regime had the foreign currency reserves to pay for its own food imports but that these financial reserves had been spent on weapons instead, the State Department, then headed by Secretary Albright, ordered a revision of the report before releasing it.
Was the international food aid diverted for illicit purposes? The diversion of international food aid in North Korea is much more serious than a few cans of American food found in a submarine. The World Food Program lacked any management or control of the distribution. In 1998 a number of highly respected international aid groups, including Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and the International Federation of Red Cross Societies, "decided not to supply any food aid to the communist state because this food had often been turned over to the military of its own use." In one instance, the North Korean military commandeered five thousand tons of food aid at gun point right in front of WFP officials. In 2001 another UN agency, the UN Commission on Human Rights, received a damning report from Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stating that it "gradually became clear that most of the international aid was being diverted by the army, the secret services, and the [North Korean] government."
A North Korean army defector has pointed out just how easy it was to fool the WFP. He told a South Korean magazine that because of the "military-first" policy, the KPA has carte blanch for whatever it wants at the ports.61 His unit simply put on civilian clothes and changed from military to civilian license plates whenever the WFA inspectors were around.
"Since South Korean rice was of high quality, it all went to high-ranking figures," he said with regard to a 1999 shipment. The defector recalls that, "Soldiers also ate all of that rice. North Korea is based on military-first politics....There is no need to pay attention to the residents."
There is also the question of whether North Korea became a food exporter during this famine period. A Japanese visitor to the Kim palaces reports seeing a letter of thanks for food aid donated to an African country. There were also unconfirmed rumors of North Korea trading food for arms.
What effect did the famine have on the Kim family and its supporters? Almost none at all. In the summer of 2003 the memoirs of the Dear Leader's Japanese chef were published in Japan. The chef revealed that Kim and his children (who were known as "Princes" and "Princesses") continued to live the high life while his subjects starved. His menu includes the most expensive delicacies from around the world. He had 40,000 bottles of imported wine in his cellars. When his jet ski wasn't fast enough, he ordered a bigger and faster one. When he wanted to get around one of his extensive estates, he just picked out a Honda motorcycle from a catalogue and it appeared as if by magic. For entertainment there was fishing, horseback riding, bowling, billiards, satellite TV, and films in the private screening rooms.
The Communist elite did all right as well. The Korean Bar-B-Que restaurants in Pyongyang were constantly filled. An American observer noted that a high school for the elite had healthy children "comparable with those in South
Korea or Japan."
Some of the food aid did manage to find its way to children and average North Koreans. But substantially fewer North Koreans received aid than the World Food Program claims.
What did communist China do during the famine? The communist Chinese were total opportunists in this tragedy. They refused to cooperate with the UN so no one really knows how much food aid they actually gave. China secretly admitted to the UN that their aid was specifically designed to keep the North Korean military happy so they would not overthrow the Kim dynasty.
Did the international relief effort moderate North Korean behavior? No. The international food aid program and North Korean aggression against others existed in parallel universes. While the massive effort to help the North Korean people was in full swing, the following occurred:
- Two submarine-launched espionage operations were detected in South Korea
- North Korea fired a ballistic missile across the Japanese islands
- North Korea continued to traffic narcotics trafficking to Japan and South Korea
- North Korea continued to send nuclear weapons and missiles to terrorist countries
- North Korea continued to engage in espionage and sabotage rehearsals in Japan and South Korea
- The North Korean secret uranium enrichment program prospered.
The amount of physical and mental suffering that occurred during the North Korean famine is more than we can really imagine. A substantial portion of the older generation simply disappeared. An American observer passing through a North Korean city noted the total absence of older or even middle-aged people. The reason? Grandparents and parents had given their rations to their children while they, themselves, either starved to death or died of malnutrition-related illnesses. When they could get it, people drowned themselves in alcohol.
Sadly, it may be that the international food aid program saved the North Korean regime at a moment when it was most vulnerable. If there had been no international food aid at all or if the United Nations officials had demanded openness and an equitable distribution for the food, Kim's regime may have collapsed. Andrew Natsios, the American administrator of the Agency for International Development, offers the following analysis:
Had the ration even in these very lean years been evenly distributed among the entire population, people might have been able to use their coping mechanism to avoid famine. Such an egalitarian ration, however, would have shaken the tenuous foundations of the state. It would have caused panic among the party cadres, internal security apparatus, and the military who might have seen themselves starving as the rest of the population did, and it was on these three groups that the survival of the Kim dynasty depended. But the UN made no such demands. Likewise, the Clinton administration did not demand an end to North Korean aggression as a condition for sending American food aid, nor did it pressure the Chinese to use their leverage on Pyongyang. By utter ruthlessness in Pyongyang, aided by weakness in Washington and at the UN, Kim's regime remained in place. The hypocrisy continues today. In the fall of 2003, an American government official had a meeting with a senior North Korean diplomat in New York. His mission was to try to persuade Pyongyang to be more open on the distribution of recent shipments of international food aid to North Korea. The North Korean diplomat dismissed him with contempt. Nothing has changed.
William C. Triplett, a national-security expert, is the author of Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)