BS: The Consequences of Bush PR

Subject: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 10:40 AM

U.S. Must Counteract Image in Muslim World, Panel Says

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The United States must drastically increase and overhaul its public relations efforts to salvage its plummeting image among Muslims and Arabs abroad, a panel chosen by the Bush administration has found.

"Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the panel stated in its report, which will be released Wednesday. "What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic, and radical, transformation."

The report added that "spin" and manipulative public relations "are not the answer," but that neither is avoiding the debate. A copy of the report was made available Tuesday to The New York Times.

The panel warned that the war in Iraq and the intensified conflict in the Middle East had increased anger at the United States, and that people throughout the world were ignorant of or misinformed about American policies.

"A process of unilateral disarmament in the weapons of advocacy over the last decade has contributed to widespread hostility toward Americans and left us vulnerable to lethal threats to our interests and our safety," said the panel, the United States Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World.

Led by Edward P. Djerejian, an Arab specialist and former ambassador and White House spokesman, the panel spent several months surveying the American efforts to promote the United States' views to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Its 13 members, including academics, diplomats and writers, traveled to the Middle East, Asia and Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 10:51 AM

Part of the article Amos posted says "and that people throughout the world were ignorant of or misinformed about American policies."

I don't think so. I think the problem is that people throughout the world are NOT ignorant or misinformed about American policies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 10:55 AM

PDC:

There are many differing policies under that rubric. AMong them, for example, is apolicy to strive for human rights and freedoms in all mations. THis policy often gets misrepresented, distorted, or just given the lie by short-term stupidity on the part of various administrations. But it keeps resurfacing.

ANyway, given the strange sheaf of intentions old and new, large and small, that make up American policies in toto perhaps any sweeping characterization about who knows what about them is overambitious.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:42 PM

Amos, I honestly, truly wish you were right in your statement. But I think "a policy to strive for human rights and freedoms in all nations" on the part of the US is rhetoric, and no more than that. The US uses the rhetoric of "spreading democracy" in its own interests, always, always. It's an interesting country in its use of rhetoric -- even as the Patriot Act is undermining Americans' rights in their own country (now being used for non-terrorists as well), the rhetoric of "American freedom" is constantly repeated by the administration that is removing much of that vaunted freedom.

The reason I call it interesting is because it is so blatant -- it's like watching a man kick a dog, while simultaneously expressing how much he loves dogs.

To find the truth, look at the behaviour rather than the rhetoric.

But I really wish you were right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:18 PM

PDC:

I am.

But you gotta know where to look. You can't first make a monolithic block out of the whole nation, and then demonize that monolith, and expect to come up with a balanced and true map of the territory.

And I was not speaking about the Bush administration's version of policy which is too immature to even think about it. I would rather watch a cheap western.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:23 PM

Sorry -- that should read "I think I am...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:58 PM

You may be right, Amos, and as mentioned above, I hope so. But as I also mentioned above, check behaviour. (Sorry I'm at work, and don't have much time, or would get on this now.) If you look at the history of the US spreading democracy, I think that although you will find some laudable work done in the background through diplomacy, educational programmes, foreign aid, etc., that most frequently the US has interfered in foreign nations for its own benefit, under the guise of spreading democracy.

There is a further history of imposing (rather than spreading) democracy through assassinations, invasions, sanctions, and other uses of force.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 04:49 PM

Right on Amos... again!

pdc... Are you there? Um... A man can love dogs, but still he may need to kick one off (his leg) now and again...;^) But anyway, I don't think you are reading Amos the right way...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:03 PM

I have to agree with pdc (for once!). The American PEOPLE hold these ideals true, but our goverment rarely acts on those ideals. The US talks a good game about freedom and democracy, but we haven't actually walked the walk since about 1945.

Individual Americans will often bend over backwards to help others in need, but I think the last 50 years of anti-democratic secret ops and military interventions speak for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:31 PM

No matter how much effort one puts into it, its tough sellin' a freshly used barf bag....

Think ol' Dale Carneigie would take a pass on it himself...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:40 PM

Well said, NicoleC... point taken... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 10:10 PM

A certain number of agents of the American government froze and died to liberate Pusan. Which at the time was not a Film Festival, BTW. A lot of hard work paid for the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, the Cold War efforts to prevent totalitarian networks from expanding, and a lot of very expensive skirmishes. I am quite aware there have been some major asininities and wastes as well, especially of late. But let us not do a major disservice tot he truth by confusing babies and bathwater here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:50 AM

I have to agree with PDC and NicoleC on this one. I think individual Americans, like individuals almost anywhere on the planet (well, we're from almost everywhere on the planet aren't we?) will go out of their way to extend kindness. The American government is another thing altogether. Individual American operatives are often well intentioned on missions but the policy that designs and directs those missions is always self-serving.

The Marshall plan was not a case of American altruism but was implemented to restore normalcy and salvage power for the same global moneyed interests that control the world's economies. It was only the Third Reich (the German government) that the U.S. opposed, not the German financial powers who were really on both sides of the war just as the largest U.S. companies were often on both sides.

I don't subscribe to many of the popular conspiracy theories and I'm not especially cynical about human kind but when it comes to governments and powerful financial interests, no amount of cynicism is enough. I don't mean to abolish governments, it's just that they need to be watched very closely and never given a free reign.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 12:03 PM

"I don't mean to abolish governments, it's just that they need to be watched very closely and never given a free reign."

Are you becoming a Jeffersonian or a conservative???

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 12:32 PM

Well, you guys are busting my chops and busting my youthful bubbles left and right today, and all I can say is I am awful glad I am not a gummint. Nevertheless I submit that the Marshall Plan channeled a lot of American sweat into the good of the wasted lands of Europe and Japan. I submit that incredible amounts of American labor have been translated into charitable dollars poured into almost every nation in the world. I submit that American lives and fortunes have been given away in the interests of forwarding the freedoms and well-being of other nations as well as, of course, the United States' own reciprocal well-being. Next time the Chinese decide it looks like a good time to capture Seoul, how's about we stand by and let it just kinda work itself out? Hmmmm?

I am all for well-informed cynicism, but perhaps it can also be exagerrated into a blinding dose-- a different but equally debilitating form of claptrap.

A
A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 03:41 PM

“Are you becoming a Jeffersonian or a conservative???”

Well I haven't spent much time trying to label myself so I doubt there is an organization or published political philosophy that I would embrace in toto. I might be close to a Fabian Socialist except that I don't espouse public ownership of the means of production. When I took the test at SelectSmart they thought I was a Green. Mostly I just hold my nose and vote Democratic.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 04:29 PM

Most of us conservatives distrust government and want it to stop trying to solve all the social problem we face. Only people can solve social problems. The best the government can do is take wealth from one person and give it to another. Your earlier statement sounded rather Jeffersonian.

As far as foreign opinion, I hope this country will be judged by its actions. I see no way that intentions can be judged. They are not out where they can be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:05 PM

The quote:

"Next time the Chinese decide it looks like a good time to capture Seoul, how's about we stand by and let it just kinda work itself out? Hmmmm?"

is actually bang on. How about the US waiting until it's asked for help before it goes barging in with guns blazing all round. I'll bet that in the above example, for instance, that the UN, World Court, or just plain old diplomacy and negotiation might work. Heard of those?

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:57 PM

PDC:

Your sardonic remarks are ill-directed. I am disgusted by Bush's unilateral decisions and have said so from the start. But the US' role in the Korean peninsula was not only requested, IIRC, it was begged for. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:51 AM

Amos, do you see any difference in the aims of our government now with it's interference & occupation of Iraq as opposed to the government's rebuilding of Europe & Japan in 1945. Bush expects us to carry the burden of a minimal 87 billion to rebuild Iraq, (have body bags come home also) so that an oil rich country can make certain politicos & their cronies rich.
There is no talk of the many millions which has been confiscated. Shouldn't that money be used to rebuild?

Will there ever be a light at the end of this tunnel?

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:04 AM

Ah dear, Amos, it may look like charity, but have you ever tried to find out who owned those German factories rebuilt with US Tax Dollars? Wasn't US companies subsidaries, now was it?

US Politics is the art of giving money to your rich friends, while making the world (including the US taxpayers) think you are helping the foreign poor.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 02:01 AM

Well, while the Berlin Airlift stopped a lot of people from dying of starvation, the real reason for it was not to stop nonm-Americans dying. It was to maintain US (and at the time British) Prestige and Power. If they had walked away, the West would have been shown by the USSR to be weak and powerless. Their influence in many parts of teh world would have been weakened, especially in the Oil & Mineral exporting nations...

War is a form of Economic Attrition. War is just Politics carried beyond Peace.

Didn't Korea have Tin Mines, or was that Vietnam?

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 10:04 AM

Mickey:

I think Bush's "aims" (too generous a word, in my opinion) are purely self-serving.

I think Robin's cynicism about other accomplishments is cheap and easy.

This is the sort of worldliness that is not worth having, in my opinion, the sort of jaded intelligence that does not do.

I am far more concerned with he people who did not starve than with some fanciful Age of Empires game-board worldview.

And the ground truth is that those things cost a lot of American sweat, blood, tears and lives. And I will not see them trivialized and just nod sagely about it.

As for Bush's cheap imitation in the desert, I spit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 10:36 AM

Well, Amos, I've got US relatives. My father was in the RAAF, and his wife sister (me mum) married a really nice Yank, who eventually went back after the war, taking her with him. But most aussies are a bit cynical about the US...

There are still bits of "tank roads" around the state of Qld. Concrete - aleegedly to the tanks wouldn't bog in the snow - in sunny tropical Qld - advertising tourist slogan "sunny one day - perfect the next"...

neither the US (nor australia) would do anything about East Timor in the 1970's - and who was indonesia buying their weapons from - the US! So as to just what the real motives in the Berlin airlift were, who knows - I don't!

My cynicism may be cheap, but it's not easy!

Australian journalists were killed in the E Timor invasion.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 10:40 AM

On a lighter note

The CNNN show on ABC (oz) had a running theme on Bush visiting OZ last night

Things like the PrezbedMobile, which allowed him to be taken off the plane and driven to his hotel while still asleep...

They had a greeting sign for "W" - take both hands and make the English rude V sign, placing so they touch - you get a "W"

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:22 AM

Perhaps it was my naivete, but I always had pride in regard to our nation's Berlin Airlift, Marshall Plan, rebuilding of Japan and all the countless good we have done to help other peoples. I'm not going to discount those acts as a means of self enrichment for Big business. However, for the last 25 or so years, motives have changed or become more blatant. Almost Every action taken by our government is based on lining the pockets of politicos & corporate CEOS, and Not a damn thought of the cost in lives & money. The taxpayers are being squeezed dry - with no hope in sight. It is a bloody disgrace that we have American children homeless & hungry. While CEOS retire with 130 million pay offs.

IMO the Bushes have been egregiously guilty of acts of deception, greed, war mongering & any other bad adjective you care to add. We will be paying for this for years to come - financially & in the court of public opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:57 AM

It is just possible, as well, that we have all grown up over the last 25 years, and have seen the thin, desperate skin-of-your-teeth grip by which adults hold on to reality. Quite unnerving compared to a child's easy trust, eh? Thinking back on American perversions like McCarthy, the military actions in the Phillipines, the Spanish American war, and so many others, it is possible we have always been degraded self-serving fools taken en masse. However, I am not prepared for that stage of spiritual entropy just yet. Sorry!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:05 PM

PS: I'm witchoo, Mickey!

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 10:39 PM

I love Bush as I love influenza, sinus headaches, and ecoli. BUT, it might be worth mentioning that the Detroit Muslims did some serious partying when Saddam Hussein was overthrown

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 09:43 AM

I felt glad he'd been overthrown as well, but the context was very hard to take.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 12:41 PM

Perfectly stated, Amos. I think that's how most liberals feel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 12:58 PM

mabe we americans should just start looking the other way when others are inn need?
I find it ofence that when we move to help others it always has a twist inn the worlds eyes and the same people that shake there fist at us are the same ones that would love to have our way of life.
no matter what your belief we suport them so long as thay dont infringe on others rights to there belief.
if it wernt bush it would have been some one els and you have to ask whats the worst that could have happend.
god bless america and god give freedom to thoase that dont have it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 06:44 PM

Joe MaCarthy, the American Japanese Interment Camps, the Viet Nam police action are all replaying at your nearest theater under the title of "DEJA VU". The matinee is the cheapest ticket & the popcorn is free. The original cast has been dumped & changed. Apologies have been offered for the poor performance of the major players & have been replaced by the new & younger bunch. There's now a completely new stage along with a whole new cast of characters. The backing is still coming from the same entities & the PR is still spun from the same spinning wheel. The only difference between then & now is the audience. The last time they played this it was a short lived hit & then the whole production fell through the stage's trap door. We're all getting to see a sneak peek at the previews & paying quite dearly for the honor of having the front row seats. I don't think I want to see this new version of an old story & invest any time in helping it to get air time. Quite frankly I think this present company should be sued & jailed by those that have already viewed any part of 1st act & repayment is due & this film should be banned never again to be played by any goverenment. I'm waiting in horror for the next production to be aired. The critics are claiming this as the worst they've covered in the past 50 yrs.


Barry who never liked a good fiction flick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 10:31 PM

The Marshall Plan was as pragmatic as it was altruistic. The alternative, letting the defeated countries struggle to rebuild on their own, was what started WWII in Europe in the first place. I don't feel qualified to make claims about which was foremost on the minds of the Truman administration, but I'm certain that the practicalities were given some thought. As far as intervention in Korea and Vietnam is concerned, the primary aim of the U.S. was to prevent the spread of Communism, not to aid the populace. We sponsored as many rebels as the Soviets did, and with no more consideration of their moral standing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 01:24 AM

the primary aim of the U.S. was to prevent the spread of Communism, not to aid the populace.

Fer crysakes, why do you think we wanted to stop the spread of communism, FL?? A bloody hobby??

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 01:33 AM

The reason to stop the spread of communism was just plain good capitalistic business sense - remember that communism just after WWII was thought to seriously be about "taking from the rich to give to the poor"... not just another type of political power grab...

When I was a litle kid, I believed that communists were evil...

I've grown up. Now I belive that they were no more eveil than "the good guys" - it's just that they weren't us... or U.S. :-)

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 02:24 AM

Per the thread title, more and more, it looks as though the shrub's PR is not working. Yippee!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 03:01 AM

Amos-We wanted to stop it because it posed a threat to our economic and political sovereignty, and our control over places outside our borders. Communism was a rival because of the power it wielded, not the ideological differences.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 09:49 AM

FL:

I guess we just disagree on that one, sorry to say. I wasn't talking about ideological differences so much as political ones and their concomitant impact on individual lives. The battle against organized Communism was a major concern of my parents generation, and in my experience the human part of the equation was definitely a major part of the motivation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 11:19 PM

An important addition which i am taking the liberty of pasting so it doesn't get lost:

...
The Sins of September 11
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 13 October 2003

I am beginning to despise reading. I have lost count of the number of
times I have read some passage in a politically-oriented book, and then been
uncontrollably motivated to hurl said book against a wall or across the room
in fury. My library looks like someone took a weed-whacker to it; all the
dust-jackets have taken a fearsome beating.

The book currently on my desk has begun to retain a damaged appearance.
Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" is a meticulously researched and
foot-noted tour de force through the last ten years of the brainless
savagery of American politics. The retelling of the contrived scandals
clarioned by a media establishment which abandoned any pretense of
journalistic integrity, pushed by a cabal of House members and right-wing
activists whose worshipped altar was the desire for raw power, and the sad
and sorry tale of the impeachment itself, is a difficult but necessary
review of a truly pathetic time in our history. Blumenthal manages to bring
his readers back to that tar pit, and keep them enthralled, with an
excellent and deft literary touch.

Since I have read most of the other books on the scandal-gasm and
impeachment, there was not much through the middle of this book that brought
me up short, though Blumenthal does present interviews and perspectives of
players on both sides of that aisle which are not present in the other
histories (It was amusing to read Congressional impeachment warrior James
Rogan speak of being "On the wrong side of history" regarding the trial in
the Senate). No, the book began to take its obligatory pounding when I
reached page 656, and the second part of the chapter entitled "The
Twenty-First Century."

The astounding level of blunt ignorance within the American populace about
the events surrounding the attacks of September 11 cannot be easily
quantified. In a nation with thousands of newspapers, thousands of radio
stations, and a ceaseless data stream from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC,
CBS and PBS, some 70% of the population believed as late as a month ago that
Saddam Hussein was centrally involved in and personally responsible for the
attacks which destroyed the Towers and struck the Pentagon. Beyond that,
what most people know about the single most important event in American
history does not go much beyond "evildoers" who "hate our freedom."

That is, simply, incredible. It is also not an accident. This ignorance
has a great deal to do with the stunning mediocrity of the television news
media, that empty well where most Americans go to become informed. This
ignorance also, and far more importantly, has a great deal to do with the
Clinton-era actions of a large number of conservatives, many of whom are in
positions of power today, many of whom are now making careers out of
September 11.

The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the
Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his
tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda,
and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped.
Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely,
and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the
journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating
and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were
unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of
dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the
intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of
critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes
and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a
reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms
and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National
Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess
looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared
a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them
across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every
important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996,
Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of
international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within
the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring
Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be
compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His
replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist
Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic
setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the
world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of
security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American
people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public
warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret
actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which
was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report
rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his
terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media
and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually
broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that
everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide
condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and
certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory,
despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military
Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory
lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror"
quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack
as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of
the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority
in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al
Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of
the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was
withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse
Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda
network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with
foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its
money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the
Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it
"totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most
devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in
Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their
own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty
nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal
was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to
destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled
"Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors
Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center
for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed.
The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul
O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and
the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article
stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in
years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was
short-circuted."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being
inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his
attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing
Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he
was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight
years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including
anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards
thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television
media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious
leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a
swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not
Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11
lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact,
stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this
came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing
of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national
airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in
Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans
at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged
from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the
Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium
plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000,
Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be
the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled,
can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the
international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11,
and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across
the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were
brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the
pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been
avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in
hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the
months before September by the security services of several countries,
including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet
delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August
8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his
departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took
place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most
formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single
fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William
Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about
the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding
the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and
was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that
September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the
American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the
feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of
power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in
place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the
paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other
than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American
people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their
Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an
institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting
President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New
York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan
ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings,
instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's
National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably
would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never
forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the
annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the
country today.

These are the sins of September 11. Thank you, Sidney. I'm sorry I broke
your book.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New
York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On
Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence,"
available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism,"
available in August from Context Books.

-------
© : t r u t h o u t 2003

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 11:23 PM

Good catch, Amos. Too late now, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Mark Clark
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 12:14 AM

Thanks, Amos, for posting that review.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 12:52 AM

Well, it's not too late to use this as a possible source of rebuttal for future slanders; does anyone dount there will be any?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Beardy
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 06:06 AM

Referring to the original post I must agree with pdc. The report by the panel says the US's image is plummeting across the Arab/Muslim world. Well I have to say that is not exactly revelatory! Anyone outside of the US knows how much resentment is felt by this sector.

"people throughout the world were ignorant of or misinformed about American policies." demonstrates to me part of the problem. Why when most Americans are ignorant of the Bush regimes policies is this deemed to be so damning especially when as pdc states we have a much better understanding of US policies than they perceive. If anything the panel is worried that the Arab/Muslim world DOES know exactly what the policy is.

One suggestion to improve the image of the US in the Middle East. Drop the support of the Israeli terrorist attacks on Palestine and ensure the UN carries out the resolutions passed regarding Israel & Palestine.


Stewart

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 07:26 AM

Hi Beardy

We got to do a little more, sorry, that's a lot more than that. When you're the bully & take everyone's lunch money & then spit & kick them when they're down & out, you got a llooonnnnggggg way 's to go before you can even stat to beg for foregiveness. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 07:46 AM

The classic rule for politicians and similar is, when in trouble, it's never because your policies are wrong, it's because your "presentation" is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 08:03 AM

Shame on anyone who bad mouths the Bush Presidency.

Who are you going to believe, Bush or your lieing eyes.

This is why we need a media outlet more pro active than FOX.
A Media network called INABAIS (its not as bad as it seems)
will set the world straight and expose those other investigative journalists as traitors to democracy. It will be family oriented, patriotic and God fearing. The kids call in show, where kids are encouraged to inform on their parents for what they say and do, is sure to be a hit.

As a plan to clean house of traitors and lunatics as well as re educating the world to the goodness and glory of the USA - the State Department, FCC and INABAIS will come under the same umbrella. The resulting agency will be named the Department of Truth. It will only be answerable to the $700 billion Homeland Security Agency. Should the new director of the Truth Dept. Rev. Billy Graham be called by the Lord the results of the internal election of a new Truth Czar will be announced by a white smoke/black smoke ceremony here in Soggy Bottom Washington DC.

Those who wish to deny the Truth Dept. will face a tribunal that will determine the extent of their crimes against the State.

Remember, if you behave, the Truth will set you free.

Subject: RE: BS: The Consequences of Bush PR
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 03 - 10:11 PM

If the US paid its debt to the UN, it could make people distrust it less. :-)

Robin