“Nixon’s Empire Strikes Back”
Author
Sidney Blumenthal
 |
|
Sidney Blumenthal was assistant and special advisor of former president Bill Clinton. He is the author of The Clinton Wars. He was an editorialist for the New Yorker, the Washington Post and the New Republic. Currently, he is an editorialist with the Guardian about matters related to US policies and correspondent in Washington for Salon.Com.
|
Source
The Guardian (United Kingdom)
Reference "Nixon’s empire strikes back ", by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian, June 9, 2005.
Summary The unveiling of the identity of “Deep Throat”, Mark Felt, former deputy director of the FBI, seems to confirm the version according to which the story of the Watergate case represents the victory of lone journalism and its mysterious source. In fact, the issue of knowing who was “Deep Throat” masked the real problem: what was “Deep Throat”. It certainly was a secret FBI operation against Nixon who threatened the bureaucratic positions of its leaders.
Nixon’s big plan consisted in concentrating executive powers in an imperial presidency, politicize bureaucracy and invoke national security as a flag to wage partisan warfare, organize purges, and build a large majority base. These political intentions were confirmed by William Safire in his memoirs and by Nixon himself in his. Today, the policy of George W. Bush goes even beyond what Nixon dreamed. The president places himself above the law, organizes a purge within the CIA, makes the Justice Department end with the separation between the Church and the State, suspends the scientific analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency and submits our diplomacy to the Pentagon.
It is not surprising that the three architects of this policy began their career during the Nixon administration ( Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney), as well as one of their collaborators ( Karl Rove). They silenced the Senate and the press and, what is worse, they turn the media into their accomplice, as it happened with the New York Times and the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
In the middle of all this, the unveiling of the identity of “Deep Throat” is only nostalgia.
“The American media is sick”
Author
Claude-Jean Bertrand
 |
|
Claude-Jean Bertrand is professor emeritus of the University of Paris II and professor of the French Media Institute. He is a media expert and has published about 20 works.
|
Source
Izvestia (Russia)
Reference « АМЕРИКАНСКИМ СМИ ТРЕБУЕТСЯ ЛЕЧЕНИЕ », by Claude-Jean Bertrand, Izvestia, June 1, 2005.
Summary If the media of a democratic country is sick, then it could not be said such country is healthy. The media crisis of the most powerful country in the world have been evident since 1995 when for 18 months the America media focused on the murder of a famous soccer player’s wife. After that, it focused on the Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton scandal. Since these media think they must guarantee a 25% profit, minimum, their energy is used to entertain the audience. After the September 11 attacks, their work has changed a little bit: not to collapse. The old watch dog tradition and informing the people is obsolete.
Let’s take the case of the Koran offense in Guantánamo which caused the dead of 15 persons in Afghanistan. This story reminded me of the Janet Cooke scandal, the Pulitzer Prize winner who wrote a report about an 8 years old drug addict who lived in a black neighborhood. Since the story was completely fabricated, her Pulitzer Prize was revoked and she was expelled from the Washington Post. Her story was very similar to the ghetto’s reality and it did not upset anybody. However, it became a symbol of “bad” journalistic practices.
Why am I recalling this story? Just because the journalists’ mistakes was internationally discussed whereas the responsibles for the true crimes have remained unpunished. Newsweek was criticized for triggering an anti-American environment. Who are the judges? Some politicians who unscrupulously lied to launch such beneficial war in Iraq that has already taken thousands of lives?
The latest American media scandal has to do with two Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids where pictures of Saddam Hussein wearing underwear were published. Why should we be worried about the tyrant’s feelings? That is not the most important thing. The London’s Sun and the New York Post are not newspapers but recreational publications that sometimes are used as propaganda tools. Ethic means nothing to them.
In a democracy, the main function of the media is to reveal the government’s abuses of power. Due to the impact of the September 11, 2001 events, blind patriotism and the conservatives’ influence, and to what is more important, the will to satisfy the shareholders’ expectations, the American media is no longer the Fourth power.
“The Right Path to Arab Democracy”
Authors
Madeleine K. Albright, Vin Weber
Source
Washington Post (United States)
Reference “The Right Path to Arab Democracy”, by Madeleine K. Albright and Vin Weber, Washington Post, June 8, 2005.
Summary The Bush administration is right to support democratization in the Arab world. The question is how to do it. If we push too hard, it could be thought we are imposing our will; if we fail to push hard enough, it could be thought we support freedom everywhere except in the Arab world. A balance must be found.
During these last months, we have co-chaired the Council on Foreign Relations commission called “In support of Arab Democracy: Why and How”. We concluded that instead of revolution, evolution had to be encouraged. A country-by country approach is required, not a global one. There is too much diversity in the Arab world and we can not count on a single solution. Arab leaders must be encouraged to make reforms and denounced when such reforms are not implemented.
Non violent democratic groups must be supported, Muslims should not be excluded from the process and minorities must feel we trust in them. The expansion of independent media outlets in the Arab world which may qualify the United States’ bad image must be promoted. Our diplomacy must insist on democratic reform. The countries which implement reforms must be rewarded with economic assistances.
“The collapse of the American economy is unavoidable”
Author
Immanuel Wallerstein
 |
|
Professor of history and political scientist, Immanuel Wallerstein chairs the the Fernand Braudel Center of Binghamton University (state of New York). He also teaches at the Ecole des huate études en sciences sociales (EHESS) in Paris. He was president of the International Sociological Association (ISA) from 1994 to 1998 and he is associate researcher of Yale University. He began his career as an expert in African post-colonial matters and then distinguished himself as historian and a theorist of the capitalist global macroeconomic. Thanks to his association with the “anti-systemic” movements he became the éminence grise of the anti-globalization movements along with Pierre Bourdieu and Noam Chomsky.
|
Source
Strana.ru (Russia)
Reference « Коллапс американской экономики неизбежен », by Immanuel Wallerstein, Strana.ru, June 1, 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary The threat of the former Soviet Union was Washington’s successful argument to get the support of the western countries and the Third World. Thus, America’s vassals felt free to act independently, especially the European and East Asia allies. The so-called war against terror is, undoubtedly, Washington’s new excuse to convince the remaining countries to follow its plans.
The monthly rise and fall of economic indicators are not important. If we analyze the fundamental ones we see a huge governmental debt and deficit in the balance of payment. Where the money is coming from to pay all these debts is unknown. The deficit in the balance of payment is momentarily overcome thanks to the investments coming from Japan, China and South Korea but this situation can not be supported. The Bush administration refuses to raise taxes and a devaluation of dollars would mean the suspension of payments.
The core of the present problem is that the United States has contracted such a debt with he world consumption than when a fall take place it will affect the whole world. We don’t mean we’d be glad with the collapse of the American economy but this is a certain fact. The problem is to define which countries and regions will be the most affected one.
I think that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States no longer has human and financial resources or energy to attack other objectives. Some members of the government favor such an action but the military and the few allies they still count on are not willing to support them.
I think the support the United States gave to the “velvet revolutions” in the countries of the former Soviet Union was aimed at weakening the European community through the quick incorporation of new countries that would create economic difficulties.
In my opinion, the world order and the likely geopolitical alliances in the next 20 years will first be those in the Asian region with China, Japan, Korea and other countries of the area. Then, we’ll have the uncivilized conglomerates: The United States, China and Japan against Europe, Russia and probably India. For the United Kingdom, the choice will be difficult. The North-North, East-West and North-South opposition models act simultaneously.
It is not my job to give geopolitical advises to the Russian government. The main goal of the country is to strengthen its position in the world system and domestically. It must select its allies in different areas. I think the Russian foreign policy has started to succeed.
“Withdraw from Iraq”
Authors
George S. McGovern, Jim McGovern
 |
|
George S. McGovern, former democratic senator of North Dakota, was 1972 presidential candidate along with Richard Nixon.
|
 |
|
Former assistant to George McGovern (no relation), Jim McGovern is a democratic congressman of Massachusetts since 1996. He has distinguished himself for his position against the embargo against Cuba, a country he has visited several times.
|
Source
The Boston Globe (United States)
Reference “Withdraw from Iraq”, by George McGovern and Jim McGovern, Boston Globe, June 6, 2005.
Summary We opposed the war in Iraq and when it began we hoped our analysis were wrong. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The United States must withdraw its troops from this quagmire we are in due to the lies said.
It is a shame that neither the White House nor the Congress say anything about the time our forces will stay in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz has spoken of at least ten years and even some congressmen opposed to the war think we must stay in that country. We disagree. Our presence feeds violence as in Viet Nam.
Even after the elections, we still don’t know which groups are willing to work together, though there is one thing for sure: right now, Washington controls nothing in that country. We must immediately withdraw 30 000 men and keep doing it in accordance with the formation of new Iraqi troops. We should work with the United Nations to see how we can best disengage. There is no guarantee our withdrawal will improve the situation but the truth is our presence prevents the end of violence.
After two years in Iraq, we have lost 1 600 men and increased the deficit dramatically. The status quo is not acceptable.
"The ‘I’ Word"
Authors
Ralph Nader, Kevin Zeese
 |
|
US consumers’ rights advocate, Ralph Nader was an independent candidate in the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections. He was the only candidate who called into question the official version of the September 11 attacks and the ties between Israel and the United States. He is the author of The Good Fight: Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap.
|
Source
The Boston Globe (United States)
Reference " The ’I’ Word ," by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese, Boston Globe, May 31, 2005.
Summary The removal from office of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be the basic theme of dominant political discourse. The report of a meeting held between George W. Bush and Tony Blair in the summer of 2002 demonstrates that Bush’s government falsified intelligence service reports to justify the invasion of Iraq. Bill Clinton was subjected to an impeachment process for perjury relating to his sexual relationships. A war of occupation is a much more serious action.
When the war was unleashed, reports from the International Organism of the Energy Atomic (OIEA) and earlier intelligence service reports demonstrated that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Even Colin Powell stated that to be the case in February 2001. George Tenet begged Bush’s government to not use CIA reports to justify the war. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DAY) also communicated to Bush that evidence of the presence of weapons of mass destruction did not exist in Iraq. All intelligence services agreed, but this didn’t prevent the president from affirming in September 2002 that Iraq could launch an attack using chemical or biological arms within a period of 45 minutes.
For that we should begin to seek his removal from office.
"The Iraqi Revolt Differs From Previous Ones"
Author
Steven Metz
Sources
Daily Star (Lebanon), Taipei Times (Taiwan), Korea Herald (South Korea)
Reference " The Iraq Revolt Differs From Past Ones ," by Steven Metz, Korea Herald, June 6, 2005.
" Insurgency Can’t Win, But It Can Stymie Democratic Development ," Taipei Times, June 6, 2005.
" Understanding Iraq’s Armed Theater ," Daily Star, June 8, 2005.
Summary As Sun Tzu taught us, victory in battle demands that one know their opponent. This is the knowledge which we lack about Iraq to confront the insurrection.
In some respects, the Iraqi insurrection is identical to those that preceded it in the twentieth century. As all insurrections, its failure or success will depend on people’s capacity to mobilize the population’s support. And there’s an even more important element - history reminds us that once an insurrection has reached critical proportions, decades can lapse before it can be quelled. Also, as has happened in other insurrections, the insurrectionists use horrible methods to intimidate the population and cast blame on the government.
However, this rebellion is different, since there is a mixture of religious passion with political radicalism. Contrary to what happened in the twentieth century, the insurrectionists don’t have the support of one power-but, rather-are part of a world insurrection whose members are united by Islam and form part of Al Qaeda. They are able to hit outside of their territory. In fact, this revolt gathers together three different groups: Jihad members, old supporters of the Baath Party and those in support of the Sunni control. These three groups are not directed by a central control. The three have a nihilistic objective: the destruction of Iraqi’s new government.
The good news is that an insurrection of this type is not able to "to triumph;" the bad news is that it is difficult to defeat a disorganized network. Their defeat or victory will depend on three factors: the Iraqi government’s will, the Shiite population’s reaction and the maintenance or not of the financial support on the part of Syria and Saudia Arabia.
|
