President Bush's Resume

[Tireur]

And now comes the news that Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, is vice-chairman of URS Groups, a company that just won a government contract to reconstruct Iraq's transportation, communications, security, education and health infrastructure.

When asked if his connections helped win the contract, Feinstein's flack said, "No."

I'm positive Maeve Mari will be outraged over this......

[Soldier]

One company is doing all of that?

That's pretty impressive.

[Tireur]

Actually they got the contract to "manage" said reconstruction.

[Maeve_Mari]

I'm positive Maeve Mari will be outraged over this......

I am outraged!


Actually I didn't know anything about it, but just went out and did some cursory reading to see what you were talking about. And yes, this has on its surface some of the same kind of concerns that has been expressed about Cheney's position of being between government policy and business strategy and award. And yes, it causes me more than a moment of concern that our elected officials (including our democratic officals), business leaders, and investment advisors all have access to and a market in the tangled web of influence, policy, large sums of money, and potential mis-conduct.

I'll concede that it is difficult to determine the connection between and just how influenced these awards are as well as to determine what the intent of the individuals involved were at the time of a deal.

Richard Blum, Feinstein's husband, owns (is a partner in?) an investment company that purchased the URS company (from a firm that included advisors such as President Bush Sr. Secy of State Baker and even British Prime Minister John Major for $500 million) in a deal that provides for him 25% or so ownership. I don't know what his motivation was for going forward with this deal. There must have been some consideration of how it would look because the Feinsteins had it examined by the Ethics Committee. And the U.S. Senate doesn't vote on or review contract awards such as this one, it does leave open the possibility and certainly the impression of potential influence. The association network among America's wealthy and powerful today is fifty-fold what it ever was before. Gone are the days of railroad barons. Today's rich own a diverse portfolio that crosses many industries which is great for hedging your losses, difficult to examine, and prime targets for criticism.

And admittedly far too complex for argument or discussion in chat boards!

And so I can be outraged. I would like to see our leaders, all of them, business, government, religious walking-the-talk of integrity, philanthropy, and conservation of democratic values. I don't think either side of our preferences for POTUS gets off with a thoughtless charge or claim anymore!

[pkt]

Here's one from today's Globe & Mail:
the accompany fotos has a woman holding up a hand-made sign reading
"Bush doesn't get it"

pk

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ent/TopStories

You can't force democracy

George Bush has a plan to reshape the Arab world, says MICHAEL BELL. Typically, he didn't talk to the Arabs

By MICHAEL BELL
Friday, March 12, 2004 - Page A17

Michael Bell is a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Egypt. He is senior scholar on diplomacy at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto.

The Bush administration has written a proposal, labelled the Greater Middle East Initiative, for consideration at the next G8 summit, to be held in June at Sea Island, Ga. President George W. Bush, as host, intends to co-opt his partners, including Canada, into a Marshall-type plan to reform the Arab world in governance, education, the economy, technology, development and the role of women. Up front and centre is promoting democracy.

This is all good stuff. It reflects many of the Canadian values we have worked hard to export worldwide. It reflects the thinking of members of the Arab intelligentsia, which more and more see the need for radical reform if their region is to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Americans initiated preliminary discussions with their G8 partners last month to pave the way for commitments at Sea Island. The administration neglected, however, one basic element in any successful initiative: discussions with those who would be directly affected, namely the Arabs.

So when a draft of the U.S. proposal was leaked two weeks ago to the London-based, Arabic-language newspaper Al Hayat, the plan hit the Arab world like a thunderbolt. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the idea "delusional." The Jordanians threatened to make rejection of the Bush proposal the centrepiece of the forthcoming Arab League summit, to be held in Tunis at the end of the month.

Oddly, the Bush administration is surprised and dismayed. It finds it difficult to understand how such well-intentioned proposals could generate such a backlash. The Arabs, or at least their governments, just don't seem to know what's good for them, the thinking goes.

Unilateralism is the byword for a U.S. administration that seems congenitally unable to consult effectively or work within a multilateral framework. No one in Washington involved in the drafting of the Greater Middle East Initiative, or in developing strategies for its implementation, has any Mideast expertise. Sadly, the considerable experience in the State Department is no longer tapped when it comes to this region. The neo-cons who make decisions at the National Security Council and elsewhere can't help trying to dictate.

This belligerent insensitivity means many good ideas may not see the light of day. No Arab regimes meet the standards of openness, tolerance and pluralism acceptable to Canadians or Americans, and we should encourage them to embrace reform for their own well-being. There are ways of doing so, however, which avoid challenge and humiliation -- tactics that by definition are self-defeating.

Any proposals to reform the Middle East must take account of Arab realities. While many regimes in the region are eager to embrace new ideas, they must be involved in the process from the very beginning. To be successful, outsiders must be seen to be responding to requests made by the Arabs on their own behalf. In fact, the need to create a new Middle East framework has been stressed recently by the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudis.

The word democracy has to be avoided in public discourse because it's seen as a red flag. The Arab world does not want to be Americanized. Arab regimes see President Bush pushing them to put in place Western forms of governance that will lead to their own demise. They can't realistically be expected to buy in, and it's hard to see how the concept can be imposed from outside. Nor can the Arabs be expected to accept the neo-con credo that only once the region embraces democracy can the Palestinian question be addressed. To them, such a view allows Israel a free hand, and it sanctions the Americans' neglect of the peace process.

When I was in Washington early this week, making the rounds in congressional offices and think tanks, one analyst suggested to me that even had the Bush administration's drafters recognized the risks of publicly asserting the democratic imperative to the Arabs, they would not have been deterred. According to this logic, the democratic concept had to be at the very centre of the Greater Middle East Initiative because that proposal's primary audience was not the Arabs at all, but voting America. My interlocutor suggested that Mr. Bush needs something unashamedly positive on the foreign-policy front as the presidential election campaign begins. He needs something that would serve to reassure doubters that the transformation of the Middle East is under way and that, with the ascendancy of democracy, terrorism will be defeated.

How should Canada respond? It's a very tough slog, but with our multiculturalism and acceptance of other people's values, we have unique tools to forward the process, particularly at a grassroots level. Our development-assistance programs, despite too much red tape, really do focus on the development of civil society, pluralism and empowerment of the individual.

When I was in Egypt, we resisted suggestions for any new activities that did not promote the concept of individual freedom. Our successes involved small enterprise loans for women and school curriculums for youth designed to give them a sense of their rights and importance as persons.

Right now the Canadian government, after much discussion with Arab partners, is heavily involved in an initiative to create a regional security forum in the Middle East, based not only on the need for change and innovation but also on inclusion, co-operation and respect for culture and tradition. The Europeans are doing similar things. But the going there has recently become much rougher because Arab attention is now focused on Washington's thinking, and suspicion of Western motives abounds.

If we want to be effective, we have to accept that the Middle East is rife with complexities, and there will be few shortcuts. If our goal is the peaceful transformation of societies, it can only be achieved with patience and an understanding of people's basic sensibilities. Such a process doesn't often make headlines but, on the other hand, it may just work.

- 30 -

[Tireur]

I am outraged!

Well, I owe you an apology for thinking you only pointed fingers at one side.

Like I said, I'm a classic middle of the roader. I don't go for a party or a party line. Been for Dems and been for Repubs. Hate having to do the "lesser of two evils" thing.......

[telkanuru]

No to lesser of the two evils is right. That is why I shall vote for Cthulhu for president in 2004! For more information on this greater of two evils candidate, see www.cthulhu.org! I know my candidate!

For my own clarification, does anyone disagree with the idea that Bush the Lesser should be hung out to dry for his actions, regardless of the actions of previous (Clintion) presidents?

Oh, and on that, I should note that in the Presidential Range in NH, there's a Mt. Clinton, but no Mt. Bush, Jr or Sr... Perhaps congress's next action will be to change that to Mt. Regan Nat'l airport.

[Tireur]

No to lesser of the two evils is right. That is why I shall vote for Cthulhu for president in 2004! For more information on this greater of two evils candidate, see www.cthulhu.org! I know my candidate!

For my own clarification, does anyone disagree with the idea that Bush the Lesser should be hung out to dry for his actions, regardless of the actions of previous (Clintion) presidents?

Oh, and on that, I should note that in the Presidential Range in NH, there's a Mt. Clinton, but no Mt. Bush, Jr or Sr... Perhaps congress's next action will be to change that to Mt. Regan Nat'l airport.

Here you go again..... Mount Clinton was not named for Bil Clinton, but for Governor DeWitt Clinton.

Are you even old enuf to vote? You're the one who said Dubya was out to tick you off personally 'cause you organized that Elementary Students for Gore rally, right?

[telkanuru]

Oh, take a joke. Please? It'll do you good. And yes, I can vote. I will vote. And the vote will be for Cthulhu. So there

[Aestro]

Well, I owe you an apology for thinking you only pointed fingers at one side.

Like I said, I'm a classic middle of the roader. I don't go for a party or a party line. Been for Dems and been for Repubs. Hate having to do the "lesser of two evils" thing.......

I was the same way for many years, but I think the 2000 election really created a big rift, and then 9/11 and the aftermath further destroyed the gray/grey area. To be honest, I have a pretty strong dislike for Kerry as well, and wasn't crazy about Edwards. I am a liberal socially, but I think it's a shame that has to mean I am a Democrat or nothing at all. I agree more with the Democrats on most issues, so I call myself a Democrat, but there's a lot in the Democratic party I'm not happy about, including underhanded politics and wallet-stuffing. It's a shame 3rd-party isn't really a viable option either.

[Tireur]

Oh, take a joke. Please? It'll do you good. And yes, I can vote. I will vote. And the vote will be for Cthulhu. So there

Gosh, I guess the humor was just to subtle and sophisticated for me and went right over my head........

[Tireur]

I was the same way for many years, but I think the 2000 election really created a big rift, and then 9/11 and the aftermath further destroyed the gray/grey area. To be honest, I have a pretty strong dislike for Kerry as well, and wasn't crazy about Edwards. I am a liberal socially, but I think it's a shame that has to mean I am a Democrat or nothing at all. I agree more with the Democrats on most issues, so I call myself a Democrat, but there's a lot in the Democratic party I'm not happy about, including underhanded politics and wallet-stuffing. It's a shame 3rd-party isn't really a viable option either.

That's me. I guess the difference is the rift in 2000. I saw Gore as screaming, scratching and clawing, trying to hang on to something he didn't win. (The liberal moutpieces still claim Bush stole it, ignoring the eight independant recounts.) With the, all Dem, FL Supreme Court doing it's part for him (generally forgotten by those who claim the same for Bush and the US Supremes)

Kerry really scares me, the way Bush scares liberals. But I don't really like any of them.

[Inquartata]

How long did WE get give the weapons inspectors to finish their job?

About ten years?

Had they actually found anything other than the remnants of what we knew they had ten years ago?

Given the obstructionism of the regime, could they really have been expected to do so?

There are still dozens of enormous ammo dumps in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of artillery shells and what not. The only way to tell what's in them would be to cut each open, as the Iraqis did not mark them as to contents---for all we know there could be a few lots containing CB agents hidden in those haystacks, the lot numbers known only to Guard or Fedayeen officers ow dead or in hiding. How many inspectors would it have taken how many years to ferret these out by opening every single shell?

Well, we ousted the Hussein regime, if that's what you mean. The fighting has not yet ceased, and it is fairly obvious that there were no plans in regards to the future of Iraq once Hussein was removed.

"Obvious" is a personal observation, of course. Exactly and equally offset by a diametrically opposed one.

Wars are not tidy things for which every eventuality can be planned to a nicety. Examine any such conflict in world history and you could probably come to the same conclusion. Did we, for instance, have a long-term pacification plan for Germany after WWII? And if we did, how well did it come off? Think it envisioned the actions of the Soviets? Was there a clause about the Berlin crisis? This is the trouble with looking at predictive plans after the fact with hindsight...and an axe to grind. I'm sure one could conclude that it was similarly "obvious" that there were no plans for administering Japan before the war in the Pacific was winding down, too. Etc.

I'm sure if Taco Bell gave you several million dollars you wouldn't be opposed to a Burrito Wednesday. It is little coincidence that the Ministry of Oil was under heavy protection while the rest of Baghdad was being looted during the initial occupation.

Yes, it's all one big conspiracy.

You know the problem with all such theories? "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead". Even the CIA can't seem to keep its operations quiet...but of course Halliburton executives....

I refer to the cause for initial talks about the war in Iraq - September 11th. President Bush related Iraq to the terrorists on numerous occassions, and riding on "rally round the flagpole" situation 9/11 created, he got his war against Iraq.

Ah, ok, I thought we were talking about war casualties.

The thing is, though, that there WERE connections between Iraq and terrorists. Not al Qaeda specifically, perhaps, but Hezbollah and Hamas certainly, and let's not forget good old Abu Nidal living in Baghdad. Terrorist groups cooperate, logistically and with information and expertise if not operatonally ( though often that way, too ). So I see nothing wrong with drawing a connection between states which support terrorism and the terrorists themselves.

Anyway, my main fault with the war is that we were not initially told that we were simply going in to remove a brutal dictator. Bush tried to make the war into more than it was so as to seem less imperialist, and it backfired in a very bad way.

As I see it, all of the other justifications and reasons offered were ot so much for domestic consumption but rather a vain attempt to get the Allies on board. Removing Hussein obviously wasn't going to do it for them, so they kept citing other justifications---even though in hindsight NOTHING was going to get certain other nations involved. Eventually that was recognized and the decision was made that something had to be done anyway...

Of course, that's as much an unsubstantiated personal opinion as is the "imperialist liar" one.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Well, I owe you an apology for thinking you only pointed fingers at one side.

Like I said, I'm a classic middle of the roader. I don't go for a party or a party line. Been for Dems and been for Repubs. Hate having to do the "lesser of two evils" thing.......

"Middle of roader"... says a lot about your environment. Willing to bet the farm that it is not correct in any place outside USA, though. Care to try out this? http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Can´t figure out which present-day national-level dem. that seems to match with you, but that may be my lack of detailed knowledge.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Gosh, I guess the humor was just to subtle and sophisticated for me and went right over my head........

Perfectly correct, no need for smileys.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Maeve_Mari]

Care to try out this? http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Great analysis tool. I came out much softer than I expected, though that shouldn't be any surprise to Tireur!!!

[Tireur]

Great analysis tool. I came out much softer than I expected, though that shouldn't be any surprise to Tireur!!!

I'd call it more of a toy than a tool. I guess it proved I was an authoritarian leftist, although I was much closer to Gandhi than Stalin on the scale........

[telkanuru]

Didn't you know? Web quizzes can see your very soul. Sort of like that new camera the gov't is developing... :shiftyeyes:

[Maeve_Mari]

I'd call it more of a toy than a tool. I guess it proved I was an authoritarian leftist, although I was much closer to Gandhi than Stalin on the scale........

I was Gandhi !! lol

And what new camera? You don't really think it's new, do you?
do doo do doo we see you do doo do doo

[Soldier]

Well, it is new. The old ones could only see into your head; this one actually gets into your soul.

Oh, crap, shouldn't have let that slip...