|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation : Political-Economy : Regime |
|
The REAL State of the Union: How the Administration and Congress' Irresponsible Choices Failed Low-Income Families and Workers in 2003 |
Current rating: 0 |
by Coalition on Human Needs
(No verified email address) |
20 Jan 2004
|
|
When the President addresses the nation about the State of the Union, will he see a nation in which millions of out-of-work and low-earning Americans are struggling? He is likely to offer a selective picture - one that points to the welcome third quarter economic growth but fails to emphasize the continuing and painful joblessness of this "recovery." Listeners should know the whole story. |
|
A new report by the Coalition on Human Needs documents a state of the union characterized by almost unprecedented long-term unemployment, nearly 35 million poor Americans, 43 million people without health insurance, and inadequate child care, job training, affordable housing, and other supports to enable parents to get and keep jobs.
The report also describes the real state of the union as one of irresponsible choices. In 2003 alone, the tax cuts passed during the Bush Administration cost $260 billion in lost revenue. Last year, millionaires received an average of $113,000 in new tax cuts, while households earning between $10,000 and $20,000 received an average of $307.
Deborah Weinstein, Executive Director of the Coalition on Human Needs, asks in the report, "What have low-income families received for these foregone revenues? Precious few jobs. Those billions in tax cuts have not been invested in improving education, expanding job training, protecting the unemployed, feeding our children, building affordable housing, or providing health coverage to the uninsured. The lowest income families are losing far more than they can buy with their $307 tax cut. In our current jobless recovery, some remain jobless, while others are recovering nicely. Low-income working families are clearly not in the latter group, and they are the ones being left behind by the policies of this President."
The full report is on CHN's website at http://www.chn.org/pdf/realsotu.pdf . It details specific opportunities - ones that were missed in 2003 - to invest in education, job training, child care, jobless benefits, nutrition, health insurance, affordable housing, and other services. It also delineates how Congress and the President can begin to make responsible choices for the American people.
The Coalition on Human Needs' members include civil rights, religious, labor, and advocacy organizations concerned with the well being of low-income individuals, children, women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. |
See also:
http://www.chn.org
http://www.chn.org/pdf/realsotu.pdf
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
The State of the Union in 30 Seconds |
by MoveOn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
20 Jan 2004
|
A year ago, President Bush told the nation that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It wasn't true, of course, but it did serve as a critical piece of the spin campaign that led the country into war.
Tonight, in preparation for the upcoming election, the President is again getting ready to tell the nation something that simply isn't true. According to news reports, the President will declare victory in the fight to provide the nation's elderly and disabled with health care. He'll point to the Medicare bill that he and Congressional Republicans pushed through Congress. But there's one small problem: the Medicare bill won't help Medicare, and it won't help seniors. In fact, it's designed to do the program in.
That's why we've prepared a 30-second alternative version of tonight's speech which exposes how the nation's drug companies backed and bought this bill. We've asked one of the country's most respected polling firms to test the ad, and we know it makes an enormous impact on the people who see it. But we'll need your help to get it out there. If you can help us reach our $10 million goal, we'll put up a $1.7 million buy and make sure millions of Americans in swing states know the real deal.
You can watch the ad at:
https://www.moveonvoterfund.org/donate/sotu.html?id=2275-1039338-FXXLEku9m73TS3m3OG1BDA
As the ad opens, we see a series of photos from previous State of the Union addresses, cut quickly together to resemble a movie. We hear the voice of someone who sounds like George Bush. "My fellow Americans," he says, "My Medicare bill has real drug benefits…but not for you. For my contributors at the big drug companies. My bill actually forbids Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices...so you'll probably have to pay more for your prescriptions than you do now; and you won't be able to get cheaper prescriptions from Canada."
One thing that President Bush probably won't mention in his speech tonight is how the bill came to pass. In the House, the vote was extremely tight: even some Republicans knew they couldn't justify the bill to their home districts. So, House Leaders held the vote open for three hours in the dead of night while they twisted the arms of the last few hold-outs. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI), a retiring Congressman whose son will run for his seat, was one of them. Here's how the Associated Press reported the events that followed:
"On the House floor, [Rep.] Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, [Rep.] Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat."
Bribing House members on the House floor is, of course, a felony, and Rep. Smith has confirmed that this account is accurate. No special investigation has been launched. The bribers are still at large.
The story, in the end, is pretty simple: drug companies and insurance companies gave millions of dollars to push through legislation. The bill will greatly increase their profits while pulling the rug out from under our seniors. President Bush is trying to spin that huge sell-out as a benefit to the American people. And we won't let him.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 20th, 2003
P.S. We've added a few resources below that give more details on the Medicare sell-out and tonight's speech in general.
The Campaign for America's Future's Medicare Fact Sheet:
http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/ourfuture-medicare.html
Rep. Sherrod Brown's editorial on the Medicare arm-twisting:
http://www.moveon.org/r?481
Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle's State of the Union Pre-Buttal:
http://democrats.senate.gov/%7Edpc/releases/2004116B38.html
The Center for American Progress's "State of the Union Viewer's Guide":
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22520 |
|
George W Bush and the Real State of the Union |
by lndependent/UK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jan 2004
|
Today the President gives his annual address. As the election battle begins, how does his first term add up?
232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004
501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed
0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq
100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003
13: Number of meetings between Bush and Tony Blair since he became President
10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest
2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House
9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year
1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began
16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war
10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the conflict
$100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003
$13 billion: Amount other countries have committed towards rebuilding Iraq (much of it in loans) as of 24 October
36%: Increase in the number of desertions from the US army since 1999
92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable water a year ago
60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today
32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided
1983: The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs
45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the US
$127 billion: Amount of US budget surplus in the year that Bush became President in 2001
$374 billion: Amount of US budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003
1st: This year's deficit is on course to be the biggest in United States history
$1.58 billion: Average amount by which the US national debt increases each day
$23,920: Amount of each US citizen's share of the national debt as of 19 January 2004
1st: The record for the most bankruptcies filed in a single year (1.57 million) was set in 2002
10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33
1st: Rank of the US worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita
$113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history
$130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far
$200m: Amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign is expected to raise in 2004
$40m: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003
28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in US history (Record holder: Richard Nixon)
13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year
3: Number of children convicted of capital offences executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children
1st: As Governor of Texas, George Bush executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern US history
2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration
221,000: Number of jobs per month created since Bush's tax cuts took effect. He promised the measure would add 306,000
1,000: Number of new jobs created in the entire country in December. Analysts had expected a gain of 130,000
1st: This administration is on its way to becoming the first since 1929 (Herbert Hoover) to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office
9 million: Number of US workers unemployed in September 2003
80%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce now unemployed
55%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war
43.6 million: Number of Americans without health insurance in 2002
130: Number of countries (out of total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with an American military presence
40%: Percentage of the world's military spending for which the US is responsible
$10.9 million: Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet
88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001
$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year in taxes
44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy
700: Number of people from around the world the US has incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
1st: George W Bush became the first American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to US-held prisoners of war
+6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty
1951: Last year in which a quarterly rise in US military spending was greater than the one the previous spring
54%: Percentage of US citizens who believe Bush was legitimately elected to his post
1st: First president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by separate states and not at federal level
9: Number of members of Bush's defense policy board who also sit on the corporate board of, or advise, at least one defense contractor
35: Number of countries to which US has suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court
$300 million: Amount cut from the federal program that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes
$1 billion: Amount of new US military aid promised Israel in April 2003 to offset the "burdens" of the US war on Iraq
58 million: Number of acres of public lands Bush has opened to road building, logging and drilling
200: Number of public-health and environmental laws Bush has attempted to downgrade or weaken
29,000: Number of American troops - which is close to the total of a whole army division - to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to the Pentagon
90%: Percentage of American citizens who said they approved of the way George Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 26 September, 2001
53%: Percentage of American citizens who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 16 January, 2004
© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
http://news.independent.co.uk |
|
Addressing Bush's State of Disunion |
by James Carroll
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jan 2004
|
IN HIS STATE of the Union address tonight, President Bush will speak of the nightmare he has created in Iraq as if it is a dream come true. Yet the contrary facts of the American misadventure have begun to speak for themselves. When the awful story of the Iraq war is written, the two weeks just past may be recognized as a time when the deception and disarray of Bush's policy were made more clear than ever. These are events to which the president will not refer tonight, yet taken together, they reveal the true state of his disunion:
On Jan. 4, the tape of a belligerent voice claiming to be Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al Jazeera television. The next day the CIA confirmed that it was bin Laden, and that, made recently, the tape showed he is still alive.
On Jan. 8, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace rebutted major Bush claims on Iraq, concluding that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq WMD and ballistic missile programs."
On Jan. 11, on television, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirmed reports in Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty" that the Bush administration planned war against Iraq before 9/11, "from the very beginning."
On Jan. 12, a paper published at the Army War College described the war on terrorism as "strategically unfocused." The assessment from within the military itself blasted the Bush-led effort because it "promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."
On Jan. 13, the Bush administration reversed itself to announce that Canada could participate in contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Washington's punitive rejection of countries that had opposed the war was not working.
On Jan. 14, Human Rights Watch issued a report that held some US tactics in Iraq to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, including home demolitions that "did not meet the test of military necessity." The report accused the army of arresting and holding Iraqi civilians simply because they were relatives of fugitives.
On Jan. 14, it was reported that the captured Saddam Hussein was in possession of a letter he had written instructing his followers not to throw in with foreign fighters, further puncturing the myth that Hussein was in active alliance with Al Qaeda.
On Jan. 14, a secret study conducted by the US Army Command in Baghdad was published. It faulted the army's tactics in Iraq as needlessly confrontational, and it asserted -- against the claims of the Bush administration -- that "the capture of Saddam will have nominal effect within Iraqi borders."
On Jan. 15, responding to Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani, 30,000 Iraqis took to the streets to protest American plans for transition to Iraqi rule, making even more unlikely Washington's fantasy that Iraq will not join Iran as a Shi'ite dominated state. Will that put Iraq back on the axis of evil?
On Jan. 15, the Bush administration was reported to be considering opening Iraq reconstruction contracts to France, Germany, and Russia, as it had to Canada. Washington is scrambling.
By Jan. 19, yesterday, the Bush administration had reversed itself to press at the United Nations for urgent help with the transition to Iraqi self-government, the clearest sign yet that Washington's go-it-alone policy had failed.
In the days before the State of the Union address one year ago, the Bush administration denigrated UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, dismissing the inspections and containment strategy favored at the United Nations. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld mocked what he called "old Europe." Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to provide compelling evidence of Saddam Hussein's imminent threat. The State Department published an indictment of Saddam entitled "Apparatus of Lies."
In the State of the Union address itself, President Bush bragged that he had "liberated" Afghanistan -- a country which today, except for a small zone around Kabul, belongs to warlords. He boasted that "one by one terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice" -- thinking, perhaps, of the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, where American justice is mocked.
Bush detailed a long list of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iraq had obtained "uranium from Africa," and he referred to certain metal tubes to suggest a nuclear weapons program. He said that Saddam Hussein "aids and protects" Al Qaeda, and, projecting into the future, he linked the 9/11 hijackers with Saddam. He promised that Colin Powell would provide evidence of the link between Saddam and the terrorists.
The president set a rigorous standard last year, constructing an apparatus of lies it will be hard to match tonight. One bald falsehood not even he will dare repeat: "We seek peace," Bush said a year ago, "We strive for peace."
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company
http://www.boston.com/ |
|
Re: The REAL State of the Union: How the Administration and Congress' Irresponsible Choices Failed Low-Income Families and Workers in 2003 |
by Jim M
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jan 2004
|
Why should incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 receive any more than $307? They didn't pay in enough to warrant any more than $307? Millionaires (who by the way pay in several hundreds of thousands of dollars) should receive more money back from taxes, they paid more!!!
As for the jobless rate, that cannot be blamed on the White House. If it were a Democrat in office I would say the same thing. In Economics class you all learned that the economy goes in cycles. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. Clinton rode out the 'upswing' and now Bush has had to deal with the down swing. He has done a great job getting us through a very bad recession (coupled with terrorist attacks, and the whole Enron fiasco). When he is re-elected (which he will be) the Democrats will have a whole shit load of crow to eat explaining why the economy is doing so good (which actually it will be part of the natural cycle). Too often politicians claim to be champions of the economy because they were lucky to hit the growing economy. Too often they are called insensitive and out of touch when they are elected during a recesion (or just as one is starting as President Bush was).
If Gore were elected where do you think the economy would be right now? Exactly where it is today is where it would be. The only difference would be that we would be paying more taxes and the government would be telling us how they can spend our money better than we can.
As for Independent/UK, your numbers are interesting albiet they do not tell the whole story. If you would like I could itemize every fact you have presented and explain to you why they are significant. If you would presume to explain to the American people why your precious U.N. or your European Union sat on their collective asses and did nothing about the torture prisons, Hussein boy rape parties, mass executions, possession of illegal WMD intelligence, terrorist funding (offering rewards to Palestinian suicide bombers) and violation of just about every U.N. mandate, the American people will be glad to give you what you want. The answer is you cannot explain why some European countries did nothing about Husseins activities. The British people are blessed to have a leader like Tony Blair. Its unfortunate some of them don't realise that yet. |
|
An Annotated Critique of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address |
by Stephen Zunes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jan 2004
|
"As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure."
Though no one should question the commitment and bravery of American servicemen and women, their missions – invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counter-insurgency operations that kill civilians – has brought more fear than hope, delivered more violence than justice, and has created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure.
"We have faced serious challenges together and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."
This assumes that those who believe that the Bush Administration’s policies are illegal, immoral and counter-productive are living under illusions that deny the dangers from terrorists and despots. This rhetorical device ignores the many strategic analysts and ordinary Americans who have no pretense about the forces arrayed against the United States yet believe the country must choose better means to protect itself than continuing the policies of the Bush Administration.
"The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al Qaeda killers…. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda."
While life has improved markedly in the capital of Kabul, the vast majority of Afghanistan is under the grip of warlords, ethnic militias, opium magnates and overall lawlessness. While women and girls are now legally able to attend school and go out of their houses unaccompanied, many are now too afraid to do so because of the breakdown of law and order. Furthermore, the "aggressive raids" the United States is leading are unfortunately not just against "surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda," but often end up being against innocent villagers. Indeed, more Afghan civilians have been killed from U.S. bombing raids than American civilians were killed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States … and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq are free."
The United Nations did not demand an invasion of Iraq or an end of Saddam’s regime. It demanded that the Iraqi government destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and open up to intrusive inspections to confirm that it had done so. Iraq eventually came into compliance with these demands, allowing UN inspectors to return to conduct unimpeded inspections anywhere in the country in 2002 and apparently eliminating its WMDs and delivery systems some years earlier. An invasion was not necessary for Iraq to comply with the demands of the United Nations since it had already done so. While the people of Iraq are free from Saddam Hussein’s rule, they are not free. They are living under a foreign military occupation and the United States occupation authorities has thus far rejected popular demands by the Iraqis for direct elections to choose their own government.
"Having broken the Ba'athist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. …These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger… We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime."
While Ba'athists are apparently taking the dominant role leading the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation, increasing numbers of Iraqis fighting U.S. forces are not supporters of the former regime, but are non-Baathist nationalists who resent their country being controlled by a foreign army. If U.S. forces were simply battling remnants of the old regime and some foreign supporters, it would largely be a mopping up operation where attacks would be decreasing over time. Instead, the resistance has been growing. While those planting bombs in crowded civilian areas are undeniably thugs and terrorists, the vast majority of attacks are against uniformed foreign occupation forces which – while most unfortunate – are generally recognized as legitimate acts of resistance under international law.
"Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June."
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council are trying to set up a government through regional caucuses that they can control, rejecting popular demands for direct elections. Under this system and with U.S. occupation forces remaining in the country, it would be a stretch to consider the establishment of such a government "full Iraqi sovereignty." The United Nations has thus far been understandably reluctant to support the establishment of what many would see as a puppet regime.
"As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends, but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom."
By defining the U.S.-occupation as "democracy" and those who are fighting the occupation as "enemies of freedom who are trying to shake the will of our country," President Bush is trying to make Americans and others who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal appear to be unprincipled cowards.
"Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons… Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America."
This is misleading on several counts. First of all, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were well-developed, whereas Libya’s WMD efforts were in their infancy. Secondly, there was no direct diplomacy between the United States and Iraq in the twelve years prior to the invasion: there were sanctions, threats, and air strikes. Most importantly, the implication that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was what led Libya to give up its program flies in the face of logic: not only did Iraq give up its W MD programs through United Nations efforts prior to the U.S. invasion, but – despite dismantling its weapons and opening up to inspections – the United States invaded anyway.
"Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power…Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."
Last year, President Bush falsely claimed Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. At most, all he can claim now is that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat. With strict sanctions remaining in place against the importation of military equipment, dual use technologies and raw materials to Iraq that could be used for WMD development (which, unlike the economic sanctions, were strongly supported worldwide) it is hard to imagine how Saddam Hussein could have ever re-started his WMD programs.
"Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world."
Not only does it appear that Iraq was apparently in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the U.S. invasion, there are more than ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq, the vast majority by governments supported by the Bush Administration. U.S. policy has done far more than Saddam Hussein in weakening the authority of the United Nations.
"The world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place."
Putting aside the fact that previous Republican administrations helped keep the regime in power during the 1980s (its most dangerous and repressive period), many of Iraq’s neighbors and independent strategic analysts believe that a weak and disarmed Iraqi regime – even under Saddam’s oppressive rule – represented a better and safer environment than the current situation where Iraq is torn by guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, separatist movements, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism.
"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq."
Despite some notable exceptions, most of the 34 countries contributing to the U.S. occupation have sent only very small and highly-specialized units (such as medical teams or construction workers) and have done so only under diplomatic pressure and financial incentives. Americans make up over 85% of the occupation forces and have control over virtually all of the political, military and reconstruction operations by these other countries. By contrast, most of those who are calling for internationalizing the operations in Iraq are advocating placing Iraq under a United Nations trusteeship similar to that which guided East Timor to independence following the 1999 Indonesian withdrawal.
"From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."
In reality, it was not a few nations, but an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, public opinion polls show that even in countries whose governments did support the U.S. invasion, the majority of these countries’ populations opposed it. It is highly unlikely that there would be any opposition in the United Nations Security Council or anywhere else for the U.S. government to "defend the security of our people." The invasion of Iraq, however, was not about defending the security of the American people but an illegal act of aggression, according to the United Nations Charter, which has been signed and ratified by the United States and virtually every country in the world.
"As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends."
The unfortunate reality is that the United States is not pursuing a "strategy of freedom," but continues to be the primary military, financial and diplomatic supporter of the majority of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. The United States supplies the equipment and training for internal security forces for dictatorial governments in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Uzbekistan that crush popular movements for reform as well as providing the military equipment for occupation armies that suppress movements for national self-determination from Western Sahara to the West Bank.
"Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."
No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole than has the United States. The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology or foodstuffs but armaments. Virtually all the recipients of such weaponry are governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has little to do with peace or freedom.
Perhaps even more disheartening than these misleading statements by President Bush during his State of the Union address is that, in their formal responses to Bush’s speech, Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle failed to challenge them other than a vague appeal for stronger diplomatic efforts. None of the analysts on the major networks challenged these misleading statements either. Meanwhile, the two Democratic presidential contenders who dominated the Iowa caucuses the previous evening were senators who have largely supported Bush Administration policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East.
President Bush can get away with such misleading rhetoric because he knows the mainstream media and the Democratic Party will allow him to do so. Unless the American public demands greater accountability from the news media and the Democratic Party leadership, George W. Bush will have four more opportunities to make similar State of the Union speeches.
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the author of 'Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism' (Common Courage Press, 2003) |
|
