The Blue State

South Korean president goes at it with Bush

Korean president Roh Moo-hyun's frustration over the US' policy towards North Korea reached a boiling point during a press conference with President Bush on Friday:

The tense moments with Roh came as the leaderseach made statements to reporters after their meeting. Roh concludedhis by questioning why Bush hadn't mention the issue of the war's end.

"I might be wrong. I think I did not hearPresident Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean War just now,"Roh said through an interpreter. "Did you say so, President Bush?"

"It's up to Kim Jong Il," Bush said.

Roh pressed on. "If you could be a little bitclearer," he said, prompting nervous laughter from the U.S. delegationand a look of annoyance from Bush.

Of course, the White House quickly backtracked:

The White House acted quickly to downplay the awkward exchange.National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, said "there wasclearly something lost in translation during the photo op."

Didn't look like it to me.

Even though the South Korean President's exchange with Bush may have irked the older generation in his country, since they have always been warm to US policy, it underscores how lonely the US is in the world community.  Britain is withdrawing from Iraq.  South Korea is now angry.  Japan and Australia might be Bush's biggest allies.  However, the anti-war protests in Australia all week long will put pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to distance himself from Bush.

Senator Warner: "We Have a Problem, and We Better Solve it" (What a genius)

Today on MTP (Meet The Press),one of Tim Russert's guests was Senator John Warner (R-VA). Warner who recently calledfor a limited troop withdrawal from Iraq,   "I say to thepresident respectfully, 'Pick whatever number you wish.' . . . Say, 5,000 couldbegin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later thanChristmas of this year. That's the first step."

To me, that sounds like a political move...5000 out of 160,000 which are deployedin Iraq.

He has recommended Bush announce the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal inmid-September, after a report is released from the top U.S. officials in Iraq,and that those troops should be back in the United States by Christmas.

"In my humble judgment, that would get everyone's attention -- theattention that is not being paid at this time," Warner said.

He added: "I really, firmly believe the Iraqi government, under theleadership of Prime Minister [Nuri] al-Maliki, let our troops down."

Maybe it's me, but when I watched Warner's interview this morning, it soundedlike he was agreeing with everyone's point of view, opinion and plan, and notplaying hardball (like a kid in a candy store that wants to have one of each)

What put the icing on the cake for me, making it sound like a political movewas when Russert questioned Warner on what the answer was:

Russert: "What's the answer"

Warner: "The answer is clear, we have a problem and we need to solveit"

After almost 10 minutes of complimenting everyone on the job/s they aredoing, he comes up with "we have a problem"? I think it's time for himto move to Florida.

I could be missing the boat here, but watch and weigh in with your opinion.

 

Senator Warner (R-VA) on MTP

APA: Psychologists who have role in torture will be kicked out

All over the country, states, municipalities and local groups are banding together to resist Bush's policies on everything from global warming to foreign policy.  Numerous city councils even passed resolutions to impeach the President.  On the issue of torture, a well-recognized organization is putting its foot down.

The American Psychological Association is taking a firm stand against the Bush Administration's misuse of the Geneva Conventions.  It includes barring psychologists from participating in any unethical interrogation technique, such as torture:

The Washington, D.C.-based American Psychological Association, underpressure to respond to reports implicating mental-health professionalsin prisoner-abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison inIraq, has banned members from any involvement in interrogations thatinvolve torture. The ruling, which came to a vote on Sunday, barspsychologists from knowingly planning, designing, or assisting in theuse of torture. The ruling specifically lays out more than a dozenspecific practices, including simulated drowning and forced nakedness,and aims to draw a clear line between providing care to detainees andplaying advisory roles to interrogation teams. Anyone in violationcould be expelled from the 148,000-member organization and possiblylose their state licenses, according to the new ruling, if they fail toreport abuses or take part in them personally.

You can bet this will be a hot topic all over conservative talk radio.  "Those psychologists are giving the enemy a free pass," they will probably say.

A spokesperson from the American Psychological Association reminds us that torturing the enemy is not necessarily a precursor to good intelligence:

Those who support torture in interrogations seem to think itworks quite well. Why do you think it doesn’t yield accurateinformation?
We don’t know exactly why; there hasn’tbeen a scientific study. But the assumption is that to stop the painand suffering, a detainee will say whatever the interrogators want tohear.

Back to the impact itself.  This will affect the Bush Administration's access to top-notch psychologists on issues concerning the Military Commissions Act and Guantanamo.

Here is the official APA Resolution that prohibits the unethical use of interrogation techniques.

Bush Mideast democracy vision having opposite effect

  In his second inauguration speech, George W. Bush stressed that terrorism could be defeated by promoting democracy around the world:

The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a preludeto our enemies' defeat.

Whether you agree with the statement or not, if you use that standard as a litmus test for Bush's second term, we are losing the war on terror.  The Administration recently approved $13 billion in arms for Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship, and $15 billion for Egypt, also run by a dictator.

Jay Carney of Time asks whether Bush all of a sudden forgot the pledge he made in 2004:

Remember all that gauzy talk about bringing democracy to the MiddleEast? Remember how President Bush was going to abandon the policy,pursued by previous U.S. administrations for decades, of propping upauthoritarian regimes in the Middle East with military aid becausedoing so served our paramount interest in regional stability?

After Bush made foreign policy pledges in 2000 and 2004, the opposite happened.  In 2000, Bush warned against the evils of nation-building, but his behavior in the first term was quite the contrary.  In 2004, Bush backed the idea of supporting democratic movements in the Middle East, but instead he wants to increase funding for Mideast dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The moral of the story?  Candidates running for president can promise anything they want.  Before pulling the lever in the polling booth, remember that a politician's track-record is more important than their rhetoric.

Obama: Bush gives terrorists what they really want

In the most significant foreign policy speech of his presidential campaign, Barack Obama outlined what is wrong with our foreign policy today, and suggested "five elements" of change to increase our standing the world community and actually make America safer:

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is partof al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates alQaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- andoverlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruitsin Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: alQaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses ourmission.

And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight.Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field ofbattle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke thereaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim countrythat sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts ourbudgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America,gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to questionour engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving theterrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to givethem in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undeterminedcost, with undetermined consequences.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the warthat has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements:getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan andPakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to takeout the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging theworld to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values;and securing a more resilient homeland.

To be blunt, the ideas he presented here were anything but "irresponsible and frankly naive."  Whoever we choose as our nominee needs to be experienced -- no, not as far as time spent in Washington, but experience in terms of logic and maturity.   When you don't come out and apologize for giving Bush a blank check for war, either you agree with the outcome or you are not mature enough to face reality.  John Edwards had the maturity to admit he was wrong to vote the way he did.  Why can't Hillary do the same?  Maybe I just answered that question.

Amputations Two Times More Common Than in Previous Wars

The Red Crescent Society in the Northern Iraqi town of Mosul is concerned that limb loss for Iraqi civilians and US troops will pose unprecedented health care challenges in the coming years.  Six percent of all US injuries on the battlefield, whether they be friendly or unfriendly, result in amputations.  The rate is twice as high as in previous wars.

While no major international organizations keep track of how many Iraqi civilians have lost limbs, the Red Crescent Society is aware of the demand for prosthetics:

In the north of Iraq, the Red Crescent Society and the director generalfor health services in Mosul have told US forces, there is arequirement for up to 3,000 replacement limbs a year. If that estimateis applied across the country, it suggests an acute and loominglong-term health challenge that has been largely ignored by the world.

This report underscores how violent this war has been -- something that non-military families here in the US have been so distant from.  This weekend at a book forum in St. Petersburg, Florida, ABC reporter Martha Raddatz said that her experience as a correspondent in Iraq has brought to light how distant Americans truly are from the realities that happen on the ground each day:

"It breaks my heart that so few Americans are connected to this war," Raddatz said. "It really does."

After all, we were told early on by our former Defense Secretary about the "care" and "humanity" that goes into modern warfare.  Many took his word for it.  But after more than four years of the media being spoon-fed sound bites and slogans, we are finally getting a glimpse of how destructive this war has been to the lives of those involved.  And it is not a pretty picture at all.

Bush Gives Money to State Sponsor of Terrorism

Sadly, defense packages like this prove we are funding both sides of the insurgency:

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabiaand its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at atime when some United States officials contend that the Saudis areplaying a counterproductive role in Iraq.

Let's look at the raw data:

• 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi-born.
• 45% of all foreign militants in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.
• Various documents show that in 2002 the Saudi Arabian government paid $5,340 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Are these guys really our allies?

Analysis: Hillary's "Preconditions" Rule Actually is Bush-Light

The feud between Clinton and Obama rages on.  Clinton believes the US should have preconditions before talking to US foes.  On the other hand, Obama contends that a policy of preconditions before diplomacy is "Bush-light."

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton shot back:

“You know, I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I havenever been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly,” Clinton toldCNN’s John King.

Actually, when you do the research, Clinton's idea of preconditions before diplomacy is analogous to what we have seen over the last six years, and it has produced negative results:

• In 2003, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun slammed President Bush, and pleaded with him to meet with North Korea without preconditions: "We can solve a difficult problem.  It is important to meet in person without any preconditions and have dialogues."  Ironically, it was not until this month when the Bush Administration agreed to meet with North Korea without preconditions that the Pyongyang-based government agreed to suspend its plutonium enrichment.
• In 2006, the New York Times reported that President Bush required Syria and Iran to follow certain preconditions before the US would meet with them: "The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syriangovernment. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, insteadreiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government mustsuspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks." Obviously, that has not worked.  Iran is still building up its nuclear program, and Syria is still a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.
• Last month, Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, encouraged the Bush Administration to abandon its demand of preconditions and meet with Iran bilaterally: "That is why a full-court press on engaging Iran – with nopreconditions, and no illusions - is in the American national securityinterest."  That puts Hillary at odds with Richardson, not just Obama.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton's policy of preconditions contradicts that of her husband's administration.  In 1994, US negotiators met bilaterally with North Korea and signed the 1994 Agreed Framework, which dismantled Kim Jong IL's plutonium-based nuclear weapons program.  Had it not been for that bilateral agreement, experts conclude that North Korea would have up to 50 nuclear bombs today.  So sometimes meeting with our foes even without preconditions can produce positive results.

Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush seem to disagree.

Less than one-fourth of US aid money to Afghanistan reached its destination

In the book Three Cups of Tea -- a story about a diplomat's quest to build schools in the third world -- Greg Mortenson explains clearly and concisely why the United States is losing the war on terrorism, especially in Afghanistan.  (This is from page 290):

After distributing forty dollars of CAI's (Central Asian Institute's) money to Uzra and twenty dollars to each of her ninety teachers, who hadn't been receiving their salaries either, Mortenson saw Bergman safely onto a United Nations charter flight to Islamabad and began trying to track down Uzra's money.  On his third odyssey through the echoing halls of the crumbling Ministry of Finance, he met Afghanistan's deputy minister of finance, who threw up his hands when Mortenson asked him why Uzra and her teachers weren't receiving their pay.

"He told me that less than a quarter of the aid money President Bush had promised his country had actually arrived in Afghanistan.  And of those insufficient funds, he said that $680 million had been 'redirected,' to build runways and bulk up supply depots in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar for the invasion of Iraq everyone expected would soon begin."

On the Ariana 727 to Dubai, the British Air 777 to London, and the Delta 767 to D.C., Mortenson felt like a heat-seeking missile speeding toward his own government, fueled by outrage.  "The time for us to turn all the suffering we'd helped to cause in Afghanistan into something positive was slipping away.  I was so upset I paced the aisles of the planes all the way to Washington," Mortenson says.  "If we couldn't do something as simple as seeing that a hero like Uzra gets her forty-dollar a-month salary, then how could we ever hope to do the hard work it takes to win the war on terror?"

It should not surprise people that an Administration that despises government programs has trouble understanding some of the concepts behind nation-building.

The problem is also their inability to recognize cause and effect.  If you can't pay the teachers, children can't go to school and get educated.  If Children are not going to school and being educated, then:

• Afghanistan has a better chance of staying economically depressed in the long-run.
• The kids are more likely to turn to destructive hobbies, like being preyed on by Islamic radicals.
• Less citizens in that country will feel like they personally have a lot to gain if the rebuilding process is a success.

This should be common sense, especially after all the money US taxpayers have unknowingly invested in this operation.

Global warming helping with commercial Arctic passage

The global warming effect in the Arctic is causing a major rift in US-Canadian relations.  Canada has dispatched eight patrol ships to the Northwest Passage in a show of force to fend off US claims that those are international waters.  Canada, obviously, insists that the water is part of Canadian territory.  In the end, the dispute is -- you guessed it -- over oil:

As global warming melts the passage – which now is only navigableduring a slim window in the summer – the waters are exposing unexploredresources such as oil, fishing stocks and minerals, and becoming anattractive shipping route. Commercial ships can shave off some 2,480miles from Europe to Asia compared with current routes through thePanama Canal.

The disputed route runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Arctic archipelago.

Canadians have long claimed the waters. But their government hasgenerally turned a blind eye to the United States, which has sent navalvessels and submarines through what it considers an internationalstrait.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the icecap is warming faster than the rest of the planet and ice is receding,partly due to greenhouse gases.

See how oil changes the whole equation.  Initially, Canada did not mind that US submarines used the water, and the US did not care if Canada secured the region.  Now that global warming is resulting in new oil, a fight has erupted between close neighbors in a delicate part of the world.

It will be interesting to see how the US responds to Canada's show of force.  People are already whispering about possible US military action to grab control of the territory -- although it is highly unlikely.