The DISH
Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use
Vol. 10 No. 1…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…January
5, 2007
"The Urge to Surge"
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
Within days the Bush regime is expected to announce its so-called "new
strategy" in Iraq -- the most talked-about plan being a surge in U.S.
forces in Iraq.
By 'surge' is meant the significant increase in troop size in that beleaguered country, a plan meant to address the obvious failures in Iraq.
In light of the rumored 'surge', one wonders, what does it take for the administration to listen to the voices of the People?
In February and March, 2003, the U.S. and much of the world spoke, with millions marching in the streets of cities the globe over, against the scourge of war.
The Bush regime ignored them. No -- "ignored" isn't right. President Bush belittled the protests as 'a focus group.' As journalism professor Robert Jensen notes in his book, *The Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity* (San Francisco: City Lights Publ., 2004) Bush's response to the "single largest public political demonstration in history", was unbelievable: When asked a few days later about the size of the protest, he said: 'First of all, you know, size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based on a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people.'
"A focus group? Perhaps the leader of the free world was not aware that a focus group is a small number of people who are brought together (and typically paid) to evaluate a concept or product. Focus groups are primarily a tool of businesses, which use them to figure out how to sell things more effectively. Politicians also occasionally use them, for the same purpose. That's a bit different from a coordinated gathering of millions of people who took to the streets because they felt passionately about an issue of life and death. As is so often the case, Bush's comment demonstrated his ignorance and condescension, the narrowness of his intellect and his lack of respect for the people he allegedly serves." [pp. xi-xii]
Decades ago, during the height of the Vietnam War, presidents and their military advisors extended the hostilities long after it was abundantly clear that the conflict could not be won. President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated it, but could not bring himself to rein it in for fear that history would judge him one who 'lost' Vietnam.
His successor, Richard M. Nixon further escalated the conflict, by ordering bombing of neighboring countries. Some historians now say that the escalation and continuation of the Vietnam War cost some 20,000 Americans lives; the numbers of Vietnamese, and other southeast Asians are unknown to us.
The point is, the war and its needless carnage was extended for years, at a horrific cost: to save U.S. face. It seems that this not-so-distant history is repeating itself.
In a few weeks, we shall hear what "the Decider" has decided. You can bet that it will conflict with the will of most Americans. What kind of democracy is this?
Demonstrations don't matter. Elections don't matter. Study groups don't matter. No matter what most Americans think -- it doesn't matter. Nothing matters -- but what the decider decides. There's a word for that -- and it sure ain't democracy!
Americans have seemingly settled for a dictatorship of one -- in fact, a dictatorship of disaster. Like good little sheep, they plan to silently acquiesce as more of their young people are slain on an altar slick with oil.
This isn't patriotism. It's the very essence of subservience. There's
another word for it. Madness.
James A Baker, III
James Addison Baker III was born April 28, 1930 in Houston, Texas to James
Addison Baker Jr. and Ethel Bonner Means. He attended Hill School, a private
college-preparatory Academy in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and Princeton University.
Graduating in 1952, he entered the US Marine Corps. A University of Texas
School of Law graduate in 1957, Baker joined the law firm of Andrews &
Kurth, LLP.
Although very prominent in politics, business and international affairs, little
information is available on Baker's early years. Originally a Democrat, Baker
switched to the Republican Party; he managed the unsuccessful Senate campaign
of his longtime friend, George H.W. Bush (1970). In 1975, President Gerald R.
Ford appointed Baker Undersecretary of Commerce. The following year Baker ran
Ford's unsuccessful re-election campaign. In 1978, Baker ran unsuccessfully for
State Attorney General of Texas.
Teaming up with lifelong friend George H.W. Bush (1980), Baker managed Bush's
unsuccessful Republican primary campaign. President Ronald Reagan named Baker
White House Chief of Staff in 1981. Baker managed Reagan's reelection campaign
and was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, and to the National Security
Council, as well as, the Economic Policy Council in 1985.
Campaign chairman for George H.W. Bush's presidential bid, Baker became
Secretary of State in 1989. He served as Bush's White House Chief of Staff 1992
to1993. Returning to private life in 1993, he founded the James A. Baker III
Institute of Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas. Baker became
the Personal Envoy for UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara.
Chief legal adviser for George W. Bush during the 2000 election Florida
recount, Baker was instrumental in getting the Supreme Court to intervene. Over
200,000 votes were not counted, giving Bush the presidency. Tarnish from being
a true insider and hired gun for the Bushes caused questions about Baker,
mainly "Who does he serve?"
George W. Bush appointed Baker to assist in the US-led Iraqi debt relief fund.
As special envoy to the president, this caused charges of "conflict of
interest," since he retained his positions as senior partner at Baker
Botts, a Texas law firm and senior counsel to Carlyle Group. On March 15, 2006,
Congress formed the Iraq Study Group and appointed Baker and Lee Hamilton
co-chairs
Baker has served three US presidents. His book, The Politics of Diplomacy,
is a treatise on the post-Cold War era. His memoir--Work Hard, Study . . .
and Keep Out of Politics! Adventures and Lessons from an Unexpected Public
Life--was published in October 2006, it details the many awards and
honorary degrees bestowed up on him. (Source: www.bakerinstitute.org)
Iraq Study Group
Also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the Iraq Study Group (ISG)
presented its report to George W. Bush on December 6, 2006. Appointed by
Congress on March 15, 2006 to assess the situation in Iraq and make policy
recommendations, the ten-person bipartisan panel included co-chairs James Baker
(R), Lee Hamilton (D), Sandra Day O'Connor (R), Lawrence Eagleburger (R), Edwin
Meese III (R), Alan K. Simpson (R), Vernon Jordan, Jr. (D), Leon E. Panetta
(D), William J. Perry (D) and Charles S. Robb (D).
The Iraq Study Group examined four broad topics: "the strategic
environment in and around Iraq; the security of Iraq and key challenges to
enhancing security within the country; political developments within Iraq
following the elections and formation of the new government; and the economy
and reconstruction." In developing its seventy-nine (79) recommendations,
the group rejected calls for a precipitate withdrawal, staying the course,
sending in more troops beyond a temporary "surge" to help limit
violence in localized areas, and dividing the country into three regions.
The study group recommended a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq
and a new diplomatic offensive to resolve the broader Middle East conflict. It
also recommended that George W. Bush state that the United States does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq or control of its oil. It recommended a
constitutional review, political reconciliation and oil revenue sharing.
In releasing the report, Way Forward--A New Approach, the co-chairs urged the
Bush administration to view the report as a comprehensive package and implement
all its recommendation. For more on the various recommendations contained in
the Way Forward, see www.usip.org/.
By John Burl Smith
In order to know a man you need to know his master, but to understand him you must know his motivation.
Clarity about an insular personality in today's media-driven world is controlled by the view provided the outside world. Any telegenic personality is designed for mass appeal and is intended to conceal rather than reveal. Such iconoclasts represent or symbolize authority in the minds of those that identify with the image. James A. Baker is just such a personality.
Very little family history is available on Mr Baker. Family influences tell a lot about a person's development, in terms of goals. What information is available begin with Judge James A. Baker and the law firm Baker & Botts of Houston, Texas. The firm's history began in 1840, when Texas was a slave state. Baker & Botts represented the interest of slave owners and defended segregation until its end. They represented the interest of William Marsh Rice-- the Imperial Sugar Company, E.H. Harriman-- Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads these businesses that used slave labor extensively. During segregation they represented the oil and gas interests of Humble Oil (the predecessor of Exxon), Gulf Oil (later merged into Chevron), Texas Co. (later Texaco), and Howard Hughes' drill bit company (now Baker Hughes).
Officially leaving government in 2003, Baker's connection to the Bush family and Carlyle Group has caused many to ask, who does he serve, since he maintains his economic ties? Senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, Baker walks a thin line between insider-wheeler-dealer and influence peddler. Carlyle describes itself as "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals." They are power-brokers in the military-industry-complex, pushing the boundaries between Washington politics, national security and private capital. Mud crawling in the murky waters of conflicts of interest, Carlyle Group has amassed $12 billion in funds under management; the "war on terror" has been "boom times."
A sinkhole for most Jack Abramoff-types, Carlyle
founders David Rubenstein and William Conway Jr., brought in Frank Carlucci,
former U.S. Secretary of Defense, who brought in former U.S. President George
Bush Sr., former U.K. Prime Minister John Major, and James A. Baker, III.
George W. Bush was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle's first purchases,
an airline food business called Caterair in 1990. After becoming Texas
governor, the Texas teachers' pension funds invested $100 million of public
money in the Carlyle Group. (Sources: www.thenation.com
www.redherring.com and www.wikipedia.org)
Case in Point: Iraq Debt Relief
Until George W. Bush appointed James A. Baker, III Special Presidential Envoy
for Iraq debt relief, there was no concrete evidence that Baker's loyalties
were split, or that his power in the unpaid position benefited any of his
corporate clients or employers. But according to documents obtained by The
Nation, that is precisely what has happened. Tied to the shady proposition
is a secret deal with a complex transaction to transfer ownership of as much as
$57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts to the Carlyle Group. Carlyle is using
Baker's influence as debt envoy to secure an extraordinary $1 billion
investment from the Kuwaiti government.
The debts, now owed to Kuwait, would be assigned to a foundation created and
controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group and
the Albright Group (headed by former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright).
Under the deal, Kuwait would give the consortium $2 billion up front. One
billion will go to the consortium's private equity fund and one billion goes to
Carlyle.
Baker's extensive Middle East business dealings seem to compromise his
government mission to persuade heads of state to forgive Iraq debts, while
Kuwait collects on its debt held by Baker's clients. Observers believe the
scheme is designed to protect merchant bank and the Carlyle Group, Baker's
equity partners estimated $180 million.
Jerome Levinson, an international lawyer and expert on political and corporate
corruption at American University called it, "One of the greatest cons of
all time. The consortium is saying to Kuwaiti, 'Through us, you have the only
chance to realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? 'Because of who we are
and who we know.' It's influence peddling of the crassest kind."
The New York Times called on Baker to resign his posts at the Carlyle Group
and Baker Botts to preserve the integrity of the envoy position because of the
potential conflicts of interest (12-12-3)."Here you have two former
Secretaries of State seemingly proposing to use their contacts and inside
information to undercut the official US government policy, laying bare how
former high-level government employees use their access in order to reap
enormous financial benefits."
The Bush Administration has made commitments that Iraq's oil revenues will be
spent on reconstruction. If Baker steers the Bush Administration away from the
reparations issue, for whom is he working? The White House? Or Carlyle? It is
unclear whether Baker is complying with the criminal statute and administrative
regulations that prohibit government officials from participating in government
business in which they have a financial interest. Who pays for this? Iraqis and
US taxpayers. (Sources: www.thenation.com and www.guardian.co.uk)
Disgruntled wants to know:
When a nation, business or individual accepts slavery as a legitimate and
ethical means of enterprise, they reflect a disregard for certain human beings.
Speaking volumes about their view of people, they believe some people are better
than others. The fact that James A. Baker, III's family history is so closely
tied to slavery, begs the question, "Did they own slaves?"
Disgruntled feels: Doomed! The Iraq Study
Group report seems likely to fall on deaf ears. While the Iraq Study Group
could have provided Bush some political cover -- lend him the gravitas in
international relations not provided by Dick Cheney and his neo-con advisers,
the Iraq Study Group report is doomed to the trash heap of
neo-con/Zionist/AIPAC objections, particularly since it recommends that the
Bush administration, which has eschewed diplomacy, engage Iraq's neighbors in
intensive talks and calls for Israelis to adhere to UN Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338.
Disgruntled says: An unseemly sight, the
unholy delight of Christians that supposedly believe in the "Prince of
Peace," who was lynched, cheering in unholy glee to see the hanging of
Saddam Hussein for "crimes against humanity." For the record, these
Christians support the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq, even under false
pretenses. Thousands have died as a result, but they are willing to stay the
course and kill thousands more. Their barbarity sets a poor example for
Christianity.
Mailbox:
E-Mails, Faxes and Telephone Calls
Email john.stroebel@gmail.com
...The numbers of troops in Iraq is going to be increased. This is called
"TROOP INCREASE". Isn't it? I mean, that is what we ALL have said to
describe this action for our lifetimes....now that isn't good enough any more?
NOW it is called "TROOP SURGE"??? Sez who? Who makes UP this shit?
And the press...man they are like a bunch of little parrots, ain't they?
"TROOP SURGE! TROOP SURGE!!!" They are like 8 year olds who heard Daddy
utter a new swear word and can't help themselves from saying it over and over.
"SHIT! SHIT! What are they, mindless fools on the payroll of Tony Snow and
Karl Rove??? And do you care? IS it OK with you? Do you not notice, or are you
beginning to feel USED and played with? It is like the word
"Rendition". Good word, right? "KIDNAPPING" WAS the word we
used in the past when someone took another person, by force, against their
will, and held them in order to gain something. Nope, no more. NOW it is
'RENDITION!' Bullshit I say...."The troops are seeing a surge" sure
is less alarming than "We are increasing troop strength" cause we
behave like idjits. Give us a "good' word and we go along. Let's face it,
the American public is becoming a group of mindless fools too lazy to think for
themselves...oh, I mean "patriotic citizens."
Email riliescu2000@yahoo.com True
or False? The US invaded Iraq in order to do away with its weapons of mass
destruction. FALSE. The government claimed that we were 45 minutes away from an
atomic explosion, that we could soon be attacked with anthrax or other deadly
bio-weapons, and that the location of the weapons was known with exactitude. It
was all a lie concocted and pushed by Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and
a number of neocon and non-neocon allies.
Email http://americanwars.blogspot.com...The
real crimes against humanity (by Doug Thompson) With the brutal hanging of
Saddam Hussein in the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the transformation of the United
States of America from world power to international exporter of terror is
complete. While one can argue that Hussein deserved to die for his many crimes
against humanity, the question that history will ask is whether or not he
deserved to die at the hands of a nation that invaded his country without
provocation and orchestrated a trial to fulfill a political agenda of an
American President who, himself, may be both a madman and greater threat to
world peace.
|| 2006 Issues || The DISH ||