Monday, January 15, 2007

Top Ten Most Inept World Leaders


1) Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (Somalia) - This country is a lawless write-off.
2) Nuri al-Maliki (Iraq) - No real power; a puppet without the ability to lead.
3) George W. Bush (USA) - Every venture he's touched has been a miserable failure.
4) Omar el-Bashir (Sudan) - This guy is just a bloody tyrant overseeing a genocide.
5) Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan) - 6 Years of International support and...
6) Kim Jong Il (S. Korea) - Still can't negotiate with the west or feed his people.
7) Felipe Calderon (Mexico) - Just sworn in after 1% win and already sounding divisive.
8) Traian Basescu (Romania) - Despite years of outrage child-porn is still rampant.
9) Military Juntas (Burma a.k.a Myanmar) Can't decide who they want in power.
10) Vladimir Putin (Russia) - His criminal enterprise keeps selling nuclear secrets that could endanger the world.

Time Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year: You?


That Time Magazine would choose to select the caption "You" as person of the year is probably the most ill-conceived idea since the Iraq war. With so many more pressing topics to choose from Time seem to have lost the inventiveness that usually surrounds the selection of the person, or issue that most influenced the news during the year. A more worthy issue of the year candidate, I would argue, was the unfortunate genocide the world stood by and witnessed in Darfur. In the aftermath of what happened in Nazi Germany, and in Cambodia, and in Rawanda recently, the world vowed to never let it (large-scale genocide) happen again. However, this year alone some half million people were wiped off the face of the map in Darfur. There has been much press coverage and even commercials in prime time slots highlighting the issue. Even George Bush addressed the issue at length in a speech to the UN. Therefore, to say the issue didn't dominate the news would be disingenuous. So considering the issue was a big news story in 2006, and that the subject matter carries as much weight, it certainly deserved more consideration from the folks at Time.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Bush and the Neocons: Trying to have it both ways


The Bush administration (presumably coaxed by the likes of Carl Rove and other nonconservative ideologues) are making it look as though they are finally now listening to other views on how to fix the mess in Iraq. This comes in the wake of over four years of push back from the White House to those who would dare suggest any kind of course correction on Iraq policy. Bush recently went on what the strategists labeled a "listening tour" to garner ideas from Democrats and other vocal opponents of the war about solutions to counter the deepening civil war and growing insurgency in Iraq.

However, when a widely respected group such as the Iraq Study Group (made up of five Democrats and five Republicans) puts out as comprehensive and thoughtful a report as they handed Bush in December last year, it is largely met with open disdain in the White House. After dismissing sensible proposals from others on how to fix Iraq, Bush and his folks now have the temerity to suggest, after his recent escalation speech, that if others (namely the Democrats and opponents of his plan) have other ideas they should propose them.

So on the one hand they dismiss legitimate bi-partisan recommendations to solve Iraq, because it conflicts with their one-sided "stay the course" aim, and on the other hand they want it to appear as if they are honestly soliciting diverging opinions on how to solve the problem. Bush says he prefers to listen to his generals on the ground in Iraq, but when the two top generals running the war in Iraq (generals Abizaid and Casey) disagree with the White House plan of sending more troops to Iraq, they are summarily replaced. So the White House is saying publicly that they are open to a variety of suggestions to solve Iraq, but if such suggestions are antithetical to the Bush doctrine, they will continue pursuing the same wrong-headed strategy regardless. Never mind overwhelming opposition expressed in opinion polls, congress, the senate, the military, within your own ranks or anywhere else.

Take a look at Vice President Chaney's recent statements to Fox News: Excerpt form CNN.COM "Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that lawmakers' criticism will not influence Bush's plans and dismissed any effort to "run a war by committee."

Therefore, the Bush/Neocon strategy is this: In the face of overwhelming opposition to an unpopular war, give the appearance as if you are consulting across a wide spectrum aimed at some obscure concept of improvement. If during your consultations you realize that the consensus, still, is that what you are doing is wrong-headed, simply dismiss those suggestions. Reformulate another plan that really perpetuates your earlier unpopular and wrong-headed approach and tell your opponents that if they have other ideas they should share them - even though they have already done so. When all hope seems lost at changing the tide of public opinion simply remind those who disagree with your plan, which include the US public at large, congress, the senate, the military and even members of your own party, that you are the commander-in-chief and will carry out your plan even if it means that your last remaining supporters are your dog Barney and your wife Laura.

George Bush on CBS's 60 Minutes : "I've made my decision, and we're going forward."

If this is the case then the White House should stop saying they are open to ideas from democrats or anybody else for that matter. They are not now, nor will they ever be, open to suggestions or diverging ideas which clash with what is ostensively their state creation and energy (oil) exploitative vision in Iraq.