There is, however, a key difference: Tony Blair is nearing the legislated end to his reign next year, and George W. Bush will be fighting for re-election in 2004. Will the scandal die with Tony Blair in Britain? Will the Democrats seize the opportunity to expose a conspiracy of the highest order in an attempt to dethrone Herr Bush? This will be a mere political gurgle until the campaigning begins in earnest next year.

-Ian.

——- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cidW8&ncidW8&e=7&u=/nm/ 20030711/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc

White House Ignored CIA Over Iraq Uranium Claim-CBS

2 hours, 27 minutes ago

Add Top Stories – Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House ignored a request by the CIA ( news -web sites ) to remove a statement in President Bush ( news -web sites )’s State of the Union address that Iraq ( news -web sites ) was seeking uranium from Africa for its nuclear weapons program, CBS Evening News reported on Thursday.

The White House acknowledged this week it had been a mistake to put the claim about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in Bush’s January speech and that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged.

Critics have seized on the statement as a prime example of the Bush administration’s campaign to mislead the public by hyping the threat posed by Iraq to gain support for the war.

The CIA checked the parts Bush’s speech dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction for accuracy and CIA officials warned White House National Security Council staff that the intelligence was not strong enough to flatly state that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, CBS News said.

White House officials argued that since a paper issued by the British government contained the assertion, if it was attributed to Britain it would be factually accurate, CBS said. CIA officials dropped their objections, CBS said.

A CIA spokesman declined comment on the CBS report, which was sourced to senior Bush administration officials. A White House spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a related development, the CIA told British intelligence last year that the American intelligence agency did not have high confidence in reports that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Africa, a U.S. official told Reuters.

“We had concerns about the veracity of the story and we shared those concerns with them but in the end they thought that their information was solid and they went with it,” the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.

DOCUMENTS FORGED

British intelligence decided the information they had was solid and included it in a report issued in September 2002, the official said.

The CIA shared its concerns shortly before the British report was issued and before the American intelligence agency had seen the Niger documents, which now have been determined to be forgeries.

“We had no idea they were forgeries, we didn’t get the documents until much later,” the U.S. official said. “We weren’t sure it was true, didn’t have high confidence of it being accurate for a variety of reasons,” the official said.

The Washington Post first reported the CIA’s unsuccessful effort to persuade Britain to drop the Iraq uranium claim. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States, the newspaper reported.

Bush delivered the following line in his State of the Union speech in January: “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein ( news -web sites ) had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The Italian intelligence service circulated reports about the Niger documents — not the documents themselves — to other Western intelligence services in early 2002, and that was apparently how the British and U.S. intelligence services learned of them, U.S. government sources have said.

Since invading U.S. forces ousted Saddam from power in April, no biological or chemical weapons have been found, nor evidence that Iraq and restarted its nuclear weapons program.

We meant it, ma’am

Next month sees another jubilee – 25 years since the Sex Pistols cut through the pomp and stood up for another England. The band’s manager Malcolm McLaren recalls the hysteria of 1977 – and says that it’s punk, not royalty, which we should be celebrating.

Malcolm MacLaren Sunday May 19, 2002 The Observer

Twenty-five years ago, at the CBS record-manufacturing plant in England, workers rescued some of the contraband records from being melted by hiding them in their coats – copies of the Sex Pistols’ new single, ‘God Save the Queen’. Just one week after signing the Pistols, A&M had rescinded on their contract and attempted to destroy all the records. Now my office had to field unsolicited calls offering to sell illicit copies of ‘God Save the Queen’ at the extortionate price of £20 a copy. I was naturally a bit reluctant, but after some thought, I purchased several boxes. A few weeks later, I signed the group to Richard Branson’s Virgin label. The excitement from Virgin’s employees was such that they wanted to conspire with me and create an alternative celebration to the Queen’s silver jubilee by hiring our own boat to follow her flotilla down the Thames.

The Sex Pistols were banned from playing on land, and their song ‘God Save the Queen’ banned from being played on the airwaves. So the only place left was the water. One of the most delirious memories I have is of seeing crowds of artful dodgers – punk rockers – jamming London’s bridges, hanging from its lampposts, screaming and shouting merrily, throwing bottles and empty yoghurt pots down on to the boat as it blared their favourite song out across the Thames: ‘God save the Queen/she ain’t no human being/ she made/you a moron/ a potential H-bomb/ God save the Queen/ we mean it maaan!’ It was a frenzied, chaotic, cacophonous, exhilarating, inspired moment. A ticket to a carnival for a better life.

We confronted the River Police. The boat was driven back to Charing Cross escorted by the same. I was among the many arrested when we disembarked and spent the night in jail. Somehow, I never saw Richard Branson. He just seemed to disappear. In front of the judge, I felt something in the air had truly changed. His dutiful air of smug importance made me laugh. I was made to feel a criminal, to beg forgiveness, and furthermore, he said, if I were to ever appear before him again, for a similar offence, he would have no hesitation in sending me to one of Her Majesty’s Prisons where I would spend a term of no less than three months.

On that same fateful day known as the silver jubilee, the media fell in love with the Sex Pistols, with the money they could potentially make, with the power they could potentially wield. That day, the Daily Mirror placed our portrait of the Queen – a modified version of the famous Cecil Beaton photograph with a safety-pin pierced through her nose – on its cover. The official portrait was relegated to page 3. The media preferred to love ours instead.

The media’s innocence and virginal attitude at that time seemed to provide us with the power of God or government or both. And with it, the ability to change the way people thought about things. It made me feel reasonable when demanding the impossible. And thereafter, it suddenly became forbidden to forbid.

Pop culture had made a difference. Punk rock’s musical revolution was open to everyone. You didn’t need to have the necessary skills to compete with your forebears. The old stars were driven back to hide in their country houses. It was a do-it-yourself phenomenon. For a moment everybody was an artist. The culture had been de-mystified. Its old properties, once controlled and considered important by an industry, were now worthless. It was a blow against the commodification and the pop brands that purported to have control of the culture. Punk rock fans didn’t need to buy anything – they just had to be . This was the most frightening idea of all for the record industry. They were simply out of control.

That week of the silver jubilee, it was nearly impossible to buy the record. It couldn’t be purchased in the majority of high street stores. It couldn’t be heard on the radio, except on rare occasions as a news item. The record was banned from advertising itself. The commercial TV stations refused to accept our homemade ads. London Transport refused to allow our posters on the Underground. Yet the record was undoubtedly No 1. The national charts were falsified by the record industry itself. A Rod Stewart track was put at No 1, even though ‘God Save the Queen’, sold by the same record distributors, was outselling it by two to one. How did it ever achieve such status? This was against all normal marketing rules. It broke with such traditions and clear economic values. The consumer was an alien that they didn’t understand.

When my young son, Joseph Corré, went to WH Smith and looked up at that store’s own record chart, he saw just a blank mark at the number one spot and asked the saleslady what was the No 1 record. She replied, ‘We don’t sell that record here.’ He didn’t understand. ‘But why have you got a blank spot? Isn’t the No 1 record ‘God Save the Queen’ by the Sex Pistols?” ‘We don’t wish to talk about it.’

The day after the silver jubilee, everything in the media was under the critical eye of the new generation. The silver jubilee was a turning point, a moment whose impact is still felt today. Because it opened up the door to all the disenfranchised – the young, the everyday common outlaw. The culture had been reclaimed by them. Anything seemed possible after that. This generation of punk rockers responded to an irresistible urge to choose between love and creation. They chose creation. Instead of getting married and settling down in a normal respectable job, they sought adventure, provocation, and with it, to change life. All independent minds blossomed. Independent film companies, independent record companies, independent TV companies were born. Advertising changed to accommodate the new mood – ‘less is more’, ‘small is cool’.

Anti-fashion had become the last repository of the marvellous – and all its designers, the last possessors of the wand of Cinderella’s fairy godmother. With my partner at the time, I was thrilled at how our anti-fashion ideas (the bondage trouser, the ‘God Save the Queen’ T-shirt, rubber skirts) created a whole new feeling; clothes created not to sell. Things new made to look frighteningly old-fashioned became an idea, a statement of intent and not a product. A useful tool to create debate. This fed into a desire never to return to normality again. Does passion end in fashion? Or does fashion end in passion?

Shopping today has become the new cultural ideal and occupation of the planet. Shopping is art. Everyone has become their own curator. The church back in the Middle Ages sold salvation; sold the ability for people to feel they didn’t have to acquire things. Later, the museum replaced the church. And then, the department store replaced the museum. There is a new word to describe this phenomenon: ‘Shoppertainment’. Shoppertainment is the satisfaction you get when you go shopping. The entertainment is not in the spending, but when you get home and believe that in shopping, you have acquired self-knowledge, salvation, fulfilled your desires and dreams. Of course this sense does not last. So you go back to the shops the next day and spend more.

The same ‘God Save The Queen’ T-shirts sold back then in Sex, my shop in the King’s Road in Chelsea, are today sold in stores in Beverly Hills. Twenty-five years on they appear on the backs of Kate Moss and Lauren Hutton, photographed in Vogue. It could be said that it’s now the antithesis of what it originally stood for, and its imaging inadvertently could be said to help promote the brand, the royal family, the ‘Firm’ (as the Duke of Edinburgh is so fond of saying – actually a term often used to describe a criminal gang), the Queen.

The royal family is a story about hypocrisy and at the same time, a story about England. The royal family is a celebrity brand with an immense PR machine behind it. It’s just another business, except we pay for it and they profit by it. A neat trick. However, the royal family is England’s biggest show business act. They are people who are brought up to a certain way of life, who are given the means to extend their knowledge and to extend their understanding. But they are not given the opportunity to use their minds in connection with it. They are a brilliant metaphor for all that is pretentious, deluded, selfish and insincere about England. They made me finally face the fact that I had to be a rebel in this society – to be an outsider – with all of the penalties this would entail, or else accept the hypocrisy of England and its monarchy.

On golden jubilee day, will those TV cameras, acting as part of some Ridley Scott production and image-making apparatus, eventually burn the Queen out? Maybe the media will top itself and ultimately become responsible for turning the monarchy and its golden jubilee celebration into simply another super-expensive beer commercial for fascism? And include the rest of us as unpaid extras on the most expensive theme park on the planet. This is show business: Paul, Mick and all will no doubt be there for Ma’am.

I was forced to stand in line in the streets at the Queen’s coronation in 1953. I waved a flag as she went past in her golden carriage. I think then a great deal of the population thought the Queen had been chosen by God. And in those days, if you didn’t believe in God, God help you. We were taught, of course, that England was not just this tiny little island, this muddy hole, but all of this candy-coloured pink mass across the globe. The country was still a Christian land. The Union Jack, the Queen, the Government, and the Church of England were the pillars of all our thinking and supposed wisdom. You were made to feel culturally moribund without such beliefs.

Fifty years on, how many people in England actually believe in God? If you break that into an educated population, what percentage actually believes in a personal god? In an impersonal god? Or a force that is necessarily good? How many people go to church? And yet, everything connected with our establishment remains based on an assumption of belief – swearing on the Bible, ‘So help me God’. What about all the people who don’t believe in it, who are paying for it, who still accept it? These are encumbrances which damn few people have the will to reject. The alternative is to encourage people to be willing to take the consequences of standing up as individuals. Not saying ‘I can’t take up a position on this because I don’t know enough’ but ‘I do take up a position because I just know all of this isn’t true. It hasn’t a function at all.’

Yet last week Johnny Rotten, the Sex Pistols’ singer, said he had lobbied the palace to perform for the Queen at her golden jubilee party, that he was never ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ monarchy and that while we’ve got a monarchical system it might as well ‘work properly’. Then there’s my former partner Vivenne Westwood, who has accepted both an OBE and a Queen’s Award, and now thinks the monarch is great. This confuses me. I don’t understand how their views could have changed so much. I still feel much the same as I did in 1977. There are two words that might sum up the oppositions of our culture today. One is ‘authenticity’ and the other is ‘karaoke’. Karaoke is miming the words of others. It is a life by proxy, liberated by hindsight, unencumbered by the messy process of creativity. And not having to take responsibility from the moment its performance ends. I feel we live today in a karaoke world. You might say Tony Blair is our first karaoke Prime Minister.

There is, however, a counterpoint to all of this – an unquestionable desire and thirst for the authentic. What is it? Where can we find it? I found it that silver jubilee day on the Thames: those punk rockers strung out on the bridges of London, those ‘God Save The Queen’ T-shirts, that Daily Mirror front page, that hysterical laughter in front of the judge after my night in jail, those were all part of an attitude that expressed itself in something that could best be described as real – something that was authentic.

———–

Newsman Rather Tells Americans Ask More Questions Thu May 16, 7:49 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) – Veteran U.S. news anchor Dan Rather warned Americans on Thursday not to let patriotism in the wake of the September 11 attacks stop them from asking tough questions of President Bush (news – web sites) and his “war on terror.”

Photos

Reuters Photo Speaking to the BBC’s Newsnight current affairs program, Rather said the heightened sense of patriotism after September 11 risked getting out of control, and stopping the press from holding the government to account over its war in Afghanistan (news – web sites).

“I worry that patriotism run amok, will trample the very values that the country seeks to defend,” said the CBS newsman, whose steely manner and professionalism became a symbol of America’s resilience in the dark days after September 11.

“In a constitutional republic, based on the principles of democracy such as ours, you simply cannot sustain warfare without the people at large understanding why we fight, how we fight, and have a sense of accountability to the very top.” Rather admitted that journalists, himself included, often felt under pressure to pull their punches for fear of being branded unpatriotic — the equivalent of having a “flaming tire” hung around their neck.

“One finds oneself saying “I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it,” he said.

“What we are talking about here — whether one wants to recognize it or not, or call it by its proper name or not — is a form of self-censorship,” said Rather.

He also accused the Bush administration of giving news organizations too little access and information, which he said went directly against the Pentagon (news – web sites)’s stated policy of giving “maximum information and maximum openness” about the war.

“There has never been an American war, small or large, in which access has been so limited as this one,” he said.

The news black-out was allowing those in charge, who were putting the lives of American servicemen and women at risk, to hide, he said.

“Limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war, is extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted,” he said.

The more the American public swallowed the official line under the banner of patriotism, the more government accountability would suffer, Rather said.

“I am sorry to say that…overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current administration revels in that, they relish that, and they take refuge in that.” He also panned the increasing “Hollywoodization of war” that is sweeping across the U.S. media, with hit shows such as VH1’s ‘Military Diaries’, featuring real soldiers talking frankly about their experiences on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.

“I want to say quietly, but as forcefully as I can, that I hope this doesn’t go any further. It has gone too far already. I am appalled by it, I do think it’s an outrage,” he said.

———–

It is rare to see such a disturbing piece of isolationist fluff these days, mostly because I don’t usually take the time to read deeply conservative, revisionist rags like the “National Review”. It occurs to me that if I searched thru the archives of the American press in 1939 I might see similar rhetoric to this article.

One advantage of living in Canada (granted it’s not Victor Hanson’s hobby farm) is the exposure to a number of different media and a plethora of opinions and “facts”, rather than the CNN/CNBC/ABC/CBS unfiltered Bush/Cheney viewpoint. It’s clear, having watched the limited spectrum of information being spoon-fed to right-wing bastards like Hanson, that he wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what is really happening in the middle east, thus exonerating his banal inquiries.

Now granted, it’s 3:30 AM and these are simply my views, based upon an education in this field, an open mind, and no substantial bias in any direction, but they might help Hanson in his quest for answers. Someone had better forward them to him. I know he’ll be willing to listen to my arguments and reflect objectively on the issues.

>”Why does Mr. Mubarak lecture us to become intimately engaged in the
>Middle East Peace process, when Mr. Clinton, who was very recently
>intimately engaged, got the intifada for his efforts?”

Well, Sharon made the intifada by marginalizing the PLO by committing brutal, violent attacks on innocent Palestinians while Arafat was suing for peace. As a result the Palestinians lost faith in Arafat’s ability to win through peace what intifada promised to win through war. Mr. Clinton was a marginal player at best. The same ruthless, greedy bastards that supported Sharon’s campaign financially in the US voted for Bush. So Clinton doesn’t have much to do with it at all.

>”And why does Mr. Mubarak seek to advise us about our proper diplomatic
>role, rather than explain to us why an Egyptian masterminded the deaths
>of 3,000 of our citizens and others of his countrymen are top lieutenants
>of Mr. Bin Laden and are now killing Americans in Afghanistan?”

Because Mr. Mubarak can no longer appeal to the UN because it is a benign bureaucracy, usurped by the US. The fact that several culprits were Egyptian is simply not relevant. Several were also British and American (Walker), so does that mean we should blame those countries because of the fact that 1 person out of tens of millions decided to fly a fucking 767 into the World Trade Center?

>”And why, instead of warning about rising anti-Americanism in his
>country ‹ itself the dividend of the virulent propaganda of his own
>state-run presses ‹ does he not ponder another recent poll, one showing
>that 76 percent of Americans themselves have an unfavorable view of the
>Arab world?”

First of all, show me that there’s any difference between the State-Run media in Egypt and the free press in the US right now (in terms of their unrepentant affirmation of government policy) and I will buy you a beer. Second, those people living in the third world have every reason to be hateful of the US, given their exploitation by US multinationals, the pervasiveness (particularly in Egypt) of rude US tourists, and the cultural imperialism which imprints a Leo DiCaprio/Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys aura upon every society in the world. Thirdly, American isolationism is not a new concept. That 76% of Americans don’t trust the Arab world is surprisingly low, given historical statistics.

>”Why do Middle Easterners become excited and haughty as they gloat to
>you that Americans are unpopular in their countries, but suddenly grow
>shocked, silent, and hurt when you politely and calmly explain why the
>feeling is becoming ‹ and perhaps should be ‹ mutual?”

The fact is that America, as a first world nation and our world’s only true superpower, can and must be held to a higher standard. As PLATO once said, the best form of government is a Benevolent Despot. As the governor of the planet earth in this decade, America must display convicted benevolence. Americans (and anyone) have an innate distrust of that which is unknown to them. The US media have done almost nothing to bridge that gap in helping Americans to understand that which opposes them.

>”Why do so many from the Middle East come here to find freedom, security,
>and safety ‹ and then criticize the country that they would never lea
>as they praise the country that they would never return to?”

As a Canadian who lived in the US for three years only to return home to Vancouver I must wonder aloud what could possibly be wrong with trying to amend a society’s behaviour to include that which you think is morally correct. That is how American Democracy was founded in the first place, and that is a fundamental tenet of a democratic society. America offers opportunities which are obvious however one need not ascribe to the entire ideology to benefit from its stronger points.

>”Why did we incur only anger from Eastern Europeans and Orthodox Christians
>for saving the Muslims of the former Yugoslavia from Milosevic, but no
>praise at all from the Islamic world itself?”

You incurred anger from those few who were displaced from their homes in Bosnia — their anger had little to do with religion. And the Islamic world, I certainly shouldn’t need to point our, is as fractious as Christianty and so one shouldn’t expect tacit support for every small deed. Frankly, I wasn’t aware that America’s participation in such events was strategically designed to win praise.

>”If the West Bank is the linchpin of the current Middle East crisis,
>what were wars #1, #2, and #3 there about, when it was entirely in Arab
>hands?”

The Middle East hasn’t been “entirely in Arab hands” for more than two centuries. In fact, in World Wars #1 and #2, the Arabs and Palestinians as well as other Muslims were promised self-rule and the withdrawal of imperialism in exchange for helping us with our war efforts in Europe. Go rent “Lawrence of Arabia”, dumbass.

>”Is there a difference between Palestinians preferring to kill
>Israeli civilians rather than soldiers, and Israelis preferring to
>kill Palestinian fighters rather than civilians?”

I know that I will get an emotional reaction to this statement in the wake of 9/11 but Terrorism is a tool of war for those who cannot fight wars. Israel must be held to a higher standard because they are clearly an army of occupation. Despite that, Isreali forces have shown no qualms, especially under Sharon’s leadership throughout the years, regarding the targeting of civilians. In the 1950s, then General Sharon burned entire villages and towns to rubble to make a highway safe for the passage of Israeli tanks, thus leading to his current legal troubles battling a Belgian war crimes tribunal.

>”Would the world be angry if a Jewish terrorist forced a captured
>Muslim to admit to his race and faith as he executed and beheaded
>him on film?”

Sadly this is the type of incident that has frequently occurred on both sides of the 50 years war. No one’s hands are clean here. I remind you that war is a brutal, savage thing and atrocities are committed on both sides. The correct question is: if an American special forces colonel captured an Al Quaeda soldier and tortured him, would we even hear about it on CNN?

>”Why do not Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, who overtly and
>stealthily war along side the Palestinians, simply all join with
>the former to gang up and declare war openly on Israel and then
>settle the issue on the battlefield?”

Because they themselves cannot get along with each other. Just like in Catholicism there are many sects within the Islamic faith, differing widely on cultural and political issues. The US has had a policy over the last 50 years of maintaining a delicate balance between the Sunnis, Shi’ites, and other more moderate groups in order to prevent Pan-Arabism from threatening not only Israel, but also the worldwide oil supply.

>”If we remove the fascist regime in Iraq and help institute
>consensual government there, why would we need troops any
>longer next door in Saudi Arabia? What and from whom would we
>then be there to protect?”

Since Saddam Hussein represents the Sunni minority in Iraq, if you removed him and held an election you would install a Shi’ite government which, when it aligned with the Iranian Shi’ites, would threaten the region in ways never before conceived of. The result would be a permanent and massively mechanized US presence in Saudi Arabia.

>”Has any American in any live broadcast on television ever
>asked a Saudi prince, the king of Jordan, the President of
>Egypt, or the royalty of Kuwait, whether they plan on allowing
>a free press or democratic government? If not, why not?”

American foreign policy is not focused on the global acceptance of democracy. American foreign policy seeks to support those governments which are favourable to US interests, and that will maintain a free-flowing supply of oil.

>”If 19 Americans incinerated 3,000 Muslims in Mecca or Medina,
>and blew up 20 acres in either of those cities with a two-kiloton
>explosion, would the Saudis or the Egyptians a few weeks later
>politely listen to admonitions from the American government about
>their incorrect Islamic policies in the Middle East?”

In 1991, American B-52s carpet bombed and killed somewhere between 125,000 – 200,000 Shi’ite conscripts who were herded out into the Kuwaiti desert by the Iraqi Republican Guard and were essentially starving to death and running out of ammunition and who were effectively waiting to surrender. At issue here is the fact that the incident was the most under-reported atrocity of the war, estimates of the numbers of dead varying so widely because not a single Western journalist chased down the story.

>”If the Eiffel Tower had been wrecked by an al Qaeda hijacked
>airliner, would the French have gone into Afghanistan after the
>terrorists? And if so, how and why? And would they have asked our
>help? And would we have given it?”

Since the French cannot effectively project power into the region, they would have sought the support of NATO. America would have used this as an excuse to do exactly what they’re doing today. If you think that the US is in the region solely to fight a war on terrorism then I have a bridge to sell you. It would have been much more difficult of course to sell the war to the American public, which traditionally turns a blind eye to deaths in foreign countries. Most Americans, including Joe Kennedy, thought that Hitler was a progressive leader while he was slaughtering jews by the tens of thousands in 1939.

>”Why in the last decade have we seen a succession of Israeli prime
>ministers and opposition figures but only Mr. Arafat alone?”

Last time I checked, Palestine isn’t even a country and the PLO isn’t a government. How can one have a democracy without borders?

>”Why do Middle Easterners become far more enraged at Israelis for
>shooting hundreds of Muslims than at Iranians, Iraqis, Jordanians,
>Syrians, Indians, Algerians, Russians, Somalis, and Serbians for
>liquidating tens of thousands?”

Israeli jeeps regularly pull up to taunt the inhabitants of Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, where Muslims live in poverty without running water, plagued by disease, and walled in by the lack of education. Understandably, the occupants of the camps (young boys mostly) vent their frustration by throwing rocks at these jeeps. The Isrealis return fire with rockets. Does that not deserve criticism? All murder is worthy of examination and analysis — for instance, how many times more people have the US killed in Afghanistan than were killed at the WTC?

>”Will Palestinians cheer when Saddam Hussein launches chemical-laden
>missiles against Israel when we invade his country?”

Yes. Why shouldn’t they? I keep getting this feeling they’re at war… Oh yes, that’s right! THEY ARE.

>”If someone blew up another 3,000 Americans, would the EU do anything?”

Did America declare a war on Terrorism after the hostage disaster at the 1972 Munich Olympics, where the Isreali athletes were held hostage and subsequently killed by Palestinian terrorists? Did they declare a war on Terrorism when the US-supported IRA bombed a hotel during a wedding at Enneskillen in 1981?

>”Has anyone made an inventory of the all the goods, services, and
>equipment that France has sold to Iraq since 1991?”

Has anyone inventoried the military hardware sold by the US over the last 30 years to Iran, one of the most prominent members of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”?

The point of my selective responses to this profoundly disturbing article is to illustrate that hypocrisy is everywhere and that America, as imperialists, are necessarily held to a higher standard than third world countries. America is plagued by the difficulty of being “reluctant imperialists”, wherein American foreign policy requires the projection of power and influence worldwide to keep the economy moving but the citizens of the US are largely isolationists.

-Ian.

On 3/16/02 7:20 PM, “John Hall” wrote:

> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson031502.shtml
>
>
>
> Some of the better ones:
>
>
>
> If the West Bank is the linchpin of the current Middle East crisis, what were
> wars #1, #2, and #3 there about, when it was entirely in Arab hands?
>
>
>
> Is there a difference between Palestinians preferring to kill Israeli
> civilians rather than soldiers, and Israelis preferring to kill Palestinian
> fighters rather than civilians?
>
>
>
> If the Eiffel Tower had been wrecked by an al Qaeda hijacked airliner, would
> the French have gone into Afghanistan after the terrorists? And if so, how and
> why? And would they have asked our help? And would we have given it?
>
>
>
> What would the world think if Mr. Sharon displayed a revolver and then
> attempted to strike one of his ministers at a Cabinet meeting?
>
>
>
> Why do Palestinians shoot machine-guns up into the air at funerals and
> Israelis do not?
>
>
>
> If nearly two-thirds of the Arabic world believe that Arabs were not involved
> in September 11, why should any American believe anything that two out of
> three people from that region say?
>
>
>
> Has anyone heard a Muslim in the United States condemn September 11 without
> employing the word “but?”
>
>
>
>
>

Sunday, March 4, 2001

Workers Who Survive Layoffs Often Share Certain Traits

By SARAH HALE, Times Staff Writer

     Am I a keeper or a goner?

     That is the question Edward, an engineer for a multibillion-dollar company, asked himself when his employer announced last fall that his close-knit research unit was going to be cut.

     He had worked with the manufacturing company for 25 years and was counting on an added pension bonus when he turned 50 in a few years. He didn’t want to leave.

     Edward and his co-workers began an involuntary, workplace version of “Survivor.” Instead of the $1-million jackpot 16 castaways are fighting for on CBS’ staged, unscripted series, the prize was a coveted position at another unit of the company.

     As the number of layoffs at U.S. companies continues to soar–totaling more than 275,000 jobs since December–many workers are being forced to play this game. In the meantime, a resounding “Do I have what it takes?” lingers in the back of their minds. Who is the best and the brightest?

     Layoffs are hitting every segment of the economy, experts say, so no one is safe. Just two weeks ago, Polaroid Corp. and Samsonite Corp. each said they plan to cut several hundred jobs. SCI Systems Inc., an electronics contract manufacturer, said last week that it plans to cut about 3,800 jobs. Even officials at Cisco Systems, a leading technology company, noted that layoffs are possible, an action the company had vowed to avoid. Auto maker DaimlerChrysler, Amazon.com and media giant AOL Time Warner also have announced job cuts in recent months.

     Edward, who asked that his full name and company name not be used, was lucky. Because of his experience heading big projects, he was offered a job in a different department in the company. Although Edward recently started his new position, many of his former co-workers are jobless.

     “For a long time, we didn’t know what was going on,” Edward said. “That’s what hurt the most.”

     Edward’s ability to use his experience and skills in a new position pushed his name to the top of the list. That kind of flexibility is essential for surviving a downsizing, workplace experts say.

     Eric Rolfe Greenberg, director of management studies for the American Management Assn., said mass layoffs–those in which a company fires 50 or more employees–aren’t about choosing the good guy over the bad guy.

     Layoffs are about finding employees with the skills needed to handle two or three times more work. These employees can easily pick up the extra workload that builds after co-workers leave. Employees who can be described as multi-specialists or as able to multi-task are automatically considered more valuable, Greenberg said.

     “These employees are considered gold-collar workers,” he said, adding that employees should consider themselves nonstop students, taking advantage of free training programs and seminars.

     Bill Price, a spokesman with Lucent Technologies Inc., agreed. Lucent, a communications equipment maker, said a month ago that it plans to cut 10,000 jobs, including about 350 jobs in California. Although the company plans to target certain units, namely those involved with digital messaging, Price said, employees who could easily apply their skills to a more profitable area have the best chance of being retained.

     But this version of workplace “Survivor” doesn’t give employees a lot of time to evaluate and change their skills. Becoming a key company asset can take months or years of hard work, Greenberg said.

     In order to outlast the others, employees should think of a layoff strategically.

     “It’s a giant game of musical chairs,” said John A. Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm. “There aren’t enough seats for everyone.”

     Employees working in a part of a company that generates high revenue can probably avoid becoming a casualty, he said. Employers also look for people who can generate new ideas and motivate others. Employees who fill leadership roles without being asked also have more favorable odds, he said.

     It’s important the company know about your accomplishments, Challenger said. “Sit down and talk with your boss over lunch. Don’t assume everyone knows what you’ve done.”

     Jane Caddell, a former human resources employee with Atlantic Richfield Co.’s Arco Gas division, said that by demonstrating flexibility and leadership skills, she was able to hold on to her job when the company downsized. By indicating her willingness to try new things, work with new people and take on new projects, she stayed with the company longer.

     Although Caddell, now a vice president at Employer’s Group, a corporate consulting firm, eventually lost her job, she was able to better handle the bad news because that earlier victory had assured her she was a good employee.

     “I was confident in my performance,” she said. “That’s what mattered the most.”

     Susan Annunzio, coauthor of “eLeadership” (Free Press, 2001) and a corporate consultant, said employees should first evaluate their positions on the company’s food chain. If they determine their skills would be an asset to the company’s new direction, they should approach a senior-level manager to discuss new ideas or past accomplishments. It’s important, she noted, to be respectful and not sound arrogant or condescending.

     “Technology is the key,” she said. “When employees suggest new Web or digital ideas, it tells the company that they care about the industry’s future.”

     The best strategies for surviving a layoff don’t begin when the company makes the announcement. Instead, employees should pay attention to industry reports, company stock prices, quarterly reports and evaluations. These employees will know about potential layoffs before they are formally announced.

     In the meantime, Patrick Lennahan, director of the Career Center at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, said employees should be prepared to leave their jobs at any time. Lennahan recommends that employees update their resumes, organize portfolios and gather work samples in preparation for unanticipated cutbacks. “You have to be realistic,” he said.

     After the layoffs have been made and the desks have been cleared, layoff survivors have an additional emotional burden to overcome. Oftentimes, “survivor syndrome” kicks in.

     “It can be more traumatic for the people who stay than the people who go,” Lennahan said.

     Feelings of guilt, stress from heavier workloads and uneasiness about the company’s future contribute to survivor syndrome. Morale and productivity go down as well, the AMA’s Greenberg said.

     “Companies often lose people they intended to keep,” Greenberg said. And it can take up to two years for a company to bounce back. “Remaining employees don’t like the new atmosphere.”

     Survival hasn’t been easy for Edward.

     “It’s been a grieving process,” he said. “I’m happy to still have a job, but I’m worried about my friends who don’t.”       * * *

How to be a Survivor

     Some tips that may help employees survivor a downsizing:      1. Understand your company. Follow the industry and learn about the company’s products. Read quarterly reports and evaluations for your company and its competitors.      2. Fine tune your skills. Be willing to learn new things and then use them to enhance your performance.      3. Be proud of your accomplishments. Without sounding arrogant, remind senior level managers of some of the projects you’ve completed.      4. Be flexible. Offer to move to a different unit within the company. Be willing to work with new people under new supervisors.      5. Learn about technology. Companies value employees who have are up to date ontechnology.      6. Make friends. Employees who demonstrate their ability to get along with others are in demand.      7. Become a self-manager. Communicate directly with supervisors. Take a leadership role whenever possible, resolve disputes, and offer to work late. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times