More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Bush royalty and Condi loyalty
(Mounzer Sleiman, Aljazeera.net, 25 January 2005)
It is clear from Bush's first four years that he has more influence in arriving at crucial decisions than his critics are willing to admit. Influence from cabinet members such as Colin Powell was much less than most analysts expected. . . . It is an axiom of presidential politics that a second-term president seeks a legacy. And Bush, being a Texan, is prone to thinking big, having apparently set his sights on reshaping not just Iraq but the entire Middle East. . . . From Bush's eyes, America is the world's only superpower and the force for good. This, in his view, confers a unique right to act unilaterally: to orchestrate regime changes when it suits him, to hold elections when it suits him, to arm insurgents and provocateurs when it suits him, to depose democratically elected presidents when it suits him - in short, to play the emperor. . . . Unlike previous presidents, who strove to maintain balances of power and respected recognised spheres of influence, Bush is given to brazenly pushing ahead, camouflaging his aggressive foreign policies amid campaigns to spread democracy and freedom. . . . Bush's new national security team will only reinforce this world view. Rice, Rumsfeld and Hadley are in lockstep with Bush's position, of course, and cannot be expected to differ to any measurable degree. . . . Thus, there is a greater chance that Bush will see his policies implemented, rather than obstructed, by the bureaucracy. . . . To anoint Rice as secretary of state is to send a loud message - that, at least in the Bush administration, it is OK to fail miserably at your job as long as you are loyal. . . . In light of that truth, it is hard to imagine that Rice will be anything other than completely obedient to her master in her new position. . . . We have seen Rice, the national security adviser, fail to assert her power as an independent thinker in that position; her visibility did not translate into success. . . . Her reluctance to speak up - whether due to loyalty to, or awe of, Bush - made her a party to Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney's usurping of power from then secretary of state Powell. . . . Notably, the Bush administration had assigned Rice the responsibility to oversee both the Iraq and the Palestinian situations; she mismanaged both. . . . Now the administration is putting forward the Iraq election as the magic solution to the current military quagmire. The reality will most likely be that the situation will worsen, not improve, after the charade of a "free election". . . . Cheney and Rumsfeld represent the end of an era. Once the young lions under president Gerald Ford, they are now the old guard giving way to a new generation of foreign-policy experts such as Rice. . . . Unfortunately, Rice showed no serious commitment to diplomacy during her confirmation hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite her new slogan "the time of diplomacy is now", which was met by scepticism as one member of the committee responded, "... it is long overdue". . . . And just as the Bush administration has declined to admit any mistakes, Rice declined to take any responsibility for her obvious failures in the past four years. . . . The impression left is that of a defensive political science professor, not of a presidential adviser responsible for coordinating and representing various agencies' views and options to the president, including dissenting ones. . . . While the road to approval from the Senate was relatively smooth for Rice, the path at Foggy Bottom may prove substantially more challenging. . . . The biggest problem with implementing this Bush doctrine is the lack of uncommitted military force. Obviously, the US has considerable political and economic muscle, but as long as the US remains committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, there are few military options that are available with those commitments intact. . . . Consequently, military options against Syria, Iran, and North Korea are limited to air strikes for the foreseeable future. . . . If, by 2006, Iraq is seen as an open sore by the majority of the American people, Bush could lose support in the House and Senate as Republicans begin to oppose the war in order to keep their seats. . . . In that case, Bush may have to moderate his position in order to keep the Republican Party viable. . . . Commenting on the second term, a prominent critic of Bush said: "When historians look back at the Bush presidency, they are more likely to note that what sets him apart is not the crises he managed, but the crises he fabricated."

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 1:19 PM

 

An Israeli Fanatic is 'Bush's Brain'
(Michael Collins Piper, rense.com, 1-22-05)
Supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that President George W. Bush's recent call in his much-heralded inaugural address for worldwide democratic revolution was based on the philosophy of Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly "Natan" Sharansky. . . . Sharansky emigrated to Israel [from the former Soviet Union] and soon emerged as one Israel's most outspoken hard-line extremist leaders who damns even Israel's heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as being "too soft" on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims. . . . The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush's thinking is no "conspiracy theory." Instead, recent disclosures from the White House itself - published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media - demonstrate that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but that - in addition - at least two of Sharansky's key neo-conservative American publicists, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, were among those brought in to compose Bush's revolutionary proclamation. . . . Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12 - even prior to his inauguration: "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy. It's a great book." . . . "Mr. Sharansky's influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings," confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy. [COMMENT by Lorenzo: Of course, we all know that the last book Bush was able to work his way through was My Pet Goat. So this Zionist control of the White House is exercised through Bush's "wife" Condoleezza Rice.] . . . The fact that Sharansky happens to be in charge of "diaspora affairs" in the Israeli cabinet is significant indeed. The term "diaspora" refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the "mission statement" of Sharansky's cabinet office says it places its "emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide. . . . In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are." In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement. And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush's worldview. . . . "President Bush's inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America's present commitments . . ." [COMMENT by Lorenzo: So it looks like the Bush family's blood lust hasn't been satisfied yet. These greedy bastards are hell-bent on spilling more American blood, and MUCH MORE blood of anyone on the planet who has resources these oil men want. A pox on them all!] . . . "Sharansky advocates for human rights only when his own country, Israel, is not involved. Throughout his post-Soviet-prison career, he has used his celebrity to support human rights for everyone"except Palestinians. [Sharansky believes] that before Palestinians are permitted a state and perhaps (just perhaps - he is a strong supporter of Israel's settler movement) an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they must fulfill a host of conditions. For Palestinians, basic rights are conditional; for everyone else, they are fundamental." . . . Pointing out Sharansky's double-standard in proclaiming himself a human rights activist, Rosenberg concluded, . . . "The test of whether one is a human rights activist or one who simply uses the issue for political ends is that person's willingness to apply the human rights measuring stick to his own people. It is pretty easy to limit your calls for human rights to nations other than your own. For Sharansky, concern for Palestinians is the test of whether or not his claim to the mantle of human rights activist is genuine. . . . As [Sharansky's] book demonstrates, he fails"big time" . . .

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 1:07 PM

 

Mad Cow Disease Sources Widespread
(UPI, 1/21/05)
When mice were given infectious diseases of the liver, kidney and pancreas and then inoculated with prions, the dangerous proteins made their way to the infected organs. This indicates that cows and sheep could harbor the disease in any inflamed organ. . . . Swiss scientists have found evidence the proteins causing mad cow disease can travel to other organs besides the brain and nervous system. . . . Writing Friday in the journal Science, researchers at University Hospital in Zurich reported prions, proteins that are the infectious agent in mad cow disease, follow immune cells, called lymphocytes, in the bodies of mice. . . . Mad cow disease can lead to a fatal brain infection in humans.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 5:43 PM

 

Mapping the Global Future
[NOTE: The following is a brief summary of an interesting report prepared by System insiders. The full report is available via the link above.]

The 2020 Global Landscape
Relative Certainties / Key Uncertainties

Globalization largely irreversible, likely to become less Westernized. / Whether globalization will pull in lagging economies; degree to which Asian countries set new "rules of the game."

World economy substantially larger. / Extent of gaps between "haves" and "have-nots"; backsliding by fragile democracies; managing or containing financial crises.

Increasing number of global firms facilitate spread of new technologies. / Extent to which connectivity challenges governments.

Rise of Asia and advent of possible new economic middle-weights. / Whether rise of China/India occurs smoothly.

Aging populations in established powers. / Ability of EU and Japan to adapt work forces, welfare systems, and integrate migrant populations; whether EU becomes a superpower.

Energy supplies "in the ground" sufficient to meet global demand. / Political instability in producer countries; supply disruptions.
[COMMENT by Lorenzo: This is pure fantasy. If you want to be prepared for what is coming, I highly advise you to read Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World.]

Growing power of nonstate actors. / Willingness and ability of states and international institutions to accommodate these actors.

Political Islam remains a potent force. / Impact of religiosity on unity of states and potential for conflict; growth of jihadist ideology.

Improved WMD capabilities of some states. / More or fewer nuclear powers; ability of terrorists to acquire biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

Arc of instability spanning Middle East, Asia, Africa. / Precipitating events leading to overthrow of regimes.

Great power conflict escalating into total war unlikely. / Ability to manage flashpoints and competition for resources.

Environmental and ethical issues even more to the fore. / Extent to which new technologies create or resolve ethical dilemmas.

US will remain single most powerful actor economically, technologically, militarily. / Whether other countries will more openly challenge Washington; whether US loses S&T edge.

At no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux. The end of the Cold War shifted the tectonic plates, but the repercussions from these momentous events are still unfolding. Emerging powers in Asia, retrenchment in Eurasia, a roiling Middle East, and transatlantic divisions are among the issues that have only come to a head in recent years. The very magnitude and speed of change resulting from a globalizing world—apart from its precise character—will be a defining feature of the world out to 2020. Other significant characteristics include: the rise of new powers, new challenges to governance, and a more pervasive sense of insecurity, including terrorism. As we map the future, the prospects for increasing global prosperity and the limited likelihood of great power conflict provide an overall favorable environment for coping with what are otherwise daunting challenges. The role of the United States will be an important variable in how the world is shaped, influencing the path that states and nonstate actors choose to follow. . . . The role of the United States will be an important shaper of the international order in 2020. Washington may be increasingly confronted with the challenge of managing—at an acceptable cost to itself—relations with Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and others absent a single overarching threat on which to build consensus. Although the challenges ahead will be daunting, the United States will retain enormous advantages, playing a pivotal role across the broad range of issues—economic, technological, political, and military—that no other state will match by 2020.

[COMMENT by Lorenzo: Of course, this report assumes that the USA will still be a viable political entity in 2020. That, IMHO, is very doubtful.]

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 8:37 AM