Another area where the Bushies are clueless.

An excellent article from today's "Slate". Bushies think words speak louder than
actions.




war stories
Bush's Failed Campaign To Rebrand America
The administration believes public relations is a synonym for diplomacy.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 5:50 PM ET

You've probably never heard of a State Department official named Price Floyd (I hadn't until a few days ago), but his resignation-in-protest, late last March, is as damning a commentary on President George W. Bush's foreign policies as any of the critiques from retired military officers.

Floyd was director of media relations at Foggy Bottom, the most recent of several diplomatic posts that he'd held over the past 17 years, beginning in the administration of Bush's father.

He explained his reason for quitting in a little-read op-ed piece in the May 25 edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (his former hometown newspaper): Basically, he was tired of trying to convince journalists, here and abroad, "that we should not be judged by our actions, only our words."

Ever since Sept. 11, the State Department, he noted, has embarked on "an unprecedented effort" to explain U.S. foreign policy to both American and foreign audiences. His office arranged more than 6,500 interviews, half with international media. On any given day, senior officials were doing four or five interviews. And yet, poll after poll revealed rising animosity toward America.

But the problem wasn't our words; as he put it, "What we don't have here is a failure to communicate." Rather, it was our actions, "which speak the loudest of all."

Rejecting the Kyoto treaty, dissing the International Criminal Court, revoking the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo—"these actions," Floyd wrote, "have sent an unequivocal message: The U.S. does not want to be a collaborative partner. This is the policy we have been 'selling' through our actions." As a result, our words are ignored or dismissed as "meaningless U.S. propaganda."

In a phone interview today, Floyd—who is now director of external relations at the Center for a New Security, a Washington think tank—elaborated on what led him to abandon his career at the State Department, the only place he'd ever wanted to work.

"I'd be in meetings with other public-affairs officials at State and the White House," he recalled. "They'd say, 'We need to get our people out there on more media.' I'd say, 'It's not so much the packaging, it's the substance that's giving us trouble.' "

He recounted a phone conversation with a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad who wanted Floyd and his colleagues to sell the media more "good-news stories" about the war in Iraq. "I said, 'Fine, tell me a good-news story, I want good-news stories, too.' There was a silence on the other end of the line," he recalled. "It was like you could hear crickets chirping."

Floyd would tell his colleagues that the administration's message was drifting dangerously out of synch with reality. He was finding it increasingly difficult to place officials' op-ed pieces in serious newspapers. Few broadcast media, other than Christian radio networks, wanted to interview the department's experts, dismissing what they had to say as "more blah-blah from the State Department."

After a few recitations of these warnings, his bosses, as he put it, "started telling me to shut up. They didn't want to hear this."

The problem, of course, went—and still goes—well beyond the State Department bureaucracy. Ever since 9/11, President Bush and his top aides have acted as if they needed only to "rebrand" America—devise a slogan or set of images—in order to clear up hostile foreigners' misunderstandings about our nature and intentions.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks, Bush hired Charlotte Beers, a prominent advertising executive, to be undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. She spent nearly a year producing a slick documentary, which preview audiences greeted with howls and catcalls, before hightailing it back to Madison Avenue. After Beers came Margaret Tutwiler, James Baker's can-do press aide during the presidency of Bush's father, who, it turned out, couldn't do this job, either. Then came Karen Hughes, Bush Jr.'s own former spin-master, who embarked on two disastrous trips to the Middle East early on in her tenure and has lain low ever since.

The problem wasn't Beers, Tutwiler, or Hughes personally. Rather, it was the assumption that led Bush to believe that they were qualified for the job to begin with—the assumption that public relations is a synonym for diplomacy.

Back in 2004, the RAND Corporation issued a report that anticipated the main point Floyd would later make from the inside, equally in vain—that the key factor in public diplomacy is not what the U.S. government says but rather what it does.

"Misunderstanding of American values is not the principal source of anti-Americanism," the report concluded. Many foreigners understand us just fine; they simply don't like what they see. It's "some U.S. policies [that] have been, are, and will continue to be major sources of anti-Americanism." (Italics are in the original.)

One crucial aspect of this problem antedates George W. Bush's presidency. It goes back to the mid-1990s, when Jesse Helms, then the xenophobic Republican chairman of the Senate foreign-relations committee, gutted the U.S. Information Agency and swept its tattered remnants into a dark, dank corner of the State Department.

In its Cold War heyday, the USIA had been a fairly independent agency mandated with blaring the principles of American culture and democracy across the world. It sponsored jazz concerts and radio broadcasts, speaking tours, public libraries filled with classic political documents. The operation was so independent from policy-makers that, during the 1960s and early '70s, some American scholars sent out on USIA-sponsored speaking tours openly opposed the Vietnam War.

The agency's relative independence—and its staff's attunement to foreign cultures and languages—conveyed an attractive image of America. But it was also what annoyed Sen. Helms, and so he dismantled the whole operation.

Price Floyd traces the decline of America's standing in the world to this moment. "Back then, the USIA transmitted American values—and this was separate from selling American policy," he said. "The two aren't separated now. There's no entity that makes it possible to separate them. So, if you disagree with our policy, which is easy to do now, then you hate America, too."

In the interview and in his Star-Telegram op-ed piece, Floyd called for something like a restoration of the old USIA, at least in spirit—a return to public diplomacy (as opposed to public relations), a sustained demonstration that America is about more than bombs and soldiers, a realignment of America's words and its actions.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

Why Torture DOESN'T WORK!

Check out this truly excellent op-ed piece from today's Washington Post. True Military men understand why our new desire to torture is not just wrong, it's counter-productive.

It's Our Cage, Too
Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies

By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
Thursday, May 17, 2007; A17

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

For all you "tort reform" lovers out there

I enjoyed this article. Tort reform proponents have had a wonderful time taking some extreme civil litigation examples and using them to convince the "little guys" in this world - the ones who most need an open and available court system that the system is in fact bad for them. This article is the other side of that story.


What could make Jordan Fogal, a 61-year-old ultra-conservative Republican grandmother from Texas, refuse to vote for a single Republican in the last election? Two innocent sounding words: mandatory arbitration.

What could make Jordan Fogal, a 61-year-old ultra-conservative Republican grandmother from Texas, refuse to vote for a single Republican in the last election? Two innocent sounding words: mandatory arbitration.

In 2002, Jordan was a happily married senior citizen living in a brand new house and making plans for retirement. She believed in "the system," she believed in the law, and she believed in America. Jordan had the American dream, and then she lost it. Or, more accurately, she signed it away.

When the Fogals reviewed the contract to purchase a new home, they saw a mandatory arbitration clause. The clause said that, if they had any dispute with the builder, they would be required to submit to binding arbitration -- where disputes are decided by an arbitrator -- and could not take them to court. But since they had a warranty on the house, homeowners' insurance, positive results from a complete inspection, and had dealt with a reputable licensed realtor, they weren't worried. In any case, arbitration sounded like a civilized way to handle conflict. Who needs the courts?

The truth is, however, that although arbitration sounded reasonable and pleasant, it can be anything but. Arbitrators are not required to adhere to the law in making their decisions. In fact, not only can arbitrators make rulings that a public court would find poorly reasoned, or even silly, they do not have to provide reasons for their decisions. To make matters worse, their decisions can almost never be overturned by a court. Yet, the worst part about mandatory arbitration is that the arbitrators have a vested interest in siding with the businesses that make their services, and thus their arbitration fees, mandatory.

They learned all of this soon enough. The day they moved in, the Fogals' dining room ceiling caved in from leaks in the plumbing. Soon after, windows leaked, floors buckled, walls protruded, mold grew, and a foul odor filled the house. The Fogals wound up paying $9,537 to participate in an arbitration of their claim, not including their lawyers' fees (supporters of arbitration claim you don't need one, but the builder they were trying to hold accountable seemed to think he needed his). Without this clause, they would have just paid a filing fee of at most $350 and taken their case to court.

The Fogals lost their home because they could not afford to pay for alternative housing, moving expenses, lawyers' fees, arbitration fees, and their mortgage at the same time and because they were also not willing to try and dump the house on another family. Sure that government would intervene to protect her, Jordan went to every representative in her state to notify them of the injustice she and her husband had endured. All of the Republicans ignored her. Indeed, support for mandatory arbitration agreements, tort "reform," and other means of keeping Americans out of the courts have been a Republican staple for years.

Finally, two Democratic state representatives wrote letters on her behalf, but even they told her that there was little they could do because of an old federal law favoring arbitration agreements passed when they were primarily only made between corporations. But at least they tried.

Right now you may be thinking, "that is a sad story, but it could never happen to me because I would never sign a mandatory arbitration agreement." Unfortunately, if you have a new home, new car, car lease, credit card, bank account, cell phone, storage room, utilities, or an exterminator chances are you already have.

Do not just take my word for it, look at your contract.

And when you call your company to complain, and they respond that arbitration is cheaper and faster than a normal trial and for your own good, ask them, "then why is it mandatory?"

Mother's Day, Not a Hallmark Holiday

Enjoy this PSA from a group called "No More Victims" (http://mothersdayforpeace.com/). The group provides medical care for Children injured in war.
Turns out Mother's Day was created by Julia Ward Howe (writer of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"). Who, after witnessing the carnage of the U.S. Civil war, wanted Mothers to unite for Peace. The video recites her original proclamation -- it's very moving.

Good news from Newsweek

Below is an article summarizing the most recent Newsweek poll about politics & the '08 elections.
The first good news is that Bush's approval has dropped to 28%, the lowest for any President since Carter - lower than his father just before Clinton trounced him. The second bit of good news, I hope, is that although all three front-running Democratic candidates beat Republicans in hypothetical matchups, Hillary beats them by less than Obama or Edwards. The Democrats REALLY, REALLY need to realize how much of middle America HATES Hillary. Plus, everyone in the country right now realizes that we need change and progress and Hillary & co, think we just need to go back to the Bill Clinton days. Clinton's brand of Democratic politics was far too wishy-washy for the problems we now face and I fear that Hillary would be worse.

NEWSWEEK Poll: Bush Hits All-Time Low

George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence?

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Marcus Mabry

Newsweek

Updated: 9:31 a.m. CT May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Perhaps that explains why Republican candidates, participating in their first major debate this week, mentioned Bush’s name only once, but Ronald Reagan’s 19 times. (The debate was held at Reagan’s presidential library.)

When the NEWSWEEK Poll asked more than 1,000 adults on Wednesday and Thursday night (before and during the GOP debate) which president showed the greatest political courage—meaning being brave enough to make the right decisions for the country, even if it jeopardized his popularity —more respondents volunteered Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (18 percent each) than any other president. Fourteen percent of adults named John F. Kennedy and 10 percent said Abraham Lincoln. Only four percent mentioned George W. Bush. (Then again, only five percent volunteered Franklin Roosevelt and only three percent said George Washington.)

A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is “stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,” compared to 30 percent who say Bush’s actions demonstrate that he is “willing to take political risks to do what’s right.”

Former New York City major Rudolph Giuliani receives the highest marks for having shown political courage in the past among the current major candidates from either party (48 percent of registered voters say he has), followed by Hillary Clinton at 43 percent, John McCain at 42, John Edwards at 33 and Barack Obama at 30. Mitt Romney comes in last among the six leading candidates at 11 percent.

Clinton receives the highest marks for showing political courage in the current campaign, though, with 34 percent of voters saying she has, followed by 33 percent for Obama, 30 percent for Edwards, 28 for McCain, 25 for Giuliani and 11 for Romney.

Obama is seen as the most optimistic candidate (a consistent measure of electability) in either party: 51 percent of registered voters say the Illinois senator is optimistic, compared to 47 percent who say Edwards is, 46 percent for Clinton, 45 percent for Giuliani, 40 percent for McCain, and 27 for Romney.

While the poll has some high marks for Clinton, it’s not all good news. Though the New York senator and former first lady aims to project an aura of inevitability that she will win the Democratic nomination, Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

Where Clinton remains the undisputed champ is among Democrats. When matched against her main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is the choice of 51 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters over Obama’s 39 percent; and she defeats Edwards 57 percent to 38 percent. Obama has not substantially narrowed Clinton’s lead since the early March NEWSWEEK poll, where he trailed Clinton by 14 points. Edwards has narrowed Clinton’s lead over him though. Back in March Edwards trailed Clinton by 31 points; now her lead is down to 19 points.

Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, might want to look over his shoulder too. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, Giuliani leads McCain 56 percent to 41 percent (15 points). But two months ago in the NEWSWEEK Poll, Giuliani held a 25-point lead. Both candidates trounce Romney, despite his placing first in the first-quarter fundraising sweepstakes. Giuliani holds a staggering 51-point lead over Romney and McCain holds a 41-point lead over the former Massachusetts governor.

With 38 percent of Republicans dissatisfied with their party’s field, things could get interesting if former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson joins the race; 46 percent of Republicans who are dissatisfied with their candidates say he should (34 percent say he shouldn’t). Of the much smaller 14 percent of Democrats who are dissatisfied with their candidates, 60 percent say they want former vice president and Democratic nominee Al Gore to join the fray. Current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat who changed parties shortly before running for mayor, receives unenthusiastic support from both Republicans and Democrats: 18 percent of dissatisfied Democrats would like to see Bloomberg join the Democratic field, and an even more anemic 14 percent of Republicans would like to see him join theirs.

All of the candidates can perhaps take some solace in Americans’ dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the United States at this time (only 25 percent are satisfied; 71 percent dissatisfied). American dissatisfaction ratings last hit 71 in the NEWSWEEK poll in May 2006, at the height of the scandal over secret government wiretapping inside the United States. The last time that even half of our survey respondents were happy with the direction of the country was in April 2003, shortly after the start of the Iraq war. With that many unhappy Americans, the nation should have a strong appetite for new leaders and new ideas.

The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International May 2-3. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,001 adults, age 18 and older; the overall margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin of error for questions asked only of Democrats and Democratic leaners is plus or minus 7 percentage points; for Republicans and GOP leaners, 8 percentage points.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

Rove, lover of Nixon

Check out this truly scary video from You tube. It's almost a "Puff piece" by Dan Rather from early 1972 about how Nixon's re-election campaign was set up. Only in hindsight does it seem sinister as he rattles off now infamous names like Magruder and John Mitchell. And only NOW does the involvement of a young man in charge of the young Republicans named Karl Rove make one shiver. But it's a good reminder that Rove learned his take no prisoners destroy everyone in your way style of politics under the tutelage of that band of criminals that surrounded Richard Nixon!