[Peace-discuss] Iraq and the Art of Misdirection (fwd)

[patton paul]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 2 Oct 2002 14:38:27 -0000
From: MoveOn Bulletin <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Dr. Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Iraq and the Art of Misdirection

IRAQ AND THE ART OF MISDIRECTION

MoveOn Bulletin
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
Edited by Susan Thompson (susan.thompson at moveon.org)

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/


CONTENTS
---------
1. Introduction: Domestic Issues Obscured By the Constant Talk of War
2. One Link: A Classic Case of Misdirection
3. War Dominates the Agenda
4. Energy Racketeering and Corporate Scandals
5. The Economy
6. Trade Wars
7. The Environment (and Oil)
8. Social Spending and Changes to Social Programs
9. About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org


INTRODUCTION: DOMESTIC ISSUES OBSCURED BY THE CONSTANT TALK OF WAR
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you beat the war drum loudly enough, can you drown out
discussion of all other domestic issues? It certainly seems like
the Bush administration is trying. The rush to war is dominating
the US agenda, drawing attention away from a whole host of
pressing problems. While Iraq remains the focus of the nightly
news, congressional discussion, and the campaign trail, other
issues naturally fade into the background. And this is the most
helpful place for them to remain if President Bush wants to
maintain his approval rating. Whether or not the Iraq war is a
case of "wag the dog," it is certainly diverting attention from
policies that might otherwise be threatening the current
administration's very existence.

The ailing economy is perhaps the biggest and most obvious problem
facing the US at the moment. The stock market is doing poorly. The
deficit is growing. Millions of people have lost their jobs. The
Bush administration's budgeting demonstrates a policy of going
after social spending, especially to finance expensive war
efforts. The problems with the economy seem to have a very close
relationship with Bush's tax cuts, and with the ever growing costs
of Bush's war policies.

Several other major issues have also been pushed off the front
page (but just barely). Details of energy and corporate scandals
continue to surface, but the coverage of Iraq has muted the
stories. Environmental issues are treated as inconsequential,
despite the fact that by many accounts, the US is speeding up the
probability of climactic disaster by killing the Kyoto Protocol and
instituting oil-friendly policies at home. Trade problems have
driven up the price of steel and lumber domestically, and could
possibly spark punishing trade wars with powerful entities such as
the European Union.

These issues can't be sidelined forever. Pollution doesn't fix
itself; poverty and illness won't just go away. So while President
Bush prosecutes a war on Iraq in the name of national security,
our security is silently slipping away.


ONE LINK: A CLASSIC CASE OF MISDIRECTION
----------------------------------------
The Email Activist provides an excellent statement on the current
situation: "The Bush administration=92s domestic policy has been an
utter failure for everyone except the wealthy. The gap between the
rich and poor continues to grow. The budget surplus that prompted
last year=92s raid on the Treasury turned out to be an accounting
fiction. Rampant corporate corruption on an unregulated Wall
Street has wiped out the life savings and retirement portfolios of
countless citizens and has eliminated thousands of jobs. And since
September 11, our constitutional rights have been vanishing faster
than al-Qaeda operatives . . . So why has all this bad news pretty
much disappeared from the national radar screen? The answer is
Iraq. The Bush team is successfully manipulating the media (and
the Congress) into shifting all attention away from its shameful
failures by announcing its intention to take out Saddam Hussein.
It=92s a classic case of misdirection. Like a pickpocket, the Bush
administration is stealing your wallet with one hand while
distracting you with the other one." This short article includes a
sample letter to send to your representatives that highlights the
main points made in the article.
http://www.theemailactivist.org/hocuspocus.htm

(Editor's Note: For other actions opposing war on Iraq, please see
our own action page at: http://www.moveon.org/nowar/ . )


WAR DOMINATES THE AGENDA
-------------------------
In this compelling article, the author asks us to "[i]magine the
43rd Presidency without Osama bin Laden, the year 2001 with an
uneventful September 11," and summarizes the many problems that
would be besieging President Bush without a war to split America's
focus.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D154

This pro-Bush article still manages to make an excellent point
about the President: "Polls show that only one issue works in
Bush's favor: terrorism. On the environmental [sic], global
warming, prescription drug plans for the elderly, the right of HMO
patients to sue in court, campaign-finance reform, corporate
oversight and every other major public question, Americans back
the approaches preferred by the Democrats. Only on education and
tax cuts (both already passed) has Bush the makings of a national
majority." For this reason, it only makes sense for Bush to
continue to focus on the issue of Iraq: "The president always has
the power to control the subject of the national debate. As Bush
uses this power to focus on the dangers Saddam Hussein poses for
the U.S. and for Israel, what other issues will really matter?"
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/56314.htm

Indeed, the issue of Iraq is dominating Bush's campaigning. Bush
spends the majority of his fundraising speeches discussing war,
with very little mention of other pressing domestic issues. The
author conjectures that this may be a move calculated to win
support from Republicans.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D155


ENERGY RACKETEERING AND CORPORATE SCANDALS
-------------------------------------------
In this excellent article titled "The Art of Changing the
Subject," the author argues that "...it seems all anyone in
Washington can think or talk about is terrorism, rebuilding
Afghanistan and un-building Iraq. It leads one to wonder, what
happened to all those domestic issues? Well, I checked. Those
issues are still with us. And, while the cat's away at war,
administration mice are having a field day with them." Aside from
discussing the controversial new proposals on logging (which are
also mentioned in the environmental section of this bulletin) the
article provides updates on big business accounting and energy
racketeering.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D156


THE ECONOMY
------------
In 2001, unemployment rates skyrocketed to 5.8 percent. 2 million
people lost their jobs.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/jobs-j05.shtml

There has been a mild recent upturn in the economy this year that
has some people optimistic; however, the National Bureau of
Economic Research is hesitating to issue an official end to the
recession which began in 2001. The group is mainly concerned that
the economy may take another sharp downturn. They will partly base
their decision on a report on Septembers payrolls coming out this
Friday. Economists predict that it will indicate that unemployment
has risen to 5.9%.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D157

On Tuesday, Sept. 24, the Dow broke at its lowest levels since
1998. Investors fear that things will only get worse.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.26E.dow.4yr.low.htm

Because of the poor market, many people will have to delay
retirement, and may have less money when they do retire. The age
group closest to retiring suffered the most losses.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D158

The deficit is also bigger than originally expected. This is
because, according to USA Today, " The accounting tricks used by
U.S. companies are nothing compared with Washington's bookkeeping
circus." Some of the examples cited in the article include:

* The Office of Management and Budget recently admitted that the
deficit for the current year is going to be more than 50 percent
bigger than previously reported: $165 billion, not $106 billion,
as was claimed five months ago.

* Last year's $127-billion surplus would actually have been a
$515-billion deficit if the accounting was done according to
regular rules.

* When Congress was desperate last year to justify accelerating
the massive tax cut, it simply shifted the date when corporations
were required to make a quarterly tax payment, resulting in a
one-time windfall of $33 billion, heisted from the following year.

* The 2001 alternative fiscal report prepared using real-world
accounting standards shows $17.3 billion in money that simply
couldn't be accounted for.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/07/16/nceditf.htm

According to the linked article, recently released information on
the US economy indicated that:

* The percentage of Americans living in poverty rose to 11.7
percent, the highest rate in a decade. The number of poor
Americans rose by 1.3 million since Bush took office.

* The American middle class has suffered too. The median household
income declined 2.2 percent, to $42,228, after adjusting for
inflation - the first decline in household income since 1991.

* Particularly bad news for Republicans, the figures show that
poverty last year increased most in the suburbs, in the South, and
among whites.

* And, the figures confirmed Democrat charges that the Bush tax
cuts would help only the wealthy. They showed that the most
affluent fifth of the population received more than half of all
income last year, up from 45 percent in 1985. The figures show
that the top 5 percent of households were the only group surveyed
for whom income rose last year.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D159

Even with the distraction of war, recent polls show that Americans
blame Bush for the poor economy, and tend to side with the
Democrats on the issue.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=3D3073


TRADE WARS
-----------
Recent tariffs on lumber industries have been enacted in order to
protect US trade interests, angering close US neighbor and biggest
trading partner Canada. Canada has pledged to make a complaint to
the WTO about the tariffs [which it has done since this article
was published -Ed.]. A new farm bill has only added to the tension
around US trade policies.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D160

This excellent article summarizes the protectionism characteristic
of the Bush administration with specific examples and a discussion
of the global perception of the US's actions, which seem to be
threatening global trade negotiations. Basically, it seems to be a
case of "do as I say, not as I do." The US has been imposing
tariffs on steel, Canadian lumber, Australian lamb meat, and
Vietnamese catfish, and more heavily subsidizing the agriculture
industry -- this despite the fact that the US has been the biggest
advocate of decreasing agricultural protection in Japan and
domestically, and is the leading advocate of free trade, or trade
without restrictions (such as tariffs). The steel tariffs have
sparked international anger and could result in the EU imposing
its own heavy tariffs on the US if the US does not offer
compensation for the money lost. Japan could also act to punish US
industry, meaning that the steel tariffs may trigger an
international trade war with the US.
http://www.island.lk/2002/07/14/busine08.html

Yet the US continues to pursue new free trade agreements: "Under
cover of the corporate (and independent) media's obsession with GW
Bush's maniacal 'war on terror,' the US is pursuing new trade
negotiations to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) debacle to Central and South America. The Free Trade Area
of the Americas (FTAA) aims at creating a free-trade zone
throughout the western hemisphere, with a target date of January
2005. The effects of which could have an even more dismal impact
on millions of people throughout North and South America then has
the latest imperialist government's war." This article debunks
some of the official claims regarding the benefits of FTAA.
http://www.counterpunch.org/kyer0912.html


THE ENVIRONMENT (AND OIL)
--------------------------
Under the leadership of President Bush, the US has backed out of
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol -- the agreement by which more than 100
nations pledged to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming. The US pullout basically kills the treaty,
because "although it accounts for only 4 per cent of the world's
population, it is responsible for 25 per cent of the emissions of
gases that cause the greenhouse effect." The reason behind the
administration's aversion to environmental issues is obvious: Bush
remains committed to serving the interests of the oil and energy
industries that profit off of pollution.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D161

A new energy bill which could potentially have been able to help
reduce America's dependence on oil as an energy source (and thus
dependence on oil sources in the Middle East) contains loopholes
which will essentially mean "increas[ing] our dependence on
imported oil and enshrining it as national policy, " according to
the Sierra Club. It is expected to pass within the next couple of
weeks. Republicans have also revived talk of drilling for oil in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D162

At the recent UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, Colin Powell was jeered for defending the US's
environmental record. The US seemed to remain committed to
advocating business-friendly solutions at the summit.
http://www.iht.com/articles/69739.html

President Bush did not even attend the summit in Johannesburg,
despite the fact that so many other world leaders did, allegedly
because he was too "preoccupied with his fight against terrorism
which has now shifted to the Islamic state of Iraq."
http://allafrica.com/stories/200208300714.html

Is the Bush administration trying to undermine NEPA?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.24E.nrdc.nepa.htm

A new EPA report contains no section on global warming, making it
the first report in six years to omit information on climate
change related to greenhouse gases. The decision to omit the
section was made by top EPA officials with White House approval,
and is drawing fire from environmental groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/politics/15CLIM.html

Meanwhile, according to a US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, "[I]t is possible that the global warming trend projected
over the course of the next 100 years could, all of a sudden and
without warning, dramatically accelerate in just a handful of
years - forcing a qualitative new climatic regime which could
undermine ecosystems and human settlements throughout the world,
leaving little or no time for plants, animals and humans to
adjust."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0301-02.htm

Another important report concludes that no US stream remains
unpolluted. The report also proposes a set of ecological
indicators to help better assess the environmental health of the
US.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D163

The Bush government also recently announced the "Healthy Forests
Initiative," which advocates "mechanical thinning" (aka logging)
of forests with the justification that it is supposed to help
prevent forest fires. The initiative would enable companies to log
forests with almost no restrictions -- and ironically, would
probably increase, not decrease, the chance of forest fires.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=3D14132

Bush campaign contributions are closely linked to the
administration's environmental policies, Earthjustice and Public
Campaign charge in a detailed new report. According to the report,
"Industries now reaping the benefits of an administration intent
on eliminating important environmental and public health
safeguards are the same ones that helped underwrite the
Bush-Cheney campaign and the RNC with more than $44 million in
contributions"
http://www.publicampaign.org/press_releases/pr9-25-02.htm


SOCIAL SPENDING AND CHANGES TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS
----------------------------------------------
How will the US fund a war with Iraq, which by some estimates
could have a $200 billion price tag? By using Social Security:
"The Social Security surplus -- the money in the locked box that
everyone agreed during the 2000 presidential campaign was supposed
to stay sealed -- is currently being used to finance general
government operations. This is, apparently, the well into which
President George W. Bush plans to dip in order to finance his next
war. He has not told us of any other. Social Security trust funds
are the only accounts to tap because the surplus outside of Social
Security has long since vanished. It was wiped out by tax cuts,
slow economic growth and the war in which we already are engaged."
http://www.wnyc.org/discuss/soapbox/message.shtml?msg=3D7398

The Bush administration's proposed budget for 2003 "plans to shift
more of the financial burden of social service provisions to the
states, leaving state and local governments with an aggregate
budget deficit of almost $100 billion." In order to deal with the
deficit, states will probably have to cut back on social programs
such as road construction, policing, education funds, etc. The
reason for the shift is that a large proportion of money is
earmarked for security concerns related to the "war on terrorism,"
leaving less money available for basic public services. Bush's tax
cuts are likely also to blame.
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews/2002/03/sjn0203g.html

While the Bush administration continues to advocate more war,
health care for veterans appears to be a low priority. A Bush
appointee at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Laura J. Miller,
recently sent out a memo to local administrators telling them to
stop healthcare outreach programs to vets so that the Department
could save money. In other words, if the Bush administration just
doesn't tell veterans about the healthcare that they have earned
by virtue of their military service, then the government won't
have to pay for it. The link is to an actual copy of the memo.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D164

Medicare is also suffering under the Bush administration. Bush "is
proposing deep reductions in Medicare payments for a wide range of
drugs and medical devices used to treat people who are elderly or
disabled." Ultimately, this could mean that hospitals won't be
paid enough for certain services, and may have to stop offering
them, meaning that patients would no longer have access to certain
treatments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/politics/22DRUG.html

The number of people without insurance has also jumped in the past
year. There were 41.2 million people without health insurance in
2001, up 1.4 million from 2000. According to experts, this
indicates that the number of people without health insurance is
likely to continue to rise, largely due to "rising health-care
costs, state cutbacks in Medicaid, unemployment increases and
employer decisions to pass along most costs to workers."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1405/3334701.html

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services committees, which provide
expert advice on public health to Bush administration officials,
are being overhauled in order to eliminate views contrary to those
of the Bush government.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D165

The Bush administration is also proposing changes to welfare that
would require that recipients work longer hours and be pushed out
of job training and education programs.
http://peace.moveon.org/r2.php3?r=3D166


ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
-----------------------------------------
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing
information, resources, news, and action ideas on important
political issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online
at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it
at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse the views espoused on the
pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read
them at your own risk.

The MoveOn Bulletin is made possible by a dedicated team of
volunteer researchers and editors.

The Research Team is Leah Appet, Susan Bunyan, Lita Epstein,
Sharon Hametz, Matthew Jones, Harry Scott Knyrim, Linda Langness,
Cameron McLaughlin, Janelle Miau, Vicki Nikolaidis, Dania
Palanker, Kim Plofker, Jesse Rhodes, Christina Schofield, Ora
Szekely, Bland Whitley, and Mary Williams.

The Editing and Proofreading Team is Susan Baird, Robert Comninos,
Kate Daly, Mary Anne Henry, Kendra Lanning, Virginia L. Martin,
Mercedes Newman, Marilyn Parks, Dawn Phelps, Rebecca M. Sulock and
Rita Weinstein.

MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that
affect our lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process,
using the Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan
agenda, raising public awareness of pressing issues, and
coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage sound
public policies.

You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating
in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=3D223

To remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription
management page at: http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=3D782-483317-O=
HOGF2XbLRjwBSgxhWs4jw