<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, September 16, 2004

The First Draft of Freedom
By PAUL WOLFOWITZ


Washington

The trial of one brave journalist in Indonesia has implications far beyond the courtroom in Jakarta. By the time this article appears, the Central Jakarta District Court is supposed to have handed down a verdict in the case of Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of Tempo, Indonesia's leading newsmagazine, and two of his colleagues.

I hope that reason will prevail on the court and this charge - which never should have been filed - will be dismissed. The mere fact that this case has been brought, however, is a threat to the freedom and democracy that Indonesia has enjoyed since the collapse of the Suharto government six years ago.

The Indonesian government has charged Mr. Bambang with criminal defamation. The charges stem from an article in Tempo that reported on accusations that a suspicious fire in a market in Jakarta in February 2003 may have been connected to plans to turn that area into a fancy commercial shopping center. The plans were possibly connected to a wealthy Indonesian businessman named Tomy Winata.

Mr. Winata sued for civil defamation and, unusually, the government charged Mr. Bambang and two of his colleagues with criminal defamation under laws dating to the Dutch colonial period and the early years of independence. Prosecutors have asked for two-year sentences and - even more unusually - have asked that Mr. Bambang be detained immediately, treating him like a dangerous criminal who should not be allowed to remain at large.

In the interest of disclosure, I should say that I have known Mr. Bambang for nearly 20 years. I knew him particularly well in the late 1980's, when I was American ambassador in Jakarta. I know him to be a journalist of enormous integrity, someone who takes seriously his responsibility not only to publish the truth but also not to publish falsehoods. He is also a Muslim who has courageously denounced terrorism and extremism on the editorial pages of his magazine.

But my concerns about this case extend far beyond my worry about the fate of a friend. I believe that the whole world has a stake in the success of democracy in Indonesia. If this country of almost 240 million, with more Muslims than any other in the world - indeed, with more than 15 percent of the world's Muslim population - can demonstrate its capacity to develop democratic institutions, even in the face of economic adversity, it will be a valuable example for the rest of the world. This is particularly true because Indonesia's strong tradition of religious tolerance in a nation that is almost 90 percent Muslim also makes it an important role model in the post-Sept. 11 world. It is no accident that the terrorist fanatics associated with Al Qaeda have been attacking Indonesia, even before the horrendous bombings in Bali in October 2002. And the attacks continue, with one just last week.

Indonesia has made remarkable progress in developing democratic institutions, despite the catastrophic economic conditions that the new government inherited with the financial collapse that accompanied the demise of the Suharto dictatorship. The country held a fair presidential election in 1999, parliamentary elections last April and is about to conduct a runoff on Monday to complete its second democratic presidential election. These are no small achievements.

While holding two fair presidential elections in a row is a hallmark of democratic progress, the real test of a democracy is how it protects the rights of its citizens. Our own Declaration of Independence doesn't speak of elections but rather about the rights of all human beings to certain "inalienable rights," in particular "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And it is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that citizens cannot be deprived of those rights except by due process of law. Elections are properly viewed as a mechanism to hold government accountable, particularly in its most fundamental responsibility of protecting the rights of its individual citizens.

Accordingly, the rule of law is one of the essential pillars of a democratic society. There are few powers that a democratic state possesses that are as awesome as the power to prosecute its own citizens lawfully. And few things are more threatening to a true democracy than the abuse of that prosecutorial power.

One of the worst possible ways that power can be abused is to take away the freedom of the press and thereby remove one of the most important mechanisms for ensuring that government respects the rights of its citizens. As Mr. Bambang pointed out in his eloquent pleading before the court in August, the collapse of Indonesia's first brief experience with democracy in the 1950's began with "an attempt to undermine freedom of the domestic press through the criminalization of journalists."

Under President Sukarno, 60 press cases were brought before the Special State Court in September 1957 alone. As Mr. Bambang said: "The world's train has long raced away from the station where journalistic works are still criminalized. We ought to be included in the carriage of the world community's progress, and not left behind at the station of backwardness, one that is more fitting to be displayed in a museum and not as a destination."

Both of the candidates in next Monday's presidential runoff election have expressed concern over this case. One hopes that beyond acquitting Mr. Bambang and his colleagues of any of the criminal charges pressed against them, Indonesia will take steps to ensure that this intimidation of a free press should cease.


Paul Wolfowitz is the deputy secretary of defense.


Monday, September 13, 2004

THAT'S LIFE
Loud Mouths
by Michelle Cottle



Only at TNR Online | Post date 09.10.04

Jeez. The Republicans throw one decent convention, Bush's poll numbers show signs of life, and suddenly the entire Democratic Party is agonizing about why its chosen candidate is such a loser. John Kerry was too slow defending himself against attacks. He is too easily put on the defensive. He relies too much on his personal history. His policy positions are too complicated. His campaign has too many advisors. He lacks a core message. He lacks a common touch. His wife is a raving lunatic. His chin is too big. He dances like a girl. And on and on and on.

Enough with the public hand-wringing. For starters, this election is hardly over. Iraq is still a disaster. The economy isn't exactly en fuego. Al Qaeda is very much alive and recruiting like crazy. The entire Middle East, and much of the rest of the world, thinks America is the Great Satan. Our homeland security efforts are scattered and underfunded. Iran and North Korea are building nukes. Dick Cheney is becoming a bigger jerk by the day. Bush's National Guard record is back in the news. And not even Karl Rove's flying monkeys can stop Monday's release of Kitty Kelley's new book--which, while unlikely to inflict much damage to W.'s rep, in part because even many Republicans have long assumed that "I was young and irresponsible" is code for "I was a rich, spoiled, coke-snorting, drunk-driving, awol slamhound," will at least annoy the Bushies for a few days.

To be fair, the thought of four more years of The George and Dick Show is enough to terrify anyone outside of John Ashcroft's immediate family. But if anti-Bushies insist on wallowing in their doubts, fears, and premature recriminations, they should do so beyond the earshot of the bloodthirsty political media. Publicized angst just plays into Republicans' message that Dems are a bunch of weak, self-doubting girly men.

Besides, it's not like we couldn't see Kerry's problems coming from a mile away. The candidate did not wake up one morning in late June to find that he had morphed into a wishy-washy, windsurfing liberal with a mediocre Senate record and poor people skills. Arguably, he has been one all along. Did Democrats really think that JFK2's Vietnam odyssey was enough to compensate for his myriad shortcomings as a nationwide candidate? Clearly the Kerry camp did, if the early campaign ads were any indication, but what about the rest of the party?

But herein lies the problem. Most Democrats didn't give Kerry a thorough once-over before they crowned him. In the early days of this race--before we knew how egregiously the White House had misled the public about Iraq and before we realized that Rummy had stormed Baghdad without a postwar plan--Dems all pretty much assumed that President "Mission Accomplished" Bush was damn near invincible. This sense of inevitable failure allowed anti-Bush voters to flirt with whichever Democratic suitor tickled their fancy, with little thought as to how that candidate would play in the general. Thus emerged Howard Dean as the frontrunner.

As 2003 rolled along and Bush started to look beatable, Dems began to worry that some trash-talking nobody from Vermont was too inexperienced (or too liberal, or too crazy) to do the beating. But the compressed primary season left voters little time to evaluate their alternatives, and, in an eleventh-hour panic, they latched onto Kerry as the "most electable" of the bunch. Why? Who had time to ask why? The guy looked presidential, he was a seasoned politician, and, best of all, he'd been to war. Polls at the time showed that Kerry wasn't embraced because of his policy positions or inspirational message; he was simply the candidate everyone believed--for no definable reason--had the best chance against W.

So now Dems are stuck with Kerry in all his imperfection. But just because he's going through a rough patch is no excuse for party operatives to freak out and start giving nasty quotes to the media. A "disgusted" Tony Coelho (Al Gore's 2000 campaign chief) recently groused to The Washington Post that Kerry needed a Karl Rove of his very own. Come on, people! No matter how grim the situation, you should never pine for the proliferation of evil.

Perhaps even more problematically, if the Democrats can't hold it together now, how will they hold it together in the (still likely) event that Bush whips Kerry's snowboarding butt in November? Back when Dean was the man to beat, his Democratic critics issued Cheneyesque warnings about the devastating impact a Dean candidacy would have on the party for years to come: The seas would boil, the crops would shrivel, and the entire electorate would wind up convinced that Dems really are the tofu-munching socialist peaceniks that Republicans claim. Maybe. But it is entirely possible that a Kerry defeat would prove even more catastrophic.

If Dean had run and lost, at least the left wing of the party would have been discredited and cowed into submission for a few years, temporarily halting the Old and New Dems' civil war over the direction of the party. But a Kerry defeat will only exacerbate the Democrats' identity crisis. Democratic Leadership Council-types will claim he was too liberal. (Damn that Bob Shrum!) Lefties will insist he was Bush Lite. And the resulting internecine chaos will not only aid Rove's sinister quest to cement a Republican majority for the next 50 years, it will pave the way for another Nader run in 2008.

If that's not enough to convince Dems to suck it up, circle the wagons, and keep their premature hysteria to themselves, I don't know what is.

IRAQ THE MODEL
Sunday, September 12, 2004

Changing priorities.

Where is Zargawi and why is he silent? Many people were asking this question and I was one of these people although I think I may have a different answer. I think all these people and I’m one of them were talking about suicide attacks that targeted Iraqis frankly without even an American presence near the places where these attacks took place.

Before the revolt of Sadr and his militia there was more suicide attacks in Iraq everyday than what takes place allover the world and from that time only two suicide and one of them targeted an Iraqi official not civilians. This simply cannot be a coincidence and that was our opinion from the first time Sadr revolted, and although I had other possibilities but one particular possibility seemed more logical than the rest.

But why would Sadr’s revolt has such a decisive effect on suicide attacks? If Sadr revolt, suicide bombs stop, and when he stops suicide attacks resume!
Before trying to explain my ‘theory’, I think we might well review other possible reasons.

There are some who believe that this is due to the shortage in volunteers, and I think that this is (sadly) far from being true. The people who are behind such attacks can provide thousands and thousands of volunteers, and I think this is something they considered a long time ago. They have preachers allover the world trying to hunt foolish and bitter desperate young people. The process may have become more difficult for them now but it’s still going faster than their needs, and the day the Islamofascists can’t find someone to carry a suicide attack will announce the end of war on terror. If we just look back a month ago we’ll find that there were ten times more suicide attacks in Iraq than in the whole world, the least to say. Besides, how come they can find people to carry attacks in Indonesia And Saudi Arabia and cannot manage to find someone to do their most important job, destroying Iraq?!

The other possibility is that the American siege on Fallujah and other terrorists strongholds in Iraq have minimized their abilities to carry such attacks, and while they certainly had an effect on them, it’s still not enough to reduce the terrorists activities that much. They are still performing many attacks in different parts of Iraq, but not suicidal, which are in fact easier to carry from the practical point of view.
Did Zargawi leave Iraq? Most experts believe not. Then were is his ‘touch’?

To understand the situation in Iraq now, one has to take a closer look at the component of the Iraqi “resistance” and who finance it and who organize it (if it’s organized).

Most of the arab and Muslim government were against toppling Saddam, and that was certainly not because they liked him or his regime. They were afraid and still are of the consequences of this regime change in Iraq. They tried their best to prevent it by diplomatic ways and they made it easy for fighters from different places to go to Iraq through their borders, but that was not enough. After the regime fall, they were waiting for Iraqi resistance to start and make Iraq a hell for Americans. Days and weeks passed without a single resisting act. After Baghdad’s liberation most of the governerates surrendered with their troops not even engaged in a battle no matter how small. That was more than what Arab rulers could take; an “Arab Muslim” country being invaded and the regime being changed without the people putting an effort to resist it? What should this mean? That Iraqis wanted the change? This could give really insane thoughts to Arabs and Muslims anywhere who didn’t like their governments, and many of these are not much better than Saddam’s regime.
It’s as simple as that; there was no resistance but there should’ve been one, so the Iraqi resistance was ‘invented’.

This started with foreign fighters crossing the intentionally left open borders with finance from outside. These fighters joined the remnants of the Baáthists who although were defeated, were still alive and had huge amounts of money and many supporters who just ran away when faced with the overwhelming American power, but couldn’t find a job or a life for months. Another way to make the opposition to the American presence look like a real resistance is by using many names for the same organization. For example we could see a bunch of masked men on TV claiming they are part of “Ansar Al Sunna” or whatever, and few days later, we see other bunch of masked men calling themselves “Mohammed’s army” and it’s not just a guess but I believe that these are the same people; meaning they are ex-Baáthists united with Salafies mainly from outside picking a different name for illusionary organizations so the one power that represent one very small segment of Iraqis and one that is much hated inside and outside Iraq, looks like many parties representing different segments of Iraqis. One incident that support this is when one of those Mujahideen took his mask of his face to show that he’s not afraid of showing his face anymore, and all Baghdadees who were watching recognized the man. He was a well known Baáthist and a security agent at Saddam days and now he’s a member of an Islamist group!

Of course all this couldn’t fool Iraqis and not even arabs for a long time, as we know these people and we have memorized their ways and attitude and even the tone they speak with; their masks couldn’t really hide their ugly faces. There was an urgent need for a resistance that looks more Iraqi and can give a booster to the deteriorating image of the resistance that was killing Iraqis by suicide attacks that even most Arabs and Muslims couldn’t approve of, and Sadr was the best candidate, as although most of his army is formed of thieves, they are still Iraqis and are not Baáthists. Besides one must admit that there are few mislead Sheát Iraqis who are carried away by the emotions they have for Sadr’s father.

When Sadr joined the ‘resistance’ it gained an Iraqi ‘face’ in the eyes of some Iraqis and many Arabs and westerns, thus it was unwise to smear this image with suicide attacks that have only resulted in Iraqis getting more united but not against the American, it made them more united against terrorism. The minds behind the “resistance” decided that suicide attacks should stop, and they only resumed when Sadr went silent and was not doing his job, simply because they had no other option. The march towards democracy should be stopped and Iraq must be destroyed; at the hands of Iraqis if possible but if not then by any means.

It happened twice till now. When Sadr revolt suicide attacks stop and when Sadr stops suicide attacks resume. The only two suicide attacks that were carried during this period was soon after a peace agreement was reached and when clashes broke up again they stopped. I think that when the Mehdi militia issue will be settled, we will witness again another horrible series of suicide attacks. This whole theory depends on assuming that the relation between the “resistance” and its supporters is much stronger than it looks. The people who support the “resistance” finance it and thus can dictate to a considerable extent its strategy.

There is however another factor *this time* that will have an influence on this from now on. It’s the American’s elections and their effect on the Iraqi issue. I don’t think there are plans for a terrorist attack on America, because they ( the enemies of America’s plans in Iraq) know this will further increase the support for Bush, while killing Iraqis will probably enhance the American support for Iraqis, but killing Americans will promote different emotions and I expect that we’ll see more frequent attacks on Americans in Iraq from now till the election time. This can be seen in today’s attacks for instance, as although there were civilian casualties, it was very obvious that the main target was the American soldiers unlike what happened before when the terrorists openly targeted Iraqis whether in mosques, churches, police stations or training centers for ING.

Most people supporting the resistance think that if Kerry wins he will pull the troops out of Iraq, or that’s what they wish. They know that the decisive factor in this is the American’s casualty, and that shifts their priorities now. They are betting that if they can inflict more losses among American soldiers, American public opinion will favor getting out of Iraq soon and will vote for John Kerry because they (Americans) probably think that too, and that with such public pressure he would find himself more committed to promises he never even made, but gave some impression that he’s at least considering it. The assumption that Americans would pull out of Iraq if they receive heavy casualties is an old one that had stopped looking possible for quite a time, but now with the strong coverage by the media for the losses in Iraq and with the figure 1000 coming up every now and then together with unclear messages from the Kerry camp, the theory has been revived. The bottom line is that with Kerry they think they have a chance but with Bush there is none.

I don’t want to predict anything here but I want to say that if America decided to get out of Iraq before the job is finished, that will be not only disastrous but will be (in my opinion) the worst thing America ever did. Freeing Iraq (again in my opinion) was the best thing America ever did. It gave oppressed people everywhere a hope and a belief that the mightiest power on earth, the symbols of freedom is on their side and that it will help them in one way or another to get their freedom. Their misery has stopped looking eternal. Retreating now will prove some people’s theory that America is an imperialistic power that only care for its interests, and although there’s nothing wrong with caring about one’s own interests, most Iraqis and millions of oppressed people in Darfur, Iran, Syria...etc. like to think more than that of America. Keeping the course will turn this thought into a firm belief.

We understand perfectly that sacrificing lives and hard earned money for the sake of others (although there IS a personal interest here but it maybe not so clear) is a very difficult thing to do, and we know that it’s too much to ask, but tens of Millions of oppressed people around the world with brutal sadistic regimes laying their heave boots on their chests preventing them from even breathing freely, not to mention speaking out or doing something about it, all these people have no one else but you, Americans, to turn to. You are our/their only hope.

Sunday, September 12, 2004

'Change' Is Vital Election Theme for Bush, Kerry
The president frames himself as the candidate of new ideas, a departure for an incumbent. It's an attempt to relate to voters' anxieties.


By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

September 12, 2004

WASHINGTON — After nearly four years in office, President Bush has settled on a surprising new identity for his campaign's stretch run: he is selling himself as the candidate of change.

On issues from Social Security and healthcare to national defense, Bush now presents his agenda as a response to "changing times" and a "changed world." He also accuses his Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry, of pursuing "the policies of the past."

Bush is relying more on this argument even as Kerry amplifies his efforts to portray the president's proposed second-term agenda as "more of the same," and his own proposals as a sharp change in the country's direction.

These pointed disputes illustrate the priority both sides place on identifying their candidate as a source of change at a time when surveys show about half the public dissatisfied with the country's direction.

Republicans think Bush's arguments have framed the race in a way that will help him win a solid share of voters eager for change — something presidential incumbents have almost never achieved. "It's a nice contrast to have for an incumbent: We're for new and they're for old," said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "That's the biggest change in the [campaign's] dynamic that has taken place here going into the stretch run."

Kerry advisors agree that Bush will benefit if he can define the choice in those terms. But they say the president, with a record behind him, will have difficulty accomplishing that. "Listen: if they get away with it, it would be a threat," said Tad Devine, a senior Kerry advisor. "I don't think they are going to get away with it."

Typically, challengers define themselves as the agents of change in presidential races; one of the famous signs on the wall of Bill Clinton's war room in 1992 reminded his aides to constantly characterize the choice in that year's election as "change vs. more of the same."

Bush's attempt to depict himself as the candidate of change this year is reminiscent of Clinton's strategy in the 1996 campaign. As he sought reelection, Clinton promoted policies he said represented a "bridge to the 21st century," while contending his Republican challenger, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, was offering "a bridge to the past."

Bush is pursuing a broader and more ambitious agenda — at home and abroad — than Clinton ran on in 1996. That may give Bush more evidence for his claim to represent change — but also provide more targets for Kerry to assail than Dole could find with Clinton.

One senior GOP strategist familiar with White House thinking said Bush was emphasizing the "change" argument less to create a contrast with Kerry than to signal to voters that he understood their anxieties and wanted a mandate for his proposals in a second term.

"This is not a frame that is being discussed because of Kerry," the strategist said. In private, "Bush has said the American people want to know that 'I understand what the country is going through and I have an idea of how to deal with it.' "

Other leading GOP strategists, including Gillespie, see the attempt to identify Bush with the future and Kerry with the past as a key to the campaign's final weeks. The president is now presenting almost all of his significant proposals through this lens.

"Listen, the world in which we live and work is a changing world," Bush said in Missouri last week. "Yet the most fundamental systems — the tax code and health coverage and pension plans and worker training — were created for the world of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow. We're going to transform those systems."

Bush uses that argument to support his plan to reform Social Security by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into accounts they could invest in the stock market, as well as his call for the expansion of tax-favored accounts families could use, in conjunction with catastrophic insurance plans, to pay more of their healthcare costs.

"You'll hear me talking a lot about changing systems to help people," he said Thursday in Pennsylvania.

At the same time, the GOP campaign depicts Kerry's responses to the problems of retirement security and healthcare as backward-looking because they rely primarily on strengthening or expanding existing government programs.

Bush is presenting the choice on national security and foreign policy in virtually identical terms.

He describes his agenda on these fronts, including his decision to invade Iraq and his recent plan to bring home as many as 70,000 troops stationed abroad — as a systematic effort to respond to the changing threats facing America, crystallized by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Simultaneously, Bush and his allies contend that Kerry backs national security policies based on Cold War-era strategies — such as emphasizing consultation with allies — that the administration argues are less relevant after Sept. 11.

Vice President Dick Cheney reduced that case to its essence last week when he charged that Kerry represented a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that would leave America more vulnerable to another terrorist attack if he won.

Kerry has responded to this thrust mostly by presenting Bush's new proposals not as a change, but an extension of policies he argues are wrong-headed. As Kerry put it in his response to Bush's nomination acceptance speech at the GOP convention, "The plans he offered tonight are just more of the same policies that are failing at home and in Iraq now."

Kerry also is urging voters to discount Bush's promises of reform, arguing that the president has not kept promises from his campaign on such matters as ensuring access to prescription drugs for seniors.

"Around here, we remember Bush's broken promises," said the narrator in an ad Kerry unveiled in Pennsylvania last week. "It's time for a new direction."

These dynamics may converge most clearly in the emerging debate over Social Security reform.

Bush defends his commitment to allow workers to funnel part of their payroll tax into investment accounts as key to his effort to reshape government for a new century.

Kerry aides may respond with television advertisements denouncing Bush's plan as a scheme that will cut Social Security benefits, swell the federal deficit and shift risk for retirement from the government to individuals.

The risk for Kerry is that this debate could provide Bush with ammunition for his charge that the Massachusetts senator is too resistant to reform. Kerry has argued that the Social Security system can achieve long-term stability without any major policy changes, other than restoring a balanced federal budget.

"Polls really show the worst thing to tell the public is that there is nothing wrong," says Steven Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a leading conservative political action committee.

"People really reject that."

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/images/blogiran2.jpg