0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 08:19 am
Bernie, Tommy:

I've read all them fancy words a y'all's and I still can't tell if y'all are agreein' or arguin'.

Back-and-forth like 'at really raises this here forum to a level it is rarely seen at.

Cut it out now, please, and get back to the sneery snarky stuff. :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 08:32 am
Screw you, dickbreath.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:18 am
blatham wrote:
I'm not sure why the source of curricula would be relevant to my point. In either case, government mandated or local board/local school mandated, the result is the same...the student is not the chooser.

The source is relevant for two reasons. First, it's relevant because of who is getting patronized. I don't -- at least not in principle -- object to some patronizing of children and adolescents by grown-ups. There are very good reasons to believe that grown-ups know better than children what children need to learn to cope with life. So I don't mind in principle that grown-ups set the children's curriculum. But when the school board tells parents and principals what curriculum their pupils and children are to learn, that's grown-ups patronizing grown-ups. I don't see any justification for that. Parents and teachers know everything they need to know to compile a curriculum.

The second reason it's relevant is because bad schools are much easier to route around than bad school boards. When the Tennessee schoolboard prohibits the teaching of foreign languages, as it did in the 1920s, or if the Ohio schoolboard puts "Intelligent Design" into the Biology curriculum, as it recently did, the only way to save your kids from them is to move out of the school district in question. If a single school does this kind of stuff, you just put your child into a different school.

blatham wrote:
Nah. What accurate information would a 1912 farmer from the Ukraine or a prostitute from a small norther Italian village have had of life in New York?

Judging by the exhibits in the immigration museum on Ellis Island which I visited in early March, the poor European emigrants' dominant source of accurate information were letters from relatives and friends who were already in America. Typically, families would send their bread earners first -- usually the father and older sons -- and the other family members would follow one by one as the bread earners mailed the money for their passage. Different families emigrated to different cities, which gave them some workable way to compare between possible destinations. Believe it or not, the Ukrainian prostitutes and rural Italians of 1900 were just as intelligent, competent and curious as you are -- just poorer.

blatham wrote:
Technological advance or regulation? It isn't either/or. Both can function to make conditions better, but both can function to make conditions worse too.

One empirical test for the relative merits of the two is to compare working conditions of countries that had much technical progress but little regulation, countries that had much regulation but little technical progress, countries that had much of both, and countries that had little of both. I can't cite a source for such a comparison right now. But my vague recollection from some economic history textbook is that technical progress has historically accounted for practically all the difference in workplace safety, while regulation has made practically no difference either way.

You give an example where regulation has been followed by great increases in workplace safety. But the time you're talking about was also a time of great technical progress, so the logic of your argument is the logic of the rooster who credits his crowing for the sunrise following it. Do you have any better evidence?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:23 am
Walter, It would be helpful if you could provide us with some sort of summary of the link you've provided on the subject - even just a few sentences would be good; good, bad, indifferent?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 12:00 pm
Thomas wrote:



I'm sure they show working conditions that look awful to us. After all, England in 1850 was about 10-15 times poorer than industrialized countries are today.


Might be that they look awful - but compared with the 'standard' of other conditions in "that class" they are similar.

Thomas wrote:

But I'm just as sure that working conditions in 1900 were a lot less awful than they were in 1850. I would be very surprised if this museum showed any evidence suggesting otherwise. I would be just as surprised if they had evidence that English working conditions were worse in the 19th century than Indian working conditions were in 1990 -- which is the appropriate comparison, given that India was then a socialist democracy of about the same wealth as 19th century England.


I agree that in 1900 conditions were better (come to the same conclusion in a paper :wink: ), but I was only referring to this one of sentences, namely that improved dramatically during England's period of laissez-faire, ca. 1840-1910.

No, they didn't improve dramatically in that period - especially not before about 1900.



c.i.

Of course conditions became better in 19th century than at the beginning of the industrialisation.
But not dramatically, and all advances only after big fights (=strikes).

However, there have some exceptions, especially in the North.
(A good example is Quarry Bank Mill )


The first mentioned museum doesn't really show much exciting (there are very good showrooms!!!) but has an excellent library on history of work.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 12:03 pm
Walter, Thanks. When I went to your link, it wasn't easy to navigate to find what we're looking for on this topic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 02:29 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Might be that they look awful - but compared with the 'standard' of other conditions in "that class" they are similar.

I'm not sure what you mean by "other conditions in 'that class'". But if you are trying to assert that the conditions portrayed are typical for the actual conditions in England's 19th century working class, I agree with you. I'm not denying that conditions were awful by our standards.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
No, they didn't improve dramatically in that period - especially not before about 1900.

We must be relying on different sources of information then. The source for my assertion was the census data collected in a book called "British Historical Statistics". It used to be available from the University of Alberta, but doesn't appear to be free any more. I'm sorry, but I have to rely on my memory here.

As best I remember it, real wages in practically every profession, including coal miners and steel workers, increased by a factor of 2-3 between 1850 and 1900. Hours worked decreased from about 90 to about 60. Life expectancy increased from about 40 to about 55. (I think that was the average figure though. Life expectancy of coal miners was much lower, but increased by a similar percentage.) I don't remember what the specific improvements were in terms of accidents and such. But the data I do remember, as best I can tell, points to an improvement in the condition of the working class that I would consider dramatic. It would be very odd indeed if the work environment itself was the only aspect of that condition that didn't improve dramatically.

Okay, that was a lot more hand-waving, and a lot less data than I wanted to give you. If you're really interested, I can try to look up the book in the library. Meanwhile, what exactly is your claim about what happened to the British working class from 1850-1900? And what evidence can you offer to support your claim?

Concerning "big fights": I doubt that strikes accomplished anything that wouldn't have been accomplished by competition between employers anyway, but I have no data that would be conclusive either way. Do you?

Finally, the right to strike is something 19th century proponents of laissez-faire supported (Mill, Spencer, Bagehot) and the 19th century proponents of centralized welfare states opposed (Bismarck). So even if strikes had much to do with the improvement of how the working class lived, that shouldn't count against my laissez-faire position.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 02:43 pm
I've used the "British Historical Statistics" myself.

I don't recall all the facts by memory (since I'm over there in Manchester less than two weeks time, I could do some fresh research - but I doubt that Mrs Walter will agree :wink: ).
However I remember that in (about) 1850, 18,000 Irish inhabitants lived in Manchester cellars (out of a much greater Irish population).
(15% of these actually slept more than 3 people in one bed, with cases of 8 in a bed reported and even horrific tales of many even sleeping without a bed).


Exactly these Irish workers were used to break strikes.

--------------

By now, I must admit that I recall more the situation in England before 1870.

So you could be really very right in saying that the situation (later) improved ... a lot :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 02:59 pm
Okay Walter,

we seem to be on the same wavelength then. Another source I vaguely remember, but can't find any reference for, is a fairly disgusted letter by Friedrich Engels, written in the 1880s, in which he complained that English workers had degenerated into petit-burgois and lost all their class pride. (In the 1840s, he had predicted confidently that they would fall into excruciating poverty) Do you by any chance remember which letter that might have been? It would be nice for me if I could reference it, given that Friedrich Engels's bias towards laissez-faire capitalism is said to be fairly mild.

PS: Enjoy Manchester! I'd like to visit it myself someday, so it's nice to see you visiting it on my behalf. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 03:41 pm
THE famous letter is this one from 1844

The Condition of the Working Class in England


The letter, you questioned, could be this one:

Engels to August Bebel in Zwickau ,

where Engles writes about the nonsense of "free people's state", which is an extension of petty bourgeois socialism, to criticise the draft Gotha Programme of German social democrats.

Thanks for your good wishes! (I'd taken place already on a table where Marx and Engels often discussed:
http://www.chethams.org.uk/img/readingroom2s.jpg
in Chetham's Library, the table in the oriel on the left. I'll place you this time on an untaken seat in my thoughts:wink: )
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 05:15 pm
Quote:
blatham wrote:
I'm not sure why the source of curricula would be relevant to my point. In either case, government mandated or local board/local school mandated, the result is the same...the student is not the chooser.

The source is relevant for two reasons. First, it's relevant because of who is getting patronized. I don't -- at least not in principle -- object to some patronizing of children and adolescents by grown-ups. There are very good reasons to believe that grown-ups know better than children what children need to learn to cope with life. So I don't mind in principle that grown-ups set the children's curriculum. But when the school board tells parents and principals what curriculum their pupils and children are to learn, that's grown-ups patronizing grown-ups. I don't see any justification for that. Parents and teachers know everything they need to know to compile a curriculum.


Yes. As I acknowledged, there is a paternalism danger to be aware of here. Still, many areas of education don't involve pre-adults at all, as in returning students, older grad students, technical training (or professional) upgrades, etc. where curricula are still not self-chosen. Some grownups choose for other grownups. As to school boards and curriculum establishment/control, that's a bigger discussion than we want to do here.

Quote:
The second reason it's relevant is because bad schools are much easier to route around than bad school boards. When the Tennessee schoolboard prohibits the teaching of foreign languages, as it did in the 1920s, or if the Ohio schoolboard puts "Intelligent Design" into the Biology curriculum, as it recently did, the only way to save your kids from them is to move out of the school district in question. If a single school does this kind of stuff, you just put your child into a different school.


As above, this is a big discussion. But generally, I agree with you here.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
Nah. What accurate information would a 1912 farmer from the Ukraine or a prostitute from a small norther Italian village have had of life in New York?

Judging by the exhibits in the immigration museum on Ellis Island which I visited in early March, the poor European emigrants' dominant source of accurate information were letters from relatives and friends who were already in America. Typically, families would send their bread earners first -- usually the father and older sons -- and the other family members would follow one by one as the bread earners mailed the money for their passage. Different families emigrated to different cities, which gave them some workable way to compare between possible destinations. Believe it or not, the Ukrainian prostitutes and rural Italians of 1900 were just as intelligent, competent and curious as you are -- just poorer.


That would have been the case with many, though as I said, it wasn't with either of my parents' families. I'm not sure which case might have been more common, I don't have that data. Your last sentence will remain hanging, as if in a noose.

Quote:
You give an example where regulation has been followed by great increases in workplace safety. But the time you're talking about was also a time of great technical progress, so the logic of your argument is the logic of the rooster who credits his crowing for the sunrise following it. Do you have any better evidence?


Well, the farmer's wife claims to witness that same sunrise lighting two roosters out this morning. She asked me to pass along the following...

Quote:
US Was Unusually Dangerous
Americans modified the path of industrialization that had been pioneered in Britain to fit the particular geographic and economic circumstances of the American continent. Reflecting the high wages and vast natural resources of a new continent, this American system encouraged use of labor saving machines and processes. These developments occurred within a legal and regulatory climate that diminished employer's interest in safety. As a result, Americans developed production methods that were both highly productive and often very dangerous. 3

Accidents Were "Cheap"
While workers injured on the job or their heirs might sue employers for damages, winning proved difficult. Where employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, or had himself been partly at fault, courts would usually deny liability. A number or surveys taken about 1900 showed that only about half of all workers fatally injured recovered anything and their average compensation only amounted to about half a year's pay. Because accidents were so cheap, American industrial methods developed with little reference to their safety. 4


Manufacturing
American manufacturing also developed in a distinctively American fashion that substituted power and machinery for labor and manufactured products with interchangeable arts for ease in mass production. Whether American methods were less safe than those in Europe is unclear but by 1900 they were extraordinarily risky by modern standards, for machines and power sources were largely unguarded. And while competition encouraged factory managers to strive for ever-increased output, they showed little interest in improving safety.7

...In 1910 Congress also established the Bureau of Mines in response to a series of disastrous and increasingly frequent explosions. The Bureau was to be a scientific, not a regulatory body and it was intended to discover and disseminate new knowledge on ways to improve mine safety.12

Workers' Compensation Laws Enacted
Far more important were new laws that raised the cost of accidents to employers. In 1908 Congress passed a federal employers' liability law that applied to railroad workers in interstate commerce and sharply limited defenses an employee could claim. Worker fatalities that had once cost the railroads perhaps $200 now cost $2,000. Two years later in 1910, New York became the first state to pass a workmen's compensation law. This was a European idea. Instead of requiring injured workers to sue for damages in court and prove the employer was negligent, the new law automatically compensated all injuries at a fixed rate. Compensation appealed to businesses because it made costs more predictable and reduced labor strife. To reformers and unions it promised greater and more certain benefits. Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor had studied the effects of compensation in Germany. He was impressed with how it stimulated business interest in safety, he said. Between 1911 and 1921 forty-four states passed compensation laws.13

Employers Become Interested in Safety
The sharp rise in accident costs that resulted from compensation laws and tighter employers' liability initiated the modern concern with work safety and initiated the long-term decline in work accidents and injuries. Large firms in railroading, mining, manufacturing and elsewhere suddenly became interested in safety. Companies began to guard machines and power sources while machinery makers developed safer designs. Managers began to look for hidden dangers at work, and to require that workers wear hard hats and safety glasses. They also set up safety departments run by engineers and safety committees that included both workers and managers. In 1913 companies founded the National Safety Council to pool information. Government agencies such as the Bureau of Mines and National Bureau of Standards provided scientific support while universities also researched safety problems for firms and industries14

Accident Rates Begin to Fall Steadily
During the years between World War I and World War II the combination of higher accident costs along with the institutionalization of safety concerns in large firms began to show results...

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/aldrich.safety.workplace.us.php#3
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 01:57 am
blatham wrote:
Yes. As I acknowledged, there is a paternalism danger to be aware of here. Still, many areas of education don't involve pre-adults at all, as in returning students, older grad students, technical training (or professional) upgrades, etc. where curricula are still not self-chosen.

They are self-chosen by way of choosing this kind of training over that kind of training.

blatham wrote:
Well, the farmer's wife claims to witness that same sunrise lighting two roosters out this morning. She asked me to pass along the following...

As I read the article, the farmer's wife has her own interpretation of the story, but her data supports my interpretation at least as much as it supports hers.

Quote:
Reflecting the high wages and vast natural resources of a new continent, this American system encouraged use of labor saving machines and processes.

This suggests that labor was expensive, and that accidents were therefore expensive in terms of foregone labor -- though not necessarily in terms of liability payments.

Quote:
Whether American methods were less safe than those in Europe is unclear but by 1900 they were extraordinarily risky by modern standards, for machines and power sources were largely unguarded.

See? that was my point. In 1900, American incomes were 1/8 of what they are today, which is to say they average standard of living was comparable to that in today's China, Egypt, or Paraguay. In other words, Americans then had a lot less of everything, and work security is just one of the desirable things they had a lot less of. To refute me, you would have to give me evidence not that American safety standards in 1900 were lower than American safety standards today, but that they were lower than in countries with approximately the same average income. Say, German standards in 1900 or Chinese, Egyptian and Paraguayan standards today -- neither of which your article provides. (Your source compares America with Britain, but average incomes in Britain were much higher than in America in 1900.)

What the tables in your article show is that while we don't have much data on American accidents before about 1890, the data we do have tend to show a decline from 1889 to 1901. The trend is especially clear for Great Britain, which was still laissez-faire then, but it's present in the American data too.

Quote:
Accident Rates Begin to Fall Steadily
During the years between World War I and World War II the combination of higher accident costs along with the institutionalization of safety concerns in large firms began to show results...

I'm not denying that the accident rates fell steadily after work safety regulations were introduced. I'm just skeptical that it fell because they were introduced -- and your article provides no evidence that this was the case.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 10:07 am
Quote:
I'm not denying that the accident rates fell steadily after work safety regulations were introduced. I'm just skeptical that it fell because they were introduced -- and your article provides no evidence that this was the case.


Well, I suppose roosters sometimes find themselves in a stalemate, either unable to convince the other as to whose crowing brings on the welcome morn.

How might we resolve this question?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 10:14 am
New twist to an old joke.
*********
A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. A fellow came in for a drink and the robot
asked him, "What's your IQ?"
The man replied, "150." So the robot proceeded to make conversation about quantum physics, string
theory, atomic chemistry, and so on.
The man listened intently and thought, "This is really cool."

The man decided to test the robot. He walked out of the bar, turned around, and came back in for
another drink. Again, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man responded, "100." So the robot started talking about reality TV, country and western songs, bowling, and so on.
The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool."

The man went out and came back in a third time. As before, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"
The man replied, "50."
The robot then said, "So, are you Republicans really going to vote for George Bush again?"
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 03:04 pm
blatham wrote:
How might we resolve this question?

Well, there might be data for Great Britain going farther back. That way, we could see how much work safety improved with technical progress and without safety regulation (data before 1910) and compare it to the improvement with technical progress and with safety regulation. (data after 1910). If you're right, there should be a sharp increase of work safety after 1910 which is too high to be explained by technical progress. If I am right, accident rates should continue with about the same amount of improvement; if the improvement accellerates, it will be small enough to be explained by an increase of technical progress.

Alternatively, we might just agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 03:12 pm
I may be talking way above my head, but it might be somewhat relative to look at mining accidents during the same period to see if safety conditions improved significantly.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 05:43 pm
John Zogby's polling predictions were stunningly accurate in the primary season.

He says the election is Kerry's to lose:

Quote:
I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.

And if he doesn't, it will be because he blew it. There are four major reasons for my assertion:

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15, no longer his 'most recent') shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters - 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry's lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

The President's problem is further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that are out of his control. While the economy is improving, voters historically do not look at indicators that measure trillions and billions of dollars. Instead, their focus is on hundreds and thousands of dollars. In this regard, there is less concern for increases in productivity and gross domestic product and more regard for growth in jobs and maintaining of health benefits. Just 12 years ago, the economy had begun its turnaround in the fourth quarter of 1991 and was in full recovery by spring 1992 - yet voters gave the President's father only 38% of the vote because it was all about "the economy, stupid."

The same holds true for Iraq. Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? Will Iraq be better off by then? Will the US be able to transfer power to a legitimate and unifying authority? Will the lives lost by the US and its allies be judged as the worth the final product? It is difficult to see how the President grabs control of this situation.

Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry's campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possible positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can't spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean's message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: "I'm a veteran", "I have the experience", and "I can win". His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one former Vietnam War colleague told a television correspondent in Iowa: "John always knows when his homework is due."

We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 08:24 pm
Just released.
***********
Poll: Bush Job Rating Dips, Support for War Down

7 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s job approval rating has slipped to a new low and public support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) has declined, according to a poll released on Monday.



The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found Bush's approval rating had dipped to 46 percent, down from 52 percent a month earlier. Bush led presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) 48 percent to 47 percent, a reversal of a poll taken last week when Kerry had a one-point edge, in a statistically insignificant shift.


The new poll, with a sampling error of three percentage points, was conducted among 1,003 adults, Friday to Sunday, amid a broadening scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops.


Only 44 percent said they believed the war was worthwhile, in another new low. In a poll taken a month ago, 50 percent said it was worth going to war in Iraq. A year ago, 73 percent said the war was worthwhile.


Fifty-four percent of those polled said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and only 41 percent of adults said they believed Bush was doing a good job handling the war.


Bush's handling of terrorism remained his strongest suit, according to the poll.


Fifty-four percent said they approved of his performance in that area. The respondents also said they had more confidence in Bush to handle the situation in Iraq than they did in Kerry, by 48 to 45 percent.


Still, Kerry's rating on that issue rose from 39 percent in a poll conducted in March while Bush's fell from 54 percent.


On a day when Bush voiced strong support for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation over his handling of the scandal, the latest poll revealed a country split over how the Pentagon (news - web sites) chief has done his job.


Forty-six percent said they approved of Rumsfeld's job performance and 45 percent said they disapproved. But less than a third of those questioned thought he should resign or be fired over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.


Some Democrats have called for the secretary to step down over graphic photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that have inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and damaged U.S. credibility.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 08:30 pm
Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs

Mon May 10, 4:52 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Firouz Sedarat

DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush (news - web sites)'s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.


Critics had called for him to quit after the furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners but analysts, editors and ordinary Arabs were united in their condemnation of Bush who said the United States owed Rumsfeld a "debt of gratitude."


"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.


"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.


Analysts have said the damage from images seen worldwide of U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison would be indelible, incalculable and a gift to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).


What people saw, they said, was the true image of the occupation: humiliation of an occupied people, contempt for Islam, sadism and racism.


"After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American."


"The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world...How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners," added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.


University of Algiers professor Mahmoud Belhimeur agreed.


"I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld," he said.


RUMSFELD "SYMBOL" OF IRAQ WAR


But Michael Cox, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said the repercussions of firing the defense secretary would have been very significant for Bush.


"This has been Rumsfeld's war, and I suppose the political symbolism of trying to get rid of Rumsfeld would be huge."


Cox said he could not entirely rule out that Rumsfeld could go, if U.S. public opinion turned. But he added it would seem out of character for Rumsfeld to go quietly.


"'I want to spend more time with my family' doesn't sound too credible with Mr. Rumsfeld. With Mr. Powell maybe, but not Rumsfeld," he said.


A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rusmfeld would be seen as Washington's quiet approval of the abuse.


"This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq (news - web sites) in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.





"I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world."

Mustapha Ramid, a prominent Moroccan opposition member of parliament said: "It's normal for Bush to back Rumsfeld. The contrary would have been a real surprise. This shows that Bush takes responsibility for what's happening in Iraq."

(Additional reporting by Paul de Bendern in Algiers, Souhail Karam in Rabat, Dominic Evans in Riyadh, Peter Graff in London)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 10:29 pm
Quote:
Alternatively, we might just agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.


The hand, extended from somewhere east of the Tyrols, is accepted.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 12:31:20