Bush's Bully-Boy Antics Cost U.S. Dearly Among Allies In Iraq Run-Up

Here's yet another signpost of the worst U.S. presidency in 150 years. According to a forthcoming book by leading Chilean diplomat Heraldo Munoz, the Bush administration threatened trade sanctions -- among other things -- against allied governments that, during the run-up, declined to support a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The threats of reprisals, the spying, and all the other little nasties, Munoz wrote in a book due out next month, have cost the U.S. very dearly in credibility, good will, and leadership standing among our allies since war drums started beating back in 2002.

The Washington Post report was, in part, as follows:

UNITED NATIONS -- In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Munoz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

"In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Munoz writes.

But this schoolyard-bully act couldn't go on indefinitely. After the invasion, when the war situation just kept getting worse, Bush had to wag his tail like a sniveling cur
and suck back up to all the "allied" governments he had pissed off in such a cavalier manner. More from WaPo:

But the tough talk dissipated as the war situation worsened, and President Bush came to reach out to many of the same allies that he had spurned. Munoz's account suggests that the U.S. strategy backfired in Latin America, damaging the administration's standing in a region that has long been dubious of U.S. military intervention.

The U.S. was already running short of friends in Latin America, for reasons that go back over a century in our respective histories. I suppose a hardened cynic might think that those south of the border should be used to American intervention by now. Our Marines have been in Nicaragua so many times, they should perhaps rename the country "Camp LeJeune South."

Anyway, in a time when leftist, anti-American (well, at least anti-Bush) governments are ascendant in the region, the high jinks over Iraq couldn't have helped matters.

You can read the entire WaPo story here.

This administration's problem -- well, one among an infinite number -- is that they keep goosestepping through the pasture in their jackboots, expecting others to follow, and even for the others to do the wiping up after the mess is made.

Most of the world could see the utter foolishness of the Iraq invasion before the fact. Bush, buoyed by pathological liar VP Dick Cheney and groveling high-class prostitute Colin Powell, led the U.S. and some of the rest of the world into this, sound advice be damned.

This is just one more chapter in the travesty. But I hope Munoz's account will circulate and somehow hasten an end to the grotesque chapter in world history that the Iraq war has been.

There's more: "Bush's Bully-Boy Antics Cost U.S. Dearly Among Allies In Iraq Run-Up" >>

War is not healthy for children and other living things

Just in time for Christmas, UNICEF has released their preliminary findings from a report on the status of children in Iraq after nearly five years of warfare.

The findings are grim.

Two million children are threatened by disease, inadequate nutrition and inconsistent education. And making matters worse, children are frequently caught in the wars crossfire - literally.

“Iraqi children are paying far too high a price,” said Roger Wright, UNICEF’s Special Representative for Iraq. “While we have been providing as much assistance as possible, a new window of opportunity is opening, which should enable us to reach the most vulnerable with expanded, consistent support. We must act now.”

Among the problems highlighted in the report

• Only 28 per cent of Iraq’s 17 year olds sat their final exams in summer, and only 40 per cent of those sitting exams achieved a passing grade (in south and central Iraq).
• Many of 220,000 displaced children of primary school age had their education interrupted, adding to the estimated 760,000 children (17 per cent) already out of primary school in 2006.
• Children in remote and hard-to-reach areas were frequently cut off from health outreach services.
• Only 20 per cent outside Baghdad had working sewerage in their community, and access to safe water remains a serious issue.
• An average 25,000 children per month were displaced by violence or intimidation, their families seeking shelter in other parts of Iraq.
• By the end of the year, approximately 75,000 children had resorted to living in camps or temporary shelters (25 per cent of those newly-displaced since the Samarra shrine bombing in February 2006).
• Hundreds of children lost their lives or were injured by violence and many more had their main family wage-earner kidnapped or killed.
• Approximately 1,350 children were detained by military and police authorities, many for alleged security violations.

And still, against all odds and that reality - UNICEF and other aid organizations managed to deliver critical assistance even though they struggled under the yoke of the lowest funding levels since 2003.

Health care was delivered and house-to-house immunization campaigns were waged, protecting four million children from polio, and three million more from measles, mumps and rubella. Because of dedicated efforts like these, Iraq remains polio-free, and cases of measles dropped from over 9,000 in 2006 to just 156 in 2007.

Nearly five million children benefited from efforts to deliver educational services. Materials and textbooks were supplied, schools were rebuilt and restored, classrooms were added to existing structures to accommodate displaced children who were forced to relocate to flee violence and ethnic strife. (It is estimated that approximately 83% of Iraqi children of primary school age were in school in 2005-2006. The numbers for 2007 are currently in the crunching process.)

Shi'ite children in a refugee camp near Najaf
UNICEF has been instrumental in providing sanitation, hygiene and most importantly - clean, potable water to as many as 500,000 internally displaced refugees. Currently, at least 200,000 Iraqis only access to clean water is a UNICEF tankering project. These are the most desperate and destitute, living in tent cities that have sprung up, populated with people who fled the violence but had no where to go.

As security improves, a clearer picture of the needs of Iraqi children will emerge, but UNICEF stresses that the challenges will be amplified by repatriating families, who will be some of the most vulnerable citizens in need of help. Many have exhausted savings and are returning to homes that may or may not be standing, and if standing, they may be standing on an ethnic battleground.

To meet the coming challenges, UNICEF and its partners are spearheading IMPACT: Iraq. IMPACT: Iraq is an initiative that draws together a network of NGOs and UN teams to rapidly assess and respond when families are vulnerable. The intent is to facilitate local recovery, because strong families make strong communities.

To help seize the current opportunity, UNICEF calls for support to:

1. rapidly increase attention and action to meet the immediate needs of children and families inside Iraq - focusing on all vulnerable groups;
2. widen humanitarian access to Iraqi children and their families in conflict zones, behind security barriers and in detention centres; and
3. strengthen Iraq’s capacity and initiatives to improve governance and mobilize its own resources to invest in national recovery.

“Iraqi children are the foundation for their country’s recovery,” said UNICEF spokesman Wright. “Where children’s lives are protected and revived, community recovery will swiftly follow. We continue to owe them our very best in 2008 and beyond.”

I agree. Now, in the spirit of the season, let's give the late, great, John Lennon the final word:

There's more: "War is not healthy for children and other living things" >>

IPCC releases instant-guide to stop climate change

SANTA COMES EARLY THIS YEAR
A clear, concise statement on climate change [pdf]– why it’s happening and what the underlying science says will happen if action isn’t taken immediately. What more could one ask for?

That’s what delegates from 140 countries produced Friday in a summary report referred to an “instant guide” consisting of 20 pages of the most important need-to-know data, science and computer projections assimilated over the past six years from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon

stressed the report makes clear that “concerted and sustained action now can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios” in the IPCC forecasts. (Science Daily)

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE MUDPUDDLE
Download the long-form report here.

The long-form report and its summary were released on Saturday, November 17.

From USA Today:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the summary begins, in a statement meant to dispel any skepticism about the reality of climate change, said participants in the meeting.

The document doesn’t contain any new data since the previous meeting. Even so, over 40 authors worked together and compromised on the exact wording to simmer down more than 3,000 pages to get to the final brief, which was presided by the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri of India, Al Gore’s co-recipient of the this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

WHAT’S UNDER THE HOOD?
While the brief doesn’t commit any nation to a course of action, it’s meant to provide a foundation of understanding for ongoing and upcoming political talks. It also provides a map for industrial and developing nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

From the NYT:

“You look to a synthesis report to provide clarity, to clarify what was obscure in previous reports,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University. “Now, how can we take these findings and formulate a policy response that’s quick enough and big enough?”

The IPCC intends the report to help begin a political process of international cooperation to control global warming.

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?
Probably not much in the near term. Why? The United States delegations among only a few others were resistant to key wording surrounding the cause of climate change.

Again from NYT:

While the United States, Saudi Arabia and China tried to change the text in order to play down the consequences of global warming, developing nations — which will bear the initial brunt of climate change — were much more forceful than at previous meetings in opposing these efforts, one scientist who was in the negotiating room said.

"I suspect that will continue,” [one scientist in the room] said. “As they feel more and more threatened by the sea and the storms they will insist that, as one of them put it, ‘We do not want this report to be warm and fuzzy when the reality is cold and risky,’ or something like that,” he said.

That remains to be seen. Remember that the United States failed to ratify or back the Kyoto accord.

Australia and the U.S. were among the largest of nations who have decided against Kyoto in the last few years… doing so for “economic concerns”. You’ll also recall that the PM of Australia and the Bush Administration cited the emission exemption given to China (estimated to be the largest CO2 emitter on the planet) as reasons for not ratifying the agreement.

And while we remain under the control of the Bush Administration… there will likely be no federal action toward reducing national emissions. Or at least it won’t be easy.

SAVED BY THE STATES?
It may come down to States’ rights. Take for example the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeastern US.

The group consists of 11 states that have made agreements to

design and implement a flexible, market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the Northeast United States. RGGI will be the first mandatory cap-and-trade program in the United States to reduce emissions of the gases that cause global warming.

Not bad.

Meanwhile, on the other coast… Governor Schwarzenegger is pushing the environmental issue harder than anything else during his term in California. In fact, he’s planned a climate forum with Al Gore to take place next month in New Hampshire.

From USA Today:

The forum, which is still in the planning stages, is being designed so presidential candidates from both parties will attend. Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said the format was not completely developed, but the former vice president was handling the Democratic candidates, while Schwarzenegger would handle the Republicans.

Many cities and smaller communities are also enacting their own legislation.

AND STILL THE WINGNUTS PROTEST
Meanwhile, in Kentucky… Jim Gooch (D-District 12, KY)... yes, a democrat, presided over a menagerie that brought shame upon the legislature of the Bluegrass State when he sought to discredit anthropogenic climate change.

From the Lexington-Herald Leader:

Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, a longtime ally of the coal industry, said he purposefully did not invite anyone who believes in global warming to testify.

"You can only hear that the sky is falling so many times," said Gooch, whose post makes him the House Democrats' chief environmental strategist. "We hear it every day from the news media, from the colleges, from Hollywood."

Neither of Gooch's invited panelists was a scientist.

Who was on the Gooch-list? Lord Christopher Monckton, a British skeptic… and James Taylor, lawyer and fellow with the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank in Chicago partially funded by ExxonMobil.

Monckton, who recommended locking up those with AIDS in the 80s,

quoted the Bible and quickly recited math formulas as he accused Gore and IPCC scientists of lying to make warming seem worse than it is. The Earth admittedly has warmed a small amount during recent decades, Monckton said, but that's unrelated to carbon dioxide -- it might be due to especially strong solar rays -- and it should end soon.

And Taylor suggested that

most scientists don't believe in global warming. Not that warming is bad, he said. Hotter weather means more vegetation and crops and more diversity of wildlife, as in the tropical rain forests, he said. He distributed a report that urged Americans to burn more coal, oil and natural gas so "our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."

Pure garbage. Or rubbish in Monckton’s case.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard non-scientific remarks in the guise of fact and logic. Just last week, founder of The Weather Channel John Colman (now a San Diego TV meteorologist) made a public statement decrying anthropogenic climate change as “the greatest scam in history”.

Gooch is also of the belief that coal mining in Eastern Kentucky isn’t destroying the Appalachian mountains.

But I bet he believes in the coal lobbyists that come to call. Kentucky is the third largest coal-producing state in the Union. So recognizing that carbon dioxide, which comes from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, is likely leading to global climate change… would be unfathomable.

Even if you’re a democrat.

How 'bout the wingnuts stand down and pick a new topic of denial? I hear that Intelligent Design is debatable in Kentucky. Oh wait, that’s where the creation museum is. Maybe try gravity… that’s only a theory.

Meanwhile, that “no-so-huge warming trend” Gooch would ask you ignore… is still on target to surpass some of the worst-case-scenario models the IPCC brought to light with the condensed report yesterday.

There's more: "IPCC releases instant-guide to stop climate change" >>

The U.N. — where Gore really belongs in a few years

In a little under a decade, the U.N. Secretary-General position will open again, and, IIRC, it will be the Americas’ turn to put forth the “consensus” candidate, per the informal global rotation.

Doorknob bless Gore and some people still pushing him for president, but it’s pretty clear to me that he could do a better job running the U.N.

There's more: "The U.N. — where Gore really belongs in a few years" >>

Someone forgot to tell the U.N. the good news about Anbar

--Posted by guest blogger Pale Rider

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issues reports. Here's exactly one day's assessment of the organization's status in Iraq, excerpted in two images.

UNAMI views Iraq through a matrix, numbered one to five, with four being Emergency Operations and five being Evacuation.

Notice they've "evacuated" Anbar province.

I thought Anbar was a success.

Now take a look at the second image from the same report. Again, this is the report dated September 20, 2007.

Notice anything about Anbar Province? The Security Risk Status is High, and has increased from the last report. Now, why is that? Why is the United Nations giving us such a dire assessment of the situation in Anbar Province? Why does this list show that attacks and security risks have increased, and why is it so bad that they have had to evacuate Anbar? Could it be someone, somewhere is lying? I'm sure the assorted wingnuts will tell us all sorts of bad things about the United Nations.

But look at the good news from this report--the extreme north and south of the country are only moderately dangerous. And ALL of the border crossings are wide open.

So, if we're to believe what we're being told--why does the UN feel Anbar is so dangerous they had to flee from it? And if we believe what we're told about the threat from Syria and Iran, why the hell are the border entry points wide open for travel?

--Pale Rider

There's more: "Someone forgot to tell the U.N. the good news about Anbar" >>