06:41am 06/04/2005
  Kate Hamby
4B Honors English

TITLE

“Time flies when you’re having fun.” This is a very common and cliché saying; however, it is still generally accepted because there is a lot of truth to it. For instance, have you ever noticed that when you’re hanging out with your friends, your curfew seems to pop up suddenly after what feels like only a short amount of time? Or when you’re sitting through and extremely boring class in school that the minute hand of the clock appears to creep along as if in slow motion? Everyone has experienced times in which time feels like it has been distorted to either make a lackluster event drag on or make a pleasurable experience go by quickly.
A few years ago, when I was in 6th grade, my English teacher, Mrs. Stamm, asked the class if we thought a minute was a short or long time- everyone agreed that a minute was a very short span. However, Mrs. Stamm then proceeded to instruct us to be silent for one entire minute. We all agreed, thinking it was a simple task. Once we all quieted down, everyone blinked their eyes a few times and stared around the room. The minute must have already passed, right? Wrong. That one minute seemed to drag on for 20 while we were waiting for it to go by.
 
     

(1 attempt at the impossible | try to make katie tan)

 
the assassin   
09:39pm 18/04/2004
  The Assassin
By Ashley WennersHerron and Olivia Sawyer

Adrenaline pulsing through burning veins
as the killer stalks down shadowy lanes.
Smells fear, but unconcerned with such matters.
Imagines the sizzling blood splatter,
erupting from the victim's pumping heart.
His gun a brush painting a work of art.
Slate white face with indistinct black windows,
that when questioned, shoot poison arrows.
Immaculately dressed straight from Milan,
Prepared for the mission he was sent on.
May God forgive him for this pilgrimage,
While the thought of money forms a blockage
Of Sunday school learning and Mother's prayers.
The target now in sight, standing upstairs.
Finger on the trigger, eye on the mark
The bullet waits, then released from the dark.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
the assassin   
09:35pm 18/04/2004
  The Assassin
By Ashley WennersHerron and Olivia Sawyer

Adrenaline pulsing through burning veins
as the killer stalks down shadowy lanes.
Smells fear, but unconcerned with such matters.
Imagines the sizzling blood splatter,
erupting from the victim's pumping heart.
His gun a brush painting a work of art.
Slate white face with indistinct black windows,
that when questioned, shoot poison arrows.
Immaculately dressed straight from Milan,
Prepared for the mission he was sent on.
May God forgive him for this pilgrimage,
While the thought of money forms a blockage
Of Sunday school learning and Mother's prayers.
The target now in sight, standing upstairs.
Finger on the trigger, eye on the mark
The bullet waits, then released from the dark.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
cases   
06:36am 07/04/2004
  3rd Nine Weeks Extra Credit

Gibbons v. Ogden
1824, Chief Justice John Marshall
A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require out-of-state boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged a law which forced him to obtain an operating permit from the State of New York to navigate on that state's waters.
The main question presented in the case was: did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce? The license issued to Gibbons by Congress gave him permission to be "employed in carrying on the coasting trade." The boats operated by Gibbons were used to transport passengers, not goods, so Congress should not be able to regulate that movement. Also, The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There are many areas in which the national government and state governments have concurrent power (shared power); however, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that when state and federal laws conflict, the federal law is supreme. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are able to pass inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state.
The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress.
Justice Johnson gave a concurring opinion which basically stated the same reasoning as Marshall with the exception of having adopted different conclusions on views of “the subject materially different from those of my brethren…I have also another inducement: in questions of great importance and great delicacy, I feel my duty to the public best discharged by an effort to maintain my opinions in my own way.”
Since the decision in Gibbons v. Ogden, there have been many cases before the Court that have dealt with the Commerce Clause. Over time, the Congress has used its commerce power to justify many pieces of legislation that may seem only marginally related to commerce. The Supreme Court of the United States has, at various points in history, been more or less sympathetic to the use of the Commerce Clause to justify congressional legislation.

INS v. Chadha
1983, Chief Justice Burger
In one section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General. Chadha had stayed in the U.S. past his visa deadline and was ordered to leave the country. The House of Representatives suspended the Immigration judge's deportation ruling. This case was decided together with United States House of Representatives v. Chadha and United States Senate v. Chadha.
The question presented was: Did the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allowed a One-House veto of executive actions, violate the separation of powers doctrine? ----------
The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.
----------
--------
--------

Dred Scott v. Sandford
1857, Chief Justice Taney
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery forever in certain areas. Dred Scott's owner took him to these free areas. Thus, Scott became free forever. However, Dred Scott is not a citizen because if he were he would be entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of a citizen, one of which is the right of free movement. It is clear that the laws governing slavery do not permit this, thus he cannot be a citizen. Even before the Constitution, some states allowed blacks to vote. The Constitution does not say explicitly that blacks cannot be citizens. It was law in many states and had been common law in Europe for centuries that a slave who legally traveled to a free area automatically became free. In the case of Strader v. Graham (1850), the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of three slaves who had been taken from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohio and then back to Kentucky. The Court declared that the status of the slave depended on the laws of Kentucky, not Ohio. The Constitution recognized the existence of slavery. Therefore, the men who framed and ratified the Constitution must have believed that slaves and their descendants were not to be citizens. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that outlawed slavery in some future states was unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to deny property rights of law-abiding citizens. Thus, Scott was always a slave in areas that were free.
Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
The question the court answered was “Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?” One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. The court believed people of African ancestry were not citizens, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and could therefore claim none of the rights and privileges “which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
The vote was seven against two and Justice McLean wrote the dissenting opinion. “He [Scott] is averred to have had a Negro ancestry, but this does not show that he is not a citizen of Missouri, within the meaning of the act of Congress authorizing him to sue in the Circuit Court.” Females and minors could sue in the Federal courts, and so could any individual who had a permanent domicile in the State under whose laws his rights were protected, and to which he owed allegiance. They believed that being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization was required to make him a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term citizen is "a freeman." Being a freeman, and having his domicile in a State different from that of the defendant, he, they believed, was a citizen within the act of Congress, and the courts of the Union are open to him.
In the North, legislatures and Republican politicians responded to the Dred Scott decision by questioning whether this was a Supreme Court decision that they should abide by.
The Dred Scott decision did cause a genuine level of despair in northern black communities by the summer of 1856, and for some years after that.
The Dred Scott decision, the birth of the Republican Party, this whole new political crisis over slavery, is also important in the South among slaves themselves. There is plenty of evidence that shows us that, beginning in 1856, with the presidential election campaign of 1856, and again in '58 Congressional elections, and certainly in 1860, there's a lot of reaction in the Southern white press, saying that slave owners should keep their slaves away from political meetings, because the more slaves gather around these political meetings, the more they're going to become aware of the political crisis over slavery.

Korematsu v. U.S.
1944, Chief Justice Stone
During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.
------
The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."
---
Justice Frankfurter gave the concurring opinion, while Justice Roberts, justice Murphy, and Justice Jackson gave the dissenting opinion.

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

US v. Nixon
1974, Chief Justice Burger
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States.
In United States v. Nixon, the President's lawyers claimed that Nixon had an absolute right of executive privilege. Since the power of executive privilege is not expressly stated in the Constitution, there was some controversy over this matter. For years, Presidents had claimed executive privilege on the grounds that there was a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security secrets. The prevailing thought was that a president cannot be forced to share with other branches of government certain conversations, actions, or information if sharing that information could place the United States foreign relations at risk. This "state secrets privilege" was generally accepted. In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Nixon, Nixon's lawyers argued that executive privilege should extend to certain conversations between the president and his aides, even when national security is not at stake. They argued that in order for aides to give good advice and to truly explore various alternatives, they had to be able to be candid. If they were going to issue frank opinions, they had to know that what they said was going to be kept confidential.
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
The justices turned to the claim that the subpoena should be quashed because it demands "confidential conversations between and President and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce" . . . The first contention is a broad claim that the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of a President's claim of privilege. The second contention is that if he does not prevail on the claim of absolute privilege, the court should hold as a matter of constitutional law that the privilege prevails over the subpoena. . . . In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. . . . Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a president from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential presidential communications. However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III.
There were neither concurring nor dissenting opinions.
The decision reached by this case heavily influenced Nixon’s decision to resign because if that incriminating information had not come forward, the case against Nixon would not have been as strong. Also, the president’s claim to executive privilege was weakened due to the case’s outcome.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Brown vs. Board of Education   
11:48pm 06/04/2004
  Olivia Sawyer
Brown vs. Board of Education Packet

Education is very important to Chief Justice Warren. He said that “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” It is important to him because it is a “principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.” A child cannot succeed without an education in Warren’s opinion.

Tangible factors are things such as the quality of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and salaries of teachers. Seemingly in the final Warren’s conclusion, the quality of these tangible factors is what sealed the deal in terms of determining if separate but equal was illegal.

“Intangible” factors that played a role in whether school facilities were truly unequal were feelings of inferiority and other psychological problems that are created by segregation.

I do not see any outstanding weaknesses in the basis of the Court’s decision; however, bias lies because I strongly favor the decision.

I would attend a segregated school for black people and I would not receive not nearly as good an education as I am receiving now. White students would feel more of a superior racist feeling as they did in the times of segregation. Everything would be as it was in the fifties or with little change.

Since schools were segregated in the past, many people have a deep set feeling toward the opposite race that they cannot change. Only time can heal the wounds of segregation, and they are healing slowly.


Segregated school districts were required to fully implement the constitutional principles that were required with the 14th amendment. All provisions of federal state or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination had to yield to principle.

The court foresaw problems with desegregation related to physical conditions of school plants, school transportation systems, personnel, and revision of school districts.

This ruling pretty much insists that the school districts desegregate immediately. The language is simple and delivers a direct message to the school districts.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
english stuff poetry   
06:11am 05/04/2004
  Analysis of “Crossing the Bar” by Alfred Lord Tennyson
Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote “Crossing the Bar” three years before his death when he was 71 years old. The timing of the writing is perfectly appropriate for the subject and title of the poem: death and crossing over. The speaker of the poem, the author, writes about a peaceful passing on to heaven by symbolizing it with a voyage on a ship. These images of nighttime one-way journey in the “boundless deep” dominate, and make the reader feel a quiet sadness for the writer; however, the reader knows Tennyson also has a sense of fulfillment and is at peace with his death, considering his age and the mellow tone he writes in. The writer does not want there to be any “sadness of farewell,” ensuring the reader that he knows his time has come and he wants his loved ones to accept his passing. Since Tennyson was a religious man, mixed in with the feelings of acceptance and readiness is anticipation of being able “to see my Pilot face to face,” meaning Christ. These kinds of symbols that Tennyson uses are quite straightforward and obvious.
The rhyme scheme in this poem is ABAB and there are four stanzas with four lines each. This shows that the author put time into carefully planning the poem and did not write it in a frantic fashion. This adds to the meaning of the poem by demonstrating Tennyson’s preparation for leaving to go into the afterlife. One can also see in the external structure of the poem an undulating of waves, which gives more emphasis to the sea motif.
The intended audience for the poem is essentially the writer, as he assures and readies himself for his passage into the heaven. Within the poem, irony exists because even though he is dying, he is going on to live in another place. While there is “sadness of farewell,” he also “turns again home.” This is a sensible contradiction that abides with the Christian faith because even all people say goodbye to their human bodies and lives on earth, the soul lives on in heaven. This journey and apparent contradiction make up the theme for the poem: a man dies, and yet continues to live on.
Analysis of “Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening” by Robert Frost
This poem is about a person, assumed to be a man, traveling through the woods during the winter. This man, however, does not belong in these woods. This is made clear by the title and the last three lines of the poem in which he forces himself to leave. These setting for the poem is completely isolated and lifeless because there is no “farmhouse near” and “the only other sound’s the sweep / of easy wind and downy flake.” Furthermore, usually, when one writes about nature, it has to do with the universal symbolism involving fertility and growth. In this poem, however, even though it takes place in a forest, there is absolutely no life in nature and no human life. The meaning for this utter isolation, loneliness, desolation, and not belonging lets the reader know that the author, or at least the man in the poem, is probably feeling the same way.
Frost uses nature imagery to make the reader feel what the speaker is feeling. With lines like “woods and frozen lake” and “easy wind and downy flake,” the reader can really picture the speaker in the woods in complete isolation. In the poem, however, the reader is unsure if the speaker likes the isolation or not. The author shows this dilemma at the beginning of the poem, when the speaker goes to a person’s forest to “watch his woods fill up with snow,” but at the end, he forces himself to leave due to the “promises” he has to keep.
The rhyme scheme of the poem is AABABBCBCC…etc. The never-ending rhyme scheme gives more meaning to the seemingly endless journey that the speaker is on. The diction in the poem also flows easily with its lack of harsh consonants and sounds.
The theme of the poem is basically about the appreciation of temporary isolation from people in nature.
Analysis of “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost
“The Road Not Taken” is told in the first-person through the eyes of a traveler, presumed to be a man, who has to make a decision as to which path he should travel on. He seems very unsure about which of the two he should pick, and throughout the poem he tries to decipher the differences between the two paths; however, at the same time, whether knowingly or unknowingly, he is also saying how similar they actually are. For example, when he looked down the path he did not take, he looked to “where it bent in the undergrowth.” The path he did take was “grassy and wanted wear.” These two different images are really portraying the same picture, one negatively and one positively. The traveler also says later in the poem that “the passing there/ Had really worn them about the same” and also “both that morning equally lay.” Even though he chooses one path and sticks with it, he keeps saying how similar the two are even after he starts to travel down one of them. This predicament leads to the strangeness of the title: “The Road Not Taken.” It seems as if during the course of the poem, the traveler is speaking about the road he does take. The title serves the purpose of further intriguing the reader as to whether or not there are even two paths, since they are so similar.
The symbolic function of Frost’s use of nature imagery is to further emphasize the importance of the decision the traveler has to make. By being in nature, the author emphasizes the isolation of the traveler as he makes the decision.
The poem is in ABAAB form and has four stanzas with five lines each and nine syllables in each line. This strict, unwavering form shows that the writer has carefully thought out the poem, just like the traveler is carefully thinking out his decision between the two paths. Also, the external structure of the poem is very straight and steadfast, just like a path.
Analysis of “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas
This poem is about a man, presumed to be the author himself, who is pleading his father to not give up on life so easily and quickly. Dylan Thomas in actuality went through the ordeal of having to watch as his own father, once a proud and powerful military man, slowly die, as is the case in the poem.
In the beginning of the poem, the narrator uses a gentle tone towards his father; however, the tone gradually gets more tense and persistent as the poem wears on. The narrator speaks of how wise men, good men, wild men, and grave men die and how they “rage against the dying of the light” and “do not go gentle into that good night.” After telling him of how other men deal with death, he pleads to his father to also fight to live and to not give up so easily. Thomas uses strong death imagery, like the “dying of the light,” deliver a direct message to his father in a more meaningful and spiritual way. Other imagery present in the poem is night imagery, such as “close of day” and “sun in flight.” This imagery is used to emphasize the death imagery present in the poem.
The poem has ABA rhyme scheme with the exception of the addition of the last line of the poem. There are nineteen lines in the poem and it is classified as a villanelle. Usually villanelles share a cheerful mood with the reader; ironically, this poem has a very melancholy tone, as is evident with the subject of death prevalent throughout the poem. Another contradiction present in the poem is Thomas’s use of such oxymorons as “blinding light” and “fierce tears.” The use of this literary device accentuates the internal conflict present within the writer. The overall theme evident in the poem is to never let anyone give up on life, no matter who it is or what the person has been through in life.
Analysis of “Richard Cory” By Edwin Arlington Robinson
“Richard Cory” is a simply-worded poem about a man bearing the name of the poem. Cory is a very wealthy man, one whom the peasants describe as kingly, who, despite seemingly infinite riches, commits suicide. A peasant or peasants narrate of the poem, which explains the use of plain language and simplistic ABAB rhyme scheme. The identity of the narrator is apparent by the use of “we” when talking about working and going “without meat.”
In the poem, images of the superiority of Cory and his imperialism dominate. Cory is described as “imperially slim,” “richer than a king,” and “admirably schooled.” This regal description contributes to the confusion and irony of his suicide. The poverty imagery of the peasants highlights the stark difference between Cory and the lower class. The narrator relays that the commoners have to walk on the pavement as they look at Richard Cory. The commoners also had to work endlessly and “waited for the light,” emphasizing their state of desperation. The fundamental question of the poem is why would the man who has everything feel the need to end his life? Cory made the peasants “wish that we were in his place,” and yet he still shockingly committed suicide.
Another reason why Cory’s suicide was so shocking was that the tone earlier in the poem was misleading. With the simple ABAB rhyme scheme and upbeat tone, the last line of the poem is shocking in its bluntness. The conclusion of the poem leaves the reader to wonder what could go wrong in a life that seemed so fantastic. One possible reason could be a possible loneliness. A clue to support this is the use of “we” in the narration referring to the townsfolk and Richard Cory, alone. The mystery of Richard Cory’s suicide is one that the reader can only try to imagine solving.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
   
08:59am 18/03/2004
  Teapot Dome Scandal: President Warren Harding used an executive order in 1921 to give control of oil reserves in Wyoming and California from the Navy Department to the Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, then (in 1922) leased the Wyoming oil reserves to an oil manager named Harry Sinclair, and the reserves in California to Edward Doheny, without looking for a high bidder first. As it turned out, after the Senate investigated, in 1921, Doheny and Sinclair had “loaned” Fall large sums of money. Fall was convicted for accepting bribes, and was sentenced to a year in prison and was fined $100,000.

The Great Depression: The Stock Market Crash which occurred in October 1929 was the mark of the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed, despite approximately 1,000 economists having signed a petition against it. Instead of helping the economy, it caused an increase in both prices and price rigidity. The Federal Reserve Board also hurt the economy. It had already inflated the money supply by 60%, and then in 1931, it raised interest rates, even though the United States’ stock of gold was increasing on it’s own. Doing absolutely nothing would have helped more, because it would have kept increasing. When inflation occurs, prices go up and wages go up. When the money supply decreases more than the amount of goods and the labor it takes to produce those goods, eventually the prices of the goods and labor has to go down as well, but it only happens over a longer stretch of time. In a short period of time, the wages and prices still cost too much. So, people buy less and less people are hired, so less products are being produced. It is an ongoing cycle.

Court-Packing Scheme: FDR tried to get his New Deal passed, but the Supreme Court, mostly Republicans, voted against them, saying that some of the laws are unconstitutional. In 1937, Roosevelt drafted a bill to reorganize the federal judiciary; it called for the retirement of all federal judges by the age of 70. If they refused to retire, the president could appoint another judge for each judge over 70. The Congress was made up of a majority of Democrats, so they would approve the judges that would allow the New Deal laws to be passed. Just about everyone opposed this bill, even his closest friends.

Firing of MacArthur: MacArthur disobeyed Truman’s orders, so he was fired- over the military channel, instead of the commercial news channel, so even MacArthur’s family knew that he got fired before the general himself knew. MacArthur was viewed by the American people as a hero who is taking on communism, so when President Truman fired MacArthur, Truman looked like he was “soft” on communism.

Alleged affair in the 1940s: While he was fighting in World War II, Eisenhower supposedly had an affair with another officer, Kay Summersby. He planned to divorce his current wife, Mamie, and marry Summersby. Unfortunately, his boss, General George Marshall, threatened to kick him out of the army is he did so.

Kennedy’s affairs and mafia ties: After President Kennedy married Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953, he continued to see other women. Two of his most well known lovers were Marilyn Monroe and a member of the Mafia, Judith Exner. Kennedy also had mafia ties, in addition to his numerous affairs. His brother apparently contacted the voters and threatened them in order to get them to vote for Kennedy, and some of them suspiciously turned up dead later.

Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam:
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
   
04:16pm 08/03/2004
  hahahaha  
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
   
04:16pm 08/03/2004
  hahahaha  
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
eglissh 2 and erin doo   
06:34pm 24/01/2004
 
mood: indescribable
music: NONE because this stupid school computer sucks!
Olivia Sawyer
Camper 2A

“I didn’t know whether to act like the teacher I was or the ------ I was supposed to be” (Gaines ---). Grant Wiggins and every other black man and woman in Louisiana in the 1940s faced prejudices and injustices everyday in Ernest J. Gaines’ A Lesson Before Dying. The whites in Louisiana act overwhelmingly superior to the blacks, as their ancestors have for centuries. Their culture embeds this frame of mind so much that it seems impossible to break; nevertheless, the blacks in the quarter, and some whites, each in his own way, fight the stereotype society imposes upon them from birth: Blacks are less than and will never be equal to or better than the white man. Only a strong person and a strong character can fight society, as Ernest Gaines proves with Grant, Vivian, Paul, Jefferson, and Miss Emma.
Through education, the teachers in the quarter and beyond believe they can rise above the stereotypical uneducated fool. “We’re teachers, and we have a commitment” (29). Vivian commits to her job in the community because she believes she makes a difference in the lives of her students; however, Grant does not realize his important place in society until the execution of Jefferson passes. Vivian is a strong character because even though she may not be in the streets protesting the whites’ behavior, her job has an even greater long-term impact on society’s injustices. The whites treat blacks as second-class citizens, and even though the blacks do not like the treatment, they accept it nonetheless. Through education, and with the strength of Grant’s character, this treatment is no longer accepted. “‘You’re smart,’ Guidry said. ‘Maybe you’re just a little too smart for your own good’” (49). Grant’s intelligence intimidates Guidry because it makes himself feel less superior. Grant is a strong character because he proves to be Guidry’s equal using his education. That is why, through the strength and perseverance of characters Vivian and Grant, education becomes the answer for future generations to achieve equality.



make sure you close this next time you're in study hall! lol someone could do something mean. i don't know what, i am not fully aquainted with these hacker terms. btw, this is a goooood essay!! woohoo! okay well i am going to go and do something more interesting!! yay! except there is nothing to do. lol. i am in a good mood sí?
*erin*

im bored olivia!!! bored bored bored!!! what to do?!?!?! ahhhh!!! i never told you why i am here. i shall tell you. i was unable to study due to not wanting to or caring to, but my mother believes it is because of grandma so i am a really bad person. i have to take it on friday at 8 in the morning but still, that doesnt make up for the fact that i am here because she is dead. now i am really very sad. okaaaay. i am going to study. poo. well there is really nothing i want to study right now, so i shall type nonsense because the old keys sound very funny. laaaaaaaaaaa. bored bored bored.
 
     

(1 attempt at the impossible | try to make katie tan)

 
english stuff   
02:23pm 23/01/2004
  “I didn’t know whether to act like the teacher I was or the ------ I was supposed to be” (Gaines ---). Grant Wiggins and every other black man and woman in Louisiana in the 1940s faced prejudices and injustices everyday in Ernest J. Gaines’ A Lesson Before Dying. The whites in Louisiana act overwhelmingly superior to the blacks, as their ancestors have for centuries. Their culture embeds this frame of mind so much that it seems impossible to break; nevertheless, the blacks in the quarter, and some whites, each in his own way, fight the stereotype society imposes upon them from birth: Blacks are less than and will never be equal to or better than the white man. Only a strong person and a strong character can fight society, as Ernest Gaines proves with Grant, Vivian, Paul, Jefferson, and Miss Emma.
Through education, the teachers in the quarter and beyond
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 14   
07:10pm 12/01/2004
  Interim government or not, Iraq needs US for long haul:[ALL Edition] John Hughes. Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Dec 3, 2003. pg. 11
Summary
It is tempting to think that the Bush administration can set an interim government in place in Iraq around the middle of next year and, as a consequence, start drawing down US troops there. The next seven or eight months are indeed critical ones. But reality suggests that the US military involvement will need to go on in Iraq for significantly longer than the American public may want. An extended US presence in Iraq is likely because of the major investment the US has made in Iraq. Again last week, on his lightning visit to Baghdad, President [Bush] asserted: "We will stay the course." He doesn't want failure to overtake the ouster of Saddam Hussein and US hopes for a free and thriving Iraq. Second is concern for the security of various Iraqi factions. They need protection. Who else but the US can offer this and forestall a descent into civil war? Neighboring Muslim countries have their own agendas. The UN, which after being victimized itself by terrorists, has little stomach for Iraqi peacekeeping. NATO, whose European participants are themselves tormented by differences over Iraq cannot. Although Iraqis want early self-government, they're aware of the need for an American shield for some time. Third, there is the continuing haunting presence of Hussein, presumably hidden in Iraq, gone from power but not forgotten. Various other constitutional approaches have been suggested to bring Iraq's factions together on a faster timetable. This article is relevant because it has two do with a realistic outside interpretation of how long the US will stay in Iraq and why we’d have to.
Article
It is tempting to think that the Bush administration can set an interim government in place in Iraq around the middle of next year and, as a consequence, start drawing down US troops there. The next seven or eight months are indeed critical ones. But reality suggests that the US military involvement will need to go on in Iraq for significantly longer than the American public may want.
Many years after World War II and the Korean war, US forces remain stationed in Europe and South Korea. Though circumstances are quite different, and although Iraqis and neighboring Muslim states are far less enthusiastic about the presence of US troops in their region than South Koreans and Germans were about the presence of US troops on their soil, there are several reasons an extended US presence in Iraq is likely.
One is the major investment the US has made in Iraq. Again last week, on his lightning visit to Baghdad, President Bush asserted: "We will stay the course." He doesn't want failure to overtake the ouster of Saddam Hussein and US hopes for a free and thriving Iraq.
Second is concern for the security of various Iraqi factions. They need protection. Who else but the US can offer this and forestall a descent into civil war? Neighboring Muslim countries that have their own agendas? The UN, which after being victimized itself by terrorists, has little stomach for Iraqi peacekeeping? NATO, whose European participants are themselves tormented by differences over Iraq? Although Iraqis want early self-government, they're aware of the need for an American shield for some time. Third, there is the continuing haunting presence of Hussein, presumably hidden in Iraq, gone from power but not forgotten.
It's inconceivable that the US would countenance military withdrawal from Iraq while Hussein remains at large, broadcasting threats to Americans and the Iraqis who cooperated with them. It would be as if the Allies, after liberating Germany in World War II, decided to go home leaving Adolf Hitler alive and hidden somewhere in that country to organize and rise again.
The reality is that postwar Iraq is far more complex than anyone expected. There was anticipation of a horrendous flow of refugees and major sabotage of oil wells, neither of which transpired. Unanticipated was the collapse of the police system and widespread looting that damaged the country's infrastructure. Nor were forces that thrust so brilliantly toward Baghdad equipped with the intelligence-gathering techniques to deal with a nasty guerrilla war.
In the face of these problems, continuing American casualties, and pressure from European allies, the administration is accelerating what was to have been a measured progression toward a new constitution, elections, and a government that would move Iraq toward a democratic post- Hussein future.
The foreshortened plan initially envisaged an assembly selected by local governments and the existing US- appointed Iraqi Governing Council that would, in June, pick an interim government to draft a constitution, under which elections would presumably be held.
Religious leaders of Iraq's Shiite majority opposed this plan unless there were direct elections for such a government. Confronted by this setback, the Governing Council on Sunday voted to hold full national elections to choose the interim government in June. Whether this compromise will in fact produce the desired result remains to be seen.
Various other constitutional approaches have been suggested to bring Iraq's factions together on a faster timetable. One, advanced in The Wall Street Journal last week by noted Islamic authority Bernard Lewis and former CIA director James Woolsey, suggests a reversion to the 1925 Constitution adopted by Iraq. This provides for a monarchy - a head of state who would reign, but not rule. "Selecting the right monarch for the transitional government," wrote Mr. Lewis and Mr. Woolsey with considerable understatement, "would be vitally important."
Tantalizing though such musings are, it seems evident that a substantial military force will be required until Hussein is captured or killed, and all the institutions that make for a democratic society - including a free press, independent courts, and a police force of efficiency and integrity - have been nurtured and established.
That protective role must surely be primarily played by the Americans who have given Iraq this opportunity.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 12   
07:09pm 12/01/2004
  CIVIL WAR AND WAR IN IRAQ:[THIRD Edition] Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Nov 30, 2003. pg. D.10
Summary
This article is a letter from an outraged US citizen to the editor of the Boston Globe. She is against the war, saying that it “is not about weapons of mass destruction or even about imposing our form of democracy on others. It's about oil and arms profiteering, the protection of Israel, and reelection of President Bush.” This is a relevant article because the viewpoint is increasingly prominent, especially among democrats as the election gets closer.
Article
Copyright New York Times Company Nov 30, 2003
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
THE RIDICULOUS AND SANCTIMONIOUS COMPARISON OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR TO THE CURRENT IRAQ WAR ("A worthy cause to die for," letter, Nov. 23) overlooks one central difference:
The Civil War was fought by Americans, on American soil, about the future of America. In contrast, the United States is now fighting an aggressive war on foreign soil in a country whose religion, language, history, and people we know very little about.
This war is not about weapons of mass destruction or even about imposing our form of democracy on others. It's about oil and arms profiteering, the protection of Israel, and reelection of President Bush.
JOANNA HOPKINS
Lincoln
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 13   
07:09pm 12/01/2004
  Sometimes It Just Takes a War Richard Hart Sinnreich. Army. Arlington: Dec 2003. Vol. 53, Iss. 12; pg. 9
Summary
Sinnreich discusses the decision of the Army's new Chief of Staff to transform the force. The Army has taken an extensive analysis and experimentation to a wealth of desirable force improvements not wholly hostage to the acquisition of new technology. The recent operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq have abundantly demonstrated both the Army's strengths and weaknesses. This article is relevant because it shows a very impersonal side of the army and how the only thing they talk about in this article in reference to the war is the betterment of technology and military tactics.
Article
Copyright Association of the United States Army Dec 2003
Sometimes it takes a war to change an army-in this case, two wars. According to recent reports, the Army's new Chief of Staff has decided that, rather than wait for new high-tech weapons that won't show up for several more years at best, the Army will get on with transforming the force we have.
His decision is as welcome as it is belated. The Army began reexamining future requirements nearly a decade ago, long before 9-11. Since then, extensive analysis and experimentation have surfaced a wealth of desirable force improvements not wholly hostage to the acquisition of new technology.
Nevertheless, until now the Army has stubbornly declined to adopt them, deprecating its fielded forces as a "legacy" and reserving transformation for a futuristic Objective Force that it has found as difficult to define as it ultimately may be to acquire. In the process, it has alienated supporters in and out of government who by rights should be among Army transformation's strongest advocates.
With any luck, that now will change. It had better, because recent operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq have abundantly demonstrated both the Army's strengths and its weaknesses.
Its strengths include soldiers whose dedication, discipline and training are second to none, weapons that, despite their age, continue to outperform most foreign counterparts, and leaders whose tactical and technical skill is equaled only by their versatility.
Its weaknesses reside largely in doctrinal practices and organizations that have yet to catch up with emerging battlefield requirements. Those are precisely the areas, as it happens, in which all that study and experimentation already have shown the way.
One example suffices to illustrate the point. For several years now, it has been clear to nearly everyone participating in Army futures work that the Army's tactical organization is ill-suited to the conditions in which ground forces increasingly are committed.
The product of a time when weapons were less lethal, communications less robust and battlefields less diverse and dynamic, the Army's current organization sacrifices nimbleness for mass. It was designed, after all, for prolonged high-intensity combat against a similarly armed and numerically superior enemy. Hence the 10 divisions that comprise the bulk of the Army's fighting strength are very large animals. The corps under which they fight are larger still.
Today, however, a single brigade can bring to bear from its own resources nearly as much combat power as an entire World War II division. By routinely applying joint capabilities-those of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces-it can multiply that combat power even further.
But today's brigades weren't designed to fight independently. They need the administrative and logistical support of a division, even in circumstances when much of that support is superfluous. A brigade can deploy and fight autonomously today only by improvising in some way the support it requires.
Similarly, reconfiguring a division to perform a mission for which its organic brigades are inappropriate is very difficult. It can be done, but it takes time. And in war, time is one resource that, once surrendered, can't be recaptured. Likewise, whether in war or peace, deploying whole divisions abroad is a lengthy process, and since there perforce aren't many of them, rotating them frequently as whole units simply isn't feasible.
The obvious solution, confirmed repeatedly by the Army's own studies and experiments, is to make the brigade the basic self-sustaining fighting unit, drawing its support directly from corps or a joint task force, and relegating to the division echelon the more limited task of directing whatever mix of brigades and supporting units may be attached to it for specific missions.
That, in fact, is exactly the way the Army has visualized organizing its future high-tech force. But inexplicably, it has until now declined to apply the same logic to the Army in the field.
If recent reports are accurate, that's about to change, and high time. Organizational redesign won't solve every doctrinal problem confronting the Army. It's certainly no substitute for adequate numbers. But it will solve some of those problems and moreover is a prerequisite to solving others. Meanwhile, it will permit much more efficient use of the forces we have.
But the more important implication of the Chief of Staff's decision is what it reveals about his attitude toward change. Until now, the Army has approached transformation as if it were "out there" somewhere, unrelated to the present. But real transformation knows no such artificial boundaries. Divorcing the future from the present is a prescription for stasis, not change.
The Army's new boss has it right: To succeed, transformation needs to start with the Army we have, which happens to be the best in the world. It's time to quit mooning about the future force and start building it by transforming today's. In the end, that's the only way we'll get the one we want tomorrow. It's just a shame that it took a war to convince us of it.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 11   
07:08pm 12/01/2004
  INSURGENTS KEEP UP ATTACKS ON VULNERABLE IRAQI PIPELINES:[THIRD Edition]
Charles M. Sennott, Globe Staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Nov 27, 2003. pg. A.1

Summary
Insurgents have been striking almost weekly against a labyrinth of pumping stations and hundreds of miles of pipelines that snake through the desolate plains and rugged hills of northern Iraq, bearing crude oil exports to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan. The attacks have all but shut down the flow of 850,000 barrels of exported crude that coursed through Kirkuk's hub of pipelines each day before the war, US and Iraqi officials say. The sabotage also has robbed the occupation of revenues that the United States hoped would defray the vast cost of rebuilding postwar Iraq - and as if to highlight the campaign against the petroleum industry, insurgents fired rockets at the Oil Ministry in Baghdad last week from a donkey cart. Wire services said yesterday witnesses reported a large fire from a pipeline north of Baghdad, 30 miles from the country's largest refinery, although coalition officials said the fire may have been a lit pool of oil spilled previously. This article is relevant because it talks about the forces that are against the US inside Iraq—the forces that are coming from Iraqi insurgents, resentful of American presence.
Copyright New York Times Company Nov 27, 2003
KIRKUK, Iraq - Three successive explosions rattled the windows at the Northern Oil Company on a recent afternoon. Within minutes, several American contractors and Iraqi executives rushed out to start assessing the damage from yet another attack on Iraq's oil pipelines.
Insurgents have been striking almost weekly against a labyrinth of pumping stations and hundreds of miles of pipelines that snake through the desolate plains and rugged hills of northern Iraq, bearing crude oil exports to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan. The attacks have all but shut down the flow of 850,000 barrels of exported crude that coursed through Kirkuk's hub of pipelines each day before the war, US and Iraqi officials say.
Describing the vulnerability of the pipelines, Ali, a 32-year- old former Iraqi army sergeant turned resistance fighter, recently put it this way: "The truth is there is very little they can do to stop us. We can hit them every day if we want to."
The sabotage also has robbed the occupation of revenues that the United States hoped would defray the vast cost of rebuilding postwar Iraq - and as if to highlight the campaign against the petroleum industry, insurgents fired rockets at the Oil Ministry in Baghdad last week from a donkey cart. Wire services said yesterday witnesses reported a large fire from a pipeline north of Baghdad, 30 miles from the country's largest refinery, although coalition officials said the fire may have been a lit pool of oil spilled previously.
Washington's reconstruction strategy counts on an expected $50 billion in oil export revenue for Iraq over the next three years, but the sabotage, combined with extensive damage to infrastructure from neglect and looting, means the earnings are likely to fall far short of American predictions.
The pipelines are the focal point of a dangerous cops-and- robbers drama involving anti-US insurgents and the US and Iraqi forces trying to hunt them down.
Ali, the former soldier who said he was a demolition specialist in the Iraqi army, said that he has been training insurgents to prepare explosive devices to sabotage the pipeline - and that his group had bombed it 25 to 30 times. Speaking on the terrace of an apartment building in the northern town of Ba'iji as the gas- burnoff flame of an oil refinery flickered far in the distance, Ali said he was part of a broad-based resistance effort against the US- led occupation. Ali, who appeared nervous during an hours-long interview and was reached through a mutual contact who has known him for years, spoke to the Globe on condition that his full name not be used.
"This is Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people. America came saying that it would kick out Saddam, but they never got Saddam and instead began stealing our oil. So this is why we are fighting, and this is why we will hit directly at what they want most - our oil," said Ali, his face covered in a red-and-white checkered keffiyeh.
Ali said the insurgency included some former Iraqi military and security officers loyal to Saddam Hussein, as well as some foreign fighters. But he said the ranks of the resistance increasingly include former soldiers who, like himself, profess no loyalty to Hussein but who are frustrated with the occupation and determined to fight it.
"There is no one name" to the opposition, Ali said; it has many small groups acting on their own. He said he was part of a small group around Ba'iji, which sits halfway between the vast oil fields of northern Iraq and the large refineries in Baghdad. He said the groups are often aided by members of the Bedouin tribes that live in the remote areas where the pipeline is most vulnerable.
"We watch for spots where they are lacking security. We have also watched which spots they repair, and then we strike that same spot again. This is all very simple. They can never protect the pipeline," Ali said, smiling.
Chasing such shadowy suspects is far from easy.
"We have a serious problem here," said Manna al-Ubeidi, deputy director of the Northern Oil Company. "The incidents have deeply affected exports, and that is money that should be going to a national fund that would pay for reconstruction. So this isn't just about a fire on a section of pipeline, it's about the future of Iraq."
"As you can see, to respond to the incidents takes up a lot of our time," Ubeidi said as his boss, the director Adel Kazaz, hurried down a hallway accompanied by US soldiers and employees of Kellogg, Brown & Root, the subsidiary of the US company Halliburton, which was awarded multibillion-dollar contracts by the US-led occupation to rebuild Iraq's crumbling and neglected infrastructure.
A short time later, a section of the pipeline on the western outskirts of Kirkuk could be seen blazing with an intense rolling fire. Several US soldiers stood outside their armored Humvee, pointing in the direction of the fire and speaking on radios. One Iraqi official said there have been four to five attacks per month since the occupation began seven months ago.
Beneath Kirkuk lies the second-largest oil reserve in Iraq, a vast field of crude that has traditionally provided 40 percent of total exports. And on the landscape outside the city, the huge cylindrical holding tanks sit like precious eggs connected to glistening chrome veins of 4-foot-wide pipe.
Sometimes, the pipeline explosions and fires are caused by breaks in the rusted steel pipes, but US and Iraqi officials say more frequently they are caused by sabotage.
In a network of trailer homes inside the heavily guarded Northern Oil Company, a reporter knocked on the door of the offices of Kellogg, Brown & Root. Two American oilmen in cowboy hats and speaking with Texas accents politely declined to comment and radioed to US soldiers, who quickly appeared and said, "You can't talk to these guys. They're not allowed to say anything."
The Americans and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps have been policing the pipelines and pursuing saboteurs. First Lieutenant Ted Ruzika of the 101st Airborne Division was just coming off a shift of policing the pipeline in northern Iraq near the area of Hatra.
Ruzika, 25, said his unit guards a 40-mile stretch of the pipeline, which is made up of three systems of piping up to 46 inches in diameter. Each pipe carries a different oil product, and the smallest of the three lines pumps liquid gas north to Turkey.
"What we try to do is just have a presence all the time. We mix it up, and we change patterns riding up and down the line," he said. "Either through good fortune or vigilance, we've had pretty good success in our area."
Ruzika said his brigade has been assisted by the Iraqi Facilities Force, which is dedicated to protecting Iraq's infrastructure, and what they call "the Sheik force." These, he explained, are about 40 to 50 members of local tribes; the name refers to their leaders, or sheiks. Ruzika said this local militia has helped the US forces protect the pipeline and alert them to any suspicious activity in the area.
"If you can keep the locals on your side, you can have a lot more success," he said.
Iraqi oil officials say the insurgents have recently been targeting a vast network of thousands of miles of domestic pipelines that crisscross the center of the country. This network provides the critical flow of oil and gas to the Iraqi population and has kept the price of gasoline cheap. Gas is about 10 cents a gallon, less than the price of water.
If Iraq's domestic gas prices were to rise as a result of sabotage, Iraqi officials say, that could perhaps be more destabilizing than shutting down exports.
Asim Jihad, spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry, said the loss of these exports to sabotage, combined with damage to the infrastructure through looting amid the postwar chaos, left Iraq's oil industry in October able to export only 1.14 million barrels of crude per day, worth about $24 million. That figure is less than half of the up to 2.5 million barrels per day that Iraq was exporting before the war, he said.
"We have a lot of work to do. We can focus on repairing the infrastructure," added Jihad in an interview at the Oil Ministry in Baghdad. "But the truth is the sabotage operations are virtually impossible to thwart."
SIDEBAR: DISRUPTED RECOVERY Iraq's oil production has been spurting toward recovery since major combat ended in May. But Iraqi insurgents, resentful of American presence, have been sabotaging the country's vast oil pipelines.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 10   
07:07pm 12/01/2004
  BUSH SIGNS $401B DEFENSE BILL CRITICS INSIST LITTLE HAS BEEN
DONE TO TRANSFORM MILITARY:[THIRD Edition]
Bryan Bender, Globe Correspondent. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Nov 25, 2003. pg. A.3

Summary
President Bush yesterday approved a record $401.3 billion for defense next year, signing a bill that administration officials and lawmakers from both parties contend will help transform the armed forces to meet new security threats, such as global terrorism. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act provides for at least a 3.7 percent pay increase for military personnel, while extending hazardous duty pay of $250 per month for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also gives Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld greater freedom to reassign the department's 700,000 civilians to new tasks and cut through bureaucratic obstacles, officials said. "In this new kind of war, our military needs to be fast and smart and agile," [BUSH] said at a Pentagon signing ceremony yesterday. "The bill I sign today authorizes $400 billion over the next fiscal year to prepare our military for all that lies ahead." The president campaigned for office on a promise to transform the military. This article is relevant because it shows where money is going: the military, which right now is focused in Iraq and Afghanistan. This increase shows that the US is definitely not ready to leave Iraq yet.
Article
Copyright New York Times Company Nov 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - President Bush yesterday approved a record $401.3 billion for defense next year, signing a bill that administration officials and lawmakers from both parties contend will help transform the armed forces to meet new security threats, such as global terrorism.
But some members of Congress and defense specialists pointed out that much of the budget will pay for such traditional items as pay raises, compensation, and big-ticket weapon systems conceived during the Cold War. The legislation bears striking resemblance to defense budgets of the past, the critics contended, and will do little to break the tradition of buying unneeded ships, tanks, airplanes, and other conventional weapons.
"They are still trying to rip off the taxpayers," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a longtime critic of wasteful spending, told Globe reporters and editors last week, blaming the White House and many of his colleagues.
"Dwight David Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave," McCain said, alluding to the former president who warned in his farewell address of the growing influence of the so-called military- industrial complex.
"This incestuous relationship between the contractors and the Pentagon and the lawmakers is just the worst," McCain said.
The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act provides for at least a 3.7 percent pay increase for military personnel, while extending hazardous duty pay of $250 per month for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also gives Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld greater freedom to reassign the department's 700,000 civilians to new tasks and cut through bureaucratic obstacles, officials said.
"In this new kind of war, our military needs to be fast and smart and agile," Bush said at a Pentagon signing ceremony yesterday. "The bill I sign today authorizes $400 billion over the next fiscal year to prepare our military for all that lies ahead." The president campaigned for office on a promise to transform the military.
Congress has historically been disposed to give the White House what it wants in military spending during wartime. The Bush administration has successfully increased defense spending by an estimated 20 percent since taking office, not including the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are funded separately.
However, the spending increases have done little to transform the military from its Cold War roots, lawmakers and specialists contend.
"We are still buying virtually everything that was in the Clinton administration budget," said Loren B. Thompson, a defense specialist at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "We just added a handful of new initiatives. We are still buying three [different] fighter planes, destroyers and cruisers, and armored vehicles."
But Steve Kosiak, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said there are some areas of the defense budget that can be considered "transformational." He cited greater investments in pilotless aircraft that can gather intelligence, more money for communications and information technologies, and increased funding for smart weapons.
"On the other hand, the vast majority of the funding is going to traditional programs, rather than transformational ones," Kosiak said.
McCain singled out the $9.1 billion authorized in the defense bill for missile defense programs. "We have poured untold billions into it, and you still have not seen operational capability,"
The senator also questioned the need for another fighter aircraft. "What is the real requirement for additional submarines as well?" he asked. "There needs to be more scrutiny of where all this money is going."
One Democratic congressional aide who asked not to be identified said the fact that the Pentagon's research and development funding has not met the stated goal of 3 percent of total defense spending demonstrated how reform remains hostage to special interests. "They are not pushing the future," the aide said. "They are buying the same kind of things."
Thompson said the major hurdle to making more progress in breaking the Cold War paradigm is institutional. Defense companies "don't make a lot of money by going after terrorists," he said. "They make money on big ticket items."
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 8   
06:04pm 12/01/2004
  BUSH, IN LONDON, DEFENDS THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST ‘EVIL’ Richard W. Stevenson. International Herald Tribune. Paris: Nov 20, 2003. pg. 1
Summary
George W. Bush never ventured more than a mile or two from Buckingham Palace as concerns about the protesters and terrorist attacks restricted his schedule. The White House canceled a plan for Bush to lay a wreath across from the U.S. Embassy because of security concerns. In his speech, Bush barely touched on the rationale he cited most often in leading the United States into war with Iraq, his assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons. No substantial caches of banned weapons have been found, leaving both Bush and Tony Blair, his closest ally in confronting Iraq, vulnerable to criticism that they exaggerated the risk posed by Saddam Hussein. Bush got his first taste of the protests during the welcoming ceremony at Buckingham Palace. As the president moved down a receiving line with the Queen in the palace's forecourt, a British protester with a bullhorn started singing, to the tune of If You're Happy and You Know It, a ditty mocking what Blair's critics say is his subservience to Bush: If you think Blair is a poodle, shout woof woof. This article is relevant because it shows how out “allies” feel about the war and Bush and Blair’s relationship. It also demonstrates how much Bush has to defend his actions and how much that is not working.
Article
President George W. Bush exhorted Britain on Wednesday to stand with the United States in rallying European governments and the United Nations behind a long term campaign to defeat terrorism and bring democracy to the Islamic countries of the Middle East.
On the first full day of his state visit to Britain, Bush sought to justify his decision to go to war with Iraq and prepare the world for the possibility that the United States might one day again feel it necessary to use force to combat what he called evil in plain sight.
His remarks focused heavily on seeing through the job of stabilizing Iraq, but he also applied what he termed his forward strategy of freedom to the Arab-Israeli conflict, an issue on which Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has been urging the United States to take a more active role. Without naming names, but clearly addressing his remarks to France and Germany, Bush called on European leaders to do more to fight anti-Semitism and push Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, from power.
Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause, Bush said in a thinly veiled reference to Arafat. And Europe's leaders, and all leaders, should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East.
Bush also called on Israel to do more in the name of peace, urging in particular that Israel not prejudice final negotiations through the construction of walls and fences separating Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has been building a long barrier, some of it running through disputed territory, in what it says is an effort to make it harder for terrorists to enter the country and what some Palestinians say is a land grab.
Speaking to an invited audience in Whitehall Palace after participating in an elaborate formal welcome ceremony at Buckingham Palace with Queen Elizabeth II and Blair, Bush was relaxed, funny about the negative reception he has gotten from many people in Britain and passionate about what he called the alliance of conviction and might between the United States and Britain.
We have great objectives before us that make our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been, Bush said. We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will use force when necessary in the defense of freedom. And we will raise up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world.
Bush later attended a state dinner at Buckingham Palace as protesters streamed into central London for what is expected to be a massive antiwar demonstration on Thursday. By late Wednesday, hundreds of people waving placards were outside the palace, where the president is staying during his four-day visit, as hundreds of police officers, backed in the shadows by the U.S. Secret Service, kept a wary eye on them.
Bush never ventured more than a mile or two from Buckingham Palace as concerns about the protesters and terrorist attacks restricted his schedule. The White House canceled a plan for Bush to lay a wreath across from the U.S. Embassy because of security concerns.
In his speech, Bush barely touched on the rationale he cited most often in leading the United States into war with Iraq, his assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons. No substantial caches of banned weapons have been found, leaving both Bush and Blair, his closest ally in confronting Iraq, vulnerable to criticism that they exaggerated the risk posed by Saddam Hussein.
Instead, Bush offered a broader rationale for the war, casting it as part of an effort to root out the forces breeding terrorism within Islamic states and reshape the Middle East into a region of freedom, peace and prosperity.
The evil is in plain sight, Bush said, drawing a parallel to the years between the first and second world wars. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
Bush said he believed in the United Nations. But he said that the United Nations and other international institutions were only viable as long as they were effective in enforcing collective security.
America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations, he said.
Directly addressing the criticism that he proved too quick to choose war over diplomacy, Bush said that military force would remain on the table as the United States confronted the job of eliminating the threat of terrorism.
There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views, Bush said. Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.
Bush was largely unyielding in the face of criticism that he has brought a too simplistic, too moral, too religious tone to American foreign policy, and defended each of those traits as derived from a long British-American tradition.
Bush also joked that the last notable American to visit London had spent 44 days in a glass box over the Thames, a reference to David Blaine, who performed the stunt this autumn. A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me, Bush said.
Alluding to the protests, Bush said, I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm is alive and well here in London.
Bush got his first taste of the protests during the welcoming ceremony at Buckingham Palace. As the president moved down a receiving line with the Queen in the palace's forecourt, a British protester with a bullhorn started singing, to the tune of If You're Happy and You Know It, a ditty mocking what Blair's critics say is his subservience to Bush: If you think Blair is a poodle, shout woof woof.
Credit: The New York Times
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 9   
06:04pm 12/01/2004
  THE WAR AGAINST TERROR CANNOT BE WON BY AMERICA AND BRITAIN ALONE MICHAEL PROWSE. Financial Times. London (UK): Nov 22, 2003. pg. 15
Summary
The rhetorical strength of the relationship between Bush and Blair was evident this week as President Bush and his 700-strong entourage took temporary possession of Britain's capital city. Mr. Bush became the first US president since Woodrow Wilson to sleep at Buckingham Palace, and spoke more warmly of Britain - America's "closest friend" - than perhaps any of his recent predecessors. Al-Qaeda has been attacking western interests for years, and Britain would have been a target even if it had followed the Franco- German line on Iraq. But its unwavering loyalty to the US now makes it a particularly attractive substitute target for any group that wants to hurt America. Further brutal attacks on British interests are likely, both overseas and at home. And fear of such attacks is one of the less noble reasons why 100,000 Britons marched through London this week and toppled a papier mache statue of Bush in Trafalgar Square on the very day that al-Qaeda struck in Istanbul. It would be in Britain's self-interest, the protesters believe, to consign the special relationship to history and thereby distance itself from the American-led war on terror. Britain and the US now need greater support from other nations. But they will get it only by softening their rhetoric and by focusing on the underlying causes of Islamic fundamentalism. Every effort should be made to hunt down the terrorists but western democracies must also do more to help Muslim nations to strengthen their economies. Above all, Britain and the US must learn to present the case for western institutions - markets, democracy and rule of law - more persuasively. You cannot win an ideological battle simply by proving that you have more high explosives than the opposition. This article is relevant because it explains the point of view of many people who want peace and an end to violent acts of terrorism around the world.
Article
In a macabre way, the brutal terrorist attacks in Istanbul testify to the continuing relevance of Britain's "special relationship" with the US. As the pace of European economic and political integration has accelerated, one might have expected this relationship to grow steadily weaker.
It has not, for a simple reason: most European nations have scant military capacity and little appetite for projecting power overseas. The process of creating a military capability for the European Union has barely got under way. Given that the UK wanted to play a serious role in combating global terrorism, the most natural course was for it to collaborate closely with the US, the world's dominant military power, even at the cost of alienating its EU allies. One of the unintended effects of September 11 2001, and subsequent terrorist outrages, has thus been to increase Anglo-American co-operation in the military and security fields. This, in turn, has injected energy, perhaps even moral purpose, into the famed special relationship.
The rhetorical strength of that relationship was evident this week as President George W. Bush and his 700-strong entourage took temporary possession of Britain's capital city. Mr Bush became the first US president since Woodrow Wilson to sleep at Buckingham Palace, and spoke more warmly of Britain - America's "closest friend" - than perhaps any of his recent predecessors. He did not, however, offer immediate concessions in the disputes over steel tariffs and the treatment of British prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, which illustrates once again how little leverage the relationship gives Britain over US policies. The pomp and pageantry no doubt reinforced Americans' impression of the UK as a quaint, fusty nation, addicted to titles, protocol and flummery, but it was otherwise harmless enough.
The costs of the relationship were made brutally apparent in Istanbul. There is often a price to be paid for acting on principle, and Britain now appears to be paying it. After September 11, the UK could have kept its head down, like most other European countries, and left the US to prosecute its war on terrorism alone. Instead, Tony Blair went out of his way to offer tangible military backing as well as moral succour. The policy of hugging the US tight culminated in his decision to participate in the American invasion of Iraq, despite domestic opposition and the misgivings of much of the international community.
Al-Qaeda has been attacking western interests for years, and Britain would have been a target even if it had followed the Franco- German line on Iraq. But its unwavering loyalty to the US now makes it a particularly attractive substitute target for any group that wants to hurt America. Further brutal attacks on British interests are likely, both overseas and at home. And fear of such attacks is one of the less noble reasons why 100,000 Britons marched through London this week and toppled a papier mache statue of Mr Bush in Trafalgar Square on the very day that al-Qaeda struck in Istanbul. It would be in Britain's self-interest, the protesters believe, to consign the special relationship to history and thereby distance itself from the American-led war on terror.
Although the desire to shrink from violence is understandable, this would be precisely the wrong reaction. What is needed is not that Britain do less to combat terrorism but that other nations - and the big European powers in particular - do more. At present much of the civilised world is inclined to ride the anti-terrorism bus without paying the full fare. This free ride should end. The heavy burdens of a struggle that is likely to persist for years need to be shared more fairly.
Yet there is an undeniable problem. As the world's leading military power, and the victim of al-Qaeda's worst atrocity, the US believes it has the right to direct the war against terrorism. It wants to make the big decisions and expects other nations to fall in behind. Yet so far only Britain, under cover of the special relationship, has been willing to offer significant military support on these terms. The view of nations such as Germany, France and Russia is that they will not play a fuller role unless the US recognises them as genuine partners - unless, that is, the US accepts that it cannot call the shots on its own. The price of their co-operation is a deeper US commitment to the multilateral spirit enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations.
And the lesson of recent months, especially in Iraq, is that without greater international co-operation, al-Qaeda and similar groups will not be readily subdued. There was a humanitarian case for deposing Saddam Hussein. But America's critics can reasonably argue that the Iraq occupation has in some ways exacerbated the problems it was intended to resolve. After the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator, announced in sorrow that the war on terrorism had reached Iraq. It was one of the more bizarre examples of American naivety.
What did the US expect to happen if it put an American army on the ground in the Middle East? After September 11, why did it imagine that US service personnel would be any less attractive targets for Islamic fundamentalists than Israelis? What it did was to present a soft flank for al-Qaeda while simultaneously stoking resentment in the Arab world. In all probability its intervention has increased the supply of fanatical Muslims willing to sacrifice their lives as suicide bombers. Of course, if the US were to remain in Iraq long enough to create the flourishing market democracy that it promised (a project that may take a decade), the neo- conservative dream of transforming the Middle East might conceivably be achieved. But this now seems improbable: if sovereignty is transferred to Iraqis prematurely, a model Iraqi democracy is unlikely to emerge.
Britain and the US now need greater support from other nations. But they will get it only by softening their rhetoric and by focusing on the underlying causes of Islamic fundamentalism. Every effort should be made to hunt down the terrorists but western democracies must also do more to help Muslim nations to strengthen their economies. Above all, Britain and the US must learn to present the case for western institutions - markets, democracy and rule of law - more persuasively. You cannot win an ideological battle simply by proving that you have more high explosives than the opposition.
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 6   
06:03pm 12/01/2004
  ACCORD CALLS FOR US TO CEDE CONTROL BY JULY: [THIRD Edition]
Vivienne Walt, Globe Correspondent. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Nov 16, 2003. pg. A.26

Summary
“There is a political dimension to our security strategy which is as important as our military strategy,” said Daniel Senor, an adviser to Paul Bremer. Speaking to a small group of reporters last night, Senor said it had become “crystal clear” to US officials that their previous plan was unworkable, given Iraqis’ demands for elections to write a constitution. “To win the war on terror, empowering Iraqis is fundamental.” While Bremer’s administration will disappear this summer, soldiers will almost certainly remain, according to US and Iraqi officials. But the 180,000 or so coalition soldiers in Iraq – about 131,000 of whom are American – will stay only at the invitation of a new government and their number will shrink dramatically. For Iraqis, the new government will look stunningly different, both from the Saddam Hussein regime under which they lived for 23 years and from the Governing Council. Chosen in proportion to the population in each province, the government is likely to have far more Iraqis who have lived through Hussein’s iron rule. Iraqis have widely assailed the council, most of whose members are former exiles freshly home from decades in the West. This article is relevant because it explains the future of Iraq and our involvement in the country.
Article
Copyright New York Times Company Nov 16, 2003
REBUILDING IRAQ
BAGHDAD – Iraqi officials, encouraged by the prospect of running their country, agreed yesterday on a plan to end American control by July 1 and transfer power to an Iraqi government with international recognition and full law-making powers.
With the announcement, the Bush administration reversed one of its key principles, to which it had held firm before the war erupted in March: American officials would not cede power until democracy was enshrined in a permanent constitution. Still, some troops are expected to remain for some time.
“With its assumption of power, the state of occupation will end,” said Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress and a prominent member of Iraq’s Governing Council, told reporters yesterday, as he announced plans for a new government. That government, which Chalabi called a “transitional national assembly,” will be elected by tribal leaders, local council members, and party officials, in a massive campaign to mobilize thousands of grass- roots communities.
Under the new deal, caucuses of local leaders in each province will elect representatives to a national assembly in Baghdad by May 31. By June 30, the assembly will elect an executive body – the government – from among themselves, to take control of the country.
Rather than a constitution, a “basic law,” written by Feb. 1, will act as a temporary basis for government and include Western- style guarantees: a bill of rights, free press, and human rights, according to Iraqi officials.
The government will then organize elections for a group of constitution writers by March 15, 2005, and national elections for a new government before the end of 2005. The new government would negotiate an accord on the status of coalition troops.
President Bush welcomed the announcement yesterday and said in a statement that it would “help Iraq toward realizing the vision of Iraq as a democratic, pluralistic country at peace with its neighbors.”
The deal is aimed at ending a crisis that has intensified this month, as violence has surged across Iraq, drawing in parts that until now were relatively peaceful. The death toll of American soldiers has soared, and passed the 400 mark yesterday, when a First Armored Division soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.
Earlier this week, members of the Governing Council bluntly told US officials that the constitution could be written only by people who were elected by a national vote, an event that would have prolonged American occupation by about 18 months.
That delay did not seem critical until recently. But since late October, with a series of suicide bombs and missile attacks now a daily event, Iraqi and US officials have believed that an 18-month delay could allow insurgents to develop a full-blown guerrilla war.
Such a warning was disclosed last week in a confidential report by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, which was delivered to Bush officials last Monday and leaked to reporters. The report said Iraq could face widespread national resistance without an immediate political deal.
“There is a political dimension to our security strategy which is as important as our military strategy,” said Daniel Senor, an adviser to the US administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, with whom he traveled to Washington on Wednesday for emergency meetings with top administration officials. Speaking to a small group of reporters last night, Senor said it had become “crystal clear” to US officials that their previous plan was unworkable, given Iraqis’ demands for elections to write a constitution. “To win the war on terror, empowering Iraqis is fundamental.”
As if to signal that he was serious about ending his control, Bremer sat silently on a chair at the side of the auditorium last night, while the nine leading Governing Council members unveiled the new plan from the stage on which Bremer regularly briefs reporters.
While Bremer’s administration will disappear this summer, soldiers will almost certainly remain, according to US and Iraqi officials. But the 180,000 or so coalition soldiers in Iraq – about 131,000 of whom are American – will stay only at the invitation of a new government and their number will shrink dramatically.
“If we need them, we will ask them to stay,” said Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who is the Governing Council’s rotating president for November. “If not, we will respectfully say: `Bye-bye, dear friends, we are grateful to you for what you have done.’ “
Coalition officials said last night there had been no specific deal about how American soldiers will operate in Iraq after the power transfer.
Despite last night’s celebratory atmosphere, several thorny questions remained. The United States still has not accomplished its two most urgent stated goals: capturing or killing Saddam Hussein; and finding weapons of mass destruction. US and Iraqi officials did not specify who would continue those tasks after the hand over.
Iraqi officials were also vague on who would lead a new government. In a surprise answer to a reporter’s question, Talabani said: “We will find a good prime minister next month,” long before a new government is installed. A new president will be appointed only once a sovereign government is elected in late 2005.
For Iraqis, the new government will look stunningly different, both from the Hussein regime under which they lived for 23 years and from the Governing Council. Chosen in proportion to the population in each province, the government is likely to have far more Iraqis who have lived through Hussein’s iron rule. Iraqis have widely assailed the council, most of whose members are former exiles freshly home from decades in the West.

Speculation has been intense for days about what shape a new government would take. Bremer met for several hours Friday with key Governing Council figures. Yesterday’s secret afternoon meeting – which lasted “for a few hours,” Senor said – was held in Talabani’s home, a mansion at the end of a well-guarded, dead-end street along a strip of villas on the east bank of the Tigris River.
The deal was struck after hours of intense debate between Bremer and 23 members of the Governing Council, a body appointed by US officials only four months ago.
In a last-minute diplomatic flurry, the two sides wrestled over the finer details of the timetable.
“We were probably more in a hurry than they were,” said Adnan Pachachi, Iraq’s former foreign minister from the 1960s who returned from exile in Britain this year.
Toward Sovereignty: Key Points of Plan to Transfer Power to Iraqis.
· Coalition to hand over sovereignty to a new transitional government by July 1.
· A permanent constitution would be drafted and an elected administration chosen by the end of 2005.
· New Iraqi government would negotiate an accord on the status of US forces in the country, although several thousand troops are expected to remain for some time.
Source: Wire service reports
 
     

(try to make katie tan)

 
Article 7   
06:03pm 12/01/2004
  SYRIAN WRITER VIEWS BRITISH PUBLIC’S “INTENSE ANGER” TOWARD US PRESIDENT’S VISIT BBC Monitoring Middle East. London: Nov 18, 2003. pg. 1
Summary
The extraordinary security measures witnessed in London in preparation for the visit of US President George Bush are receiving resentful and angry reactions from the British public, who feel bitter and humiliated with their Labour government’s foreign policy that has created the impression that Britain has become more “submissive” towards the United States. The facts that have been made public revealed the Blair government’s unconditional compliance in the US administration’s war on Iraq. Those facts were considered a severe blow to the credibility of both the British and US administrations, which used fabricated pretexts to mislead the British and US public with the aim of gaining the approval of both peoples to go to this catastrophic war that brings to mind the tragedies of the Vietnam war. This article is relevant because it demonstrates how people in the countries that are supposed to be our allies feel about Bush and the war in Iraq.
Article
Text of report from “Point of view” column by Nadim Hatim entitled “Britain and reactions to Bush’s visit” published by Syrian newspaper Tishrin web site on 18 November
The extraordinary security measures witnessed in London in preparation for the visit of US President George Bush are receiving resentful and angry reactions from the British public, who feel bitter and humiliated with their Labour government’s foreign policy that has created the impression that Britain has become more “submissive” towards the United States. The facts that have been made public revealed the Blair government’s unconditional compliance in the US administration’s war on Iraq. Those facts were considered a severe blow to the credibility of both the British and US administrations, which used fabricated pretexts to mislead the British and US public with the aim of gaining the approval of both peoples to go to this catastrophic war that brings to mind the tragedies of the Vietnam war.
Perhaps President Bush, who senses the collapse of his popularity and credibility in the eyes of his people and the world, hoped that this visit would help polish his image, especially since the recent European opinion polls considered Bush as the “second most dangerous man” threatening world peace after [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, the head of the Israeli government of occupation. There is no doubt that the intense anger among the British public towards Bush’s visit gives observers clear indicators that the United States has lost the understanding of the people of the most important European country that supported it in its war on Iraq.
This atmosphere foretells the shape of the coming showdown between British parties as the elections battle heats up between the two main parties; the governing Labour and the Conservatives, who are trying to reorganize themselves and take advantage of the mistakes of the Labour Party in the general elections next year. While both parties are experiencing internal crises, the current public anger places both political parties on trial, not only on the level of internal policy but also on the level of foreign policy. This applies to both the blind compliance in the policy of submission to the United States and the issue of paying greater attention to supporting the steps of the EU. The United States looks on with apprehension for what the EU might become in the future in terms of a parallel force to itself on the international front.
Britain, which used to be an opposing force in the EU, seems now too mature to practice the policy of favoritism for the United States at the expense of its European affiliation. Any pretexts for the exercise of this policy no longer convince the British people.
Credit: Tishrin web site, Damascus, in Arabic 18 Nov 03
 
     

(try to make katie tan)