|
The NY Times editorial yesterday on Iraq was basically a rewrite of Kucinich's position statement on the Iraq war. But Kucinich was not credited for the editorial. So I wrote a letter to them at letters@nytimes.com
Here is my letter to the NYTimes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jayson Blair now works for the NYTimes editorial board?
How is it that yesterday's NYTimes editorial looks as if it is simply a rewrite of Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's position on the Iraq war, yet Congressman Kucinich is not credited for the editorial? I thought Jayson Blair was no longer working at the NYTimes? Apparently I was mistaken....
Randy Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a posting from WWW.DEMOCRATS.COM explaining the plagiarism and showing the two writings:
.................................................
NY Times Plagiarizes Kucinich's Position on Iraq: US Out, UN In
The NY Times helped Bush take America to war on a mountain of lies. But now the Times has soured on Bush's miserable failure at nation- building. "Iraqis are growing weary of American occupation and the White House argues that they will not tolerate the current situation long enough for a constitution to be prepared. That is the precise reason that the job should be turned over to the United Nations. The United Nations has far more international experience, credibility and reputation for neutrality in these matters than the United States does. There is certainly no guarantee it can succeed. There is only the certainty that the Bush administration, which has made all the wrong bets so far, does not have any better options." Amazingly, the Times has embraced the position of Dennis Kucinich: "US out and UN in." Of course, the Times does not credit Kucinich for being the first political leader to take this position. There's a word for taking someone's ideas without credit: Plagiarism.
Below is the editorial that appeared in Sunday's New York Times. It is followed by a reprint of Congressman Kucinich's strategy for getting our U. S. troops out of Iraq. Read them both and then send an email to the Times telling them to give credit where credit is due. You can send your comments to them at - letters@nytimes.com Do it now. Time is of the essence in responding to this. Tell them what you think.
FROM WWW.NYTIMES.COM:
November 16, 2003
Iraq Goes Sour
he American involvement with Iraq appears to have turned a corner. The Bush administration's old game plan ?drafting a constitution, followed by elections, followed by American withdrawal ?has been replaced by a new timetable. It's a bit cynical to say that the plan is to toss the whole hot potato to whatever Iraqis are willing to grab it. But the White House thinking is veering close.
President Bush gambled vast amounts of American money, influence and American and Iraqi lives on the theory that toppling Saddam Hussein would make the world safer and make the Mideast a more stable and democratic region. Obviously, the Iraqi people are better off without a vicious tyrant in power. But if the American forces leave prematurely, the country will wind up vulnerable to another dictator and possibly more of a threat to the world than it was before. Yet the admi nistration is giving the impression of having one foot out the door, while doggedly refusing to take the only realistic next step ?asking the United Nations to take over the nation-building.
Blind Intelligence
It's useful, at this point, to look back and see how we got here. Most Americans, polls told us, were eager to see Saddam Hussein deposed because they believed he was somehow connected to Sept. 11. The president knew that was not the case, as he acknowledged long after the invasion. But the White House, along with many officials of the Clinton administration, did believe that Saddam Hussein had massive supplies of biological and chemical weapons, and that he was attempting to make Iraq a nuclear power. That was what created a sense of urgency about the invasion.
How did they wind up at what now appears to be a totally incorrect conclusion about Iraq's weapons programs? The Central Intelligence Agency , we now realize, had no idea of what was going on inside Iraq. The country had been virtually shut off since 1998, when President Clinton ordered renewed bombing and weapons inspectors withdrew. The C.I.A.'s estimates were basically worst- case scenarios of what the Hussein regime might have been up to in the interim. That was apparently a mistake, if an understandable one.
But the assumptions Mr. Bush shared with the American people seem to have been hyped further. That was at least in part because of pressure from the Pentagon, where influential aides to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had their own sources of information, most notably Iraqi exiles. The best known was Ahmad Chalabi, now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. After the American forces were in Iraq, Mr. Chalabi claimed for a while that their failure to find the weapons was due to the refusal of American officials to heed his tips about where they wer e.
The Will to Invade
The people who believed that Iraq was armed to the teeth with illegal weapons also based that opinion on simple logic. If Saddam Hussein did not have them, surely he would have cooperated fully with weapons inspectors rather than allow his country to be invaded. The very fact that he never backed down seemed to be proof he had something terrible to hide. But the Bush administra- tion knew that as the countdown to invasion ticked away, Iraq had reached out through middlemen with an offer to allow not just full inspections, but inspections by American troops. It was an offer that might, in the end, have turned out to be meaningless. But the fact that the administration chose not to pursue it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the White House regarded the run-up to the war not as a time for trying to avoid conflict, but as a time for public relations moves meant to give the American people the impression that there was no way out.
The Failure to Plan
Most experts, in and out of government, believed that the American military could quickly defeat the Iraqis. But there were far fewer who thought that once the Hussein government had been toppled it would be easy to make Iraq secure, get the country back on its feet and establish a democratic successor. The Bush administration had even less reason to make that conclusion, since the State Department's own internal studies, done in preparation for the attack, outlined the obvious pitfalls. Vice President Dick Cheney had listed some of the same perils in 1991 when he defended the decision not to march on to Baghdad during the first gulf war. (American troops, he opined, would find themselves in a "quagmire.")
What, then, caused the administration to invade with so little preparation for what would happen after the fighting, and so much confidence that the Iraqis could quickly take the reins of power? Once again, it seems most likely that the Defense Department and the president's security advisers believed the reassurances of Mr. Chalabi and the other Iraqi exiles. The administration seems to have placed its bets on information given by the very people who had the most to gain from the invasion.
The Governing Council
Mr. Chalabi, who has lived outside Iraq for much of his life, is now a member of the Governing Council, a group of leaders handpicked by the American government. So far, the council has done little but squabble internally and complain about American slights. It has made virtually no progress in preparing a new Iraqi constitution. In a nation where the overriding danger for the future is conflict among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it has failed to show any aptitude for bridging those gaps even within its own ranks.
If the administration winds up turning Iraq over to the council in anything like its current form, it seems wildly unlikely that the next government will be able to survive for any period of time without civil war, or the same kind of brutality that caused the world to recoil from Saddam Hussein. The Middle East would wind up an even less stable place than it is now. The war on terror would be far more difficult to fight. Iraq, which was probably not a major haven for international terrorists before the invasion, could easily turn into one.
The Last, Best Hope
The only real chance for a peaceful future for Iraq lies in a government made up of representatives of all the critical factions, working together to resolve problems fairly and peacefully. The only way to get leaders with the skills to accomplish that supremely difficult task is to train them. The best training is the very process of writing the consti tution that the Bush administration now rejects as too time-consuming.
Iraqis are growing weary of American occupation and the White House argues that they will not tolerate the current situation long enough for a constitution to be prepared. That is the precise reason that the job should be turned over to the United Nations. The United Nations has far more international experience, credibi- lity and reputation for neutrality in these matters than the United States does. There is certainly no guarantee it can succeed. There is only the certainty that the Bush administration, which has made all the wrong bets so far, does not have any better options.
FROM HOUSE.GOV/KUCINICH:
Congressman Kucinich's Iraq Strategy
The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can£s help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen an d other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.
People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year£r day, it will cost much less than the President£r, and it will increase American security.
The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination. The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq£r oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq£r oil resources. The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-l ed Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion. Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home by the new year, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal. As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person þcne vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during tha t period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home. In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.
In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.
The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the dam age caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration£r reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.
The war and o ccupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America£r moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America£r standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world£r countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.
All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US causalities, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.
We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home by the new year, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and it will save billions over the Administration£r occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorist and criminals, who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scar ce resources to rebuild America.
Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress
SEND YOUR COMMENTS BY EMAIL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES AT -
letters@nytimes.com
|