In this issue:

White House Prepares for Changes in Economic Policy Team After Nov. 5

Justice Department Puts ILWU on Notice

Employed in U.S. Work Longer Hours Than in Other Countries

Warmongers John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Go on the Air To Promote Their War Agenda

New York Times: Bush Preeminence Doctrine Not New

William Safire Blasts 'Axis of Greed' for Opposing Iraq War

Tom Ridge To Visit London for Tips on Fighting War on Terror

Bush Showed Signs of Stress at APEC Summit

From the Vol.1 No.35 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published November 4, 2002

UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST

White House Prepares for Changes in Economic Policy Team After Nov. 5

According to Reuters Nov. 1, the White House is preparing to make big changes in President Bush's economic policy team after the Nov. 5 elections. Top White House economics adviser Lawrence Lindsey is said to be on the way out, and so, perhaps, are SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill; Bush has been under pressure to dump both of them. One Republican aide is quoted as saying that "The Administration's economic operation obviously has problems and they're looking for changes." The White House won't comment on possible changes. Spokeswoman Claire Buchan only said, "The President has a high degree of confidence in his economic team." A former aide to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss), Keith Hennessey, has already been brought into the White House to be deputy assistant to the President for economic policy, and other, lower-tier changes have fuelled speculation of a bigger shake-up on the way.

At the same time, White House economics team, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman are said to be considering leaving.

Justice Department Puts ILWU on Notice

The Department of Justice has put the ILWU longshoremen's union on notice that it is taking seriously management charges of union violations of the Taft-Hartley injunction whereby California dockers were ordered back to work, and the ports reopened.

In a letter released after the management group Pacific Maritime Association filed formal charges that the International Longshore and Warehouse Union was engaging in a slow-down, DOJ prosecutors stated that while a certain amount of inefficiency for a few days following the end of the lockout could be tolerated, the situation should be sorted out by now.

The statement of the DOJ is in direct contrast to the estimate of almost all experts that it would take weeks to sort out the situation at the logjammed ports. Spokesmen for the ILWU have repeatedly referenced the underlying infrastructure problems they face, including the shortage of truck chassis, and availability of rail transit to move unloaded containers from the ports. They have also repeatedly referenced their belief that it is the intention of the PMA to break the union, using punitive fines and even imprisonment of union leaders, if they are held to be in contempt of the court ruling.

Employed in U.S. Work Longer Hours Than in Other Countries

Employed Americans are working more hours than workers in any other industrialized nation. The Buffalo (New York) News reported some surprising figures in its Oct. 14 item on the Economic Policy Institute's biennial State of Working America. Sharon Lindstedt of the Buffalo News wrote, "The average [employed] U.S. worker spends 1,900 hours a year on the job. That's the equivalent of 20 more days each year than in 1979, and more work hours than in any [other] industrialized nation in the world. The hour count is also up for dual-income families. A middle-income couple with children, in the 25 to 54 age range, works a combined average of 3,932 hours, annually, up 20% in the past quarter-century. That adds up to a whopping 16 additional weeks of work compared to hours logged in 1979" (emphasis added).

These changes seem to be partly a reflection of workers' needs to make ends meet, but also partly of employers' demands: "44% of full-time employees [indicated] they'd prefer to work fewer hours. Only 26% said they would like to put in more time on the job," Linstedt reported.

Warmongers John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Go on the Air To Promote Their War Agenda

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) appeared on Fox News Sunday Oct. 27.

McCain, interviewed first, was asked about an op-ed he put out this last week, saying "the situation in North Korea illustrates what happens if we don't act in Iraq," and about his response to a Jimmy Carter op-ed in the Oct. 27 New York Times, in which Carter argued that the diplomatic road is the one that should be taken.

McCain responded by saying that the U.S. approach to North Korea under President Clinton in 1994 was bribery—and that it was wrong, and unsuccessful. He endorsed President Bush's call for economic sanctions, saying that might be enough to topple the North Korean government of Kim Jong-il.

Host Tony Snow then brought on Lieberman, who began by saying that the Democrats would love to bring John McCain "into our inner councils. We'd love him to become a Democrat, incidentally."

Lieberman was asked primarily about Iraq policy and the fight at the UN, during which he argued that the U.S. ought to get a resolution, as tough as possible, passed immediately, to get the inspection process going, and then come back again to the UN for enforcement. He said, "I'd say, focus on the inspections. If you have to make a bargain, yield on what will happen for now if the Iraqis violate or frustrate the inspections." If the UN refuses to act at a later stage, then build an international coalition—and act.

At the conclusion, the host asked Lieberman about the Saudi role in terror, giving him an opportunity to show he's part of the chickenhawk/Richard Perle "permanent war" crew. Lieberman said: "There's increasing not just subjective frustration, but objective evidence that people within Saudi Arabia have been the major financial supporters of certainly al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups—but certainly al-Qaeda. Now, the Saudis have been good allies to us, but you come to a point where you've got to tell even your friends, this is unacceptable—not only is it unacceptable, it's outrageous. And you, leadership of Saudi Arabia, have to take action within the Kingdom to stop this support of people who have killed Americans and want to kill more of us. And if it doesn't change—I'll tell you this, I, in my 14 years in the Senate, I have never seen as much bipartisan anger toward the Saudis and willingness to really alter this relationship, as I see today."

New York Times: Bush Preeminence Doctrine Not New

The New York Times carried an analysis piece Oct. 26 by reporter Judith Miller, focussing on the last chapter of the so-called National Security Strategy of the United States released last month by the White House. The last chapter is the one that declares that the United States will not allow any other nation to rival it in power. Miller notes that while it was the preemption doctrine that initially caught the most attention, it's the last chapter that is causing the most debate in academic and policy circles.

On the one side, are people like former Clinton-era Pentagon official Ashton B. Carter, now resident at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who says, "It makes a doctrine out of a physical fact and puts it in everyone's face." Another voice of caution is Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council staffer from the Bush I Administration, who called the doctrine "aggressively opaque." "The policy implications of the idea are very unclear."

On the other side is Richard Pipes, a Harvard history professor, who opines that other nations must realize "that we will not be intimidated or dissuaded from exercising power when our national security interest depends on it." From there, Miller takes the reader through a discussion of why the Bush preeminence doctrine is nothing new, nor unique to the Bush Republicans, quoting other academics who argue that the United States has always acted, de facto, on the basis of establishing hegemony, first over the Western Hemisphere, and now, since the end of the Cold War, over the entire world. What makes the Bush doctrine unique, these folks argue, is that it is stated so openly.

William Safire Blasts 'Axis of Greed' for Opposing Iraq War

William Safire's Oct. 28 New York Times op ed declares that Russia, China, France, and Mexico form an "axis of greed," and that is why, he says, they are trying to block an Iraq war. Safire details how a successful U.S. war on Iraq will make the winners rich, and severely harm those, like Russia and France, who resisted—and then concludes that those who oppose war are the greedy ones! He writes that "should the UN deny the fact of Saddam's repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions [by rejecting the "material breach" clause], the world body will henceforth play only in a Little League of nations." If the "no" votes succeed in the UN, he writes, "It would also show that Colin Powell's faith in the UN system and his own persuasive powers has been grievously misplaced."

But Bush will not be deterred from going to war, Safire says, and quotes "one pundit," unidentified, in the following account of the war booty to be won: "Britain would replace France as the chief European dealer in Iraqi oil and equipment. Syria ... would be frozen out. The government of New Iraq, under the tutelage and initial control of the victorious coalition, and prosperous after shedding the burden of a huge army and corrupt Baath Party, would reimburse the U.S. and Britain for much of their costs in the war and transitional government out of future oil revenues and contracts. If Turkey's powerful army on Iraq's border significantly shortens the war, its longtime claim to royalties from the Kirkuk oil fields would at last be honored.... The evolving democratic government of New Iraq would repudiate the corrupt $8-billion 'debt' that Russia claims was run up by Saddam.... Rising production from a non-OPEC Iraq, matched by Saudi price cuts from princes desperate to hold market share, could well reduce world oil prices by a third. This would be a great boon to the poor in many developing nations, rejuvenate Japan and encourage prosperity worldwide, though it would temporarily impoverish Putin's Russia, now wholly dependent on oil revenues."

Thus, Safire concludes, "The Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis of greed whose commerce-driven politicians seek to prop up the doomed Saddam in the UN will find its policy highly unprofitable."

Tom Ridge To Visit London for Tips on Fighting War on Terror

U.S. Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge Will be in London this week, to discuss how the expanded Bush Administration Homeland Security operation can be modelled on Britain's MI-5 domestic intelligence service, according to British press reports Oct. 31. Ridge is scheduled to meet Elizabeth Manningham-Butler, director of MI-5; Sir Richard Dearlove, director of MI-6 (aka "C"); British Home Secretary David Blunkett; and several senior Scotland Yard officials.

Ridge has given interviews to both the Telegraph and Times. The latter cites him as saying that another mega-terrorist act inside the U.S. is "inevitable." The Telegraph claims that there is a growing recognition in Washington, that Britain and Israel have the two best intelligence services for monitoring and fighting terrorism.

Bush Showed Signs of Stress at APEC Summit

About the most significant development at last weekend's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) summit of 21 Asian and American heads of state/government at Los Cabos, was the obvious signs that President Bush displayed of mental stress. When a President of the United States demonstrates the kind of stressed-out state of mind that Bush showed at Los Cabos, this is a matter of strategic concern. According to news accounts of the summit, published in the Oct. 27 and Oct. 28 Washington Post, Bush displayed a degree of impatience with the proceedings that bordered on a major diplomatic breach.

From Sunday's Post description: "Bush has little patience with ceremony and has always kept his visits to international gatherings as brief as possible. With other leaders not rushing to embrace his plans, he did not conceal his testiness today. The only time he spoke to reporters was during a photo session with [Mexican President Vicente] Fox, and he glowered during Fox's windup and looked annoyed at the unruliness of the camera crews. The last straw was when a cell phone went off, which infuriates Bush, even when the violator is a member of his staff. In a breach of protocol, Bush cut off the translator before Fox's answers could be rendered in English, and the White House transcript ignored Fox's words, saying simply, 'Answered in Spanish.'"

From Monday's coverage: "Bush, said a Mexican official who asked not to be identified, is today a different person than he was when he met Fox in Guanajuato and at the White House—visits that now seem a lifetime ago. The man who once made Mexicans feel relaxed and welcome now makes them nervous and often irritated. The Mexicans find Bush, once easygoing and open, now tough and single-minded....

"[T]hey say they are puzzled over the Administration's seeming inability to pay attention to more than one foreign policy issue at a time."

One of the issues between the two countries is Mexican immigration into the U.S.; Bush had promised to ease up on Mexican immigrants, but since 9/11, the U.S. has instead tightened its border security.

The Bush Administration, the Post reported, says privately that they wonder "why Mexico cannot be more understanding of the international and domestic pressures Bush is under, and the enormous security concerns he has to deal with."

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS