Month: February 2004

May Day

Post author By Bill Berkowitz
Post date February 5, 2004

While the Bush administration never tires of reminding the American people that the president’s war on terrorism, his invasion of Iraq, and the Patriot Act I and II are all rooted in the 9/11 attacks, it has tired of one little bitty aspect of this post-9/11 period: the investigation by the 10-member bipartisan independent commission.

White House officials, along with House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), have decided to oppose extending the time limit for work by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, “virtually guaranteeing that the panel” will have to be done with its work by the end of May, The Washington Post reported on January 19th. According to the statute that created the panel in late 2002, the comission needs to complete a report for the president and Congress by May 27th.

After months of stalling on even having a commission, then appointing Henry Kissinger to head it (and having to withdraw that appointment), the administration threw every conceivable roadblock in the commission’s path, including the withholding of significant documents. Despite the growing consensus among commission members that they need more time, the president and his congressional allies want to shut the investigation down. The administration appears to be concerned that an ongoing investigation would bleed into the election season and hurt the president’s reelection chances.

“With time running short,” the Post reported, “the … panel [chaired by the former governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean] has already decided to scale back the number and scope of hearings that it will hold for the public, [and it] is rushing to finish interviews with as many as 200 remaining witnesses and to finish examining about 2 million pages of documents related to the attacks.”

In an early-January interview with The New York Times, Kean was asked whether 9/11 could have been avoided. “Yes, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented by any number of people along the way,” Kean replied. “Everybody pretty well agrees our intelligence agencies were not set up to deal with domestic terrorism … . They were not ready for an internal attack.” Then the Times asked whether “anyone in the Bush administration [had] any idea that an attack was being planned.” Kean: “That is why we are looking at the internal papers. I can’t talk about what’s classified. [The] President’s daily briefings are classified. If I told you what was in them, I would go to jail.”

The administration’s decision to shut down the investigation cannot be good news for the victims’ families and citizen watchdog groups that have been fighting tooth and nail since the commission was appointed. “The momentous nature of the event requires that this commission not be rushed to complete its work,” said Kyle Hence, co-founder of 9/11 Citizens Watch.

“The commission is coming up with new information,” said Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband, Ron, in the collapse of the World Trade Center. “As time goes by and more comes to light, we get a clearer picture of how this terrible thing happened. The commission’s report will be the definitive official account. There is only one chance to get this right, so we plan to make sure they get all the time they need.”

“We’ve had it,” Breitweiser added. “It is such a slap in the face of the families of victims. They are dishonoring the dead with their irresponsible behavior.”

At the end of January, after two days of hearing testimonies about the attacks, the independent commission announced it was formally requesting an extension of its deadline, from May 27th to July. The ball is in your court, Mr. Bush.

Bill Berkowitz writes for Working For Change.

News News Feature

LETTER FROM MEMPHIS

Post author By Kenneth Neill
Post date February 5, 2004

P.T. BARNUM’S AMERICA

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, the famous circus man once said. Alas, some things never change.

I confess, I’ve found myself getting slightly optimistic these past few weeks about the possibility of a premature end to the presidency of George W. Bush. After all, he gave what was by all accounts a mediocre State of the Union Address. His own chief WMD hunter has now admitted that there are probably none to be found in Iraq. And with the leading Democrats like Kerry, Edwards and Clark all seeming to have grown in stature as the primary season has begun, the prognosis for November looks suddenly less bleak. Even the once-cowed mass media has begun to whisper about how the President is facing a stiffer challenge than anyone ever expected.

Then today I happened to pick up the current Newsweek, and my pseudo-euphoria turned rather quickly into gloom. The reason? The magazine’s latest opinion poll, conducted January 29-30, a poll that still includes the now-famous question about Saddam and 9/11:

“Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?”

The President himself, of course, has admitted that no links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 have been established. Not a single credible intelligence report, domestic or foreign, has ever confirmed the existence of any connection; the rest of the world guffaws whenever the subject comes up. But do you think the American people would let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their opinions?

Not on your life. Believe it or not, fully 49% of respondents STILL are answering that question in the affirmative.

Despite the enormous media attention already given this absurdity, half of the people in this country still believe Saddam is/was the Great Boogie Man behind the Twin Towers tragedy. The mind boggles at what else they must think. Do half of us still think the Moon is made of green cheese? Or that the Tooth Fairy would make an ideal presidential candidate in 2008?

I do not mean to sound smug or condescending, but this is serious stuff, friends. When the people of a country prefer believing in fantasy to accepting reality, that country is in deep, deep trouble. Particularly when that country uses democratic elections to choose its leaders. Forget about the pen being mightier than the sword; when the power of innuendo is mightier than the power of fact, democracy becomes little more than farce.

The danger in which we as nation find ourselves was driven home to me

by a personal experience Wednesday morning; allow me to relate it. I was in a little diner here in downtown Memphis at breakfast time, where Wesley Clark spoke on his swing through Tennessee in advance of next Tuesday’s state Democratic primary.

At 8 am, General Clark could be seen standing atop the lunch counter of the Arcade restaurant, delivering his standard stump speech to a crowd of several hundred locals crammed into a room that holds seventy-five. I’d been told he’s way better in person than on television, and while I’m not an ardent supporter, I can testify that this is indeed the case with Clark. As someone nearby said to me, “The man can burn barns.”

I was standing just beside the General while he spoke, so close that when my cell phone began ringing unexpectedly, the folks nearby immediately shoosshed me, with the usual looks of disapproval. I whispered quickly into the mouthpiece, telling the caller that I was at a political breakfast, and quickly turned the damned thing off.

After the event, I returned the call of this business acquaintance (let’s call him Bill), apologizing for having to cut him off. “I knew you were at one of those Democratic rallies,” he replied, referring to the fact that John Edwards was also campaigning in Memphis on the same morning. “Which of those two communists was it?”

I realize that this guy, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, no doubt, was probably just being smart. But we’re not close friends, so his remark took me aback. I was struck by his choice of descriptors. “Gee, Bill, I didn’t know we had any communists speaking here in town today. I was at General Clark’s breakfast, though.” Bill sort of laughed.

No big deal, but the conversation stuck with me all day. So did the image of an angry American — a guy who actually grew up in the same country I did, and was roughly the same age — willing to throw around an incendiary term like that to describe General Wesley Clark, who, of course, served 33 years in the U.S. Army, after finishing first in his class in West Point, who served with distinction and courage, as his Vietnam War battle scars and no end of stories would attest.

In a way, Bill’s comment bothered me way more than the silly Newsweek poll. The Newsweek poll demonstrated that a significant portion of the American population is bone-headed stupid. That’s nothing new. P.T. Barnum could have told us that, a century ago.

No, good old Bill’s communist throwaway line demonstrates just how cleverly and maliciously the Bush Administration has capitalized upon that ignorance, manipulating truth to protect its interests and implement policies, at home and abroad, which as recently as a decade ago would have been dismissed as madness.

I honestly don’t believe that Bill would have called Wesley Clark a Communist four years ago. Bill Clinton, maybe, but Wesley Clark? No.

But that was then, and this is now, now being the post-9/11America that the Bush Administration will do anything to continue to divide so that it can reconquer next November.

It is a sad time for America. Dick Cheney and his minions have successfully made fear a more powerful weapon than anything Saddam Hussein ever possessed, and like that tyrant, they’ve had no qualms about using that weapon upon their own people. “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists,” George W. Bush told us after 9/11, and his administration has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams in using that mantra to stifle legitimate criticism, to protect their self interests, and to poison the well of political discourse in America.

The well is so poisoned that Wesley Clark can be called a communist. Go figure. And go cry.

Politics Politics Beat Blog

THE FIGHT’S ON!: THREE DEMOCRATS VIE IN TENNESSEE

Post author By Jackson Baker
Post date February 5, 2004

Clark in kitchen; Edwards on stump

A day after his chief rivals in Tuesday’s Tennessee presidential primary campaigned in Memphis, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry picked up some momentum in the same place. State Senator Steve Cohen came on board Thursday , in a public teleconference with an old foe, 9th District congressman Harold Ford Jr.

The duet between the two, who dueled in the 1996 9th District Democratic primary and have never been close, was so cozy — with Cohen calling Ford a “great congressman” and Ford congratulating Cohen on his career achievements, including his successful sponsorship of the state lottery — that at times they sounded almost like running mates.

Neither would venture a prediction on Kerry’s showing, but each noted that the senator is doing well in statewide poll soundings so far. Ford has been a national co-chair of the Kerry campaign, while Cohen was formally neutral until Thursday. The teleconference emanated from the state senator’s Midtown Memphis home.

Retired General Wesley Clark and North Carolina Senator John Edwards, winners in this week’s primaries in Oklahoma and South Carolina, respectively, made morning appearances in Memphis on Wednesday, and both served notice that they’ll be spending beaucoup time in Tennessee between now and Tuesday.

Clark launched a bus tour from Memphis which scheduled several Tennessee stops on Wednesday and Thursday, and Edwards also went on to other appearances in the state. Each will retrace his steps at least once, with another Memphis stop scheduled for both.

Both candidates claimed momentum for their efforts on Wednesday, with Clark emphasizing his call for “a higher standard of leadership” and Edwards promising an end to a condition in which there are “two Americas,” one for the wealthy and one for everybody else.

As if conscious of his need to draw distinctions between himself and Edwards, who is widely considered Kerry’s current chief contender, Clark threw down the gauntlet during an energized appearance at a pancake breakfast at the Arcade Restaurant in downtown Memphis.

Distinguishing between himself and unnamed “other candidates,” Clark noted that they seemed now to oppose a series of Bush-administration initiatives, ranging from tax cuts to the No Child Left Behind education act to the controversial Patriot Act to authorization for the war in Iraq, but, in each case, said Clark, “they voted for it!” By the time Clark hit Jackson later in the day the names “John Kerry” and “John Edwards” were expressly included in that stretch of the general’s reconfigured stump speech.

In an email to reporters later, and Edwards campaign spokesperson said, “Wesley Clark is doing what desperate politicians do when they are losing ground – resorting to misleading negative political attacks…. These negative attacks from Wesley Clark represent the very type of political, petty sniping voters are so tired of.”

The email goes on to contend that Senator Edwards has differences with President Bush on No Child Left Behind, as well as “important issues like trade, jobs, and tax cuts for the wealthy,” and counters Clark’s attack with It is ironic that somebody who made hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying the Bush administration and changed his positions on numerous issues would now accuse others of acting like Washington politicians.”

At his Wednesday morning appearance in Memphis, Edwards appeared in the lobby of The Opheum theatre with several local Democrats, including prominent African-American city councilman Myron Lowery, who introduced him. Lowery had previously munched pancakes at Clark’s Arcade affair.

The North Carolina senator made an appeal in Memphis, as he had elsewhere on the campaign trail, to recommit the Democratic Party to a defense of civil rights.

Shelby County Democrats, gathering at Coors Brewery for a straw poll Thursday night, gave Kerry a slight lead over Edwards, Clark, and the rest of the field. The vote was:

Kerry 42; Edwards 37; Clark 24; Howard Dean 11; Dennis Kucinich 2

News News Feature

CITY BEAT

Post author By Cheri DelBrocco
Post date February 4, 2004

A MARRIAGE MADE IN HELL

The haggling between the Grizzlies and the University of Memphis Tigers sounds suspiciously like a mismatched couple negotiating a prenuptial agreement, knowing good and well that this thing isn’t going to work.

The terms of their move to the FedExForum isn’t a sports story, it’s a marriage story Ñ a subject many of us know a lot about without benefit of the sports page.

Therefore, the person whose insight I offer is not Stan Meadows or Michael Heisley or Mike Rose or R.C. Johnson. It’s novelist Anne Tyler, Pulitzer Prize winner and one of America’s greatest writers. For all I know, she’s never seen a pro basketball game, but, boy, does she understand dysfunctional relationships.

Near the end of her new bestseller, The Amateur Marriage, the husband looks back on his 60-year relationship with his ex-wife and attempts to explain it all to their bitter and estranged daughter:

“We did the best we could. We did our darnedest. We were just … unskilled; we never quite got the hang of things. It wasn’t for lack of trying.”

Sorry, sports fans, but a marriage of Grizzlies and Tigers looks to have all the staying power of a matchup between Larry King and Britney Spears.

The Grizzlies, like other pro teams, routinely pay multimillion-dollar contracts to benchwarmers and even ex-players like Bryant Reeves and Michael Dickerson who aren’t even in the league any more. But they’re reportedly balking at paying an annual six-figure subsidy to the U of M that is, relatively speaking, small change. Is that any way to treat the hometown partner you propose to love and cherish for the next 20 years?

Rule Number 1: Beware of the flashy stranger who sweeps you off your feet and tells you to forget your old love from the neighborhood.

The Tigers and their die-hard fans are hung up on the memory of the way they were. Wasn’t it great when sharp-shooting Larry Finch took them to the NCAA finals in 1973 and when local guys Keith, Baskerville, Doom, Vincent, and the Little General stuck around four years and went to the Final Four in 1985? Trouble is, young fans weren’t even born then, and four-year star players are rare today. Now, in desperation, the U of M has hitched a million-dollar coach to a vagabond team in a bargain-basement league.

Rule Number 2: There is nothing like the golden memory of an old flame to screw up a not-so-golden marriage.

College hoops in Memphis once filled 11,000 seats at the Mid-South Coliseum, so the Tigers got talked into buying into The Pyramid with 20,000 seats. In 1989, the fear Ñ can you believe it? Ñ was that they might only draw 12,000 or so.

Attendance these days is far below the 1989 projection. Seats sold at Tiger games has averaged 6,780, excluding Wednesday night’s game against Louisville.

Today, the Grizzlies and the Tigers understand that unless the Tiger talent and schedule improve dramatically, things could get much worse than that. Conference rival Houston, which knocked off the Tigers in the 1983 and 1984 NCAA tournament, averaged 3,808 fans last year and 2,848 this year.

Rule Number 3: A bigger mansion can’t save a bad marriage.

At the FedExForum, the Grizzlies will call the shots, tell the Tigers when they can play, control the revenue streams, and, of course, upstage their product.

Rule Number 4: Father knows best is a lousy recipe for a long-term relationship.

The Grizzlies would like you to believe that the NBA family is strong and healthy, if not exactly wholesome. The team is playing hard, winning more than losing, and general manager Jerry West and head coach Hubie Brown are getting great reviews. But there’s definitely something dysfunctional about the NBA, even by the standards of pro sports. Seventeen head coaches Ñ the people who know the players and owners best Ñ have quit or been fired since last season. And the NBA’s star attraction, Kobe Bryant, is going on trial for rape.

Rule Number 5: Beware of the in-laws.

The FedExForum has bills. The Grizzlies have bills. Fans are going to have to help pay them. Hauling the wife and kids to the game will be a tad more expensive than an evening at, say, AutoZone Park. Like $100 more expensive. Let’s hope the economy and stock market are strong for the next 20 years.

Rule Number 6: Couples fight about money.

The entertainment alternatives aren’t standing still. Reality television, the Tennessee lottery, movies, and casinos are endlessly inventive, easy to get to, and relatively cheap.

Rule Number 7: Affairs happen.

Do you see now why these love birds are already fighting about the pre-nup? They’re doing the best they can. They’re doing their darnedest. If it doesn’t work, it won’t be for lack of trying. n

News News Feature

FROM MY SEAT

Post author By Frank Murtaugh
Post date February 2, 2004

DIVISION OF LABOR

The 1982-83 Washington Bullets had what might best be described as a schizophrenic season. Led by “Bruise Brothers” Jeff Ruland, Greg Ballard, and Rick Mahorn, the Bullets survived a grueling Eastern Conference schedule to finish 42-40. A winning record is normally the first ingredient in the concoction of NBA success. Alas, 42 wins left Washington in the Atlantic Division cellar, the last NBA team to finish in a division’s basement with a winning record.

Fast-forward to the present-day Midwest Division, where as of Monday, the surprising Utah Jazz (minus Stockton-and-Malone) had managed a record of 24-23 . . . and found themselves in last place. For some interdivisional perspective, Utah would be merely two games out of first place in the Atlantic.

Depending on your point of view, it’s the Memphis Grizzlies’ blessing or curse to be locked in the toughest, most competitive division in the NBA, a seven-team free-for-all that may go down in history as one of the finest divisional alignments of all time. If Utah (or any of its Midwest brethren) winds up in last place despite a .500 record, it will be only the sixth time such an aberration has occurred, and the first time in a division with more than five teams.

Considering the Grizzlies have already managed a six-game winning streak and a franchise-record eight-game tear, the view here is that Hubie Brown’s young squad is being sculpted into the kind of battle-tested playoff contender they might never become were they members of the Pacific Division or (egad!) either of the Eastern Conference divisions. When you have 24 of your 82 games against, count ‘em, Minnesota, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Denver, and Utah, you learn very quickly to never — ever — take the night off.

Here we are in February, and Memphis has but three more losses than the world champion San Antonio Spurs. They essentially have a playoff spot to lose, and it doesn’t appear a major fade is imminent. When a club can trot out a 10-man rotation, and find as many as seven players in double figures after 48 minutes, local NBA fans find themselves mouthing a word not often spoken since this franchise was born nine years ago: stability.

My favorite Grizzly stat this season? There are nine players averaging 20 minutes per game (and a tenth — Bo Outlaw — who averages 18). The fact is, it’s well nigh impossible for 10 players to slump together. If Steve Francis isn’t making his shots for Houston, the Rockets crash. When Tim Duncan has an off night in San Antonio, the Spurs become decidedly dull. But with these Grizzlies, Hubie Brown keeps one offensive option after another rotating onto the floor. It’s a formula that is all but immune to the kind of 10-game droughts this franchise suffered over its first two years in Memphis. The Grizzlies may lack the requisite superstar to lead them into June basketball, but they have the kind of depth that makes the 82-game regular season not quite the grind it is for many NBA outfits. And the kind of depth that will lead to fresh legs come playoff time.

As for the division alignment, life for the Griz may get even more rigorous — if such is possible — in 2004-05. Memphis will be part of the NBA’s new Southwest Divison, a five-team battle royale in which the Grizzlies will give up Denver, Utah, and Minnesota in exchange for the New Orleans Hornets (one of the few talented teams currently in the Eastern Conference). This new division will retain the infamous Texas Triangle, and adopt the new, shall we say, River Rivalry. Should mean a fearsome struggle for divisional supremacy . . . and very likely a winning record for the cellar-dweller. Mr. Ruland, raise a toast.