The Committee to Reform Democracy in California |
Home The Website Corruption Updates The Database The Archives Link Clusters Why How to Help Contact |
Fight Corporate Media Liars |
CORRUPTION UPDATES 151 Posted: January 21-22, 2008, Draft edition Previous Page: Page 150 All Archives Next page: Page 152 Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org 1) The Articles linked below were Abstracted from the sources cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms. Israel must bomb Iran for Bush: US Rep. advisor Sunday, January 20, 2008 - ?2005 IranMania.com http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp? NewsCode=57137&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs LONDON, January 20 (IranMania) - A senior Republican advisor says since it is 'politically impossible' for Bush to attack Iran, the job should be 'outsourced' to Israel, PressTV reported. If Tehran does not halt its nuclear program, Israel will 'inevitably' wreak mayhem on Iran, wrote Norman Podhoretz in the February edition of Commentary. Podhoretz, who is considered as one of the founders of neoconservatism, insists that Israel may even be forced to attack Iran's Arab neighbors to prevent them from assisting Tehran if the country acquires nuclear technology. The neocon godfather is said to have a close relationship with President George W. Bush and is now serving as the foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Podhoretz stated a year ago that the current administration will strike Iran's nuclear facilities before the US president leaves office. However, the US National Intelligence Estimate released in December concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Podhoretz claimed the NIE report made it 'politically impossible' for the Bush administration to wage war on Iran as the international community believes Iran's nuclear program is civilian. From the john birch society, 10-18-07;
In August, (2007) Middle East expert Barnett Rubin claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney asked various neoconservative organs to call for the United States to attack Iran. Compliance quickly came from the American Enterprise Institute, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, and others. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton promptly told Britain’s Conservative Party leaders that the United States should deliver a preemptive strike against Iran and remove Ahmadinejad. Neocon stalwart Norman Podhoretz seconded the idea, even suggesting the use of our nuclear weapons to get the job done. Podhoretz is a senior adviser to Republican Party candidate Rudy Giuliani and is likely the stimulus for the former mayor of New York City calling for such an attack. Top GOP candidates McCain and Romney agree that using the nuclear option against Iran should be considered. London’s Sunday Times for September 2 reported that the Pentagon has "drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran." The object is to completely destroy any military capability in the country. But Iran hasn't’t threatened the United States. Mr. Bush claims to have agreement regarding his threats against Iran from Russian president Vladimir Putin. But Putin is on record stating that there’s no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability. And Iran’s leaders claim that they are interested only in generating electricity with nuclear power. Last month, recently retired General John Abizaid, the former top U.S. military official in the Middle East, urged a completely different policy. He said that "there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran." President Bush and his closest advisers obviously disagree. But they are willing to live with a nuclear Pakistan, widely believed to be the nation harboring Osama bin Laden and the top leaders of al-Qaeda. Their willingness to start another war with an Islamic dominated nation, even while bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is extremely frightening. One consequence of fours years of war against Iraq has been a sharp increase in Islamic extremism. The same result has occurred because of the United States’ continued action in Afghanistan. Imagine what a preemptive strike against Iran will produce. note: for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ultraconservative, radically right wing birch society, see this wikipedia listing. Iran Rising Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October, 2007 These new Iran (threats and) sanctions are just the latest manifestation of Bush's unilateral International behavior. Iran has the right under international treaty to enrich uranium. Until Bush decided that international treaties mean nothing to the United States. Shortly after taking office, Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty with Russia, ended negotiation with N. Korea, and attacked Iraq against international law. Intentional violations of the Geneva Conventions against torture shortly followed Bush's illegal invasion. Bush has continued to arm and aid three nations who illegally developed and possess nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and Israel, while denying Iran their sovereign right to develop nuclear power. Bush's unreasonable stance towards Iran has historical roots that go back to the Iranian deposition of our Dictator, the Shah of Iran, in 1979. The Shah, alongside Israel, were the twin pillars of American Might in the Middle-East, and all nations in the region lived in the shadow of their might. 1979 changed all that. Since then, we have treated Iran in much the same pattern as we have treated Cuba: We do not recognize the power of nations controlled by American Dictators or American-backed Corporate Elites to determine the terms of their own legitimacy or sovereignty. This tends to piss people off. Since then Iran has survived 22 years of American economic isolation, the brutal 7 year American sponsored war with our then-buddy, Saddam, and every kind of economic and political pressure we could conjure up. Despite, or possibly because of these obstructions, Iran has prospered. The spirit of self-determination that fueled Iran's Revolution of Independence from America has now intensified, radicalized, and spread across the whole Middle-East. All of America's dictators in the Middle-East are now facing the same dangers the Shah faced prior to his deposition. America has responded by distancing ourselves even further from our own values. We have hardened our support for our dictators, and turn a blind eye as they too kidnap, detain and torture their domestic political opponents. We sit by quietly as they threaten, imprison, and kill independent reporters. Most disturbingly, we have created a legal black hole called "territories." This term trumps every law, Constitution, or international agreement that once held governments in check. "Terror" declaring all who resist the American backed state violence used by the Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, and Israeli states to maintain their claims to legitimacy, to be "terrorists." Bush's ill-conceived invasion of Iraq damaged the domestic political legitimacy of all of our Middle-Eastern allies from the very beginning of the war. Marching foreign troops into Iraq rekindled repugnant memories of British Colonial brutality, as well as the Crusades across the whole Middle-East. Even more dangerously, Bush's failed invasions, and our impending defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, have moved the body of middle-eastern opinion, not just to the point of sympathizing with the anti-American insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has fueled independence movements in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. The real victim is not just the honor and credit of the US, but the corporate fascism of the United States has discredited the notion and practice of democracy itself. The perpetual ugly ness of our Iraqi and Afghan occupations is fuel to the fire of every Middle-Eastern independence movement, and has greatly contributed to the rise of Iran, again, as the dominant power in the Middle-East, under its own government, rather than one of our dictators. This is the great complication, and the driving force behind the increasing US pressure on Iran: as Bush's idiocy continues to drive our wars to failure and damage our Middle-Eastern allies and influence, our failures simultaneously feed the growth of Iran's power and influence. Bush has stuck our arm into a bear trap. If he tries to pull it out, it will strip the flesh from our arm. If he pushes it in further, he will rip up fresh arm. Since Bush is incapable of thinking his way out of this crisis, we are fucked. Bush's "solution" to the consequences of our Iraqi and Afghan disasters will be to spread the crisis to Iran. Bush is thinking that by bombing Iran into the Stone Age he will reduce Iran's ability to act on the regional opportunities our Iraq and Afghan disasters have thrown on their doorstep. This too, like the Iraq and Afghan invasions, will fail. A regional war will follow any attack on Iran, and this regional war will end the era of American-backed dictators in the Middle-East. Iran will still, ultimately, be the greatest beneficiary of the rapid Middle-Eastern de colonization that is occurring before our eyes. Our bombs may kill people, but they feed the ideas that are driving our opponents to victory. Will Israel sneak attack Iran? Israel threatens Iran with sneak attack, ap, 9-29-04 Is Israel Planning a Nuclear Strike on Iran? der spiegel, 1-8-07 Pentagon ready for spring attack on Iran, guardian, 2-10-07 Iran and Russia cooperating on mutual defense, BBC, Nov 13, 07 Israel ready to attack Iran, ap, 1-14-08 rogue nuke nation Israel fires ballistic missile, aljazeera, 1-17-08 US: Israel's Bitch, aljazerra, 1-17-08 Corruption Updates 45, 3rd article on the page, Is a U.S.-Iran War Inevitable? Corruption Updates 72, 2nd article on the page, "Lieberman: U.S. Should Weigh Iran Attack" US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack, Washington times on line, February 25, 2007 Uneasy allies in historic summit: Iran Secures Northern Border with Russia Anticipating hostilities from all other Quarters, BBC News, Oct 15, 2007 Iran and Russia cooperating on mutual defense, BBC, Nov 13, 07 Corruption Updates 127, 2nd article on the page, Iran Steps up Preparations for US War US faking iran gunboat incident? Democracy Now, 1-11-08 All Iran Links Search the Corruption Database under Iran Israel Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting! Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.) 2) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. Analysis: Kayani is his own man By Kamran Rehmat in Islamabad SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2008 18:25 MECCA TIME, 15:25 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A68EED65-6A8C-4A92-8A72-31B370DF59BA.htm In the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, the debate over who will form the next Pakistani government after February's elections appears to have dissolved into semantics without dilating on the role of the army, the real arbiter of power. Perhaps it is due to the general perception that Pervez Musharraf, the country's president and former army chief, has strengthened his position by appointing General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani as his successor-in-uniform. However, recent events — some quite symbolic — appear to suggest otherwise. Despite publicly wanting to continue the "war on terror", Kayani is not straining to keep up appearances with Musharraf following the president's patronising suggestion last week that they "are two of a kind". As Imran Khan, the opposition leader and cricket legend, recently said, "nobody is anyone's man once he becomes commander-in-chief with 700,000 soldiers under his command". Trust deficit? That change in attitude may have started on the very day Musharraf reluctantly passed the baton to Kayani, forced by circumstances different from October 6, 2001 when Musharraf extended his own term indefinitely. Even before shedding the uniform, he returned to the presidency the powers he used as army chief to impose a state of emergency. Upon taking charge last November, Kayani declared 2008 as "Year of the Soldier". The immediate public response was one bordering on cynicism questioning the need for such a dedication against the backdrop of the army's deep involvement in politics and businesses. However, by publicly supporting his lower cadres, the new army chief is implying that Musharraf is someone who does not. Public image Masood says Kayani is trying to repair the military's standing. "Kayani feels the army has suffered as a result of its political involvement and therefore, he is trying to pull it back." Javed Ashraf Qazi, former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and once Musharraf's senior in the army, concurs. "There is a feeling within the army that it is too involved in politics. It wants to get out." Kayani's second step was to instruct army commanders that they should restrict themselves to the constitutionally-ordained role (defending the country's borders) and not meet politicians or engage in politics. It followed guarded and as yet unpublished reports that an army officer who went to meet Musharraf behind the back of his new chief was sacked. Masood thinks the message has wider implications. "I think he wanted to give a message to both the army and the international community that the army today is distancing itself from politics and will not be involved as it has been in the past and (that) Musharraf will be conducting himself (only) as a retired military officer … in a civilian capacity." Hamid Gul, another outspoken former intelligence chief, blames the inherent sweeping powers vested in the army chief. "Unfortunately, the army chief has too many powers. The leadership structure is such that the corps commanders do not really speak their minds and simply go along with what their chief says." Paradigm shift This probably explains why Kayani is confident of engineering a paradigm shift with the same handful of corps commanders who were until two months ago lining up behind Musharraf. Masood concludes that it is an institutional imperative. "In the military, institutional loyalty is more important. This impression that (there is any such thing as) dual loyalty is not true. (Ultimately), it's the institutional discipline, which stays." How much further can Musharraf hold on to power? By his own admission, in his rather aptly titled memoirs In The Line of Fire, he has used up his quota of a cat's nine lives. US Supports Tyrants and illegal Nuclear Programs in Pakistan and India: This will not end well Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, June 2007 The situation with Pakistan is not going to end well for American interests. The main flaw in our relationship with Pakistan is we are supporting a nuclear armed military dictator. If he is toppled, the next government may deeply resent our interference in their internal affairs. This is complicated by our support for India's illegal nuclear weapons program. The central flaw in our foreign policy is that it is guided by no principals, only self-interest. Our toleration and support of both nation's illegal weapons programs increases regional instability to achieve our short-term goals. In India, we pander to their illegal nuclear program to gain economic benefits from India's expansion, while simultaneously using India as a strategic counter-balance against Chinese power in the region. In Pakistan, we have made a dirty deal with the dictator Musharraf. We silenced our objections to both the dictatorship, and its nukes, and paid him billions of dollars, in exchange for his "official" support for our Terror War. Supporting a military dictator to fight for "freedom and democracy" exposes the lie at the center of our foreign policy. The problem is that the Pakistani people support neither Musharraf, nor our terror war against their tribal brothers in Afghanistan. When Musharraf is deposed, the guns and money we bribed Musharraf with, as well as control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, will fall under the control of unknown people. There is a good chance that Pakistan's next government will wholly reject American sponsored dictators, and resent us for supporting the dictator who ruled them. India, on the other hand, may well end up becoming a better friend of China and Russia than the United States. Our economic and nuclear support for India may well backfire as China, Russia, and the Arabic nations reposition themselves, and their relationships with each other, as the world balance of power and control of middle eastern oil shifts away from American control. Our best option was to maintain a firm rejection of both country's nuclear programs, with the goal being complete disarmament, and complete verification that both countries nuclear programs have no military component. Combined with diplomatic efforts to defuse the situation in Kashmir, we could have lessened the tensions driving both countries to develop and evolve better nukes. The Bush Administration's threats of unilateral military action, combined with repeated threats to use nukes in a first strike, has hardened the resolve of nations around the world to obtain a nuclear deterrent to the American Nuclear Menace. In our dealings with both Pakistan and India, we have committed ourselves to a policy of supporting the illegal nuclear programs in both countries, ignoring Kashmir and the underlying conflict, to achieve short-term tactical advantages. Our strategy of unconditionally supporting Musharraf's dictatorship ensures that violent domestic resistance will increase. Domestic resistance Musharraf's dictatorship has been enhanced and hardened by our support. Our support for Musharraf has hastened his rejection by his own people. The ultimate result of our short-sighted Pakistani policy will be the emergence of an independent Pakistani government, armed with nuclear weapons, enraged by America's support for Mursharraf's dictatorship. India, on the other hand, will take all of our military and economic support, and do whatever the hell they see as best for their country, not ours. The full weight and power of our nation has been focused to achieve our regional goals through bribes and threats. Using bribes and threats as the basis of our relationships with India and Pakistan assures that we will have little influence when changes in political fortunes bring administrations that will not respond to bribes and threats. Our participation in Pakistan has enraged their people, while protecting their nuclear program from outside scrutiny and international pressure. Our diplomacy with India has effectively recognized and accepted their illegal nuke program, receiving nothing in return. Overall, our relationships with both countries have increased the ability of each to nuke the other, and has laid the groundwork for further regional, and global, instability. Until we develop a set of basic principals to guide our foreign policy, our diplomacy of bribes and threats will continue to assure that international relations are based on greed and violence. Short list of paki links List of bhutto death links Full list of paki links Search the Corruption Database under Pakistan Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.) 3) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. Musharraf hoping to win over West Mon January 21, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/ musharraf.brussels.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has pleaded to be given time to achieve higher standards of human rights and civil liberties as he responded to what he called the West's "obsession" with democracy on Monday. Musharraf also pledged that his country's February 18 elections -- delayed following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto -- would be "fair, transparent and peaceful." He will try to assure European leaders that his country is a reliable and indispensable ally in the fight against terrorism but, he said Monday, his country also suffers from "misperceptions, misunderstandings and distortions" in Western capitals. "Therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights and civil liberties," he said. Pakistan is "on the right course, but our environment and your environment are very, very different." Musharraf was to meet with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer later Monday to discuss Afghanistan. He will also meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. What's Really Going on Here??have you seen the grim news out of afghanistan?The bbc article below soft-sells the situation, but the la time's article presents a clearer picture of the grim situation: close to a failed state, lat, 1-31-08 risk of state failure,bbc, 1-31-08 canada is pulling out, javno, 1-30-08 uk in a afghanistan for decades, bbc, 6-20-07 Judging by the reports by retired generals and objective observers, iraq is also a failed state.
Musharraf Fears his own people more than US or Taliban Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., January 12, 2008 edited 1-24-08 When musharraf was more secure with the army, the isi, and his grip on civil society was firm, musharraf was our boy in pakistan, "fighting terror." Or was he? Are we only now seeing the real musharraf, the musharraf that supported the taliban, the musharraf who maintained peace with the mountain folk, the musharraf who gained power by crushing civil democracy in lowland pakistan? The simple answer is yes. Bush's desire to project power blinded him to the grim and delicate realities of power in pakistan, Afghanistan, and iraq. Those failures alone should drive us to examine our distorted world-view and values to find the causes of our foreign and domestic breakdowns. Let's start with Bush and Musharraf. Bush knowingly embraced musharraf exactly because musharraf is a dictator, and bush expected his purchase of the dictator would assure compliance with american directives. Unfortunately for bush's plans, he failed to realize that that the army and isi had long ago made deals with the taliban and mountain folk: they are partners. That's why musharraf is unwilling as well as unable to do our bidding in the mountains. That's why musharraf is finally revealing his hand, and calling for talks with his allies, the people who still run Afghanistan: the taliban. Consider that all of our relationships with the arabic middle east are based on our support of various systems of tyranny, starting with the arabian kings, princes, and emirs, and ending with military dictators like Mubarak and Musharraf. In the meantime, musharraf has seized complete power in the lowland cities where the adherents of western democracy live. The real threat to musharraf's power is secular civil society, the adherents of democracy. Unlike the mountain tribes, who have until recently just wanted to be left alone, the city folk want to take back the government Musharraf has stolen from them. Musharraf has dealt with them with mass arrests, by clubbing and shooting them in the streets, by closing the supreme court and re-opening it with his tools on the bench, as well as shutting down the free press. Oh, and killing benizar bhutto, who was our hand-picked representative of secular corruption and american influence. Bhutto did not represent democracy by any stretch of imagination. No great loss there. It is clear that pakistanis all suspect Musharraf with being indirectly, if not directly, responsible for her death. It is apparent from the first assassination attempt on bhutto that the government provided light security, and may have withdrawn security before the bombing. Beneath all of this american-inspired disarray in Pakistan is the not-so-hidden fact that we have already lost the war in Afghanistan. No great loss there, as our vision for Afghanistan could never be made to fit the "facts on the ground," as bush likes to say, in either our country or theirs. The net result of all this is that a new balance of power is rising in the middle-east and south asia on the ashes of our failed dictatorships and kings, and it will no longer place american interests at its center. Bush has accelerated this inevitable process by exposing the contradiction between our stated values, our real goals, and our methods. Our hypocrisy has been openly exposed, and has deeply discredited our nation. This discredit engulfs all of our regional allies by making enemies of average muslims across the middle-east, and good people around the world. The american strategic situation in the middle-east and Pakistan is melting down in the streets, in arabic capitals, and most importantly, in the hearts and minds of muslims across the region and around the world. The deterioration of our military, political and cultural superiority is accelerating. The immediate affect of our cupidity, blunders, and violence is that Iran has assumed predominate influence in Baghdad, south, and west iraq. That's the only reason we are staying in iraq. When we leave iraq, a Shiite government will quickly emerge who's #1 ally is Iran. Afghanistan is lost. The taliban controls every area where we do not have military supremacy. Where we have no guns, we have no authority. Pakistan does not have a stable basis of leadership, either in the "democracy" movement, nor the military. Pakistan is heading to a showdown between musharraf, the people, the mountain people, and the army. If Pakistanis are left to their own devices, it is likely the mountains will remain semi-autonomous, Afghanistan will be ruled by the Taliban and allied with pakistan, and the army will move behind a thin democratic veneer, as in turkey. That does not suit our plans. The us is pushing for military action in the mountains. If the army responds, and does go to war, they will not be able to contain their civil war to the mountains, and it will spread across pakistan. It is likely that the army would find itself confronted in the cities by civil society while being bogged down in the mountains. It is highly unlikely that the side that "wins" will be able or willing to remain our bitch. We have already seen how our liberal use of naked violence has worked out in iraq and Afghanistan. Elements in american society and government are now calling for attacks on iran as well as on the Pakistani mountain folk. Our war failures, and the subsequent waves of destabilization that have ensued are shifting regional alliances across the middle east. Our interventions have turned up the heat on Saudi arabia's a bubbling domestic revolution, who's aim is to remove the heads of leaders who serve the west. In response, the saudis have significantly altered the trajectory of their foreign policy. Mubarak will die as dictator of egypt, and when he does the next regime will withdraw from their american alliance, repeal their recognition of israel, and accelerate the rise of an independent middle-east. The new, independent middle-east is going to be very hostile to american interests. The new middle-east is going to consider american intervention in their domestic affairs as an act of war. The new middle-east is going to use their oil as a global check against american influence. Expect russia, china, and india to be very helpful and supportative of the new regimes that rise from the ashes of our "globalization" empire. In short, we are observing the chaotic bloody birth of a brand-new post-colonial (post-globalized also works) middle-east that is going to take its rightful place in their region and the world. We have fought this for decades with invasions, assassinations, and dictators, but now the whole region has reached the breaking point, and the era of western control of the middle-east is over, except for another couple of bloody wars, and maybe a revolution, possibly a civil war or two. Expect the saudis to move the crown to an independent, anti-american prince when the king dies, or face even more serious threats from their "subjects." Expect egypt to form an islamic democracy after they reject mubarak's son, gamial. Bush knows now that his vain attempt to reassert american dominance over middle-eastern oil, and the nations that sit on top of it, has failed. The failure of bush's iraqi and afghani adventures has destabilized all of our regional allies, while enhancing the influence and power of Iran. I still put the chances at 30% that bush will provoke a war with iran. If this occurs, I put the chances at 50-50 that bush will attempt to "postponed" the '08 election. Besides inflaming the middle-east, american foreign policy has destabilized the global balance of power. A new era of a global struggle for empire is emerging out of the failed lies of our "globalization" fraud. Apparently americans will not recognize that what we call "globalization" is no more than a modern version of the old british empire. Our great difference was that our terms of victory were primarily economic, and we generally avoided direct intervention, instead relying on dictators, kings, or elites. Now our imperial corporate state is directly dictating the terms of our victories over weaker states from the decks of our own tanks. We will maintain the lie of globalism to cover our empire, until we actually lose control of our empire, and another nation, maybe china or russia, seizes the dominant position and employs the term "globalism" to simultaneously justify their aggressions, while hiding the reality of their thieving empire. So don't act surprised when the world does the same thing to us that we have done to them for the last 50 years: steal our resources, our labor, our rights, and our right to form our own government, and calls it "globalism." To do this they will first have to engage and defeat our armies, then our dictators and kings, and finally our global corporations that are stealing their resources, labor, rights, and money, not to mention their governments. Looks like it's already happening. Should be a great fight, if you like fights. If you don't like fights, you failed a long time ago.
Failed war, Failed State: Iraq, committee, 6-13-07 Short list of paki links List of bhutto death links Full list of paki links Recent Iraq News: NPR; deal allows us troops in iraq for decades, 1-24-08 Minister Sees Need for U.S. Help in Iraq Until 2018, nyt, January 15, 2008 quakers: why are we building permanent bases in iraq, 12-05-07 global security: iraq facilities, no date Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years, nyt, 8-12-07 US had No Post-War Plan for Iraq, BBC, Oct 27, 2007
Search the Corruption Database under Pakistan
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.) 4) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. Prop. 93 on Feb. 5 ballot has two faces Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Tuesday, January 22, 2008 (01-22) 04:00 PST Sacramento -- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/22/MNTPUGJ4S.DTL California voters launched a national movement nearly 20 years ago when they approved a ballot measure to limit state legislators' time in office to 14 years, split between the state Senate and Assembly. The Legislature's current leadership, spearheaded by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, is asking voters to mark their ballots for the Feb. 5 primary in favor of another term limits measure, Proposition 93, which would trim lawmakers' terms by two years but allow all of that time to be spent in the same chamber. Proponents of the measure, including Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say it strikes a reasonable balance between the need to elect new people with fresh ideas and the need to keep experienced lawmakers on the job. But opponents, led by Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, say the measure is a trick and a power grab. They point out that Prop. 93 provides a transition period that would give current office holders a windfall term extension of up to 12 years in their current legislative house. While the two sides battle, voter surveys show that most Californians are happy with the 1990 term-limit measure that restricted legislators to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms). And voters have shown little interest in changing things. "Consistently for the past decade, the number of voters who say term limits is a good thing is much higher than those who say it's a bad thing," said Mark Baldassare, a pollster and president of the Public Policy Institute of California. "When we ask if the Legislature would be more effective if they stay in office longer, most voters say 'No,' " he said. "When we tell them how long legislators are currently allowed to stay in office, most voters say that's a good amount of time." But some labor groups, business organizations and legislators say term limits need adjusting. If the measure passes, Perata, who is in his second full term, would be able to run for one more four-year term in the Senate; Núñez, who is in his third term, would be eligible for three more two-year Assembly terms. "There's no question that Proposition 93 was written in a clever way in order to lead voters to conclude that it would shorten terms - that's totally false," said Poizner. "It will lengthen them." Poizner argued that the average career in the Legislature today is six or seven years. Passage of Prop. 93, he said, would ensure that most lawmakers would serve the full 12 years. "I don't think it's a good idea to lengthen terms; it's bad for California," he said. "Voters passed term limits with the idea of limiting career politicians in the Legislature for good reason." So far, voters have not focused much on Prop. 93, although media campaigns began this month. Supporters of the measure have received contributions from the teachers union and other unions, and businesses including Chevron and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. That campaign spent about $5.7 million through the end of December but is expected to more than double that amount by election day. The opposition campaign, with support from Poizner and a Virginia nonprofit that seeks to limit career politicians, U.S. Term Limits Inc., has spent about $2 million but has about $4 million more in the bank, according to reports filed last month. A Field Poll conducted in December found just 25 percent of voters had heard or seen anything about the proposal. When voters were read a summary of the measure, 50 percent said they would support it. Dan Walters: Term limit bugaboo rises anewBy Dan Walters - Bee Columnist
|