Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Los Angeles Times' top national story says that though evidence is still circumstantial, Iran appears to be moving right along in its quest for nukes. The New York Times' national edition leads, curiously, with Iraq's interim foreign minister complaining that the U.N. hasn't sent enough elections workers for the coming vote. (The local edition leads with the Curse Reverse: the Yankees' super-choke.) The Washington Post leads with a blow-by-blow on yesterday's long-distance slugfest between Bush and Kerry. The piece doesn't break stride with boring things. like the truth (who's B.S.ing, etc). USA Today leads with a warning from contaminated flu vaccine maker Chiron that it might not have enough doses for next year: "CHIRON VACCINE IN DOUBT FOR 2005." Except not really. Skip to the fourth paragraph, where analysts "downplayed" the move as just a CYA tactic. "That warning is more legalese," said one.
Here's why the NYT's lead is piece is odd (aka bad): The lack of U.N. workers isn't a charge, it's a fact. As the Post reported a few days ago, there are just a handful of such workers in the country. By relying on an official to relay that fact, the Times ends up promoting his spin, that the U.N. itself is to blame: "IRAQI FAULTS U.N. ON LACK OF STAFF TO AID IN VOTING." But that explanation is, at the least, simplistic. The Post said earlier this week that the U.N. has been holding back because of the security situation and because an international force to protect the workers hasn't been mustered, a failure the Post ascribed to the U.S. "It's the same governments who are asking me to send in my civilian staff who are not going to give any troops to protect them," U.N. chief Kofi Annan told the NYT.
In other Iraq developments, the U.S. again bombed targets in Fallujah. As the NYT notes, a Reuters reporter saw a man, woman, and four children, all dead, being pulled from the rubble. A military spokesman "denied" civilians had been killed.
The papers mention that one Iraqi girl was killed and 11 GIs wounded by a car bomb in Samara. Reuters says another seven civilians were killed in clashes in the town, which U.S. and Iraqi forces "recaptured" a few weeks ago.
The NYT goes inside with a Sunni clerics' association warning that they'll call for a boycott of the elections unless the U.S. stops its attacks in Fallujah.
The LAT and Post front a former supervisor at Abu Ghraib pleading guilty to abuses. Staff Sergeant Ivan Fredrick said he knew he was abusing detainees but was encouraged to do so by interrogators. One email received from HQ in Baghdad that said the "gloves are coming off, gentlemen, regarding these detainees." Command "wants the detainees broken."
In the third and final installment on invasion and post-war screw-ups, the NYT's Michael Gordon looks at the seemingly disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi Army. Gordon says the White House initially had planned to keep the Army together. But then Paul Bremer and his staff recommended killing it. As for White House officials, Gordon says their role in the change is still "unclear." A former Bremer aide said he sent the decision to SecDef Rumsfeld. A Pentagon spokesman non-denied that: The move was "definitely not one that the secretary of defense decided." National security advisor Condoleezza Rice also stood firm and took responsibility. Acknowledging she knew about the change, Rice said, "I don't think that anybody thought it was wildly out of context with what we were trying to achieve and the whole structure had been set up so that some of those decisions could be made in the field or through the Pentagon chain." The piece never says where the president stood.
The Post fronts the death of Cold War strategist and foreign policy wise man Paul Henry Nitze. He was 97, served under eight presidents, and was both an adamant anti-communist and key arms negotiator. The Post notices inside that in a break with tradition, national security advisor Rice is stumping across swing states. Historically, national security staff have kept their distance from the trail--which is exactly what the White House says Condi is still doing. "Dr. Rice has continued the nonpolitical tradition of the post, but being nonpolitical doesn't mean being non-accessible," said a spokesman, who explained that Rice is simply responding to some of the 4,000 annual requests she receives to speak. She just happens to be discerning in her choices. Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108495/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
Also in today's Slate:in other magazines: Chirac and Schrder for Bush?: The Weekly Standard thinks so.surfergirl: I Know You Are, But What Am I?: Comedy Central's irony deficiency. summary judgment: Reinventing the Real: Is Philip Roth's alternative history of World War II any good?
MANAGE YOUR SLATE SUBSCRIPTIONS
UNSUBSCRIBE
MORE NEWSLETTERS
FEEDBACK
HELP
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click the "UNSUBSCRIBE" link above.
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
MSN PRIVACY STATEMENT " width=1>
Try MSN Internet Software for FREE!MSN Home My MSN Hotmail Search Shopping Money People & Chat
©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Advertise MSN Privacy Statement GetNetWise Anti-Spam Policy
Inbox
Get the latest updates from MSN
MSN Home
My MSN
Hotmail
Search
Shopping
Money
People & Chat
Feedback Help
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement Anti-Spam Policy
Here's why the NYT's lead is piece is odd (aka bad): The lack of U.N. workers isn't a charge, it's a fact. As the Post reported a few days ago, there are just a handful of such workers in the country. By relying on an official to relay that fact, the Times ends up promoting his spin, that the U.N. itself is to blame: "IRAQI FAULTS U.N. ON LACK OF STAFF TO AID IN VOTING." But that explanation is, at the least, simplistic. The Post said earlier this week that the U.N. has been holding back because of the security situation and because an international force to protect the workers hasn't been mustered, a failure the Post ascribed to the U.S. "It's the same governments who are asking me to send in my civilian staff who are not going to give any troops to protect them," U.N. chief Kofi Annan told the NYT.
In other Iraq developments, the U.S. again bombed targets in Fallujah. As the NYT notes, a Reuters reporter saw a man, woman, and four children, all dead, being pulled from the rubble. A military spokesman "denied" civilians had been killed.
The papers mention that one Iraqi girl was killed and 11 GIs wounded by a car bomb in Samara. Reuters says another seven civilians were killed in clashes in the town, which U.S. and Iraqi forces "recaptured" a few weeks ago.
The NYT goes inside with a Sunni clerics' association warning that they'll call for a boycott of the elections unless the U.S. stops its attacks in Fallujah.
The LAT and Post front a former supervisor at Abu Ghraib pleading guilty to abuses. Staff Sergeant Ivan Fredrick said he knew he was abusing detainees but was encouraged to do so by interrogators. One email received from HQ in Baghdad that said the "gloves are coming off, gentlemen, regarding these detainees." Command "wants the detainees broken."
In the third and final installment on invasion and post-war screw-ups, the NYT's Michael Gordon looks at the seemingly disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi Army. Gordon says the White House initially had planned to keep the Army together. But then Paul Bremer and his staff recommended killing it. As for White House officials, Gordon says their role in the change is still "unclear." A former Bremer aide said he sent the decision to SecDef Rumsfeld. A Pentagon spokesman non-denied that: The move was "definitely not one that the secretary of defense decided." National security advisor Condoleezza Rice also stood firm and took responsibility. Acknowledging she knew about the change, Rice said, "I don't think that anybody thought it was wildly out of context with what we were trying to achieve and the whole structure had been set up so that some of those decisions could be made in the field or through the Pentagon chain." The piece never says where the president stood.
The Post fronts the death of Cold War strategist and foreign policy wise man Paul Henry Nitze. He was 97, served under eight presidents, and was both an adamant anti-communist and key arms negotiator. The Post notices inside that in a break with tradition, national security advisor Rice is stumping across swing states. Historically, national security staff have kept their distance from the trail--which is exactly what the White House says Condi is still doing. "Dr. Rice has continued the nonpolitical tradition of the post, but being nonpolitical doesn't mean being non-accessible," said a spokesman, who explained that Rice is simply responding to some of the 4,000 annual requests she receives to speak. She just happens to be discerning in her choices. Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108495/
What did you think of this article?Join the Fray, our reader discussion forumPOST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES
Also in today's Slate:in other magazines: Chirac and Schrder for Bush?: The Weekly Standard thinks so.surfergirl: I Know You Are, But What Am I?: Comedy Central's irony deficiency. summary judgment: Reinventing the Real: Is Philip Roth's alternative history of World War II any good?
MANAGE YOUR SLATE SUBSCRIPTIONS
UNSUBSCRIBE
MORE NEWSLETTERS
FEEDBACK
HELP
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click the "UNSUBSCRIBE" link above.
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
MSN PRIVACY STATEMENT " width=1>
Try MSN Internet Software for FREE!MSN Home My MSN Hotmail Search Shopping Money People & Chat
©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Advertise MSN Privacy Statement GetNetWise Anti-Spam Policy
Inbox
Get the latest updates from MSN
MSN Home
My MSN
Hotmail
Search
Shopping
Money
People & Chat
Feedback Help
© 2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement Anti-Spam Policy
News Home - Help
AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Dead Heat
1 hour, 4 minutes ago
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) are locked in a tie for the popular vote, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters seem open to change in the White House — most disapprove of the president's performance at home and in Iraq (news - web sites) — but still harbor doubts about making the switch.
AP Photo
Reuters
Slideshow: Elections
Latest Headlines:
·
W. Virginia Elector Might Leave Bush AP - 3 minutes ago
·
Bush Criticizes Kerry on Health Care AP - 31 minutes ago
·
Christopher Reeves' Widow Endorses Kerry AP - 32 minutes ago
All Election Coverage
Bush's strength continues to be in a perception by voters that he is the most qualified to protect the country, though his advantage has dwindled in recent weeks. Some 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track.
In the AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) got support from 49 percent of those who said they were likely to vote, and the Republican team of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) got 46 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Oct. 18-20 survey, released Thursday, included 976 likely voters.
A spate of other polls show the race tied or give Bush a slight lead nationwide. The presidency will go to whoever gets a majority of the 538 Electoral College (news - web sites) votes, a state-by-state chase that is just as close as national surveys.
Likely voters are divided on many levels:
_ They are just as likely to back Democrats for Congress as Republicans, with a 47-46 split favoring Democrats. That is essentially a tie.
_ Twenty-four percent say they have already voted or will cast ballots before Election Day. Those who voted early were just as likely to back Kerry as Bush.
_ A third of likely voters have been contacted by a candidate, campaign or outside group seeking support. Twenty-three percent said they were urged to back Kerry and 21 percent said they were asked to support Bush, a sign that two massive get-out-the-vote campaigns have had equal success contacting voters.
Less than half, 47 percent, approve of Bush's job performance. A rating below 50 percent spells trouble for any incumbent, and Bush falls below that threshold on the economy, domestic affairs and handling Iraq.
In each case, Bush's approval numbers have held steady since the AP-Ipsos poll taken after the first presidential debate.
That Bush performance, roundly criticized on style and substance, helped lower the president's standing against Kerry from early September, when the incumbent led in the head-to-head matchup and had higher approval scores.
A majority, 51 percent, support the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terror. By 7 percentage points, they think he would protect the country better than Kerry. That is similar to the AP-Ipsos poll earlier in the month, but down from a 23-point advantage in March.
Voters are evenly split on who would do the best job on Iraq. They find the candidates equally honest and likable, but Bush is viewed as much more decisive.
By an 18-point margin, Kerry is seen as best suited to create jobs for workers.
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read Msgs
Formatted Story
Ratings: Would you recommend this story?
Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly
Clock ticking on Silverstone
By Andrew Benson Motorsport editor
The British Grand Prix saga is far from over, despite Bernie Ecclestone's claim that it "looks certain" the race will not happen next year.
Ecclestone says he has broken off talks with Silverstone's owner the British Racing Drivers' Club, but with the 2005 calendar not published until 10 December there is still plenty of time for a deal to be made.
So what is behind Ecclestone's latest salvo in one of Formula One's longest-running battles?
WHAT IS ECCLESTONE'S PROBLEM?
He wants there to be a British Grand Prix, but at a track that matches his high standards and at his price.
Unlike the new venues in Malaysia, China and Bahrain, Silverstone is not funded by a government so cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions on lavish facilities.
Nor can the BRDC afford to run the race at a loss, which it says is what would happen if it accepted Ecclestone's current offer.
DOES ECCLESTONE DECIDE THE RACE'S FATE?
Yes. He owns the promotional rights to the race, and in his role as F1's commercial supremo, organises the calendar. If he wants to drop it, he can.
DOES HE HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA?
Almost certainly, but no-one knows what it is.
Many believe he wants to end up controlling the British GP at Silverstone, or even owning the track, which he denies.
The issue is not helped by a long-held antagonism between Ecclestone and the BRDC, the roots of which are lost in the mists of motor racing history.
Ecclestone and BRDC president Jackie Stewart have also had a difficult relationship for at least three decades.
WHEN IS THE DEADLINE FOR A RESOLUTION?
The official 2005 F1 calendar is published on 10 December, but even if Silverstone is not on that list, its fate is not necessarily sealed - last year the French Grand Prix was not confirmed until January.
HOW CAN SILVERSTONE SECURE ITS GRAND PRIX?
The BRDC needs to seal a deal for the promotional rights to the race, which are owned by Ecclestone following the decision of US company Interpublic to extricate itself from its loss-making motorsport business.
The issues holding up progress boil down to the length and price of the contract.
Ecclestone will want any deal to include provision for the improvement of the Silverstone site.
Some say the BRDC could help itself a bit more by developing its massive grounds, either with a new track, or into a multi-use area generating income, rather than just as a racetrack and driving school.
This is an approach favoured by the Nigel Mansell-backed Brand Synergy consortium, to which the BRDC has given a cool response so far.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH ECCLESTONE'S OFFER?
The BRDC wants a two-year deal followed by talks over the next five seasons, while Ecclestone is offering a one-year deal with an option on the following six.
The BRDC says Ecclestone's offer does not give it the security it needs to embark on a major redevelopment of Silverstone; Ecclestone says it is non-negotiable.
Another major sticking point is Ecclestone's asking price for the race.
Although he has reduced the fee for 2005, the deal calls for 10% compounded interest over the next seven years, which the BRDC says it cannot afford.
The only revenue a host track can generate is through ticket sales. All other monies from the staging of an F1 Grand Prix are trousered by Ecclestone.
Ecclestone is offering the BRDC the cheapest contract in F1, but even at this price the club says it cannot afford to pay without risking bankrupting itself.
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT HELP FINANCIALLY?
Depends on your point of view.
The "No" camp would say a shortfall of a couple of million seems like small beer but that is just the thin end of the wedge - fork out this year and next year Ecclestone increases the price a bit more and so on.
Governments in places like China, Malaysia and Bahrain are funding Grands Prix as a promotional tool, but for how long? Britain doesn't need to do that and critics would argue that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
The "Yes" camp would say the race is a vital cog in the future of the British motor industry and the sport's heritage, not to mention the UK's credibility for hosting events such as the Olympics.
And if the government can back a multi-million-pound 2012 Olympic bid for a two-week event, why not a race that happens every year?
But the government says it has already pumped £16m into the motor industry and £8m into the circuit to improve access and facilities.
COULD THE BRITISH GRAND PRIX GO ANYWHERE ELSE?
Not really. Donington Park in Leicestershire is the closest in terms of facilities but is still a long way off.
A race around the streets of London would take several years to be finalised, even if the anticipated mass protest over traffic, cost and noise pollution it would spark from residents of the capital could be overcome.
WHY SHOULD BRITAIN HOLD A GRAND PRIX?
It's an image and heritage thing.
Britain is the centre of the world's motorsport industry - although it is highly unlikely that the F1 teams based in the south-east would leave the UK if the country lost its race.
And the race's supporters argue that a major political and economic power and a proud sporting nation should be able to stage a Grand Prix once a year.
Britain is also one of only two countries to have held a Grand Prix every year since the inception of the F1 world championship - the other being Italy.
Fans say losing Silverstone, one of the last remaining classic tracks, along with Spa, Monza, Suzuka and Monaco, would render the sport soulless.
These older tracks, they say, often produce better racing than the modern computer-designed autodromes. And if all races are held on similar tracks with the same team and driver winning, the argument is that viewers will eventually switch off.
IS THIS TO DO WITH A TOBACCO AD BAN?
Probably not. There is likely to be a worldwide ban at some stage and teams will have to find the money in other ways.
They already use liveries which resemble cigarette brands without actually stating what they are and even are looking into developing this idea further when a tobacco ban does come into force.
Story from BBC SPORT:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3706990.stmPublished: 2004/10/20 13:07:32 GMT© BBC MMIV
By Andrew Benson Motorsport editor
The British Grand Prix saga is far from over, despite Bernie Ecclestone's claim that it "looks certain" the race will not happen next year.
Ecclestone says he has broken off talks with Silverstone's owner the British Racing Drivers' Club, but with the 2005 calendar not published until 10 December there is still plenty of time for a deal to be made.
So what is behind Ecclestone's latest salvo in one of Formula One's longest-running battles?
WHAT IS ECCLESTONE'S PROBLEM?
He wants there to be a British Grand Prix, but at a track that matches his high standards and at his price.
Unlike the new venues in Malaysia, China and Bahrain, Silverstone is not funded by a government so cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions on lavish facilities.
Nor can the BRDC afford to run the race at a loss, which it says is what would happen if it accepted Ecclestone's current offer.
DOES ECCLESTONE DECIDE THE RACE'S FATE?
Yes. He owns the promotional rights to the race, and in his role as F1's commercial supremo, organises the calendar. If he wants to drop it, he can.
DOES HE HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA?
Almost certainly, but no-one knows what it is.
Many believe he wants to end up controlling the British GP at Silverstone, or even owning the track, which he denies.
The issue is not helped by a long-held antagonism between Ecclestone and the BRDC, the roots of which are lost in the mists of motor racing history.
Ecclestone and BRDC president Jackie Stewart have also had a difficult relationship for at least three decades.
WHEN IS THE DEADLINE FOR A RESOLUTION?
The official 2005 F1 calendar is published on 10 December, but even if Silverstone is not on that list, its fate is not necessarily sealed - last year the French Grand Prix was not confirmed until January.
HOW CAN SILVERSTONE SECURE ITS GRAND PRIX?
The BRDC needs to seal a deal for the promotional rights to the race, which are owned by Ecclestone following the decision of US company Interpublic to extricate itself from its loss-making motorsport business.
The issues holding up progress boil down to the length and price of the contract.
Ecclestone will want any deal to include provision for the improvement of the Silverstone site.
Some say the BRDC could help itself a bit more by developing its massive grounds, either with a new track, or into a multi-use area generating income, rather than just as a racetrack and driving school.
This is an approach favoured by the Nigel Mansell-backed Brand Synergy consortium, to which the BRDC has given a cool response so far.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH ECCLESTONE'S OFFER?
The BRDC wants a two-year deal followed by talks over the next five seasons, while Ecclestone is offering a one-year deal with an option on the following six.
The BRDC says Ecclestone's offer does not give it the security it needs to embark on a major redevelopment of Silverstone; Ecclestone says it is non-negotiable.
Another major sticking point is Ecclestone's asking price for the race.
Although he has reduced the fee for 2005, the deal calls for 10% compounded interest over the next seven years, which the BRDC says it cannot afford.
The only revenue a host track can generate is through ticket sales. All other monies from the staging of an F1 Grand Prix are trousered by Ecclestone.
Ecclestone is offering the BRDC the cheapest contract in F1, but even at this price the club says it cannot afford to pay without risking bankrupting itself.
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT HELP FINANCIALLY?
Depends on your point of view.
The "No" camp would say a shortfall of a couple of million seems like small beer but that is just the thin end of the wedge - fork out this year and next year Ecclestone increases the price a bit more and so on.
Governments in places like China, Malaysia and Bahrain are funding Grands Prix as a promotional tool, but for how long? Britain doesn't need to do that and critics would argue that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
The "Yes" camp would say the race is a vital cog in the future of the British motor industry and the sport's heritage, not to mention the UK's credibility for hosting events such as the Olympics.
And if the government can back a multi-million-pound 2012 Olympic bid for a two-week event, why not a race that happens every year?
But the government says it has already pumped £16m into the motor industry and £8m into the circuit to improve access and facilities.
COULD THE BRITISH GRAND PRIX GO ANYWHERE ELSE?
Not really. Donington Park in Leicestershire is the closest in terms of facilities but is still a long way off.
A race around the streets of London would take several years to be finalised, even if the anticipated mass protest over traffic, cost and noise pollution it would spark from residents of the capital could be overcome.
WHY SHOULD BRITAIN HOLD A GRAND PRIX?
It's an image and heritage thing.
Britain is the centre of the world's motorsport industry - although it is highly unlikely that the F1 teams based in the south-east would leave the UK if the country lost its race.
And the race's supporters argue that a major political and economic power and a proud sporting nation should be able to stage a Grand Prix once a year.
Britain is also one of only two countries to have held a Grand Prix every year since the inception of the F1 world championship - the other being Italy.
Fans say losing Silverstone, one of the last remaining classic tracks, along with Spa, Monza, Suzuka and Monaco, would render the sport soulless.
These older tracks, they say, often produce better racing than the modern computer-designed autodromes. And if all races are held on similar tracks with the same team and driver winning, the argument is that viewers will eventually switch off.
IS THIS TO DO WITH A TOBACCO AD BAN?
Probably not. There is likely to be a worldwide ban at some stage and teams will have to find the money in other ways.
They already use liveries which resemble cigarette brands without actually stating what they are and even are looking into developing this idea further when a tobacco ban does come into force.
Story from BBC SPORT:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3706990.stmPublished: 2004/10/20 13:07:32 GMT© BBC MMIV
