<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Joshua Micah Marshall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/joshua_micah_marshall/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats: Wrong in Iraq</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/11/11/democrats_iraq/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/11/11/democrats_iraq/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2002 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/11/11/democrats_iraq</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The opposition party not only failed to articulate a good case against war -- it ducked the hard question of what to do about a dangerous dictator.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> The Democrats lost so big this week, an emerging consensus has it, not because their message was rejected but because they didn't have much of a message at all. The president's persistence in making the case for war against Iraq gave Republicans something to vote for, the argument goes; Democrats weren't quite sure what their leaders thought. Perhaps if they'd played the part of the loyal opposition and made a forceful case against the president's policy, the election might have gone better for them. </p><p>The problem with this argument is that it ignores the much more straightforward possibility that the Democrats were simply wrong on Iraq -- both in the policy they supported and the way they arrived at it. After all, if voters were really dead-set on sending a message of opposition to the war, was it really so hard to know which party to vote for? </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/11/11/democrats_iraq/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/11/11/democrats_iraq/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Snipercountry.com fires back</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/10/16/sniping/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/10/16/sniping/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/16/sniping</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An administrator from the popular Web site says long-range marksmen are being smeared by the media.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> As random sniper killings become a terrifyingly familiar pattern in the Washington suburbs, press and law enforcement attention is rapidly turning to a heretofore little-known group of firearms enthusiasts: America's sniper subculture. </p><p> Snipers are skilled specialists in the U.S. military -- particularly in Special Operations units -- and to a lesser degree in police department SWAT teams, which often use snipers as a tactical component in police raids and in hostage rescue operations. For military snipers particularly, precision marksmanship is only one of several skills required. Others include stealth, stalking, and concealment -- basically the ability to conduct surveillance in the field and get away once you've gotten off the key shot. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/10/16/sniping/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/10/16/sniping/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;More World, less bank&#8221; &#8212; fewer protesters</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/30/protest_13/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/30/protest_13/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/09/30/protest</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last weekend's lame protests raise the question: Is the nascent anti-globalization movement already dying?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Going into last weekend, organizers of the Mobilization for Global Justice protest in Washington had predicted crowds of 20,000 protesters. Those numbers never materialized -- never came close, really. Police estimated between 3,000 and 5,000, and I saw no evidence to doubt those numbers. </p><p> And that raises an interesting question about whether the anti-globalization movement, which had become <i>the</i> domestic umbrella group for those disenchanted with the U.S. government, had become, just a few years after its zenith, outdated. Last weekend sure looked like a denouement. </p><p> Early on, it looked like it would be a turbulent weekend. Friday morning, D.C. Metro police arrested 649 demonstrators in a series of nonpermitted marches in downtown Washington. That startling number was larger than the total arrested in the massive and highly publicized protests in Seattle in 1999. But novel police tactics really accounted for the sizable haul. In massive numbers, police coaxed protesters into what amounted to carefully constructed traps, with walls of police officers in riot gear on three sides. Once the police corralled the protesters into the trap, a fourth wall of riot-gear-clad police would swing the door shut. From that point, hapless demonstrators were trapped, and the police arrested them at their leisure. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/09/30/protest_13/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/30/protest_13/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hawks in a box</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/20/hawks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/20/hawks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/20/hawks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Flummmoxed by Saddam's latest move, Bush's Iraq hawks are desperately trying to find a way to justify an invasion anyway -- but they're just flapping their wings.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For weeks the White House has been pressuring Congress to vote before the November election on a bill authorizing the president to wage war on Iraq. On the surface, today's news that the Democrats are now willing to schedule such a vote appeared to signal a White House victory. Actually, the Democrats' newfound willingness to give the president his "use of force" resolution is more a sign of how much the consequences of such a vote have diminished since late last week and how far the debate over Iraq and WMD has spun out of the administration's control. </p><p>After weeks of saber rattling by administration hawks led to widespread speculation that the United States was prepared to launch an invasion even without U.N. sanction, President Bush's speech before the world body last Wednesday decisively recast the Iraq debate, swelling the president's support at home and getting erstwhile allies like Russia and France -- who opposed American unilateralism -- to start pressuring Iraq to readmit inspectors or else. </p><p>The speech was rightly hailed as a triumph for the president. But much less attention was given to the change of policy that brought that shift in debate or its implications. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/09/20/hawks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/20/hawks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Pentagon&#8217;s internal war</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/09/military_11/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/09/military_11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2002 23:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/08/09/military</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The career military and their civilian bosses at the Pentagon are at odds over weaponry, Saudi Arabia -- and Iraq.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the spring of 2001, shortly after the Bush administration had taken office, a delegation of Saudi diplomats attended a meeting at the Pentagon with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz. As the meeting was breaking up, one of the attendees, Harold Rhode -- a Pentagon employee and Wolfowitz prot&#233;g&#233; then serving as Wolfowitz's "Islamic affairs advisor" -- approached Adel Al-Jubeir,<!--cq--> a soft-spoken Saudi diplomat who once served as an assistant to the Saudi ambassador and today is foreign policy advisor to Crown Prince Abdullah.</p><p>Rhode told Al-Jubeir that once the new administration got its affairs in order there'd be no more pussyfooting around as there was in the Clinton days, according to a source familiar with the meeting. The United States would take care of Saddam, start calling the shots in the region, and the Saudis would have to fall in line. Al-Jubeir demurred. These were issues the two allies would certainly discuss, Al-Jubeir told the American.</p><p> Rhode then shoved his finger in the diminutive Saudi's chest and told him, "You're not going to have any choice!"</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/08/09/military_11/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/09/military_11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bushed!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/drilling_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/drilling_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//bushed/2002/04/19/drilling</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that the administration has lost the fight over new drilling in Alaska, the oilmen are hungering for Rocky Mountain wells.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge blocked by Thursday's 54-46 Senate vote, the Bush administration is on the prowl for other sources of fossil-fuel riches. According to Thursday's Washington Post, the administration is loosening various impediments to drilling for oil and natural gas in stretches of land in the Rocky Mountains, from Wyoming to New Mexico. </p><p>Administration oilmen apparently think they may find fresh reserves of crude under those hills, but others wonder if they are going to uncork a gusher of self-parody instead. Come visit the new Yellowstone National Wells! Or maybe the new Enron Field, now relocated to the Canyonlands! </p><p>All kidding aside, the prime targets for new drilling and exploration projects are located in areas of land and national forests that you may not have heard of. One is Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, located mostly in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Others are in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. In 1997 the then-supervisor of the Lewis and Clark, Gloria Flora, put 356,000 acres of undeveloped land in that forest off-limits to drilling for 10 to 15 years. Recent remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman (whose agency administers the land), however, have thrown that ban into doubt. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/drilling_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/drilling_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s Latin diplomacy goes south</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/17/venezuela_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/17/venezuela_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//bushed/2002/04/17/venezuela</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House is embarrassed after the State Department's Latin American specialist pointedly fails to condemn the Venezuela coup -- and the coup then collapses.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a generation, the United States has been lecturing Latin Americans about the importance of democracy and the rule of law. But last week at the State Department the advice apparently had to go in the other direction. </p><p> On Friday afternoon, less than a day after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was overthrown in what later turned out to be an unsuccessful military-backed coup d'etat, Otto Reich, the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, summoned senior Latin American diplomats to the State Department to discuss the sudden turn of events in the oil-rich South American country. For months last year, Reich's nomination was stalled in the Senate because, among <a href="/politics/feature/2002/01/11/reich/">many reasons,</a> Democratic senators feared Reich was less than fully committed to democracy in Latin America. (Reich had a reputation as a Latin American hard-liner in several posts he held in the Reagan administration.) According to accounts provided by Latin American diplomats who attended the meeting, Reich's performance last Friday would have done little to assuage those fears. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/17/venezuela_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/17/venezuela_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Presidential brother watch</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/12/neil/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/12/neil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//bushed/2002/04/12/neil</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Globe-hopping Neil Bush has impressive new business partners, but what are they buying?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the annals of the modern presidency, few things have become more familiar than the errant presidential sibling milking his brother's good name for a few -- or more than a few -- bucks. These days that task has fallen to Neil Bush, the 46-year-old younger brother of the president, who's circling the globe, under the protection of the Secret Service, looking for big shots in the world of international politics and finance who might want to invest a couple million dollars in an interactive education software company that no one seems to have heard of. </p><p> Bush, you may remember, raised eyebrows last January by telling a Saudi Arabian audience that the "U.S. media campaign against the interests of Arabs and Muslims, and the American public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could be influenced [by] a sustained lobbying and PR effort." Long before that, in the late 1980s, Neil Bush made bigger news for his controversial role as a director of Silverado Savings and Loan, which collapsed and cost taxpayers roughly $1 billion. (Federal regulators accused Bush of various conflicts of interests, but he was never charged. A civil suit against Bush and other Silverado officers was later settled for $26.5 million.) </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/12/neil/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/12/neil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>He&#8217;s baaaaack</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/11/gore_73/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/11/gore_73/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/04/11/gore</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Top Democrats slam him for running a lackluster campaign in 2000 and blowing it in Florida. But he still dominates in polls of Democratic voters. Can Al Gore rally the troops for another run?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Al Gore kicked off his presidential campaign in 1999, he enjoyed near-unanimous support from his own party, including the Democrats' chief officeholders, political operatives and the most deep-pocketed fundraisers. The only problem appeared to be the voters, who didn't seem to have particularly strong feelings about Gore one way or another. </p><p> If Al Gore runs again in 2004 -- and by all signs, that's just what he's gearing up to do -- he'll face one of the most dramatic reversals of fortune in modern political history. Now it's the insiders, the members of Gore's 2000 leadership circle, who appear to be cozying up with other aspirants or busying themselves in private-sector jobs with little desire to join another national campaign. Among top Washington power players who once carried Gore's water, the former veep is now viewed not so much with anger -- post-2000 disappointment has faded too much for that -- but with a sort of contemptuous pity. "He's a front-runner who no one wants to work for or give money to," a former staffer says with a chuckle. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/11/gore_73/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/11/gore_73/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taiwan money scandal has White House ties</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/06/taiwan_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/06/taiwan_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2002 00:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/04/05/taiwan</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bush officials under scrutiny in influence-peddling intrigue.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> An influence-peddling scandal has erupted in Taiwain, and Bush administration officials have been named in leaked Taiwanese intelligence documents as the recipients of financial support. While it's too soon to tell whether the story has the stamina to make it halfway around the world, the U.S. officials named -- including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, and two assistant secretaries of state, along with a Clinton Defense Department appointee -- have already clammed up, refusing to talk to the press. </p><p> There is no evidence of any lawbreaking, but the scandal does threaten to expose the type of political influence-peddling that Washington is both renowned -- and reviled -- for. </p><p> On March 20, two Taiwanese media outlets, Taiwan Next magazine and the China Times, published articles based on secret documents leaked from Taiwan's National Security Bureau (NSB), one of the main arms of Taiwanese intelligence. The leaked documents appear to show the existence of a massive secret slush fund with assets of more than $100 million, which former President Lee Teng-hui used for covert diplomatic and espionage activities abroad. Those efforts included spying in the People's Republic of China, cash donations to developing countries willing to extend diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, and cash payoffs to politicians and foreign policy hands in Japan and the United States. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/06/taiwan_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/06/taiwan_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll-itics as usual</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/05/polls_18/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/05/polls_18/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//bushed/2002/04/05/polls</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Republican National Committee flack gets defensive -- and evasive -- as reporters try to pin down how much President Bush spends on pollsters.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bush White House is being accused of being almost as addicted to polls as the Clinton White House was, and the new revelations have the spinmeisters at the Republican National Committee engaging in a fit of what Republicans usually deride as Clintonian double-talk and obfuscation. </p><p> An article by Washington Monthly's Joshua Green claims that while Bush's main pollsters billed $346,000 in 2001, the total bill for White House polling was <a target="new" href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html">"closer to $1 million."</a> The story was picked up Wednesday by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who repeated the "closer to $1 million" estimate. </p><p>"The Bush White House," wrote Dowd, "is giving the Clinton White House a run for its polling money. Karl Rove ... devours polls as rapaciously as Dick Morris." </p><p> That didn't go over well with Jim Dyke of the RNC, who promptly called Green to give him a piece of his mind. Dyke was pissed, Green later told Salon, and questioned where Green came up with such a figure. Green said the estimate came from conversations with GOP sources who were unwilling to provide a precise figure. If Dyke disputed Green's numbers, Green asked Dyke to provide the actual figure. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/04/05/polls_18/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/04/05/polls_18/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s foreign policy blunders</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/31/foreign_policy_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/31/foreign_policy_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donald Rumsfeld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/03/30/foreign_policy</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Ramallah burns and the Saudis and Iraqis make peace, the administration's plans for a new coalition to bomb Iraq continue to crumble.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since the United States toppled the Taliban last fall, critics of the Bush administration -- and not a few of its friends -- have warned that success was breeding overconfidence and that such hubris might lead to tragic mistakes. Today those predictions appear to have come true. Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound may stand scarred by the morning commando raid by the Israeli Defense Forces, but President Bush's post-Afghanistan policies in the Middle East and in the war against terror seem equally in tatters. </p><p> Conservative foreign policy hands have long believed that American failures in the Middle East were due in large part to the inconstancy, weakness and equivocation of American leaders. Quick successes in Afghanistan seemed to bear that theory out. Despite naysaying from around the globe (and claims that an attack on Afghanistan would only inflame the Muslim anger that spurred the 9/11 attacks), the actual result was quite different. Equivocating allies and some former foes ended up supporting American resolve, and the hated Taliban regime quickly gave way to a far more tractable and even pro-Western government in Kabul. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/03/31/foreign_policy_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/31/foreign_policy_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does Tom Ridge matter?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/26/ridge_8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/26/ridge_8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Ridge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/03/26/ridge</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats want to make the homeland security czar talk to Congress. But after six months of losing turf wars to John Ashcroft, does the marginalized Ridge have anything to say?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congressional Democrats and homeland security director Tom Ridge are vying to see who can most exaggerate the importance of their spat over whether Ridge should have to testify on Capitol Hill. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., insists that the president's refusal to let Ridge testify is part of a plan to create a "shadow cabinet" operating beyond congressional oversight, while Ridge himself told ABC's "This Week" that his testifying before Congress would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Since almost every sort of executive official -- including one sitting president -- has testified before Congress at one time or another, Ridge's claim seems ridiculously self-important. </p><p> The White House, for its part, insists that Ridge is just a presidential advisor, with no department or budget, who should not be forced to testify before congressional committees. And this time, the White House is telling the truth: Ridge really <i>is</i> just an advisor with little say about budgetary matters or what goes on in the various homeland security-related departments. And that's the problem. He was supposed to be much more. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/03/26/ridge_8/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/26/ridge_8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The real Whitewater shocker</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/22/whitewater_5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/22/whitewater_5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/03/21/whitewater</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The independent counsel's report concedes there was no Clinton scandal, but details another one -- the role the first Bush administration played.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> The final report on the Whitewater investigation released Wednesday by the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) confirmed what had been known for some time -- that after all the tens of millions of dollars and eight years of investigation, the OIC found no evidence of any criminal activity on the part of Bill or Hillary Clinton in the various dealings that fell under the catchall heading of "Whitewater." </p><p> The highlights of the <a target="new" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/whitewater_032002.html">report</a> -- as judged by the headlines of the major national dailies -- were Robert Ray's criticism of President Clinton for <a target="new" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58764-2002Mar20.html">disparaging the Starr-Lay investigation</a>, and Ray's claim of inaccuracies in now-Sen. Hillary Clinton's testimony about billing records for Madison Guaranty, the failed S&L whose owners, the McDougals, were partners with the Clintons in a real estate company named Whitewater. </p><p> But both missed the real shocker in the report: new details of how the scandal was fueled in its early days by the Justice Department of George H. W. Bush, who was facing a daunting election against the upstart governor from Arkansas. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/03/22/whitewater_5/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/22/whitewater_5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kenneth Starr&#8217;s $70 million bag of garbage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/13/ray_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/13/ray_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/03/12/ray</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The independent counsel's pathetic final report reveals what a travesty the right wing's get-Clinton crusade was.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Robert Ray had enough evidence to indict and convict President Clinton -- he just chose not to. That was the headline on nearly every story about the Office of Independent Counsel's <a target="new" href="http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/lewinsky/appe.pdf">Final Report</a> on the Lewinsky investigation, released last week. To his critics, Ray sounded like a schoolboy who, after running from a fight, later claims he could have beaten the other guy up. <i>Really</i>. He just decided not to. </p><p> How good was the evidence Ray had? We still don't know. The report sheds almost no light on the quality of his case against Clinton. We've known for years that during his deposition in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against him, Clinton's answers to questions about Monica Lewinsky were comically evasive, even to the point of lying, if we mean "lying" in the common-sense, colloquial sense of the term. There's almost nothing new here. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/03/13/ray_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/03/13/ray_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s executive-privilege two-step</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/08/bush_records/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/08/bush_records/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2002/02/07/bush_records</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His documents are too precious to give Congress, but those of the previous administration aren't worth protecting -- as long as they make Bill Clinton look bad.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> For the last year President Bush's White House has pursued what amounts to a two-tiered policy on executive privilege and prerogative: Nixonian secrecy when it comes to the records of his own administration, and a let-it-all-hang-out openness when it comes to those of his reviled predecessor. Even the Bush administration's inconsistency is inconsistent: Clinton-era records that tarnish the former president's reputation are offered up with alacrity, while those that might cast him in a better light are hoarded as executive-branch secrets. </p><p>In the brewing battle over the release of Vice President Cheney's energy task force records, Cheney says he's taking a stand on principle. And he has a point: From its earliest days, the second Bush administration has demonstrated a deep ideological commitment to restoring the prerogatives of the executive branch. Right out of the box, the White House put a freeze on the release of Reagan-era records scheduled to be made public last year. Whether or not the White House has something to hide, Cheney's refusal to turn over the energy task force records is in line with this stance. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/02/08/bush_records/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/08/bush_records/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hiding Osama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/03/al_jazeera/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/03/al_jazeera/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2002 00:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/02/02/al_jazeera</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By sitting on a damning interview with the al-Qaida leader, the Arab network Al-Jazeera proved it's a propaganda outlet, not a news organization.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> One of the ongoing journalistic sideshows since Sept. 11 and the unfolding war on terrorism has been the debate about the Arabic-language cable news network Al-Jazeera. To its defenders, including many on the far left, such as the media watchdog group FAIR, Al-Jazeera was on a journalistic par with CNN and other all-news networks, just broadcasting from a strikingly different, non-Western perspective. To the U.S. government and other critics, including many mainstream journalists, it not only had an obvious bias -- describing Palestinian suicide bombers as "martyrs," for example -- but is a font of bin Laden sympathizers, riling up Muslim sentiments by making itself a virtual mouthpiece for Osama bin Laden. </p><p> So who was right? </p><p> On Thursday evening, the people running Al-Jazeera went pretty far toward answering that question. </p><p> CNN broadcast that evening what is apparently the only interview with Osama bin Laden conducted before cameras after Sept. 11 and the U.S.-led bombing missions began in Afghanistan. There have been al-Qaida-produced tapes, of course, some of which made it onto American airwaves. There was even the notorious "home video" in which bin Laden discussed his involvement in the attacks. But until Thursday, we had never seen an interview in which anyone got to ask questions and follow-ups of the head of al-Qaida. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/02/03/al_jazeera/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/02/03/al_jazeera/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the CDC hasn&#8217;t told you about anthrax</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/12/cdc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/12/cdc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/11/12/cdc</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The risk for the deadly inhalation variety is far greater  among older people. Why did it take the CDC so long to let us know?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a few anthrax-tainted letters appeared in mail rooms across the Eastern seaboard last month, one of the more troubling developments for members of the public was how many things public health authorities seemed <i>not</i> to know about the disease. Were some people more susceptible than others? How many spores were necessary to come down with the often-lethal inhaled form of the disease? And how easy could it be for a sealed envelope to leak spores as it traveled through the postal system? </p><p>As recently as this week public health departments in affected areas like New Jersey were still insisting that the question of who contracted anthrax was simply a matter of how many spores a particular individual inhaled. </p><p>But it seems clear that people who are middle-aged and older are more susceptible to contracting anthrax than those in their 20s and 30s, and substantially more susceptible than teenagers and children. What's more, evidence supporting this conclusion was published almost a decade ago. </p><p>Consider the numbers. Have you noticed how the victims of inhalation anthrax tend to run toward the older side? The numbers are fairly striking and there's good reason to believe it's no coincidence. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/11/12/cdc/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/11/12/cdc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Among experts, bin Laden a mystery</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/13/laden/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/13/laden/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/13/laden</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is he really a criminal mastermind coordinating and controlling these atrocities, experts wonder, or simply the most prominent of a larger band of terrorists?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listen to most chat-show pundits and you'd get the idea that Osama bin Laden was some real-life version of a Hollywood criminal mastermind, sitting in an Afghan redoubt, calmly issuing orders for mayhem and destruction around the globe. </p><p> But this chilling image has obscured an active debate among intelligence officials and area experts over just what degree of control or direction bin Laden exercises over far-flung groupings of militant Islamist terrorists stretching from North Africa to the Philippines, and indeed into Europe and North America. Is bin Laden really a criminal mastermind coordinating and controlling these atrocities or more of a first among equals? </p><p> Either way, many believe, the United States played a unique role in bolstering his global power. </p><p> To Ken Katzman, a counter-terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service, there is little question that bin Laden has ultimate control over most of the high-profile terrorist events attributed to him over recent years. But even Katzman is uncertain about how much operational control and direction bin Laden exercises. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/09/13/laden/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/13/laden/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No admission</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/08/24/condit_14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/08/24/condit_14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2001/08/24/condit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Gary Condit had hoped his media blitz would revive his political career and win over the public, he -- as usual -- wildly miscalculated.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Going into Thursday's oh-so-hyped interview with ABC's Connie Chung, most pundits assumed that a carefully coached Gary Condit would act out that most familiar of '90s-era rituals: The nationwide contrition TV interview, with general statements of regret, perhaps a few tears for good measure and eighth-rate philosophizing about how it's made you a better person. </p><p> Obviously it didn't turn out that way. </p><p> Condit was well-prepared and on message, but resolutely refused to discuss his relationship with Levy or even concede any errors on his part in the months since she disappeared. In fact, while Thursday night's interview was the first time the American public got to hear Condit speak, his statements were not materially different from what his camp has been doing for months: avoiding answers to questions about his relationship with Levy and insisting he's been entirely cooperative with the police investigation, even though there are very good reasons to believe that this is not true -- starting off with statements to the contrary from the police. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/08/24/condit_14/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/08/24/condit_14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

