Bryan's Post

American Warscapes | TomDispatch

2010-10-21T20:30:00.000-07:00

Tom Engelhardt has been at this a long time and he never fails to deliver. Here's a great post.

Tomgram: Engelhardt, American Warscapes | TomDispatch

Warmonger Waste

2010-10-21T19:40:00.000-07:00

It was at about one-five-zero feet, while cruising at an undisclosed speed in an uncharted location, when I tried figure out the part that needed replacing for theelectro-suspended-gyro-navigator, otherwise known as ESGN to the well qualified. The part that needed replacing was actually the entire unit. One hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in 1989 American cold cash. Nice. And those ESGN things seemed to go bonkers about once or twice a year to easily rack up about a million bucks. And we had to have them because they were instrumental for targeting nuclear weapons - if, that is, we were to ever have nukes on board, which I can neither confirm nor deny.

I didn't care how much the ESGN part would cost. Getting it fixed was an incomplete task that stood between me and liberty in Hawaii, or Guam, or Hong Kong, or the Philippines. It needed to get fixed so I could get off the submarine and into sunshine and fresh air. Besides, I wasn't spending my money for that thing. It was the tax payer, a distant vague being who could just as well be hanging out with Jesus and Confucius for all I cared - equally distant and unreal beings. The American taxpayer is a mythical being who hangs with uncle Sam and has bottomless pockets.

Today, over twenty years later, many pounds heavier and much balder, I find my kids school doesn't have enough cash for field trips. My city streets have pot holes. Programs for the poor and needy are being cut. Huge surpluses piled up in the go-go years of the 1990s have evaporated. Where has all the money gone?

Now, over in Afghanistan and Iraq and at about 800 bases around the world, the American military, hidden in distant lands from Americans, spend tons and lose tons of cash. The Pentagon is a drunk sailor in a red light district with hoards of taxpayer dollars at its disposal.

By the way, why are we at war? For freedom? Is that what you think? You're a naive fuck!

Check out the sweet retirement packages for those freeloader officers and Pentagon officials. They've got it made. They're welfare kings! Living off the taxpayer and fear while hiding behind patriotism.

What a warmongering nation of waste we've become!

US Ends Combat Ops in Iraq

2010-08-18T23:30:00.000-07:00

The last US combat brigade has withdrawn from Iraq, bringing combat operations to an end in a war that has lasted more than seven years and claimed the lives of more than 4,000 US troops. The brigade left the country in the early hours of Thursday morning, two weeks before an August 31 deadline for the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom pledged by Barack Obama upon taking office. Over the course of the week, soldiers from the 4th Stryker brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, have driven hundreds of vehicles from Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport to Camp Virginia in Kuwait. Their withdrawal brings to an end a controversial and bloody operation that began with the American "shock and awe" bombing campaign of Baghdad in March 2003, and saw the US military endure some of the heaviest fighting it had seen for a generation.

Oil, War, Corporate Government

2010-05-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

With the Gulf of Mexico filling with oil, isn't it time to get off the sauce? Bill Moyers summed-it up a couple of years back -- and it's worth remembering:

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al-Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be ... the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." He elaborated in an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War."

Remember, also, that soon after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice. "We had virtually no economic options with Iraq," he explained, "because the country floats on a sea of oil."

Shades of Daniel Plainview, the monstrous petroleum tycoon in the movie, "There Will Be Blood." Half-mad, he exclaims, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" then adds, "No one can get at it except for me!"

No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. They were making sure no one could get at the oil except ... guess who?

Here's a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back." Read on: "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."

There you have it. After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts - that's right, sweetheart deals like those given Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places. And these war profiteers have friends in very high places.

Let's go back a few years to the 1990's, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy supplier. That's when he told the oil industry that, "By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Fast forward to Cheney's first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates were handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEO's and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney. The meetings were secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq - and a list of companies who wanted access to them. The conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed suit to try to find out who attended the meetings and what was discussed, but the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth.

Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. We still don't know what they were about. What we know is that this is the oil industry that's enjoying swollen profits these days. It would be laughable if it weren't so painful to remember that their erstwhile cheerleader for invading Iraq - the press mogul Rupert Murdoch - once said that a successful war there would bring us $20-a-barrel oil. The last time we looked, it was more than $140 a barrel. Where are you, Rupert, when the facts need checking and the predictions are revisited?

At a Congressional hearing this week, James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who exactly twenty years ago alerted Congress and the world to the dangers of global warming, compared the chief executives of Big Oil to the tobacco moguls who denied that nicotine is addictive or that there's a link between smoking and cancer. Hansen, whom the administration has tried again and again to silence, said these barons of black gold should be tried for committing crimes against humanity and nature in opposing efforts to deal with global warming.

Perhaps those sweetheart deals in Iraq should be added to his proposed indictments. They have been purchased at a very high price. Four thousand American soldiers dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded, hundreds of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqis plus five million displaced, and a cost that will mount into trillions of dollars. The political analyst Kevin Phillips says America has become little more than an "energy protection force," doing anything to gain access to expensive fuel without regard to the lives of others or the earth itself. One thinks again of Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood." His lust for oil came at the price of his son and his soul.

-----------

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Editor's Note: This Bill Moyers comment on America's oil policy was presented on Friday 27 June 2008 on Bill Moyers Journal. Other portions of the program can be viewed here TO/vh

9/11 Anniversary

2009-09-09T21:06:00.001-07:00

Today, 9/9/09, seems an auspicious day to post something about the coming eighth anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon. Though those attacks were minor when compared to the destruction and havoc wrought on the world by the U.S. military, the psychological affects on Americans was and continues to be huge.

What has become of us? Consider the American Idiot culture run amok with the Bush administration and subsequent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and George W. Bush's mythical GWOT. Consider all the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of Democracy and Freedom. Consider the sacrifice of American justice and the undermining of civil rights in the name of this continuing fiasco. Despite the minimal physical damage done by a small band of terrorists, or black-ops agents, or whomever is really responsible for 9/11, the psychological impact has crippled America to the tipping point and I'm not sure we'll recover.

Aside from U.S. domestic problems, Imperial America continues unabated around the globe. But our crowning, villainous achievement is our ongoing aggression and terror in Afghanistan. Tom Engelhardt covers the statistics in "Afghanistan by the numbers". Next, Robert Scheer considers U.S. reaction to 9/11 in the context of U.S. aggression over the years in "A 9/11 Reality Check".

Afghanistan by the Numbers

Measuring a War Gone to Hell
By Tom Engelhardt

Here may be the single strangest fact of our American world: that at least three administrations -- Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush's, and now Barack Obama's -- drew the U.S. "defense" perimeter at the Hindu Kush; that is, in the rugged, mountainous lands of Afghanistan. Put another way, while Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation.
Imagine for a moment, as you read this post, what might have happened if Americans had decided to sink the same sort of money -- $228 billion and rising fast -- the same "civilian surges," the same planning, thought, and effort (but not the same staggering ineffectiveness) into reclaiming New Orleans or Detroit, or into planning an American future here at home. Imagine, for a moment, when you read about the multi-millions going into further construction at Bagram Air Base, or to the mercenary company that provides "Lord of the Flies" hire-a-gun guards for American diplomats in massive super-embassies, or about the half-a-billion dollars sunk into a corrupt and fraudulent Afghan election, what a similar investment in our own country might have meant.
Ask yourself: Wouldn't the U.S. have been safer and more secure if all the money, effort, and planning had gone towards "nation-building" in America? Or do you really think we're safer now, with an official unemployment rate of 9.7%, an underemployment rate of 16.8%, and a record 25.5% teen unemployment rate, with soaring health-care costs, with vast infrastructural weaknesses and failures, and in debt up to our eyeballs, while tens of thousands of troops and massive infusions of cash are mustered ostensibly to fight a terrorist outfit that may number in the low hundreds or at most thousands, that, by all accounts, isn't now even based in Afghanistan, and that has shown itself perfectly capable of settling into broken states like Somalia or well functioning cities like Hamburg.
Measuring Success
Sometime later this month, the Obama administration will present Congress with "metrics" for... well, since this isn't the Bush era, we can't say "victory." In the style of special envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke, let's call it "success." Holbrooke recently offered this definition of that word, evidently based on the standards the Supreme Court used to define pornography: "We'll know it when we see it."
According to Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, the Obama administration is reportedly rushing to "preempt Congress with its own metrics." It's producing a document called a Strategic Implementation Plan, which, DeYoung writes, "will include separate 'indicators' of progress under nine broad 'objectives' to be measured quarterly... Some of the about 50 indicators will apply to U.S. performance, but most will measure Afghan and Pakistani efforts." These are to include supposedly measurable categories like numbers of newly trained Afghan army recruits and the timeliness of the delivery of promised U.S. resources.
The administration is evidently now "tweaking" its metrics. But let's admit it: metrics in war almost invariably turn out to occupy treacherous terrain. Think of it as quagmire territory, in part because numbers, however accurate (and they often aren't), can lie -- or rather, can tell the story you would like them to tell.
The Vietnam War was a classic metrics war. Sometimes it seemed that Americans in Vietnam did nothing but invent new ways of measuring success. There were, for instance, the eighteen indices of the Hamlet Evaluation System, each meant to calibrate the "progress" of "pacification" in South Vietnam's 2,300 villages and almost 13,000 hamlets, focusing largely on "rural security" and "development." Then there were the many indices of the Measurement of Progress system, its monthly reports, produced in slide form, including "strength trends of the opposing forces, efforts of friendly forces in sorties... enemy base areas neutralized," and so on. For visiting congressional delegations, the commander of U.S. forces, Gen. William Westmoreland, had his "attrition charts," multicolored bar graphs illustrating various "trends" in death and destruction. Commanders in the field had their own sophisticated ways to codify "kill ratios," while on the ground, where the actual counting had to be done in dangerous circumstances, all of this translated far more crudely into the MGR, or, as the grunts sometimes said, the "Mere Gook Rule" -- "If it's dead and it's Vietnamese, it's VC [Vietcong]." In other words, when pressure came down for the "body count," any body would do.
The problem was that none of the official metrics managed to measure what mattered most in Vietnam. History may not simply repeat itself, but there's good reason to look askance at whatever set of metrics the Obama administration manages to devise. After all, as in the Vietnam years, Obama's people, too, will be mustering numbers in search of "success"; they, too, will be measuring "progress." And those numbers -- like the Vietnam era body counts -- will have to come up from below (with all the attendant pressures). By the time they reach Washington, they are likely to have the best possible patina on them.
With the delivery of those new metrics to Congress seemingly imminent, I thought I might offer my own set of Afghan metrics for the worst year of the present war. Think of this as basic math for Americans. (All figures cited below are linked to their sources. If a figure has no link, just click on the nearest previous link.)
Costs
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002: $20.8 billion.
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2009: $60.2 billion.
Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.
War-fighting funds requested by the Obama administration for 2010: $68 billion (a figure which will, for the first time since 2003, exceed funds requested for Iraq).
Funds recently requested by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry for non-military spending in Afghanistan, 2010: $2.5 billion.
Funds spent since 2001 on Afghan "reconstruction": $38 billion ("more than half of it on training and equipping Afghan security forces").
Percentage of U.S. funding in Afghanistan that has gone for military purposes: Nearly 90%.
Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year ("with a like sum for development") according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West. (According to the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget.")
Afghan gross national product: $23 billion ("the size of Boise" Idaho's, writes columnist George Will) -- about $3 billion of it from opium production.
Annual budget of the Afghan government: $600 million.
Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: approximately 500% of the Afghan budget.
Amount spent on police "mentoring and training" since 2001: $10 billion.
Percentage of the more than 400 Afghan National Police units "still incapable of running their operations independently": 75% (2008 figures).
Cost of the latest upgrade of Bagram Air Base (an old Soviet base that has become the largest American base in Afghanistan): $220 million.
Cost of a single recent Pentagon contract to DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corporation "to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan": up to $15 billion.
War-Fighting
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2001: 12.
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2009 (through September 7th): 186
Total number of coalition (NATO and American) deaths in 2009 thus far: 311, making this the deadliest year for those forces since the war began.
Number of Lithuanian troops killed in Afghanistan: 1
Two worst months of the Afghan War in terms of coalition deaths: July (71) and August (74) 2009.
U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, 2002: 5,200.
Expected U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, December 2009: 68,000.
Percentage rise in Taliban attacks on coalition forces using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 114%.
Rise in Coalition deaths from IED attacks in July 2009 (compared to July 2008): six-fold.
Percentage increase in overall Taliban attacks in the first five months of 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 59%.
Number of U.S. regional command centers in Afghanistan: 4 (at Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, and Bagram).
Number of U.S. prisons and holding centers: approximately 36 "overcrowded and often violent sites" with 15,000 detainees.
Number of U.S. bases: at least 74 in northern Afghanistan alone, with more being built. (The total number of U.S. bases in Afghanistan seems not to be available.)
Estimated cost per troop of maintaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan when compared to Iraq: 30% higher.
Number of gallons of fuel per day used by the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan: 800,000.
Cost of a single gallon of gas delivered to the Afghan war zone on long, cumbersome, anddangerously embattled supply lines: Up to $100.
Number of gallons of fuel used to keep Marine tents cool in the Afghan summer and warm in winter: 448,000 gallons.
Number of troops from Georgia (not the U.S. state, but the country) being prepared by U.S. Marine trainers to be dispatched to Afghanistan to fight in spring 2010: 750.
Number of Colombian commandos to be sent to Afghanistan: Unknown, but Colombian commandos, trained by U.S. Special Forces and financed by the U.S. government, are reportedly to be dispatched there to fight alongside U.S. troops. (Note that both Georgia and Colombia are dependent on U.S. aid and support. Note also that neither the Georgians nor the Colombians would assumedly be bound by the sort of restrictive fighting rules that limit the actions of some NATO forces in Afghanistan.)
Percentage of American spy planes and unmanned aerial vehicles now devoted to Afghanistan: 66% (33% are in Iraq).
Number of American bombs dropped in Afghanistan in the first six months of 2009: 2,011 (a fall of 24% from the previous year, thanks evidently to a directive from U.S. commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley A. McChrystal, limiting air attacks when civilians might be present).
Number of Afghan civilian deaths recorded by the U.N. January-July 2009: 1,013, a rise of 24% from the same period in 2008. (Unfortunately, Afghan deaths are generally covered sparingly, on an incident by incident basis, as in the deaths of an Afghan family traveling to a wedding party in August, assumedly due to a Taliban-planted IED, or the recent controversial U.S. bombing of two stolen oil tankers in Kunduz Province in which many civilians seem to have died. Anything like the total number of Afghans killed in these years remains unknown, but what numbers we have are undoubtedly undercounts.)
Escalation
Number of additional troops General McChrystal is expected to recommend that President Obama send to Afghanistan in the coming months: 21,000 to 45,000, according to the McClatchy Newspapers; 10,000 to 15,000 ("described as a high-risk option"), 25,000 ("a medium-risk option"), 45,000 ("a low-risk option"), according to the New York Times; fewer than 10,000, according to the Associated Press.
Number of support troops Defense Department officials are planning to replace with "trigger-pullers" (combat troops) in the coming months, effectively an escalation in place: 6,000-14,000. ("The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request... officials said.")
Number of additional NATO forces General McChrystal will reportedly ask for: 20,000.
Optimal number of additional Afghan National Army (ANA) troops to be trained by 2012, according to reports on General McChrystal's draft plan: 162,000. (According to Naval Postgraduate School professor Thomas H. Johnson and retired Foreign Service officer M. Chris Mason,"[T]he U.S. military touts 91,000 ANA soldiers as 'trained and equipped,' knowing full well that barely 39,000 are still in the ranks and present for duty.")
Public Opinion
Percentage of Americans opposed to the war in Afghanistan: 57%, according to the latest CNN poll, an 11% rise since April. Only 42% now support the war.
Percentage of Republicans who support the war: 70%, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Percentage of Americans who approve of President's Obama's handling of the war: 48%, according to the latest CBS poll, a drop of 8 points since April. (Support for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan is now at just 25%, down 14% from April.)
Percentage of British who feel their forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan: 59%.
Percentage of Germans opposed to that country's 4,000 troop commitment to Afghanistan: More than 70%.
The Presidential Election
Estimated cost of staging the 2009 Afghan presidential election: $500 million.
Number of complaints of voting irregularities: More than 2,500 and still climbing, 691 of them described as "serious charges."
Number of members of the "Independent Election Commission" not appointed by Afghan President (and presidential candidate) Hamid Karzai: 0.
Cost of blank voting-registration cards in Ghazni Province in May 2009: $200 for 200 blank registration cards.
Cost of such a card purchased by "an undercover Afghan journalist working for the BBC" this fall: $8.
Number of voter registration cards (not including fakes) reportedly distributed countrywide: 17 million or almost twice the estimated number of eligible voters.
Number of ballots cast at the Hajji Janat Gul High School polling place, half an hour from the center of Kabul: 600.
Number of votes recorded for Karzai at that polling station: 996. (Number of votes for other candidates: 5.)
Number of ballots marked for Karzai and shipped to Kabul from 45 polling sites in Shorabak District in Southern Afghanistan that were shut down by local officials connected to Karzai before voting could begin: 23,900.
Number of fake polling sites set up by backers of Karzai where no one voted but hundreds of thousands of votes were recorded: as many as 800, according to the New York Times. (Another 800 actual polling sites were taken over by Karzai supporters "to fraudulently report tens of thousands of additional ballots for Mr. Karzai.")
Number of ballots in Karzai's home province, Kandahar, where an estimated 25,000 Afghans actually voted, submitted to be counted: approximately 350,000.
Private Contractors
Number of military contractors hired by the Pentagon in Afghanistan by the end of June 2009: Almost 74,000, nearly two-thirds of them local hires, a 9% rise over the previous three months.
Percentage of the Pentagon's force in Afghanistan made up of contractors in March 2009: 57%.
Ranking for the percentage of contractors used by the Pentagon in Afghanistan: highest in any conflict in U.S. history.
Diplomats and the Civilian Surge
Cost of new "crash" program to expand the U.S. "diplomatic presence" in Afghanistan and Pakistan: $1 billion. ($736 million of which is slated for the construction of a massive new embassy/regional headquarters in Islamabad, Pakistan.)
Number of additional U.S. government personnel reportedly slated to be sent to Pakistan to augment the 750 civilians already there: almost 1,000.
Expected number of U.S. government civilians to be posted at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan by the end of 2009: 976. (There were 562 at the end of 2008 and there are now reportedly more than 1,000 diplomats, staff, and Afghan nationals already working there.)
Estimated total number of civilians to be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul as part of a proposed ongoing "civilian surge" by 2011: 1,350 (800 to be posted in Kabul, 550 outside the capital).
Cost of the State Department's five-year contract with Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) to provide security for U.S. diplomats in Afghanistan: $210 million.
Cost of the State Department's contract with ArmorGroup North America, a subsidiary of U.S.-based Wackenhutt Services Inc., to guard the U.S. Embassy in Kabul: $189 million.
Number of private guards provided by ArmorGroup North America: 450, based at Camp Sullivan, several miles from the embassy compound where they reportedly engaged in Lord of the Flies-style behavior.
The Metrics of Success
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on success in Afghanistan: It will take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Admiral "Mike" Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Meet the Press: "I believe we've got to start to turn this thing around from a security standpoint in the next 12 to 18 months." (He would not directly answer the "how long" question.)
Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on the Afghan War: "None of the civilian officials or military officers interviewed in Afghanistan and elsewhere expected substantial progress in the short term. They talked in terms of years two, five and 10... Military officials believe the Afghanistan mission can only succeed if troops are there far longer -- anywhere from five years to 12 years."
Military experts cited by Walter Pincus of the Washington Post warn: "[T]he United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war."
Anthony H. Cordesman, a member of a "team" put together by U.S. commanding general in Afghanistan Stanley A. McChrystal to assess war strategy, and a national security expert for the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "told reporters recently that even with military gains in the next 12 to 18 months, it would take years to reduce sharply the threat from the Taliban and other insurgent forces."
Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation summarizing the opinions of a panel of experts on the Afghan War, including Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and adviser to four presidents, who chaired President Obama's Afghan task force, two McChrystal task force members, Kim Kagan and Cordesman, and the Brooking Institution's Michael O'Hanlon: "(1) A significant escalation of the war will be necessary to avoid utter defeat. (2) Even if tens of thousands of troops are added to the US occupation, it won't be possible to determine if the US/NATO effort is succeeding until eighteen months later. (3) Even if the United States turns the tide in Afghanistan, no significant drawdown of US forces will take place until five years have passed." (Riedel commented: "Anyone who thinks that in 12 to 18 months we're going to be anywhere close to victory is living in a fantasy.")
New chief of staff of the British Army, General Sir David Richards: "The Army's role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years." (After much criticism, he retracted the statement.)
New NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: NATO's mission in Afghanistan will last "as long as it takes" to ensure that the country is secure.
Afghanistan by the Numbers
Cost of a Kalashnikov rifle in Afghanistan today: $400-600.
Cost of a Kalakov (the Afghan name for a new model of Kalashnikov): $1,100. (For a $150 surcharge, you can have it delivered to southern Afghanistan.)
Cost of a kilo of heroin in Afghanistan: $2,500. (Cost of that same kilo in Moscow: an estimated $100,000.)
Cost in police bribes of getting contraband into or out of Afghanistan: "$20 on each weapon, $100 for a kilo of heroin and $1,000 for each thousand kilos of hashish."
Afghanistan's ranking among the globe's "weakest states," according to the Brookings Institution: second weakest. (It is also regularly referred to as the world's fourth poorest country.)
Unemployment rate in Afghanistan, according to the CIA World Factbook: 40% (2008 figures).
Monthly wage for Afghan National Police: $110 (less than $4 per day).
Daily wage Taliban reputedly pays its fighters: $4-8. (Often the only "job" available.)
How long it may take to get a case through a government court (with bribes): 4-5 years.
How long it may take to get a case through a Taliban court (without bribes): 1 day.
Number of registered Afghan refugees still in Iran and Pakistan: 3 million.
Number of al-Qaeda base camps estimated to be in Afghanistan today: 0. (All reputable experts seem agreed on this.)
The Next War
The price tag the Obama administration's budget team reportedly put on U.S. future wars almost every year through 2019: More than $100 billion a year.
The cost of equipping seven Army brigades with a Boeing advanced coordinated system of hand-held drones, robots, sensors, and other battlefield surveillance equipment over the next two years: $2 billion.
Date when all 73 Army active and reserve brigades will be equipped with the system: 2025.
What Can't Be Measured
Here's a conundrum to be considered and filed away under the rubric "impossible to measure" as you leave the world of Afghan War metrics: The U.S. continues to struggle to train Afghan police and soldiers who will actually turn out and fight with discipline (see above). In the meantime, as a recent Washington Post piece by Karen DeYoung indicated, the Taliban regularly turn out fighters who are reportedly using ever more sophisticated and tenacious fire-and-maneuver techniques against the overwhelming firepower of U.S. and NATO forces. ("To many of the Americans, it appeared as if the insurgents had attended something akin to the U.S. Army's Ranger school, which teaches soldiers how to fight in small groups in austere environments.")
Both groups are, of course, Afghans. It might be worth considering why "their" Afghans are the fierce fighters of history books and legend and ours, despite billions of dollars and massive training efforts, are not. This puzzling situation had its parallel in Vietnam decades ago when American military advisors regularly claimed they would give up a division of U.S.-trained South Vietnamese forces for a single battalion of "VC."
Here's something to carry away with you: Life is invariably hard when you set up your massive embassies, your regional command centers, your election advisors, your private security guards, your military trainers and advisors, your diplomats and civilian enablers and then try to come up with a formula for motivating the locals to do your bidding.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.
[Note: Thanks for help in researching this piece goes, first and foremost, to Nick Turse -- with a small bow to Frida Berrigan as well. Crucial websites, if you want to keep up-to-date on Afghanistan, include Juan Cole's Informed Comment, which has recently focused an ever more laser-like beam of analysis on events in that country, the invaluable Antiwar.com(especially Jason Ditz's daily summaries), the War in Context (not to be missed more generally on "the Greater Middle East"); Rethink Afghanistan, and Foreign Policy's the Af/Pak Channel. If you want to download a "cost of war" counter to your computer, check out the National Priorities Project website.]

A 9/11 Reality Check

By Robert Scheer

What if eight years ago the World Trade Center had been leveled by a small nuclear bomb that took out most of lower Manhattan as well? How many millions of innocent civilians would we have killed in retaliation? Would we still be a free society, or would Dick Cheney have attained the power of a demented king, having moved on from snooping on our phone calls and outing honest CIA agents to destroying the last vestiges of the rule of law?
As assaults on a society go, the 9/11 attacks, which left 3,000 dead and are sure to be described in this anniversary week as being among the greatest of historical outrages, were something less than that, given the world’s experience with the ravages of war. The countless Russians and the 6 million Jews killed by those so finely educated Germans come to mind. The 3.4 million Vietnamese, mostly rice farmers, whom Robert McNamara admitted to having helped kill with his carpet-bombing of their country, are a forgotten footnote. Yet we who have never experienced such carnage on our home front all too easily poke out tens of thousands of eyes for each lost one of our own.
Surely two planes crashing into office buildings and another hitting the Pentagon doesn’t compare to the leveling of every major city in Japan with conventional bombing, capped off by the mass murder of hundreds of thousands more at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Speaking of eyes lost, mark the words of Hiroshima’s mayor two years ago: “That fateful summer, 8:15 AM. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast—silence—hell on Earth. The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted.”
We assumed that the Japanese people would readily forgive us and, having been raised in the spirit of total obedience to their emperor, they accommodated our occupation quite well, even injecting industrial-grade silicon into their women’s breasts to satisfy the erotic appetites of our soldiers.
Americans who blithely claim the moral high ground with every pledge of allegiance to a flag that, because it is American, is assumed to have never been sullied by imperial greed or moral contradiction expect no less than instant and full forgiveness for our “mistakes.” Only last month, four decades after he led the massacre of 500 villagers in My Lai, Vietnam, did former Army Lt. William Calley express “regret” for his crimes. He served no time in prison for the point-blank shooting of toddlers, thanks to the commutation of his sentence by Richard Nixon, who might have been anticipating his own need for a presidential pardon.
In blind and wrathful retaliation for 9/11 we wreaked havoc on Iraq, a nation that our then-president knew had not attacked us, and we continue to slaughter peasants in Afghanistan who aren’t able to find Manhattan on a map.
We, a people whose nation has never suffered a long and widespread occupation, easily gave vent to our most barbaric impulses, assuming the absolute right to arrest and torture anyone anywhere in the world without revealing his identity, let alone respecting a single one of those God-given rights that we claim for ourselves alone. And even when we identify the few we hold responsible for the attacks on our soil, we refuse them public and fair trials even after years of torturing them.
But we do have a saving grace for our experiment in democracy—although unfortunately it did not exist in the Supreme Court or Congress as a barrier to an imperial vice presidency. It is the power of the lone whistle-blower of conscience, occasionally given voice in what remains of our free press and which can influence presidential elections, as happened quite dramatically this last time around. There are those like Joe Wilson, who exposed presidential fraud masquerading as national security concern over bogus Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger, and more recently the truth-telling of Ali H. Soufan, a former FBI agent and lead interrogator of terrorists.
In Sunday’s New York Times, Soufan, who was involved in obtaining much reliable information from prisoners before they were tortured, observed that the recently released memos cited by Cheney to back his argument that torture was efficient actually “fail to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism.”
So, Cheney is again proved wrong, but if there had been a larger attack on 9/11, I doubt whether many free souls would be around now to tell him so.

Obama Cool-Aid

2009-05-05T22:36:00.000-07:00

Chris Hedges sums it up well:

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

Bush's Iraq War At Six

2009-04-02T17:05:00.000-07:00

$656 billion: The cost of the Iraq War after six years (National Priorities Project)

1,320,110: The number of estimated Iraqi deaths due to the U.S. invasion (JustForeignPolicy.org, based on data from Iraq Body Count and a 2006 Lancet study)

326: The number of civilians killed in February 2009 (including 11 children)

4,259: The number of US casualties

31,131: The number of US wounded in action

513,000: The number of US troops deployed to Iraq since 2003; deployed more than once: 197,000; deployed more than three or more times: 53,000

24: The number of US soldiers who committed suicide in January 2009; the highest monthly total since the Army started keeping track in 1980

18 percent: The Iraqi unemployment rate; 28 percent for men between the ages 15-29

17 percent: The rate of Iraqi female labor force participation

138: The number of journalists killed in Iraq

5 million: The estimated number of Iraqis displaced since 2003; nearly 20 percent of the total population

15,100: The number of Iraqi prisoners in US custody; 35,000: The number of prisoners in Iraqi custody

13.3: The average hours of electricity per day

Right Wing Deception

2009-03-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

It's very well documented that the Bush administration left office with a legacy that includes a devastated Iraq, the US economy poised on depression, and a torture tarnished international reputation. However, there are those of the reactionary right-wing who are sowing seeds of deception by trying to re-write history that paints a favorable picture of the Bush administration's legacy and sets the Obama administration up for failure.

In a piece called War Is Over (If You Want It),Eric Alterman points out the concerted effort by some neoconservative thinkers to set up Obama for failure by calling Bush's Iraq War a success by redefining what "success" is and how Obama's actions will probably destroy that so-called victory. The truth is that the Iraq War left the overall terrorist threat to the United States higher now than before the war. Also, the Iraq War, according to our own intelligence agencies, has helped spawn Islamic radicalism not destroy it. Bush left our nation in greater peril then it was when he took office. So, Bush didn't leave Obama with a success in Iraq. Rather, Bush left a lost war and a shattered country (not to mention over a million dead Iraqi civilians and two million refugees) with no clear or clean way out for US forces.

Elsewhere, Glenn Greenwald notices the "bizarre reaction to war crimes allegations" in the US as compared to the UK where it seems more obvious that investigations are needed. Greenwald takes a careful look at how the BBC and the Guardian discuss the possibility of government sponsored torture. He writes:

Notice what is missing from these accounts. There is nobody arguing that the dreary past should simply be forgotten in order to focus on the important and challenging future. There's no snide suggestion that demands to investigate serious allegations of criminality are driven by petty vengeance or partisan score-settling. Nobody suggests that it's perfectly permissible for government officials to commit serious crimes -- including war crimes -- as long as they had nice motives or were told that it was OK to do these things by their underlings, or that the financial crisis (which Britain has, too) precludes any investigations, or that whether to torture is a mere "policy dispute." Also missing is any claim that these crimes are State Secrets that must be kept concealed in order to protect British national security.

Instead, the tacit premise of the discussion is that credible allegations of criminality -- even if committed by high government officials, perhaps especially then -- compel serious criminal investigations.

Meanwhile, we in America continue to ignore and leave unpunished the heinous atrocities left in the wake of the War on Terror and the Iraq and Afghanistan Warsl. Likely criminal suspects like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice get a free ride in the American media and the US judicial system. What hypocrites we are when we criticize other governments for their atrocities and how little advice others, like Pakistan and Iran, should take from us. Without justice, our moral authority is severally diminished.

Finally, and the thing that's hitting home hardest, is slow train-wreck and economic implosion of the US economy. Robert Reich notices how, again, Obama is being positioned for failure by the likes of Lou Dobbs, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Republican Fox News propaganda. The argument is that Obama is responsible for the economic collapse that happened under Bush's watch. Along with that, the seeds of confusion are being sown to muddy the distinction between socialism and communism (a Cold War tradition) and between capitalism and un-fettered free market orthodoxy. I've even heard Christian organizations arguing against Obama's somewhat social democratic approach in favor of unfettered free market capitalism which is God's choice.

So, beware! The radical right-wing is actively trying to undermine anything the Obama administration does, and at any cost, in an effort to make itself look good for upcoming elections. What's at stake are the livelihoods and lives of Americans. Again, its the little guy, us cogs in the machine, that pay the price with foreclosed homes, lost jobs, and dangerous military careers where war perpetual war with corporate profits are the goals.

Is it karma?

2009-01-26T22:10:00.000-08:00

What goes around comes around. Could we be seeing the beginnings of this karmic principle in application to corrupt politicians and war mongers? Here are some examples:

First, Israel isn't getting away with murder in Gaza. My wife pointed out an article in the Guardian which talks about the gaze of justice on Israel's infractions in Gaza and the possibility of prosecution for war crimes. The article, Israel and the White Heat of Justice, is worth a read.

Second, and this is a long time in coming, the Bush administration is coming under serious legal scrutiny and may finally face justice. One article points out the likelihood that people in the Bush administration, if not the president and the vice president themselves, are vulnerable and exposed to the rule of law. The world is watching to see what Americans do and, fortunately, it seems that top democrats are serious about investigating Bush's criminal acts. Now, if they actually prosecute and convict is another story.

Inaugural Journey Blog : Bush Loses A Street

2009-01-23T14:53:00.000-08:00

Inaugural Journey Blog : Bush Loses A Street

Gaza to Obama

2009-01-22T22:07:00.000-08:00

The full picture of Israel's bloody war in Gaza is emerging. The evidence is clear that this was an unlawful slaughter of civilians by Israeli military, illegally using U.S. weapons. Now is the time for Obama to make a statement in support of human rights and in defense of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The horror of Gaza is crying out to the world, and to Obama.

Now I shamelessly quote Tom Engelhardt who has compiled the statistics on the carnage. Follow the link to "Read more" for the full post at Tom Dispatch:

Yes, we now know the ever grimmer statistics: more than 1,400 dead Gazans (and rising as bodies are dug out of the rubble); 5,500 wounded; hundreds of children killed; 4,000 to 5,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 damaged -- 14% of all buildings in Gaza; 50,000 or more homeless; 400,000 without water; 50 U.N. facilities, 21 medical facilities, 1,500 factories and workshops, and 20 mosques reportedly damaged or destroyed; the smashed schools and university structures; the obliterated government buildings; the estimated almost two billion dollars in damage; all taking place on a blockaded strip of land 25 miles long and 4 to 7.5 miles wide that is home to a staggering 1.4 million people.

On the other side in Israel, there are a number of damaged buildings and 13 dead, including three civilians and three soldiers killed in a friendly-fire incident. But amid this welter of horrific numbers, here was the one that caught my eye -- and a quote went with it: Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israeli Army, told Parliament on January 12th, "We have achieved a lot in hitting Hamas and its infrastructure, its rule and its armed wing, but there is still work ahead."

Work? The "work" already done evidently included a figure he cited: more than 2,300 air strikes launched by the Israelis with the offensive against Hamas still having days to go. Think about that: in a heavily populated, heavily urbanized, 25-mile-long strip of land, 2,300 air strikes, including an initial surprise attack "in which 88 aircraft simultaneously struck 100 preplanned targets within a record span of 220 seconds." Many of these strikes were delivered by Israel's 226 U.S.-supplied F-16s or its U.S.-made Apache helicopters.
Read more >>

Obama gets to work

2009-01-21T21:53:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's imperial spectacle in Washington D.C. was brought down to earth by President Barack Hussein Obama's inaugural address. It was a wonderful smack in the face to Americans and a slam of failed Bush policies. The speech was cathartic for me which surprised me because I've always felt that nothing short of prison or execution for Bush, Cheney and company would be good enough. Not true. The overwhelming turn-out, the irrational joy and actually feeling that it really was morning in America, despite the gathering economic gloom, contributed to the humiliation of Bush and his miserable administration that nearly ruined U.S. Government and cherished American institutions. If there ever was a terrorist and traitor it was the Bush Administration. Only if they could be banished to some desolate place - like Texas*.

True, the inauguration was a royal spectacle that seemed extravagant in the context of our economic crisis and Israels slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Still, I was riveted and enjoyed the pre-inauguration concert, watching massive crowds gather in the nation's capitol, and the presidential motorcade leading the inauguration day parade. Every element seemed to me to repudiate Bush policy and confirm American's commitment to returning to a sane government that's ruled by law and not by religious or irrational, neoconservative ideology. So, it was a great party to watch. Finally, we have a president whom we voted for!

So, now it's time to get to work. Robert Scheer writes about what he sees as the two most serious flashpoints - the economic bailout and the war in Afghanistan. On the bailout front he insists that there needs to be accountability and oversight. Both elements seem to be missing while the rich benefit from the bailout at the expense of homeowners and the rest of us. On the war front Obama seems poised to commit more troops to what is likely to be a disastrous quagmire of Vietnam proportions. Still, Scheer hold on to hope. Hope in the fact that we now have a "big-brain president" who might actually be able to think. But will he?

Bill Boyarsky notes that hard part is still before us and that Americans need to heed Obama's words and take up the call to service. Perhaps the nation's mood is ripe for this. That remains to be seen. However, without broad and popular support, Obama's dreams won't be made real.

So, we've got work to do and the hard part is still before us, but where are we starting from? Where do we stand now? How bad is our economic crisis? How over extended is our empire? Can we repair the damage done to our republic? Can we pull back toward civilian rule and reject our growing militarism? Tom Engelhardt contemplates where we are in terms of an unstable planet. Is the world still standing? he asks.

Today, the day after our 44th President's Inauguration, I was not disappointed. Though my expectations are low, I was encouraged by President Obama's First Day. Though there's a long way to go on many fronts, and an overextended U.S. military empire to dissolve and redeploy to a domestic, defensive position. Will we get there? Will we stand down like Great Britain did after World War II? Or, will we go the way of Imperial Rome and slowly decay through a series of tyrants and evaporating civilian democracy. So far, it seems Mr. Obama is determined to turn the listing ship of state and set a new course that once again pursues the American dream of liberty and freedom instead of fear and tyranny.

*Sorry Texas, I really don't mean that. I'm a Californian and so I always joke about how backward Texas is. At least you have Austin. And Austin is just like Sacramento! :-)

Obama is no Martin Luther King, Jr.

2009-01-19T22:56:00.000-08:00

To many, the juxtaposition is self-evident confirmation of the intersection of the two men's missions.

Dr King's journey, which ended with his murder in 1968, and Obama's ascent to the presidency, are seen to merge as the dates approach to form a perfect, tragic-glorious symmetry - a 48-hour revelation.

The coincidence of the calendar makes for good copy and grand sermons, but in fact reveals a great moral and political dissonance.

It is true that there could have been no Obama presidency had Dr King and the movement he sprang from not existed, but that simple fact of history does not amount to a King benediction from the grave for Obama's moral character and political policies.

Indeed, Dr King's life and words are indelible evidence that he and Obama represent opposing moral and political camps.

Tens of millions of African-Americans - who did not choose the little-known Obama to be their champion, but supported him near-universally at the polls once his candidacy had been made "viable" - will celebrate a vicarious attainment of power when Obama is sworn in.

Yet when confronted on Obama's political agenda, enough of which has been put in motion and otherwise made plain since election day, few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defence.
Read more >>

Israel drew first blood

2009-01-19T22:06:00.000-08:00

Americans are really good at not thinking critically. As long as the news supports our comfortable world view we'll accept the headlines. We don't ask tough questions and we don't dig for other perspectives and detail. Regarding Israel, we want to believe that Israel acted out in self-defense and is therefore the good guy whom we support and defend. Unfortunately, that view is a lie fed by media propaganda and digested by lazy Americans.

In the words of Rambo, Israel drew first blood. The original act of violence was Israel's invasion and occupation of Palestinian land. Palestinians are forced to live separate and unequal lives from Israelis in refugee camps like Gaza. With a blockade in place, the people of Gaza began to wilt under the poor conditions and general lack of everything except dispare. Though a cease fire is in place, the Israelis mounted an incursion into Gaza killing two Palestinians. Hammas defends itself and retaliates with rocket strikes but is accused of violating the cease fire. This situation is used as pretext for a massive and disproportional Israeli invasion of Gaza which brutally kills civilians.

However, that is not the same story we hear in the American press. Israel is set up as the victim despite their initial aggression. Israel's overwhelming and disproportional military response is glossed over. Though more people are killed each year in auto accidents in Israel then the total killed by Hammas, car makers aren't labeled as terrorists. With the death of a single Israeli soldier the press offers extensive coverage while the deaths of dozens of Palestinian children goes unnoticed. The coverage is biased and full of pro-Israeli and militaristic rhetoric.

But there is an alternative to CNN, BBC and Fox News. The World Wide Web has been a clearing house for more accurate and in-depth information on this latest Israeli conflict. Don't miss reading these essays and get detailed answers.

Tonight, on the eve of the end of the Bush administration, Israel tries to wrap up it's invasion. Jon Stewart noted the coicidental timing of the Israeli invasion to the American political calendar; with Barack Obama releiving the U.S. and the world of Bush's worst perversions of foreign policy, Israel can't be too sure of what's in store for it. In the meantime, it's the Palestinians in Gaza who are left to count the cost of war.

Bz Mix 1-09

2009-01-09T18:58:00.000-08:00

The play list - in order:

Halfway Home, TV On the Radio
You Haven't Told Me Anything, Keane
Strict Machine, Goldfrapp
Destroy Everything You Touch, Ladytron
God's Garden, David West & Orkidea
Where's Your Head At, Basement Jaxx
Praying for You, Joi
Sun In Your Head, Dust Galaxy
Teardrop, Massive Attack
Stars, Ulrich Schnauss
Poor Leno, Royksopp
All Right, Jim Noir
Liquid Sugar, Maps
Beautiful Life, Annie Barker and Robin Gutherie
Happy Alone, Earlimart
Not a Day More, Jessie Baylin
Bird of Pray, Jentri Colello
Broken, Tift Merritt
California Stars, Wilco and Billy Bragg
Dark Eyes, Calexico & Iron & Wine
Fort Hood, Mike Doughty
I Still Care For You, Ray LaMontagne
House of Cards, Radiohead
Two Silver Trees, Calexico
Yell (feat. Jesca Hoop), Robin Danar
Me and Armini, Emiliana Torrini
Koop Island Blues, Koop featuring Ane Brun
Asleep At the Wheel, Working for a Nuclear Free City
Lazy Eye, Silversun Pickups
Can't Believe a Single Word, VHS or BETA
Little Acorns (feat. Khemahl & Thaon Richardson), Leila
Sirens In the Deep, Longwave
Say Aha, Santogold
Take Me Back to Your House, Basement Jaxx
Love Letter to Japan (Radio Edit), The Bird and the Bee
Everything Is Just Fine, Lilly Allen
Make Up Your Mind (Alex Metric Remix), The Locarnos
Trash (Crookers Remix), The Whip
In White Rooms, Booka Shade
Here I Am, Ciam
Cut Me Loose (feat. Gavin Clark), UNKLE
Answers and Questions, Earlimart
Publish My Love, Rogue Wave
An End Has A Start, Editors
What Are You Afraid Of, West Indian Girl
West Coast, Coconut Records
I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts, X

Israeli Captain: We are Near WW III

2009-01-08T22:24:00.000-08:00

BBC interviews a former captain in the Israeli army who condemns that attack on Gaza and warns that because of US-Iran tensions, "we are very near WW III."

Kucinich: Israeli Violation of Congressional Arms Restrictions

2009-01-08T22:18:00.001-08:00

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argues that Israel cannot claim self-defense when fighting a weak enemy with no air force, navy or army. If Israel is not engaged in self-defense then it is engaged in an offensive. And Kucinich points out that the US gave Israel all those weapons only on condition that they not be used for aggression.

Israel has repeatedly violated the terms on which it receives billions in American weapons.

To Live and Die in Gaza

2009-01-08T22:06:00.000-08:00

On Sunday morning, I found out through a note my friend wrote on Facebook, that the Israeli Air Force was attacking my grandfather's neighborhood in Gaza. Safa, who lives near my grandfather in the densely-populated "Asqoola" in Gaza City, recounted the harrowing hours she spent terrorized by what she called "the constant, ominous, maddening, droning sound" of Apache helicopters flying above. "Outside my home, which is close to the two largest universities in Gaza, a missile fell on a large group of young men, university students," Safa wrote over the weekend. "They'd been warned not to stand in groups--it makes them an easy target--but they were waiting for buses to take them home. Seven were killed."

My family had been trying to speak with my grandfather since Saturday, after Israel began its onslaught on Gaza. But we haven't managed to reach him, perhaps not surprising since so many phone lines are down. "Hold one moment," is all we hear. A computerized directive from the phone company, one that sounds increasingly strident the more it's repeated. "Hold one moment." My mother hangs up in frustration, unable to ease her anxiety or clear her mind from worst-case scenario thoughts.

My grandfather moved to Gaza five years ago after living all over the Middle East for almost fifty years. As far as he was concerned, it was always a matter of time before he'd find his way back to his birthplace. He was born in Gaza City in 1933. Both of his parents died of cancer by his fifth birthday, so he was raised by four older sisters. The Gaza he knew during his childhood was transformed by the establishment of Israel in 1948. Following their forced expulsion from villages and cities across the country, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians streamed into the tiny coastal strip. Most of the refugees relied on assistance from the newly-created United Nations Relief and Works Agency to survive, and jobs were hard to come by. My grandfather was thus forced to move to other Arab countries so he could provide for his young family. By 1958, he had married my grandmother, a refugee from Jaffa whose father, a policeman, had been killed by Zionist paramilitaries ten years earlier. My grandfather took her and their 1-year-old son to Saudi Arabia, where he taught Arabic to schoolchildren.

Read more >>

BBC: Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?

2009-01-08T21:58:00.000-08:00

The bloodied children are clearly civilians; men killed as they launch rockets are undisputedly not. But what about the 40 or so young Hamas police recruits on parade who died in the first wave of Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza? Read more >>

Images of War

2009-01-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

Another unjust slaughter using U.S. made weapons in the hands of Zionists against a beleaguered population.

If you're brave at heart, the images are here:

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/image_gallery.php?browse_category=&offset=0

The Palestine Chronicle: Israel's New War Ethic

2009-01-08T21:48:00.000-08:00

By Neve Gordon - Israel

Watching Israeli public television (Channel 1) these days can be an unsettling experience, and lately I've abstained from the practice. But after being stuck for seventy-two hours with our two young children inside a Beer-Sheva apartment, the spouse and I decided to visit my mother, who lives up north, so that our children could play outside far away from the rockets. My mother, like most Israelis, is a devout news consumer, and last night I decided to keep her company in front of the TV.

For the most part, the broadcast was more of the same. There were the usual images and voices of suffering Israeli Jews along with the promulgation of a hyper-nationalist ethos. One story, for example, followed a Jewish mother who had lost her son in Gaza about two years ago. The audience was told that the son has been a soldier in the Golani infantry brigade and together with his company had penetrated the Gaza Strip in an attempt to save the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

"Because members of his company did not want to hurt civilians, they refrained from opening fire in every direction, which allowed Palestinian militiamen to shoot my boy," the mother stated. When the interviewer asked her about the current assault on Gaza, she answered that, "We should pound and cut them from the air and from the sea," but added that, "We should not kill civilians, only Hamas." The report ended with the interviewer asking the mother what she does when she misses her son, and, as the camera zoomed in on her face, she answered: "I go into his room and hug his bed, because I can no longer hug him."

Thus, despite the ever-increasing loss of life in the Gaza Strip, Israel remains the perpetual victim. Indeed, the last frame with the mother looking straight into the camera leaves the average compassionate viewer--myself included--a bit choked up. Over the past few years, I have, however, become a critical consumer of Israeli news, and therefore can see through the perpetuation of the image that Israel and its Jewish majority are the victims and how, regardless of what happens, we are presented as the moral players in this conflict. Therefore, this kind of reportage, where the huge death toll in Gaza is elided and Jewish suffering is underscored, no longer shocks me.

What did manage to unnerve me in the broadcast was one short sentence made by a reporter who covered the entry of a humanitarian aid convoy into the Gaza Strip on Friday.

My mother and I--like other Israeli viewers--learned that 170 trucks supplied with basic foodstuff donated by the Turkish government entered Gaza through the Carmi crossing. That the report had nothing to say about the context of this food shipment did not surprise me. Nor was I surprised that no mention was made of the fact that 80 percent of Gaza's inhabitants are unable to support themselves and are therefore dependent on humanitarian assistance--and this figure is increasing daily. Indeed, nothing was said about the severe food crisis in Gaza, which manifests itself in shortages of flour, rice, sugar, dairy products, milk and canned foods, or about the total lack of fuel for heating houses and buildings during these cold winter months, the absence of cooking gas, and the shortage of running water. The viewer has no way of knowing that the Palestinian health system is barely functioning or that some 250,000 people in central and northern Gaza are now living without any electricity at all due to the damage caused by the air strikes.

While the fact that this information was missing from the report did not surprise me, I found myself completely taken aback by the way in which the reporter justified the convoy's entrance into Gaza. Explaining to those viewers who might be wondering why Israel allows humanitarian assistance to the other side during times of war, he declared that if a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe were to explode among the Palestinian civilian population, the international community would pressure Israel to stop the assault.

There is something extremely cynical about how Israel explains its use of humanitarian assistance, and yet such unadulterated explanations actually help uncover an important facet of postmodern warfare. Not unlike raising animals for slaughter on a farm, the Israeli government maintains that it is providing Palestinians with assistance so that it can have a free hand in attacking them. And just as Israel provides basic foodstuff to Palestinians while it continues shooting them, it informs Palestinians--by phone, no less--that they must evacuate their homes before F-16 fighter jets begin bombing them.

One notices, then, that in addition to its remote-control, computer game-like qualities, postmodern warfare is also characterized by a bizarre new moral element. It is as if the masters of wars realized that since current wars rarely take place between two armies and are often carried out in the midst of civilian populations, a new just war theory is needed. So these masters of war gathered together philosophers and intellectuals to develop a moral theory for postmodern wars, and today, as Gaza is being destroyed, we can see quite plainly how the new theory is being transformed into praxis.

-Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University. Read about his new book, Israel's Occupation (due out this fall from the University of California Press), and more at israelsoccupation.info. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

The Palestine Chronicle: A Leading Online Newspaper on Palestine, Israel and the Middle East

Tomgram: Body Count Nation

2009-01-07T13:21:00.000-08:00

"Looked at another way, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror and its subsidiary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have, in effect, been a giant Ponzi scheme. At a cost of nearly one trillion taxpayer dollars to date (but sure to be in the multi-trillions when all is said and done), Bush's mad 'global war' simply sucked needed money out of our world at levels that made Bernie Madoff seem like a small fry.

Madoff, by his own accounting, squandered perhaps $50 billion of other people's money. The Bush administration took a trillion dollars of ours and handed it out to its crony corporate buddies and to the Pentagon as down payments on disaster -- and that's without even figuring into the mix the staggering sums still needed to care for American soldiers maimed, impaired, or nearly destroyed by Bush's wars."

Read more>>

The Long and Bloody Hypocrisy of U.S.-Israeli Acts of Terrorism | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

2009-01-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

The Long and Bloody Hypocrisy of U.S.-Israeli Acts of Terrorism | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

Chris Durang: Bush Says "So What?" Cheney Says "So?"

2008-12-17T13:54:00.000-08:00

I'm amazed by Bush's fumbles during interviews as he attempts to reposition his historical legacy in a more positive light. And I'm offended by Cheney's arrogance and outright admission of committing war crimes while being interviewed on national television. Both of these men are condemning themselves with their words. But is anyone paying attention? Will they get what they truly deserve? As a country, we need to restore the rule of law instead of rule by corrupt civilian and military leaders and their whims. We need to bring these outlaws to justice. And that shouldn't be too hard, especially if these guys keep talking. The words which spew from their blabbering mouths will be enough to condemn.

Read about this with Chris Durang's coverage at the Huffington Post >>

Joseph Stiglitz: Capitalist Fools

2008-12-11T05:51:00.000-08:00

Behind the debate over remaking U.S. financial policy will be a debate over who’s to blame. It’s crucial to get the history right, writes a Nobel-laureate economist, identifying five key mistakes—under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II—and one national delusion.

...

The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, “I have found a flaw.” Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working.” “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan said. The embrace by America—and much of the rest of the world—of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today.

Read the full article at Vanity Fair

Bush Rewriting History

2008-12-11T05:06:00.000-08:00

It's strange that the media is trying to stir up Americans about Gov. Rod Blagojevich's attempt to sell Barack Obama's senate seat. Some are calling for Blagojevich's impeachment. The media really needs to get a perspective on things! Because if what the Illinois governor did is grounds for impeachment, then what do we make of what Bush did? Mary MacElveen addresses this side of things in an article: If Gov. Blagojevich deserves impeachment, so did Pres. Bush.

Well, lest we forget, here's a nice recap of what Bush did do. And why isn't more of the media trying to stir us up about this???

NY Times: Obama's New Team

2008-12-07T11:02:00.000-08:00

See their faces, read their names and find out more at the New York Times interactive list

Rice to return to Stanford to spin history

2008-11-18T22:15:00.000-08:00

She's coming ba-ack. Condoleezza Rice is returning to Stanford after Janurary 20, 2009. That's not good news. She's a war criminal and should be in prison, serving time for her part in the Bush conspiracy for perpetrating war and the deaths of over one million Iraqi civilians. But somehow, she'll get another chance at Stanford to rewrite history.

Get this from the Nukes and Spooks team over at McClatchy:

The Bush administration will soon be history, but that hasn't stopped its senior members from trying to rewrite history for the next couple of months ... and no doubt, long after.

We were watching a video of CSPAN's interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when we had to suddenly stop and hit the rewind button. Rice said this, and we quote:

When I go to Europe, I no longer see any difference in the view that a stable and secure Iraq is in everybody’s interest, and that an Iraq that is democratic and in which Saddam Hussein, that brutal monster that caused three wars in the region, including dragging us in twice, that used – who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, that an Iraq that is democratic and friendly to the West is better for the Middle East. I don’t see much disagreement about that.

Dragging us in twice?

Pause. Think about that.

I mean, everyone--or most everyone--agrees that former President George H.W. Bush had to respond after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and threatened to go further south, into the Saudi oil fields. That's once. I suppose it's possible that by "twice," Rice was referring to U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, when the United States reflagged Kuwaiti tankers to protect them from threats to shipping, and got involved in various other ways (including by suppling intel to our-then friend Saddam Hussein to help him fight Iran).

But it seems more likely that Rice was arguing that Saddam "dragged us in" to the Iraq War. That's not our memory here at Nukes and Spooks. In fact, the record is now clear (as we reported at the time) that President George W. Bush had decided to go to war against Iraq in early 2002, just a few months after the 9/11 attacks. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or significant, operational ties to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. The Bush administration dismissed Saddam's accounting of his WMD, ignored offers of mediation, and used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for war. It didn't let the U.N. Security Council or opposition from Europeans get in the way. All that makes for an odd definition of "dragging us in." Read more >>

US Financial Collapse

2008-11-17T22:54:00.000-08:00

Truthdig assembled an excellent multimedia history and time line up to our financial crisis. Here's a link to their interactive guide (excellent work by their editors!): link: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20081108_financial_meltdown_101/

Also, The New York Times has an excellent list of articles in a section called "The Reckoning" Link: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/series/the_reckoning/index.html

And, The Times as there own interactive time line with details of our current, financial crisis. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/27/business/economy/20080927_WEEKS_TIMELINE.html

Is the huge bailout criminal? Some think so:

The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington's handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal.
In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed--a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that "Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice."
Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country's banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, "Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending--for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc.--is a violation of the act." Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.

Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure. Read more >>

Tomgram: No Breathing Space in Washington

2008-11-12T19:32:00.000-08:00

Once again Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com gets to the heart of the matter and sums things up very well. Here's a teaser:

On the day that Americans turned out in near record numbers to vote, a record was set halfway around the world. In Afghanistan, a U.S. Air Force strike wiped out about 40 people in a wedding party. This represented at least the sixth wedding party eradicated by American air power in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2001.

American planes have, in fact, taken out two brides in the last seven months. And don't try to bury your dead or mark their deaths ceremonially either, because funerals have been hit as well. Mind you, those planes, which have conducted 31% more air strikes in Afghanistan in support of U.S. troops this year, and the missile-armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) now making almost daily strikes across the border in Pakistan, remain part of George W. Bush's Air Force, but only until January 21, 2009. Then, they -- and all the brides and grooms of Afghanistan and in the Pakistani borderlands who care to have something more than the smallest of private weddings -- officially become the property of President Barack Obama.

That's a sobering thought. He is, in fact, inheriting from the Bush administration a widening war in the region, as well as an exceedingly tenuous situation in devastated, still thoroughly factionalized, sectarian, and increasingly Iranian-influenced Iraq. There, the U.S. is, in actuality, increasingly friendless and ever less powerful. The last allies from the infamous "coalition of the willing" are now rushing for the door. The South Koreans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians -- I'll bet you didn't even know the latter two had a few troops left in Iraq -- are going home this year; the rump British force in the south will probably be out by next summer.

The Iraqis are beginning to truly go their own way (or, more accurately, ways); and yet, in January, when Barack Obama enters office, there will still be more American troops in Iraq than there were in April 2003 when Baghdad fell. Winning an election with an antiwar label, Obama has promised -- kinda -- to end the American war there and bring the troops -- sorta, mostly -- home. But even after his planned 16-month withdrawal of U.S. "combat brigades," which may not be welcomed by his commanders in the field, including former Iraq commander, now Centcom Commander David Petraeus, there are still plenty of combative non-combat forces, which will be labeled "residual" and left behind to fight "al-Qaeda." Then, there are all those "advisors" still there to train Iraqi forces, the guards for the giant bases the Bush administration built in the country, the many thousands of armed private security contractors from companies like Blackwater, and of course, the 1,000 "diplomats" who are to staff the newly opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone, possibly the largest embassy on the planet. Hmmmm.

And while the new president turns to domestic matters, it's quite possible that significant parts of his foreign policy could be left to the oversight of Vice President Joe Biden who, in case anyone has forgotten, proposed a plan for Iraq back in 2007 so filled with imperial hubris that it still startles. In a Caesarian moment, he recommended that the U.S. -- not Iraqis -- functionally divide the country into three parts. Although he preferred to call it a "federal system," it was, for all intents and purposes, a de facto partition plan.

If Iraq remains a sorry tale of American destruction and dysfunction without, as yet, a discernable end in sight, Afghanistan may prove Iraq squared. And there, candidate Obama expressed no desire to wind the war down and withdraw American troops. Quite the opposite, during the election campaign he plunked hard for escalation, something our NATO allies are sure not to be too enthusiastic about. According to the Obama plan, many more American troops (if available, itself an open question) are to be poured into the country in what would essentially be a massive "surge strategy" by yet another occupant of the Oval Office. Assumedly, the new Afghan policy would be aided and abetted by those CIA-run UAVs directed toward Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden and pals, while undoubtedly further destabilizing a shaky ally.

Family Guy: Visiting Ground Zero

2008-11-11T15:32:00.000-08:00

After the Imperial Presidency - NYTimes.com

2008-11-09T17:51:00.000-08:00

Among the many things we worry about as Obama forms his cabinet is what he plans to do with all the presidential power he will inherit from Bush. I believe that the idea of a unitary executive, a president king, needs to be diminished in order for the Federal government to function. The New York times has a good article on this topic. Here's an excerpt from that article, After the Imperial Presidency:

For those concerned about the expansion of presidential power, Barack Obama’s answers to the Boston Globe’s 2007 questionnaire were encouraging. Among other things, he said the president can’t conduct surveillance without warrants or detain United States citizens indefinitely as unlawful enemy combatants. He also said that it’s illegal for the president to ignore international treaties like the Geneva Conventions and that if Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique by law, the president cannot employ it. “The president is not above the law,” Obama said.
It would be a mistake, though, to view presidential power as a left-right issue. Historically, Democratic presidents have been no less eager than their Republican counterparts to leverage the authority of their office. Recall that the last Democrat to occupy the White House, Bill Clinton, launched air strikes on Kosovo in a war against Yugoslavia without Congressional authorization and liberally invoked executive privilege during the various investigations into his private life and financial dealings.
History has shown that where you stand on executive authority is largely a matter of where you sit. Before his election, Abraham Lincoln criticized President James Polk for provoking the Mexican War; as president, Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and ordered a blockade of the ports of rebel states. As a senator, Richard Nixon — of all people — criticized President Truman’s frequent invocations of executive privilege.
Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration who is now a critic of presidential power, told me a few weeks ago that he expects the next president to “take everything Bush has given him and wield it with even greater confidence because Congress has given him a safe harbor to do so with impunity.” This may be overstating the point, but it’s worth keeping in mind that in the final year of Bush’s presidency — while facing a Democratic Congress and historically low approval ratings — he was able to push through a federal bailout bill that vested almost complete control over the economy in the Treasury secretary (who reports to the president), not to mention a major rewriting of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that will make it easier for the White House to spy on American citizens.

MoJo: America's Most Dangerous Librarians

2008-11-09T11:25:00.000-08:00

Here's a good example of ordinary Americans standing up to face down Bush policy.

Link: America's Most Dangerous Librarians

The Aftermath

2008-11-05T07:52:00.000-08:00

Robert Scheer says its "Morning Again in America"

Obama's Victory On Newspaper Front Pages (slideshow)

Bob Reynolds of Al Jazeera writes "The future under President Obama" in anticipation of the new 44th president's next moves.

The world is relieved and the New York Times reports that For Many Abroad, an Ideal Renewed

From far away, this is how it looks: There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth — call it America — where such a thing happens.

BBC News covers How Barack Obama defied history

To measure fully the historical achievement of Barack Obama's victory it is worth recalling what America looked like in 1961, the year of his birth.

Obama Victory Speech: "Change Has Come To America" (VIDEO)

2008-11-05T00:13:00.000-08:00

Yes We Can – Moving Into Obama America

2008-11-04T23:58:00.000-08:00

America has endured a long and treacherous road to arrive at Obama’s presidential election.

Our dangerous drive began with a sharp turn to the right when Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore. From there we careened down into a twisted ravine where rational, scientific thought was misplaced by an administration intent on banning stem-cell research. As darkness gathered, corporate vultures from Enron began to circle and prey on Californians’ energy by artificially raising rates.

Then, on September 11, 2001, as we teetered over an abyss, terrorist planes pushed us over and down we went with the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The abyss was dark, dank and filled with every kind of horror: torture, domestic spying, war, more war, murder, million dead, millions of refugees, civilian dead, wounded and ignored vets, civil rights overturned, imperial president empowered, and the list goes on and on…

After another loss of Kerry to Bush in 2004, thanks to yet more Republican election shenanigans, our rutted road only offered grim destinations with no hope. The final rut that broke our collective, American axle was the financial collapse in September and October 2008. With that, the last shred of Republican, capitalist philosophy was impaled by a sign-post indicating a left bend in the road.

Rounding that corner, our single, dim headlight perceived a black man who, despite a strange sounding Islamic name, seemed to be leading the way. His vision cut through the clouds of doom and through the darkness and toward hopeful horizons. He said, “Yes We Can” instead of filling our hearts with fear of bearded brown people. He spoke of unity instead of an axis of evil. He spoke of facing our problems and conquering them with intelligence and work but not with threats and violence.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. But for now, on this very optimistic evening, I hope for the best, and for the moment, I’m expecting the best too. I’ll do my part to help our new President elect achieve his goals, our goals. Will you?

NYTimes: Obama Wins Election

2008-11-04T22:17:00.000-08:00

Obama Wins Election - NYTimes.com

Obama's Foreign Impact

2008-10-30T22:15:00.000-07:00

Many progressives and people around the world scoff at an Obama presidency. In a recent article, Arundhati Roy says that Obama will rule as a white man and won't be able to make decisions on his own because of the complexity of the system that's in place. An article in Pakistan's Dawn notes that it doesn't matter to the rest of the world who the American president is. The implication is American Imperialism is beyond presidential control:

It really does not matter to us which party is in power in the US. American interests — or at least the perception of American interests — is what drives American policy towards Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world. We would do well to remember that it was under Bill Clinton that American cruise missiles hit Afghanistan for the first time, and a most crippling economic embargo was imposed on Iraq that reportedly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of children. The differences between the Republicans and Democrats are limited to their domestic arena, and at best to the style of international diplomacy. Yes, Obama being quite possibly the first black president does send a good message to the world about America. Yes, his early schooling in Muslim lands may give him a better understanding of cultures other than American.

But to believe that his ethnicity, his parentage or his party affiliations are going to fundamentally alter real American geopolitical interests with regards to places such as Russia, China, the Middle East or Central Asia is to live in a make-believe world. It’s time Pakistan’s media woke up, and as Americans are fond of saying, ‘smelled the coffee’.

God knows that its been decades and generations since the U.S. military industrial complex started calling the foreign policy shots. Let's face it, the complex system that Roy talks about and what makes presidential foreign policy impotent is the Pentagon and the corporations that serve it.

While ideological progressives dis Obama, the more practical of us champion him - but with reservations. The Nation, for example, endorsed Barack Obama but its editors also issued an open letter that urges him to stand his ground on key, progressive issues. Those same editors also emphasized recently, in Democratic Vistas, the potential of an Obama presidency:

Barack Obama has a different vision of democracy, focused on enlarging the electorate and encouraging citizens to play an active role in shaping the country's policies and ordering its priorities. Our open letter to Barack Obama, which was signed by nearly 25,000 people ("Change We Can Believe In," August 18/25), described the most inspiring principles animating his campaign while also noting the dissonance between his stances and ours on such issues as the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan and the death penalty. On the Letters page of this issue appears the response from his campaign, which welcomes not only our support but also our pledge to challenge him when we disagree with his stands. This response reminds us that, vital though an Obama victory is, it is only the beginning of what's needed to roll back the policies of the Bush years and begin to enact a progressive agenda. If elected, Obama will face massive entrenched power whose writ runs large in Washington. Such pressure can most effectively be countered if the raised expectations of his presidency are channeled into a movement that stands up for those without wealth and power--a movement that works for and wins a central place in the engaged and expanded democracy that Whitman envisioned a century ago.

An Obama presidency has the potential to chart and set a new course for the United States. Though this new direction may not immediately take us to a new and more progressive destination, given time, a new course that's consistently pursued will diverge further and further from our old, conservative track. This is an important point and possibly the type of change that will make a difference to U.S. foreign policy.

NPR: Analyzing Barack Obama's World View

2008-10-29T15:55:00.000-07:00

People who live in America usually have no idea about what it means to live in the rest of the world, on the other end of America's gun barrel. One thing these non-Americans (as opposed to un-Americans) tell me is that it doesn't matter which party is in power or which president we have in the United States. Whomever the US president is, they claim, our foreign policy will be the same. Basically, the understanding is that the US will be an imperial bully and their rational for this is very well supported by history. (However, I'd propose the Pentagon and US military industrial complex is the real force behind US foreign policy.)

Anyway, there might be hope with Barack Obama. (Hope in that the blowback from poor foreign policy is minimized and aggression toward foreign states is reduced.) Here's an informative discussion on how Obama's foreign policy is differentiated from McCains and former, recent, presidents.

Audio here: Analyzing Barack Obama's World View : NPR

SNL Kills the McCain Campaign

2008-10-23T22:21:00.000-07:00

PREVIOUS FEY SKETCHES:
Sarah Palin on SNL along with Tina Fey playing her, plus a bonus Alaska rap
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin With Hillary Clinton
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin With Katie Couric
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin in the VP debate

Ron Howard's Call For Obama

2008-10-23T22:19:00.000-07:00

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

The New Yorker: Worlds Apart

2008-10-23T20:11:00.000-07:00

Whoever says these guys are the same isn't paying attention. While McCain is an old fashioned cold warrior, Obama brings a welcome change to American hegemony inspired by the Phoenix Initiative's report: “Strategic Leadership: Framework for a Twenty-first Century National Security Strategy”

“This report,” Rice writes in her preface, “breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist power politics versus liberal idealism.” It “offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role.” The report lists five top “strategic priorities” for the United States. The first three are issues that governments, or even international organizations, can’t handle on their own: counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and, taken together, climate change and oil dependence. The other two are regional: the Middle East and East Asia. The report barely mentions great-power diplomacy, the traditional core concept of statecraft. It is not just post-Cold War but post-war on terror and, arguably, post-American hegemony. (It makes a point of describing the war in Iraq as a bad idea, rather than as a good idea poorly executed.) It speaks of “interconnectedness” and “diffuse power.” It isn’t dovish or sanguine, exactly—those top three strategic priorities are all threats—but it definitely does not envision American military power, or even power combined with diplomacy, as the only effective tool of foreign-policymaking.

While a complete end to American hegemony would be welcome, Obama opens the possibility to an enlightened approach.

Read more >>The Political Scene: Worlds Apart: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

The New Yorker: The Choice

2008-10-20T11:48:00.000-07:00

If you're on the fence and undecided about who to vote for for president of the US, then you should read this excellent argument for The Choice.

Censure Michele Bachmann

2008-10-19T11:55:00.000-07:00

Censure Michele Bachmann: "On the October 17 episode of MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota claimed that Barack Obama and other members of Congress share anti-American views.

Bachmann thinks that anyone who disagrees with her personal political agenda is unpatriotic. But she is the one who has a lot to learn about what it means to love America.

Her fellow members of Congress need to take a stand and tell Michele Bachmann that her disgusting accusations have no place in our country. Tell Congress to censure Rep. Bachmann."

Home Prices Seem Far From Bottom - NYTimes.com

2008-10-15T22:12:00.000-07:00

Home Prices Seem Far From Bottom - NYTimes.com

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

2008-10-15T13:58:00.000-07:00

Here's an excellent account of John McCain. Reading this will only reinforce who you'll vote for.

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

The Nation: Reality Bites

2008-10-11T12:42:00.000-07:00

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Republicans latched onto a theory that enjoyed virtually no support among professional economists: so-called "supply-side" economics. Its promoters were a discredited economist named Arthur Laffer and a self-described "wild man" editorialist at the Wall Street Journal named Jude Wanniski. Laffer had drawn up the doctrine on the back of a napkin, and Wanniski promoted it in the Journal's editorial pages before selling it to Jack Kemp, who made it a condition of his withdrawal from the Republican race that the nominee, Ronald Reagan, embrace it as well. Other than in a few Journal editorials, the only discussion of this notion occurred in two pieces published in the neoconservative policy journal The Public Interest, co-edited by Irving Kristol; one was by Wanniski, the other by Kemp aide Paul Craig Roberts. Before Wanniski's "The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis: A New View of the World Economy" appeared there, neither Laffer nor Robert Mundell, a Canadian economist who had influenced Laffer, was even aware that they had fashioned a "hypothesis" together. Next thing you knew, Reagan was president, supply-side was in place and government deficits took off for outer space.

The supply-side experience taught conservatives they could create their own reality. They never admitted that their fly-by-night doctrine had anything to do with the deficits it created and continued to pummel liberals as fiscally irresponsible. Even after David Stockman revealed to William Greider that the entire exercise had been a hoax designed to cut taxes on the wealthy and spending for the poor and the middle class, the charade continued uninterrupted. (The Reagan administration even concocted a separate lie--that story about the president taking Stockman to "the woodshed" when the first lie was discovered--and that worked just as well.) Journalists, imprisoned by their attachment to consensus, national narrative, the appearance of objectivity--to say nothing of their ignorance of economics--were more than happy to go along for the ride, professing admiration for a conservative president's "bold leadership," however reckless and destructive the results (see also "Iraq, Invasion of").
Now recall that in 1980, there was no conservative counter-establishment to ease the path of this ideologically based nonsense into the mainstream. Today, however, thanks to the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the New York Times's William Kristol, etc., who will call it round one day and square the next, depending on the needs of their team, the Bush administration has felt empowered to cater exclusively to its increasingly narrow base of wealthy corporations, Christian fundamentalists and neocon adventurers to the exclusion of the rest of us, real-world results be damned. The administration's guiding ideology was explained by the famous but anonymous Bush aide who informed reporter Ron Suskind of the impotence of the "reality-based community"--defined by said aide as individuals who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he explained. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." The net consequences of this philosophy can be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, the Justice Department, the budget deficit, the housing crisis, the banking crisis, etc. And yet it retains a certain salience in the Alice in Wonderland atmosphere of our political system--particularly with what remains of the Republican base.

More >>

Putting Monday's plunge into historical context - MarketWatch

2008-09-29T22:43:00.000-07:00

Stock market "plunges" - YAWN!!!

Get a grip! Here's why:

Putting Monday's plunge into historical context - MarketWatch

Something evil this way comes...

2008-09-29T21:53:00.000-07:00

There's a storm building and I've got a bad feeling about it. Is it a change in the wind? Was there something in my peripheral vision that caught my eye? What's making my gut speak tell me to beware? I've got a feeling of foreboding, as if something really terrible is about to happen. Could this be a reaction to all the fear mongering I've endured over the last week about how US markets are going to crash unless a $700 million poison pill tax bill is swallowed by American taxpayers? Or maybe my gut feeling is a reaction to my own fear of possibly becoming a victim of our twisted economy. Or, perhaps, I'm simply sick of the immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the US has treated human life so cheaply. Then again, it might just be the deranged ideological republican politicians and the twisted McCain campaign and it's cynical VP pick.

I'm sure all those things contribute to my feeling of evil foreboding. But the real sad part is my total lack of confidence in our government, or any government, to take competent action. I especially have faith in the Bush administration to do the most incompetent thing of all, and now that is underway in Pakistan.

In 'The Long Road to Chaos in Pakistan,' Dexter Filkins notes concerns that "that the fledgling civilian government in Pakistan won't be able to survive the cross-currents of American pressure and the anti-American anger it stimulates," as Pakistan's northwestern frontier sees intense fighting between Taliban and Pakistani forces.

Foreign Policy Myths Debunked

2008-09-29T11:44:00.000-07:00

Confused by US foreign policy? Not really sure what's going down beyond the US media bubble? Well, here's a good summary and the main things you hear about in the news and a more accurate take on what the reality is. Take a few minutes to get your mind around this and start to make more sense of our world. Here's the beginning of the article:

The Iraq War is a testament to the great damage a foreign policy based on myths, lies and distortions can do to our nation's security and well-being. As the election draws near, a new set of myths and fallacies as misleading as those that led the Senate to support George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq have become embedded in our foreign policy discourse. Many of them are being perpetuated by the very same political forces that peddled the myth of mushroom clouds coming from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Others are the product of muddled thinking on the part of both Republicans and Democrats. If left unchallenged, these myths and fallacies could influence the outcome of the election and shape policy in the next administration. In this special feature, put together by Nation editors with Sherle Schwenninger, a frequent Nation contributor and director of the Global Economic Policy Program at the New America Foundation, we dissect ten of them and offer what we believe is a more accurate depiction of what is at stake for the United States and the world.

Read more here: Foreign Policy Myths Debunked

The Pentagon Bailout Fraud

2008-09-28T17:33:00.000-07:00

Food for budgetary thought from Tom Dispatch:

Let's start with the money the Bush administration has already thrown at the war in Iraq. According to the June congressional testimony of William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, the war has cost $646 billion so far. The new defense budget for 2009 tacks on another $68.6 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year. However, military expert Bill Hartung of the New America Foundation puts a conservative estimate of the costs of a single week of the Iraq War at approximately $3.5 billion (or about $180 billion a year)...

and, continued here from Chalmers Johnson:

There has been much moaning, air-sucking, and outrage about the $700 billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.

On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.)
...
This in itself is a national disgrace. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that, by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our longstanding, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left.

Fisk: Middle East Isn't Complex...

2008-09-26T21:36:00.000-07:00

Robert Scheer of TruthDig interviews Middle East expert Robert Fisk. Fisk brings his perspective of the Middle East and his analysis that the real problem isn't Iran. He says it's Pakistan.

Watch the interview here:
Truthdig - Reports - Robert Fisk: ‘The Middle East Is Not a Complex Place’

And...

In the wake of the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain, the New York Times proclaims: Iran and Pakistan Issues Split Candidates

In one of the more heated moments of the debate, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, argued that he would take the war to Osama bin Laden’s cave door, whether Pakistan cooperated or not. And it was Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, who argued that without Pakistan’s cooperation, any such operation was doomed.
Mr. McCain took the position that Mr. Bush had taken until this summer, when the president gave up on the Pakistani government in frustration. With no public announcement, Mr. Bush loosened the reins on American forces to go into sovereign Pakistani territory. Mr. Obama essentially argued on Friday night that Mr. Bush should have done that years ago, ridiculing the $10 billion that the administration had paid to the Pakistani military with little result.
At its core, the candidates’ argument is about the “central front” in the war on terrorism. Mr. Obama said it was, and always has been, Pakistan’s tribal areas and the neighboring areas of Afghanistan. Iraq, he argued, was a dangerous distraction. Mr. McCain made the case that Iraq was the central front, noting that Mr. bin Laden himself had declared that the battleground with America.

Taibbi: The Lies of Sarah Palin

2008-09-26T16:59:00.000-07:00

In a new piece for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi considers what Sarah Palin’s popularity says about America. Here’s an excerpt:

(The following article is now available in it's entirety at: http://www.alternet.org/election08/100551/mad_dog_palin_/?page=entire)

The defining moment for me came shortly after Palin and her family stepped down from the stage to uproarious applause, looking happy enough to throw a whole library full of books into the sewer. In the crush to exit the stadium, a middle-aged woman wearing a cowboy hat, a red-white-and-blue shirt and an obvious eye job gushed to a male colleague – They were both wearing badges identifying them as members of the Colorado delegation – At the Xcel gates.

“She totally reminds me of my cousin!” the delegate screeched. “She’s a real woman! The real thing!”

I stared at her open-mouthed. In that moment, the rank cynicism of the whole sorry deal was laid bare. Here’s the thing about Americans. You can send their kids off by the thousands to get their balls blown off in foreign lands for no reason at all, saddle them with billions in debt year after congressional year while they spend their winters cheerfully watching game shows and football, pull the rug out from under their mortgages, and leave them living off their credit cards and their Wal-Mart salaries while you move their jobs to China and Bangalore.

And none of it matters, so long as you remember a few months before Election Day to offer them a two-bit caricature culled from some cutting-room-floor episode of Roseanne as part of your presidential ticket. And if she’s good enough likeness of a loudmouthed Middle American archetype, as Sarah Palin is, John Q. Public will drop his giant sized bag of Doritos in gratitude, wipe the sizzlin’ picante dust from his lips and rush to the booth to vote for her. Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else’s, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because that image on TV reminds him of the mean brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.

Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she’s a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she’s the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV – And this country is going to eat her up, cheering every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.

…

The great insight of the Palin VP choice is that huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflective prejudices of their demographic, as they would for a reality-show contestants or sitcom characters. Hicks root for hicks, moms for moms, born-agains for born-agains. Sure, there was politics in the Palin speech but it was all either silly lies or merely incidental fluffery buttressing the theatrical performance. A classic example of what was at work here came when Palin proudly introduced her Down-Syndrome baby, Trig, then stared into the camera and somberly promised parents of special-needs kids that they would “Have a friend and advocate in the White House.” This was about a half-hour before she raised her hands in triumph with McCain, a man who voted against increasing funding for special-needs education.
…

She’s a puffed-up dimwit with primitive religious beliefs who had to be educated as to the fact that the constitution did not exactly envision government executives firing librarians. Judging from the importance progressive critics seem to attach to these revelations, you’d think that these were actually negatives in modern American politics. But Americans like politicians who hate books and see the face of Jesus in every tree stump. They like them stupid and mean and ignorant of the rules. Which is why Palin has only seemed to grow in popularity as more and more of these revelations have come out.

The same goes for the most damning aspect of her biography, her total lack of big-game experience. As governor of Alaska, Palin presides over a state whose entire population is barely the size of Memphis. This kind of thing might matter in a country that actually worried about whether its leader was prepared for his job – But not in America. In America, it takes about 2 weeks in the limelight for the whole country to think you’ve been around for years. To a certain extent, this is why Obama is getting a pass on the same issue. He’s been on TV every day for two years and according to the standards of our instant-ramen culture, that’s a lifetime of hands-on experience.

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance, with McCain rising to prominence on the back of his bio as a suffering war hero and Obama mostly playing the part of long-lost, future-embracing liberal dreamboat not seen on the national stage since Bobby Kennedy died. If your stomach turns to read how Palin’s Kawasaki 704 glasses are flying off the shelves in Middle America, you have to accept that Middle America probably feels the same way when it hears Donatella Versace dedicated her collection to Obama during Milan Fashion Week. Or sees the throwing-panties-onstage-“I love you, Obama!” ritual at the Democratic nominee’s town-hall appearances.

So, sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much as a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we’re actually going to need in government if we’re going to get out of this huge mess we’re in.

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas

The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn’t that she’s totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and porked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: That you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we’ll not only thank you for your trouble, we’ll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for few hours around election time.

Democracy doesn’t require a whole lot of work of its citizens, but it requires some: It requires taking a good look outside once in awhile, and considering the bad news and what it might mean, and making the occasional tough choice, and soberly taking stock of what your real interests are.

This is a very different thing from shopping, which involves passively letting sitcoms melt your brain all day long and then jumping straight into the TV screen to buy a southern Style Chicken Sandwich because the slob singing “I’m Lovin’ It!” during the commercial break looks just like you. The joy of being a consumer is that it doesn’t require thought, responsibility, self-awareness or shame: All you have to do is obey the first urge that gurgles up from your stomach. And then obey the next. And the next. And the next.

And when it comes time to vote all you have to do is put your Country First – Just like that lady on TV who reminds you of your cousin. U-S-A, Baby. U-S-A! U-S-A!

With All Eyes on the Bailout, House Passes Trillion-Dollar Defense Bill | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

2008-09-26T16:49:00.000-07:00

Shoot - missed this...

With All Eyes on the Bailout, House Passes Trillion-Dollar Defense Bill | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

Bailing Out: Comment: The New Yorker

2008-09-26T09:43:00.000-07:00

Here's an excellent and concise explanation of what's gone wrong with the U.S. stock market and economy:

Bailing Out: Comment: The New Yorker

Pakistan's Instability Increases

2008-09-25T23:53:00.000-07:00

The last few weeks have seen several, major financial institutions fail. Tonight, Washington Mutual (WaMu) was the largest bank to ever fail. It appears, if you believe the worried appeals from president Bush and ignore today's S&P upswing, that our economy is on the brink of doom. I wonder if this so-called "economic crisis" is being taken advantage of as a sort of "October Surprise" to benefit the failing McCain campaign. Or, is there something else afoot?

A more troubling development is the growing war between the U.S. and Pakistan. My wife is in Pakistan at the moment and should be on a flight out of there in a couple of days, but the country's airports are on "Red Alert" due to bombing threats from the Taliban and al Qaeda. I'm worried for her safety as that poverty stricken and hopeless land sinks further into instability.

In recent days, the U.S. has conducted cross-border operations into Northwestern Pakistan to pursue Taliban and al Qaeda. The Pakistani government considers these "invasions" a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and vowed to attacked any foreign trespassers. In the meantime, Pakistanis think their government has partnered with the U.S. and is involved in these attacks.

But, why now? Why is it only now that there is a renewed and long overdue interest in pursuing al Qaeda to it's hideout in Pakistan's mountainous northwestern lands? Is it an attempt to capture a high-ranking terrorist or maybe even Osama bin Laden? That would surely give the McCain campaign a needed boost.

In the meantime, Robert Fisk spoke on KPFA today to point out that Iran is mistakenly believed to be the next major problem in the world. Fisk disagrees. Fisk thinks Pakistan is the hotspot that we need to prepare for.

Resources:

Robert Fisk on Flashpoints on KPFA talks about the complete corruption of the Pakistani state and the danger it poses to the world: http://flashpoints.net/index.html#2008-09-25
McClatchy news covers today's U.S. and Pakistani clashes: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/53106.html
Asia Times covers in more detail how Pakistan's militants have freed themselves from government control: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JI25Df01.html
U.S. personal are warned to keep a low profile in Pakistan and bomb threats put the country on red alert: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/world/main4476991.shtml

More to come as my wife's country's crisis expands.

Palin & Clinton Joint Appearance

2008-09-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

Vice President nominee, Sara Palin, and ex-presidential contender, Hillary Clinton, make an unprecedented joint appearance.

Watch the video here

Cheers!

US Attacks in Pakistan

2008-09-12T13:12:00.000-07:00

Trouble is afoot again in Pakistan. News has leaked that George W. Bush gave the okay for U.S. special forces to puruse al qaeda into Pakistani terrirtory without obtaining permission from Paksitan first. Now Pakistan has given it's army the go ahead to attack foreigh fighters (e.g. the U.S.) to protect itself. So, is Bush trying to pull off a grand October Surprise by finally brining in Osama bin Laden?

Here's the news roundup on this topic from the past couple of days:

On September 12:
With the Pakistani army reportedly 'ordered to hit back,' and the U.S. military pumping up the drones, Gareth Porter discusses the rationale behind and the backers of the new Bush administration embrace of cross-border raids.

On September 11:
In time for its September 11 edition, the New York Times is told by "senior administration officials," that Bush did secretly approve orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground raids inside Pakistan, without the prior approval of the Pakistani government.

The Difference at the Conventions

2008-09-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

In the past couple of weeks we've seen two presidential conventions, one for the Democrats and another for the Republicans. While both conventions were political theater and spectacle wrapped in an American flag, the tone between these conventions was huge. One the one hand, the Democrats focused on party unity, getting the Clintons behind Obama and finally on popular policies. On the other hand, the Republicans pushed a fraud on Americans.

Here's an article that describes the difference between these two conventions:
Tale of Two Conventions

An important note, not covered by the mainstream media, is the police brutality exercised outside of both conventions but most brutally outside the Republican convention. Here's story on this: Tyranny on Display at the Republican Convention

Barak Obama's Acceptance Speech

2008-08-29T08:20:00.001-07:00

Here's Barak Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. This might very well be the best speech I've every heard.

Crimes and Misdemeanors - By Emily Bazelon, Kara Hadge, Dahlia Lithwick, and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine

2008-07-25T14:27:00.000-07:00

Crimes and Misdemeanors - By Emily Bazelon, Kara Hadge, Dahlia Lithwick, and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine

Civilian Airstrike Deaths Probed - washingtonpost.com

2008-07-25T14:07:00.000-07:00

This is pretty much how NOT to win the "war on terror."

Civilian Airstrike Deaths Probed - washingtonpost.com

Our Core Problem

2008-07-24T09:14:00.001-07:00

While those on the left are distracted by civil liberties violations and our lack of universal health care, and while those on the right are distracted by illegal immigration and abortion, we all lose as the real core problem quietly evades our notice.

This problem is our economic system run amok. Our unchecked, American capitalism has given us, "Big Oil, Blood Diamonds, Enron and Halliburton" and "...Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and the Wall of Death on the U.S.-Mexico border." Meanwhile, our United States economy is in a decline and our largest product is the machinery of war.

The real crime is the con that has most Americans believing we actually have a capitalistic system. The truth is, our economy is a socialist economy for the rich while the rest of us watch our pay disintegrate.

Here's a good article that echoes these sentiments and Naommi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine.": The U.S. Economy Is Socialism for the Rich

This Land Is Their Land

2008-07-15T13:10:00.000-07:00

Barbara Ehrenreich’s first book of satirical commentary, The Worst Years of Our Lives, about the Reagan era, was received with bestselling acclaim. The one problem was the title: couldn’t some prophetic fact-checker have seen that the worst years of our lives—far worse—were still to come? Here they are, the 2000s, and in This Land Is Their Land, Ehrenreich subjects them to the most biting and incisive satire of her career.

Taking the measure of what we are left with after the cruelest decade in memory, Ehrenreich finds lurid extremes all around. While members of the moneyed elite can buy congressmen, many in the working class can barely buy lunch. While a wealthy minority obsessively consumes cosmetic surgery, the poor often go without health care for their children. And while the corporate C-suites are now nests of criminality, the less fortunate are fed a diet of morality, marriage, and abstinence. Ehrenreich’s antidotes are as sardonic as they are spot-on: pet insurance for your kids; Salvation Army fashions for those who can no longer afford Wal-Mart; and boundless rage against those who have given us a nation scarred by deepening inequality, corroded by distrust, and shamed by its official cruelty.

Full of wit and generosity, these reports from a divided nation show once again that Ehrenreich is, as Molly Ivins said, “good for the soul.”

E.L. Doctorow on Bush's Rejection of Knowledge

2008-07-08T06:53:00.000-07:00

What does it say about our country in which people have to gather to affirm that knowledge is a public good? Here's a link to a good essay on the topic: E.L. Doctorow on Bush's Rejection of Knowledge

George Carlin had it right

2008-07-04T08:29:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Geroge Carlin's death, I came across this quote that sums things up pretty well:

The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians; they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've go you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying-lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

Not funny. But true.

Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

2008-06-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

The New Gilded Age

2008-06-15T08:21:00.000-07:00

It's obvious that Bush II and his cronies are raping the coffers of U.S. government. You see this in the billions of dollars that are being dumped into the hands of his corporate buddies who run the companies that are perpetrating Bush's Iraq War. But the raping of taxpayer monies and monies from all corners of our society, are being extracted by the wealthiest of the wealthy. The New Gilded Age is upon us and everybody is at risk.

Read these tragic stories about what's happening right now to America's middle class. See this media coverage.

Bush Plots Iran War & Permanent Iraq Occupation

2008-06-05T22:54:00.000-07:00

While so many Americans are basking in the warm afterglow of Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton and the possibility of "change", Bush II still holds power and is plotting more war and a never-ending stay in Iraq.

Before we get drawn into another conflict, consider this news that a Senate committee found that Bush II knew his Iraq claims weren't true. I hope this outing of the Bush II lie becomes a big problem for him - like jail. After all, over 4,000 of our troops have died for Bush's confirmed lies along with tens of thousands more injured. All that besides occupation American style and devastating collateral damage in America's war against Iraqi civilians.

So today, in the shadow of the American presidential campaign, news is leaked to the Independent UK that there is a secret plan to keep Iraq under US control. So, I guess Bush II hasn't achieved his goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East and making Iraq a shining beacon. Ali Allawi has a huge question over what this means for Iraqi independence.

But the most hideous plot is Bush II's quest to attack Iran before he leaves office. He's been angling for this one for years. Now, he might try to pull out an October surprise - a military surprise - to try to help McCain gain the upper hand over Obama. Or, perhaps, even if Obama wins, Bush II might work on into the winter of January 2009 until he can get his new war. Whatever the case, Bush II's plot is pure insanity and Seymour Hersh seems to be on the trail of this new rumor of war. Watch for this news in an upcoming New Yorker.

Why does our country keep warmongering? We Americans know the world isn't really that dangerous - aside from our military. We know the whole Bush II fear campaign after 9/11 was a bunch of bull hoowy. So, how does it happen that we keep waring on everyone? Perhaps it's because our real problem is the Pentagon and the Pentagon has a vested interest and years of job security a stake in a world at perpetual war. It sure seems 9/11 gave back to the warmongering fanatics the world they lost with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the so-called Evil Empire.

Can Obama really help bring the voice of American reason back to the governance of the United States? Or is our government and our country doomed to be at the beck and call of big energy and military industrial complex interests? I'm holding on to hope that we can do what the O-man says, and change.

Presidential Candidates & Iraq

2008-06-04T16:33:00.000-07:00

I'm glad that Obama won the Democratic nomination for president. So far so good. Who knows what shenanigans Hillary has for him at the Democratic National Convention. But I'm hopeful Obama will be victorious there and in the general campaign over McCain.

On the Iraq front, however, Obama needs to get his act together. He and McCain are behind in their thinking about Iraq. The conditions have changed and the language the Candidates use is old and seems to be addressing an Iraq that's already history. Unlike Bush, I'm counting especially on Obama to be flexible and creative in his approach to Iraq. True, we can't, in Republican words, cut-and-run, but we also need to adjust our strategy and tactics to the reality on the ground. Reality is that thing that has completely evaded the Bush administration.

The best, major news organization out there, McClatchy, has a blog post on this topic that's worth a read:

Now that it appears the presidential race will be between Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, it seemed only fitting to begin comparing their stands on key military issues. Yes, many have done this already, but a lot has changed in Iraq since Barack “Pull our troops out quickly” Obama and John “Stay for One Hundred Years” McCain emerged.

Violence has dropped substantially, both against U.S. troops and their Iraqi counterparts. Civilian deaths are down. By all accounts, al Qaida is weaker as are the militias. Even at the Pentagon, there is more optimism; leaders there are increasingly shifting their rhetoric away from Iraq and toward the growing problems on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

And yet, despite all this, few are convinced the progress will last. Iraqi politicians still have not reconciled (whatever that means) enough to reassure the Iraqis or the Americans that they can keep this downward trend going. Indeed, they had to delay the all-important provincial elections this fall by at least a month.

But the candidates’ websites and recent speeches don’t reflect the mosaic of issues. Instead, they describe policies that appear to be for the Iraq that existed months ago. On his website Obama promises include removing two combat brigades a month to rid Iraq of most U.S. forces in 16 months. And “if al Qaida attempts to build a base within Iraq, [Obama] will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

Blog: Nukes & Spooks

2008-05-30T15:01:00.000-07:00

Memo to Scott McClellan: Here's what happened...

Read more: >>

Truthdig - Reports - Where Is the Outrage?

2008-05-28T09:45:00.000-07:00

Robert Sheer asks a very good question:

Are we Americans truly savages or merely tone-deaf in matters of morality, and therefore more guilty of terminal indifference than venality? It’s a question demanding an answer in response to the publication of the detailed 370-page report on U.S. complicity in torture, issued last week by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Truthdig - Reports - Where Is the Outrage?

A Rendition of Bush-Gore That's Long Overdue | The New York Observer

2008-05-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

Last night I saw "Recount" on HBO. Excellent. Catch it if you can.

A Rendition of Bush-Gore That's Long Overdue | The New York Observer

The Media Equation - The Wars We Choose to Ignore - NYTimes.com

2008-05-27T12:41:00.000-07:00

With thousands of our own dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and millions displaced, Bush's Iraq War drops for the news and from our sight:

The Media Equation - The Wars We Choose to Ignore - NYTimes.com

Tomgram: Welcome to the Age of Homeland Insecurity

2008-05-15T14:34:00.000-07:00

How are things going? What's the score? So, just how safe are we now that we're seven years into Bush's Great War On Tewwor? Check out the failing report card:

536,000,000,000: the number of dollars the Pentagon is requesting for the 2009 military

1,390,000: the number of subprime foreclosures over the next two years

1,000,000: the number of "missions" or "sorties" the U.S. Air Force proudly claims to have flown in the Global War on Terror since 9/11

509,000: the number of names found in 2007 on a "terrorist watch list"

300,000: the number of American troops who now suffer from major depression or post-traumatic stress

51,000: the number of post-surge Iraqi prisoners held in American and Iraqi jails at the end of 2007

Then there's Camp Cropper, with at least 4,000 prisoners, including "hundreds of juveniles

5,700: the number of trailers in New Orleans -- issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as temporary housing after Hurricane Katrina -- still occupied by people who lost their homes in the storm almost three years ago

658: the number of suicide bombings worldwide last year, including 542 in Afghanistan and Iraq, "more than double the number in any of the past 25 years"

511: the number of applicants convicted of felony crimes, including burglary, grand larceny, and aggravated assault, who were accepted into the U.S. Army in 2007, more than double the 249 accepted in 2006

126: the number of dollars it took to buy a barrel of crude oil on the international market this week - since 9/11, a barrel of crude has risen more than $100 without the Bush administration taking any serious steps to promote energy conservation, cut down on the U.S. oil "addiction," or develop alternative energy strategies

82: the percentage of Americans who think "things in this country… have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track"

40: the percentage loss ("on a trade-weighted basis") in the value of the dollar since 2001

37: the number of countries that have experienced food protests or riots in recent months due to soaring food prices

0: the number of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda or similar groups inside the United States since September 11, 2001

387: Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii just released new information on carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- in the atmosphere, and it's at a record high of 387 parts per million, "up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years

Cheers to Bush!

Read the details here:
Tomgram: Welcome to the Age of Homeland Insecurity

U.S. Has Detained 2,500 Juveniles as Enemy Combatants

2008-05-15T13:00:00.000-07:00

In case you still wonder why 9/11 happened. In case you don't know why blow-back happens. Here you go - the beginning of the reap-what-you-sow, karmic cycle:

U.S. Has Detained 2,500 Juveniles as Enemy Combatants

Winter Soldier on the Hill | Iraq Veterans Against the War

2008-05-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

Get the story about the war directly from those who fight it. Watch the testimony from nine members of Iraq Veterans Against the War as they testify before congress about the consequences of Bush's War.

Winter Soldier on the Hill | Iraq Veterans Against the War

Crooks and Liars � Daily Show: Douglas Feith Has Huge Balls

2008-05-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

The Daily show covers the build-up to the Iraq War and interviews Douglas Feith.

Crooks and Liars � Daily Show: Douglas Feith Has Huge Balls

Tomgram: Endless War

2008-05-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

Tomgram: Endless War

The last war won't end, but in the Pentagon they're already arguing about the next one.

Let's start with that "last war" and see if we can get things straight. Just over five years ago, American troops entered Baghdad in battle mode, felling the Sunni-dominated government of dictator Saddam Hussein and declaring Iraq "liberated." In the wake of the city's fall, after widespread looting, the new American administrators dismantled the remains of Saddam's government in its hollowed out, trashed ministries; disassembled the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party which had ruled Iraq since the 1960s, sending its members home with news that there was no coming back; dismantled Saddam's 400,000 man army; and began to denationalize the economy. Soon, an insurgency of outraged Sunnis was raging against the American occupation.

After initially resisting democratic elections, American occupation administrators finally gave in to the will of the leading Shiite clergyman, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and agreed to sponsor them. In January 2005, these brought religious parties representing a long-oppressed Shiite majority to power, parties which had largely been in exile in neighboring Shiite Iran for years.

Now, skip a few years, and U.S. troops have once again entered Baghdad in battle mode. This time, they've been moving into the vast Sadr City Shiite slum "suburb" of eastern Baghdad, which houses perhaps two-and-a-half million closely packed inhabitants. If free-standing, Sadr City would be the second largest city in Iraq after the capital. This time, the forces facing American troops haven't put down their weapons, packed up, and gone home. This time, no one is talking about "liberation," or "freedom," or "democracy." In fact, no one is talking about much of anything.

Turkish Schools Offer Pakistan a Gentler Vision of Islam - New York Times

2008-05-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

Turkish Schools Offer Pakistan a Gentler Vision of Islam - New York Times

Turkish, Muslim educators, like a "Muslim Peace Corps", are working in Pakistan to create a less radical curriculum for Islamic education. This new model seems to be based in Turkish Sufism. A good thing! However, some are suspect that this is a Turkish attempt to force Ottoman-style control over the Muslim world. Well, Turkish Sufism seems a far better option then what exists now!

CampusProgress.org | Five Minutes With Nir Rosen

2008-05-02T11:51:00.000-07:00

CampusProgress.org | Five Minutes With Nir RosenAt this point, Nir Rosen doesn’t have much hope. As someone who has traveled extensively in Iraq, Rosen is one of a handful of Western journalists familiar with the on-the-ground conditions in the country. He says that for most Iraqis, life is worse now than it was under Sadaam Hussein. He frequently appears on television and radio—sometimes facing off with the architects of the war—to argue that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has been an absolute failure. His groundbreaking article in Rolling Stone, “The Myth of the Surge,” chronicled the lawlessness beyond the gated-off Green Zone of the American forces. His recent book details the violent civil war that has emerged in Iraq between various sects and militia forces, and illustrates in harrowing detail some of the realities that the mainstream media have been unwilling to portray.

In this video interview with Campus Progress, Rosen explains how the occupation has traumatized a generation of Iraqi youth and argues that young Americans can’t help to end the war in Iraq, regardless of their good intentions.

Iraq: U.S. has no claim to oil boom -- chicagotribune.com

2008-05-02T11:50:00.000-07:00

Amazing! Our government invades a country, thrashes it, murders and brutalizes millions, rapes it's resources, and then says it's time for them to pay their own way. What a joke. We owe the Iraqi people tons of money to help them rebuild and at least get back to the stable and livable conditions we destroyed when we got rid of Sadam. The best we can do for the Iraqis is to help pay for a more competent force to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq.

Truthdig - Reports - Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran

2008-04-24T10:07:00.000-07:00

Truthdig - Reports - Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran

Of late, the Clinton campaign's Rovian tactics have really begun to bug me, but this killed any remaining respect I had for her. Her cavalier talk of using nuclear weapons is crazy and immoral and heeps more discredit on Americans.

RatTube � Fox News Gets Owned by Pro-Wright Priest

2008-04-22T17:56:00.000-07:00

Watch this vid - see a priest talk plain talk. Ah! Refreshing.

RatTube � Fox News Gets Owned by Pro-Wright Priest

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times

2008-04-21T12:27:00.000-07:00

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times

The Pentagon spreads pro-war propaganda. As if this story will get any attention!

The Three Trillion Dollar War - QnA

2008-04-17T12:44:00.000-07:00

The Three Trillion Dollar War - QnA

How much were we told the Iraq war would cost - at the most? $80 billion? Not much more than Gulf War I in the early 1990's? I've blogged and complained about the amount of money we're dumping into the Bush's Iraq War, but this is an insane amount of money. I think we owe it to the brutalized Iraqis to pay to repair what we've destroyed, but I think it should be pointed out that the republicans got us into this expensive mess.

A Responsible Plan to End the Iraq War

2008-04-16T22:17:00.000-07:00

Check out this comprehensive plan to end Bush's Iraq War (BIW). This plan, written by experts, covers all the things we'll need to do to correct the BIW tragedy. The plan is also something that can be implemented now. We don't need to wait for a new president or some other contingency. Already, several bills are before Congress that will help implement this. This plan puts an end to combat operations but doesn't desert the Iraqi people. Please take click through this banner and read the plan, sign on to it, and help get it implemented.

Here's the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY from the plan:

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Since then, nearly 4,000 American troops have lost their lives and nearly thirty thousand more have suffered serious injuries, while as many as a million Iraqis may be dead. The financial costs of the war to the U.S. economy will ultimately exceed $3 trillion.

More than a year ago, the American public demanded a new direction in Iraq by electing a new Congress, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission) presented a set of recommendations for just such a new direction. President Bush rejected the majority of those recommendations and proceeded—largely unchecked by Congress—on a course explicitly contrary to them.

Since that time, the current administration and its congressional allies have continued to use shifting rationales for extending our military involvement in Iraq with no end in sight. The American public has been presented with a set of false choices: a semi-permanent military occupation of Iraq versus a precipitous and destabilizing withdrawal. There is a deepening public desire for a new path forward
and a cohesive military, diplomatic, and economic strategy that will end the war in Iraq while protecting American interests.

There are two strategic questions raised by our current dilemma:

1. How do we bring American military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end? There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq.

2. How do we prevent a repeat of the mistakes we’ve made? The breakdown of checks and balances in our government led to bad decision-making which damaged America’s national security. Ending this war and preventing future situations like it requires that we restore these Constitutional checks and balances and fix the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us. Discussions of Iraq in the media have focused almost entirely on military operations and issues, but any real solution will require us to look at a broader set of problems. Beyond redeploying our troops, we must place equal importance on applying the full arsenal of non-military tools at our disposal. The American public must also re-engage in the discussions and decision-making about how to proceed.

What follows is a series of objectives that, taken together, refocus our current military involvement in the region while repairing damage to the U.S. to prevent a repeat of our mistakes. We have included some sample legislation currently in Congress to show that these objectives have been identified and can be addressed given sufficient political will. We have also included recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission published in the Iraq Study Group Report. In some cases, no existing legislation or clear recommendations exist and new authorizing legislation plus careful planning would be required.

Supporters of this document have committed to these objectives. The American people do not need to wait for a new Congress and new administration to pursue this agenda: public pressure on our current elected officials to act can help us move in the right direction even before January 2009, when we hope a new presidential administration and a new Congress will avail themselves of the opportunity to address A RESPONSIBLE PLAN TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

The great challenges we face as a nation. We are aware that facts on the ground will change moving forward, and the legislation is included just to show that a responsible end to the war is possible given the political will.

As circumstances on the ground change, what is required of our response may change as well; consequently, we will be updating information on this and other legislation at www.responsibleplan.com.

End U.S. military action in Iraq:

There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and removing all of our troops from Iraq.

Using U.S. diplomatic power:

Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq’s neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.

Addressing humanitarian concerns:

The humanitarian crisis caused by Iraq’s situation is destabilizing to the region and damaging to America’s moral credibility. We must both take responsibility for the Iraqis who are now endangered because of their assistance to the U.S. and begin to address the regional problems of displaced Iraqis.

Restoring our Constitution:

Many mistakes were made in the course of this war, and our systems of checks and balances have failed us at critical moments. To prevent repeating those mistakes, we must repair the underlying Constitutional framework of our republic and provide checks to executive authority.

Balance must be restored between the executive and the judicial branch (for instance through the restoration of habeas corpus), between the executive and the legislative branch (for instance through clarifying that the President does not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally alter legislation through signing statements), and between the executive and the people of the United States (for instance by clarifying that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and a warrant for the government to spy on Americans).

Restoring our military:

Repairing the damage done to our military will require reforms in contracting procedures, restoring benefits for members of the military and veterans, and investment in repairing or replacing damaged military equipment.

The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.

The safety of our men and women in uniform requires that we adhere to international standards with respect to treatment of prisoners. We must also make it clear that the United States does not torture, and that we do not send people to other places to be tortured, either.

The military is having substantial difficulty with recruiting and retention; we could begin to help by delivering on more of the promises the original Montgomery G.I. Bill made and by delivering on our promises regarding healthcare for veterans.

Restoring independence to the media:

The consolidation of our news media into the control of a relatively few corporateentities stifled a full and fair discussion and debate around Iraq. A more robust debate could be encouraged by expanding access to media.

Creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy:

Finally, we are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons.

Bush's War - Some Results

2008-04-16T22:02:00.000-07:00

Its not easy to find news about the Iraq War from the Iraq War. It becomes some abstract intellectual discussion. Mental masturbation. Abstract words severed from their context.

It's nice to see a news organization actually doing some news about Iraq. Here's a little piece I've come across that shows some of the results of Bush's Iraq War.

Record Day of Global Protest Disappeared

2008-04-02T13:12:00.000-07:00

It was amazing! On Februrary 15, 2003 we marched on the streets of Los Angeles with tens of thousands. But we weren't alone. On that day, millions took to the streets around the world to protest the onrush to war with Iraq.

The people were ignored.

The actual number of protesters was consistently underreported by the press. And now, over five years later, the New York Times has ommitted this day from it's timeline of events leading up to the Iraq War.

Read more >>

Frontline: Bush's War

2008-04-01T22:42:00.000-07:00

On the fifth anniversary of Bush's Iraq War - here's an excellent 4 1/2 hour documentary that puts all the pieces of the Iraq War together quite nicely.

Bush's War
(link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/)

Zinn - "Empire or Humanity?"

2008-04-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

Watch "Empire or Humanity? What the Classroom Didn't Teach Me about the American Empire," an animated video, based on Howard Zinn's new cartoon book, A People's History of American Empire, with voiceover by Viggo Mortensen, adapted from a Zinn essay posted at Tomdispatch.com. (To read the unabridged essay "Empire or Humanity?" go to Tomdispatch.com.)

Condi and the Boys - The New York Review of Books

2008-03-25T22:15:00.000-07:00

Condoleezza Rice, as a key player in the Bush administration, she was a key failing point on 9/11, and the never ending Iraq War. Who is she? What makes her tick?

Elisabeth Bumiller's new book, Condoleezza Rice: An American Life, exposes Condi for the inept leader that she is and the disservice she's done for the United States.

Bumiller observes:

It was obvious from Rice's many metamorphoses that her real ideology was not idealism or realism or defending the citadels of freedom, although she displayed elements of all of them. Her real ideology was succeeding.

The ongoing exclusion of war opponents from the Iraq debate - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

2008-03-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

The ongoing exclusion of war opponents from the Iraq debate - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Defending Cheney, Perino Says Americans ‘Had Input’ On Iraq War In 2004

2008-03-21T13:06:00.000-07:00

To my foreign friends and confused Americans -

If you think we live in a democracy where American citizens have some input to their government - well, think again. Here's further evidence to show how little what Americans think matters to our ruling elite. So, while most Americans want to end the Iraq War, our second highest "elected" official, doesn't care what we think.

Read more here>> Think Progress � Blog Archive � Defending Cheney, Perino Says Americans ‘Had Input’ On Iraq War In 2004

Rousseau had it right when he said: "The English think they are free. They are free only during the election of members of parliament."

The Iraq Follies

2008-03-14T12:04:00.000-07:00

Eighteen things you've already forgotten about the media's flawed coverage of Iraq.

The Iraq Follies

Nir Rosen: The Myth of the Surge

2008-03-12T14:11:00.000-07:00

Here's the teaser:

Hoping to turn into allies, U.S. forces are arming Iraqis who fought the insurgents. But it's already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq.

Read: The Myth of the Surge

The Cost of a Week in Hell

2008-03-04T09:58:00.000-08:00

From TomDispatch.com:

How far off were they? Well, it depends on which figure you choose to start with. Here's the range: According to key officials in the Bush administration back in 2002-2003, the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq was either going to cost $60 billion, or $100-$200 billion. Actually, we can start by tossing that top figure out, since not long after Bush economic advisor Larry Lindsey offered it in 2002, he was shown the door, in part assumedly for even suggesting something so ludicrous.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz championed the $60 billion figure, but added that much of the cost might well be covered by Iraqi oil revenues; the country was, after all, floating on a "sea of oil." ("To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he told a congressional hearing.) Still, let's take that $60 billion figure as the Bush baseline. If economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes are right in their recent calculations and this will turn out to be more than a $3 trillion war (or even a $5-7 trillion one), then the Bush administration was at least $2,940,000,000,000 off in its calculations.

That definitely qualifies as a ballpark figure for an administration that never saw a budget estimate for one of its imperial dreams that it couldn't hike. Take just one of its major "reconstruction" projects: getting the vast U.S. embassy staff out of a former palace of Saddam Hussein and into a brand-new, almost Vatican-sized "embassy," a genuine mother ship, being built from the ground up inside Baghdad's heavily fortified (and often heavily shelled) Green Zone. Originally scheduled to open in mid-2007, what will undoubtedly be the largest "diplomatic" mission on the planet was initially budgeted for $592 million. Predictably, its price tag soared another $144 million, and now comes in at $736 million, as yet unopened. In December 2007, the State Department officially certified it "substantially complete," but, as with most Bush administration construction projects in that country, it remains in a state of staggering unreadiness; two of the State Department employees who worked on it are now "under criminal investigation"; and the State Department is dragging its feet about handing over relevant documents to Congress. Ho-hum. Read more >>

Think Progress � HBO Agrees To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ After Discovery Drops It For Being Too ‘Controversial’

2008-02-25T13:06:00.000-08:00

Think Progress � HBO Agrees To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ After Discovery Drops It For Being Too ‘Controversial’

Discovery Censors Taxi to the Dark Side

2008-02-16T08:18:00.000-08:00

Taxi to the Dark Side is a documentary that focuses on torture perpetrated by American military agaisnt a taxi driver who died in custody. The film also examines U.S. torture policy. This Academy Award nominated film was picked up by the Discovery Channel and was to be broadcast in February 2008. Unfortunately, Discovery has decided never to show the film due to its controversial subject matter.

The Discovery Channel bought the U.S. television distribution rights for “Taxi” after it won the top prize at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival. Gibney was assured by Discovery Channel executives that they were committed to the film and to giving it a prominent broadcast.

Yet Discovery changed its tune when company executives raised fears that airing a controversial film would jeopardize the company’s upcoming public offering. The Discovery Channel, which still controls U.S. broadcast rights, has indicated that it will keep the film off the air unless it can sell the rights for a profit.

Gibney, also the director of “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” told Reel Progress in an interview that very little of this kind of corporate behavior shocks him, but he is “surprised that a network that touts itself as a supporter of documentaries would be so shamelessly craven. This is a film that, in an election year, is of critical interest to the viewing public. What Discovery is doing is tantamount to political censorship.” Read more >>

What a shame. Again the public good is trumped by corporate greed.

Lancet Study Defended

2008-02-16T07:37:00.000-08:00

Back in 2006 I blogged about the Lancet Study which claimed that around 655,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of George W. Bush's Iraq War. I continued to blog last November about the continuing rise of war dead as a reminder to myself of the horrible cost of this war. The ugly reality of this study, that we Americans are mass killers, was ignored by mass media and criticized. Now, the author commissioned to write the Lancet Study attacks the National Journal and the Wall Street Journal and calls their criticism a "hatchet job," fraudulent and based on innuendo.

Here's a reminder about the Lancet Study from the author:

As an academic interested in the war’s violence, I commissioned a household survey in October 2005 to gauge mortality, and I naturally turned to the best professionals available—the Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists who had conducted such surveys before in Iraq, Congo, and elsewhere. Their survey of 1,850 households resulted in a shocking number: 600,000 dead by violence in the first 40 months of the war. The survey was extensively peer reviewed and published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2006.

His findings quickly faded from sight and were ignored. But more studies back up what the Lancet Study uncovered:

ORB found more than one million dead through August 2007. Yet another, a much larger house-to-house survey was conducted by the Iraq Ministry of Health (MoH). This also found a sizable mortality figure—400,000 “excess deaths” (the number above the pre-war death rate), but estimated 151,000 killed by violence. The period covered was the same as the survey published in The Lancet, but was not released until January 2008.

All of this information is hidden by American media and ridiculed by the right-wing. While the media failed to report on the findings, it did report the criticism on these findings.

The attack, by reporters Carl Cannon and Neil Munro, which was largely built on persistent complaints of two critics and heaps of innuendo, was largely ignored—its circulation is only about 10,000—until the Wall Street Journal picked up on one bit of their litany: that “George Soros” funded the survey. “The Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers,” said the January 9, 2008, editorial (titled “The Lancet’s Political Hit”) and concluded: “the Lancet study could hardly be more unreliable.” The editorial created sensation in the right-wing blogosphere and in several allied news outlets.

Read the full text here >>