I'm worried

If Bush's poll numbers keep sagging, if the economy continues in the tank and the war in Iraq rages on, we're in for a hell of an October surprise. It might take more than the "capture" of bin Laden. Karl Rove may have to bomb a couple of cities first.

Really.

Economic recovery?

A pitiful increase in jobs (32,000), a drop in real wages, a huge decrease in consumer spending--these figures dominate the economic reality in America. The stock market, which has stumbled to new lows for 2004, knows that we're going backwards.

And yet the Wall Street pundits say "the economy is growing," "corporate earnings are strong," and so forth. Bottom line: consider the sources. Those who are telling us that "things are getting better" have a stake in making us believe that. Republicans and businessmen who want Bush re-elected, and Wall Street types who are hoping we'll keep investing in the market so they can gain commissions.

Fact is, only the rich are getting richer in Bush's economy. The rest of us are floating on an outgoing tide or are drowning.

Now wait a minute, Rummie

I thought this war was different from Viet Nam in this particular at least. Didn't you say, "We don't do body counts"?

Well, now, apparently, we do.

Here we go again

Iraqi Cleric al-Sadr, through a spokesman, has called on his militia to revolt against the Iraqi interim government, which, through the local governor, apparently attempted to occupy Najav, Sadr's base. It looks like the US troops have been involved in putting down the rebellion, with several injured and one killed.

So here it is, just as feared, our troops engaged on one side of an internal civil war in Iraq. Oh boy.

Battleground Arizona

This website charts ongoing stats in pre-ordained "battleground states," which, however, does not include Arizona. Apparently, the webgurus believe that Arizona is solidly in the Republican column, as it has been for many presidential elections, going back two decades.
True, both Senators are Republicans: Kyle, a hidebound conservative and McCain, a renegade. The Representatives, too, are largely Republicans, but the state is traditionally Democrat-dominated, as is the governor's position.

But now, the state's a toss-up in the Kerry/Bush race, according to the most recent statewide poll, taken before the Democratic Convention.

Here's my question: Should I remove myself back to my long-established residency in Arizona for a few months, register to vote there and devote my activism to that state? Since California appears to be solidly in the Kerry column, isn't that the sensible thing to do? Isn't it what any committed activist would do, particularly in light of Arizona's ten electoral votes, more than battleground states Nevada and New Mexico?

Happy days are here again...

The US Army's at war with al-Sadr's Shiites in Najaf, with the Sunnis in Fallujah, with miscellaneous attackers in Baghdad, all while the Brits in Basra are being shot at too. "Interin Prime Minister" Alawi is being described (by NYT's reporter, John Burns, on the phone to PBS) as the "mayor" of a tiny portion of Iraq, unable to control anything beyond what the US troops control--and that's not much.

Afghanistan is a mess--a warlord-governed, opium-dominated nation--with Osama still at large, and he's got hundreds of lieutenants.

Meanwhile back in the USSA, wages are in the tank and layoffs are on the rise. We're under sustained terror alerts, and they're being disdained. The president is on the defensive on all fronts.

Recent Republican ads attacking Kerry are so vitriolic that there are calls that Bush disavow them (and he has done so, but half-heartedly), the polls are shifting in Kerry's favor, and a majority of the US public have come to disbelieve the repeated "alerts" of terrorism in the US.

Look, I'm no saint. I admit that calling the foregoing analysis, "Happy Days" is cynical. Worse.

But I'm no hypocrite when it comes to this: I want Bush out of the White House. His presidency demeans me, is personal affront to me as an American. And if it means that I applaud sustained misery so that it leads to his ouster, so be it. Sue me.

In case you were keeping score,

in addition to the several nations that have withdrawn, or will soon be withdrawing their troops from Iraq, Kofi Annan has reported that no nations will be contributing soldiers to the occupation of Iraq, despite his call for UN members to do so.

A reaction please?

to this article about the three-year sentence given to a US soldier for shooting an unarmed, handcuffed Iraqi civilian in the back of the head. Am I alone in my sense of outrage?

I'm getting tired of this, really tired

Who writes these headlines? "Slight Bounce for Kerry--Poll shows Kerry gained limited support after DNC [convention]." That's how ABC/WaPo led its recent article about its latest polling numbers, released today.

When you read the entire article and the poll numbers themselves (ABC's own poll, recall!) they show a remarkable turnaround in the numbers, but these are buried in the closing paragraphs of the story. For example, on questions such as who's a better leader on the vital campaign issues such as Iraq, the "war on terror", the economy and health insurance, Kerry's gains on Bush between the week before the convention and the week after are +14 points, +15, +16, +16, respectively, so that Kerry leads Bush in all categories except the "terror" issue, and on that question the numbers have changed from Bush 55, Kerry 37 prior to the convention to Bush 48, Kerry 45 after. Bush's biggest issue, everyone says, is "terror", and now it appears Kerry has nearly caught him on that question. (ABC's online article doesn't display the numbers in their entirety. They may be found here.)

I imagine how frustrating this inaccurate reportage must be to Kerry himself; because it's driving me nuts.

Neocons in a nutshell

This book review of a treatise by two conservative authors distills the role and power of the neocons in influencing Bush's decision to invade Iraq. If ever there were a question whether Bush should be removed from office--and these radicals tossed into the "dustbin of history"--it is answered here. Four more years of this policy and we might not have a succeeding four.

I'm just wondering

why Kerry/Edwards aren't teeing off on the Halliburton/Cheney financial outrages in Iraq. Is there a skeleton in some closet somewhere? I mean, one issue about Iraq that I think would resonate with all taxpayers, even those who support Bush wholeheartedly, is waste and corruption in the expenditure of our billions in Iraq. Kerry has feinted in this direction, but hasn't so far focused on it. Why?

An incisive look at the polls

Including an analysis of Kerry's post-convention "bounce" vel non, is presented here. Its conclusion: Bush is in deep trouble.

A definitive compilation

Of Bush/Cheney's prevarications to lead the US into war in Iraq is presented here. It's worth downloading and printing out for posterity, to explain to our grandchildren "wha hoppen"?

Exactly what we don't need

is another Bush toady, beholden to him for his job and powerless to set policy and budget, with "overall responsibility" for foreign and domestic intelligence. This would be the barest effectuation of Big Brother, an unconcealed congealing of power in the single executive. Bush's critics are correct in finding his plan intolerable.

But neither they, nor Kerry, are taking on this major issue in dealing with terrorism. We are under attack by a specific (but now gaining more generalized, because of Bush's weird, irrational armed reaction to 9/11) batch of people, with very specific complaints and objectives. Our century-long support of repressive regimes in the Middle East, in furtherance of our oil interests in the region; our unbridled support for Israel's policies; our constant intervention in military terms and the rape of their natural resources, without due compensation to those (other than a few sheiks) who own them. And on and on.

Isn't there someone who's listening? Doesn't anybody see that "terrorists" are attacking their enemy in the only way they can--at the cost of the lives of innocent civilians--because of our overwhelming military might?

We bombed and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Germans and Japanese during World War Two, especially at the end in the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, and on and on, to bring the totalitarian regimes to their knees by influencing the populace through the terror of the aerial attack, made without discrimination, with murderous results. (Check out this discussion of our atomic bombing of Japan). They're doing the same thing now, and the only way they'll relent if the causes of their fury are addressed by our leaders.

Okay, I'll get off the soapbox now.

It doesn't get any better than this

This essay by former CIA operative Ray McGovern critiquing the 9-11 commission's proposed solutions to the defects in the "war on terror" is dead on. Particularly McGovern's remarks at the end of the piece:

...treating merely the symptoms of terrorism is quixotic; ... the soil and roots of terrorism must be dug and uncovered; ... as the 9/11 report acknowledges in a very subdued way, it is Washington’s strong and uncritical bias toward Israel and its invasion of Iraq that produce the long lines at Al Qaeda recruiting stations; ... our current approach to defeating terrorism by trying to kill all the terrorists is akin to trying to eradicate malaria by shooting as many mosquitoes as possible; [and] moving the intelligence director’s chair one deck higher on the Titanic holds no promise.

They will stop at nothing

So now, two days later, it is learned that the "specific, credible" terror alert about the financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, was based on information that was three or four years old.

I've long predicted an October surprise, but am now a believer in a series of fall surprises, timed to deflate any rise in the polls by the Democratic candidates. The Republicans will resort to a single, monstrous crime (as opposed to a series of mini-monstrous crimes) only if the latter fail to ensure Bush's election.

Job squeeze

CNN is reporting today that the lost jobs in the United States are being replaced by lower-paying jobs, and that layoffs are at their highest rate ever. I have two reactions. First is, it's about time this obvious phenomenon was recognized by the mass media. The second is, I'm surprised it actually has been.

Maybe CNN had to report it, since the underlying article appeared in the Gray Lady.

For a catalog of Bush's prevarications about the state of the nation's economy, check out this article.

Democracy?

U.S. forces arrest an editor of a dissident newspaper in Iraq, they surround a dissident cleric's home and arrest his underlings. What the hell are we doing there?

Trouble in the Old Pueblo

Tucson, Az, my old home town had a visitor yesterday. Dick Cheney of Bush/Cheney fame. And, as always, bigotry and fear accompanied him. His staff, apparently, always asks for the name and social security information of local news personnel who are covering the Vice President, and they did so of an Arizona Daily Star staffer/photograher whose name was Momta Popat.
When the Cheney staff then asked the Star to supply further information on the "race" of that staffer, the editor, to its credit, refused.
Cheney's folks relented, it seems, but ask this: What, besides the Middle Eastern sound to the photographer's name, was at issue in this flap?

Whaaat?

The Bush administration has changed US policy about inspection provisions of a nuclear nonproliferation treaty? Not to insist on them, but to the contrary, to resist them? Are they nuts?

Well, duh.

Greenspan's joviality revisited

From the Forex news of 7/30/04, commenting on the soft Gross Domestic Product report today:

Despite the incompleteness of the advanced GDP report, the figures offer a sobering account of the softening in economic activity as consumers feel the impact of escalating oil prices and fading tax stimulus. The report should prod market participants to reassess Greenspan’s jovial appraisal of the US economy, upon which the recent dollar rally was largely founded. While this will not bar the Fed from raising rates, it means softer growth ahead, which is a negative combination of the economy and the dollar.

Kerry, Kerry, Kerry

I just watched John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.  He was superb in both delivery and content. Yeah, he said some things I didn't like, but not many and not without equivocation.  I rated his performance--and that was what it was, a performance--an "A" and I'm going to support him, if not wholeheartedly at least half-heartedly.     

I'm enjoying contemplating the discomfiture that Karl Rove must be feeling tonight.

It's the lack of wage growth, stupid

The profits of corporations are soaring, while federal income taxes on them and on wealthy individuals (whose income--capital gains from stock and realty ownership, dividends, interest--aren't largely derived from sources that are subject to the onerous payroll taxes) are declining.
Meanwhile, the wages of middle class Americans aren't growing at all, and are in fact declining in real terms, when measured against rising inflation.
This factor, it is to be noted, is further reflected in the components of the cost of production. As can be seen, the wage factor has remained flat, with all increases of employee costs being caused not by wage increases but by higher costs of benefits, which means, of course, increased payments to insurance companies and HMOs.
This is what the Democrats are calling the "wage squeeze," and it's not just political rhetoric. Borrowing, not just on second-mortgages but on credit cards, is at an all-time high.  For the vast majority of American wage-earners, the impossibility of meeting rising debt obligations with flat incomes, is a sad, stark reality.  It's this message I hope Kerry hammers on in his speech at the Democratic Convention in a few minutes. 

Anybody but Bush?

Yeah, despite the troubling (deeply troubling) allegations of this article in CounterPunch, I'm supporting Kerry. I gotta tell ya, though, Kerry could be as big a fraud as Bush/Cheney, and his international politics aren't much better.

Maybe he's a bastard. But he's our bastard.

Uh, oh

"A cauldron of violence." That's how some describe what Iraq will turn into if neighboring arabic nations send forces to assist that country's "security." Can you imagine troops from France, Mozambique and Korea standing on our street corners, enforcing a curfew in, say, South Central LA?

More than abuse, more than torture

Too bad there weren't cameras rolling when our soldiers tossed this Iraqi off a bridge to his death. Apparently, unless somebody has a cameraphone handy, murder doesn't make the news.

Trying my patience

I've been watching the Democratic Convention and CNN's interviews with politicians in the aftermath of Wednesday's speeches. I'm watching Lieberman and Biden and other standard politicians spin their positions, with a sickening effect.

I hate this. I'm going to hold my nose bigtime to support this ticket, and maybe hold other parts of my anatomy too.

Democracy in the "New Iraq"

The interim PM of Iraq has created a commission to approve news media restrictions, and to censor newscasts from Iraq.

This completes the outrage. No WMD's; no more Saddam; and now, no democracy in Iraq. We've now officially run out of reasons for subjecting our soldiers to death and injury in Iraq. They've now just become Allawi's Gestapo.

Now, wait a little doggone minute

As I understand it, the federal court decision upholding the restriction of demonstrators to a pre-selected "protest area" at the Democratic convention in Boston was reluctant, and based solely on the over-riding concern about "security."

I don't agree with that decision, of course, but it surely doesn't authorize the removal of a sign-carrying demonstrator from the convention floor itself. The demonstrator was a certified delegate, a former candidate for vice-president on the Green Party ticket, I believe. Her removal was based on the content of her message, not because of "security" considerations. Mayor Daley would be proud.

On the road

I've been up in the Sierra Nevadas for the last several days, to return to SB later this week. I must say, being out of touch with the craziness that's going on in the world is, to say the least, pleasant.

I'll return to the unpleasantness soon.

Rumors not abounding after all

The story about Alawi's summary execution of prisoners hasn't been picked up by the US media, notes a Pakistan paper.

Newsweek Online buries the story in a "tough guy" evaluation of Allawi. Doesn't this piece make the US product of democracy in Iraq sound hauntingly like the US installation of a puppet, tough-guy dictator who owes his existence and wellbeing to US support?

A legitimate question

These Iraqi prisoners have a legitimate question, don't they? If their country has "full sovereignty" why can't they have access to Iraqi courts?

Verrry interesting

A Sunni cleric declares Jihad against American soldiers, calling on his followers to drive them out of Iraq.

Does Allawi, the interim PM, concur in the US troops taking action against the cleric? Would he do so, since the cleric is the same religion, a Sunni, as the PM. Or does he allow the cleric's fiat to stand? If so, what does Rummi do when one of his troops is killed?

Correction: Allawi is a Shiite, which may explain why he's so agreeable to repeated US attacks on Fallujah, a Sunni-dominated city. The latest attack killed 14 persons, injured scores, and was described by the US authorities as being a targeted strike on insurgent forces, while the Sunni mayor of Fallujah said it killed only policemen who'd been trained by the US to take over security in the city after the US marines withdrew in May.

What a nightmare.

Rumors abounding?

This report by a reputable Australian daily, complete with names and dates, sure sounds like more than a "rumor," as the US ambassador to Iraq has called it. And if it's true, it confirms that our puppet PM in Iraq is a cold-blooded murderer.

The last gimmick

It looks like the Bush "economic recovery" is over. The last gimmick, the supposed tax rebate (actually, just tax-refund checks that are more than overborne by increases in other family expenses) has dissipated; the debt-inducing low interest rates on home refinances are sliding upward; and personal credit-card indebtedness is maxed out and also subject to increasing rates. Bush has therefore run out of the unreality-based economic gadgets and is now left with this reality: He's spending money on arms and on security like there's no tomorrow (pun intended); he's cut taxes on corporations and on individuals to the bone; he's chopped all he can from federal programs; and guess what: The US is broke and can't get foreign governments to lend us the trillions we need any more.

So, with 100 days left before the election, Bush is left with only this prayer: Oh please don't let the bubble burst as soon as it's likely to.

Michael Moore

I'm watching CNN's analysis of the effect of Fahrenheit 911 on the presidential race and I forgot this statistic. While only 8% of likely voters, says a CNN poll, have so far seen the movie in a theater, and these are apparently mostly "the faithful," there's another large percent who plan to see it soon and an even larger percent who plan to rent it when it goes to DVD, which will happen in about six weeks, just in time for the Republican convention. According to CNN, the total of these percentages is 56%, which happens to nearly total the non-Bush-base of voters.

Good timing, Michael.

Bush defends war

Bush said:, "Because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer."

Now he's saying that war in Iraq was good, because it showed other countries that we're serious. He is exactly the kind of bully we've been saying he is, all along. Unbelievable.

Here's a new one

Erik has addressed the possibilities of an October Surprise and that Bush may replace Cheney on the ticket. I suppose there are any number of ways that they could throw some shit in the game, so to speak. But here's one I've never considered. According to the BBC, the cabal is looking at the possibility of postponing the election altogether, if we're attacked. In other words, does this mean another Al-Queda attack would be politically convenient for the incumbants?

The plot thickens, huh?

Yeah, I'm a whore

My concurence with this piece in the LA Times, added to my confession in a previous post (John-John vs. Bush-Dick, July 7), completes my abdication (for limited purposes) of my rad/lib credentials. I fear/despise Bush/Cheney so much that I don't care what Kerry/Edwards do or say between now and November 2. They've got my support and my activism as fervently as do Bush/Cheney retain the support of true conservatives, who, despite their misgivings about the administration's neocon madness are, like me, going to "hold their noses while voting."

How Kerry/Edwards can win in a landslide

Soros and Ted Turner pool some serious money to stage a massive Nascar event during the entire day of Tuesday, 11/2/04, perhaps calling it the Election Day Special> Sponsor: Budweiser, of course. The telecast of the event ends at 5:30 and is followed immediately by a second telecast entitled, "World Series of Female Mudwrestling," or something, that lasts until the polls are closed in all states except those in the Pacific Time Zone (which, I think, are Democratic "safe" states).

Seriously, in my months of marching and demonstrating, I've noted nothing remarkable about the demographics of fervent Bush/Cheney supporters, but I've noted how remarkably solid they are, almost absolute: Thirty-plus to forty-plus white males driving powerful, large vehicles.

So, we liberals merely spend the few millions required to immobilize these men on election day. And the grand immobilizer? TV, of course. And the fodder on the tube? Nascar and mudwrestling.

I'm open to refinement, of course. But I really think I'm on to something here.

Fly on the wall

I would love to overhear the meetings between Rove and Bush on the prospect of bumping Cheney off the ticket (by manufacturing a sudden onset of heart palpitations), in order to replace him with a man who can guarantee Bush's victory, i.e., Colin Powell. (Scroll down to see the dramatic switch of poll numbers when Powell is added to Bush's ticket.)

Also, I'd love to hear the phonecall between Cheney and his physician when Cheney tells him how is heart is palpitating and complaining that he can't continue as Veep because of the ongoing pressure and the obligation he has to the American people to be fit enough to assume those duties.

Believe me, fans, Cheney's going to have an "event" in the next two months. In George Tenet's words, "It's a slam dunk."

Exhausted

I'm getting tired, very tired, of following the pre-election course and the ongoing outrages of the Bush regime. I weary of reading, much less blogging about, the various reports of defects and evildoings of our legislators and executives.

This time in American history is so urgently important that my pitiful musings and writings, as well as my marching and protesting, feel silly. Not just ineffective, but worse: I feel that the true "opiate of the people" is that which is spread by the cynical falsehood that we as individuals can do anything about the monolithic forces that are running (ruining) our nation and the world; and that I have swallowed a dose of that opiate.

Summer in Iraq

For you sadists, here's a site that tracks the weather in Baghdad daily.

It's going to cool down to the lower hundred-teens in the next few days. Today's high? 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Do Veeps Matter?

This oft-asked question needs to be broken down a bit. Matter to the pundits? Of course. They need daily fodder for their articles, and so we're being inundated with Cheney and Edwards stories, pro and con. Matter to the voters? Maybe not, most years. But it's possible that in the cases of Mondale/Ferraro and Gore/Lieberman, where a woman and a Jew were the candidates, maybe.

This year, it's possible that Edwards could help Kerry because he's so different, in every dimension, from Cheney. He's young, vital, populist, attractive, persuasive and so on, while Cheney's the opposite, bigtime. Indeed, during the week Edwards was chosen the rumors of a move to drop Cheney from the Republican ticket have resurfaced.

Daily Iraq

This site posts, in quick summary, the daily happenings in Iraq, with emphasis on the violence, preceding each item with Bush's quote,"Bring 'em on."

It's presently a day--and five more US soldiers' deaths--behind.

John-John vs. Bush-Dick

My reaction to Kerry's choice for Veep is surprisingly favorable, given that I'm a peacenik, and neither of these candidates shares my view of our need to withdraw our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo, in this essay in which he favorably critiques a new film, Hijacking Catastrophe, has nailed me perfectly. I'm so driven to get rid of Bush/Cheney that I'm able to forget that the Democratic candidates are really no better then they are on the war issue. I suppose my only justification, besides the obvious, is this: What else can I do?

Four more Marines

Three were killed yesterday, and four more today. And not a whisper of these deaths on the news. It seems that the "turnover" has led to a turnoff by the US media.

Group website claims ...

I've been wondering something lately. Below is an article at Aljazeera which says that certain savage terrorists in Iraq claim they haven't actually cut a captive Marine's head off, yet. And they claim this through their Web site. My question is this:

Why do such articles, which refer to Web sites of terrorists, never provide a link or the URL of the supposed Web site? The Aljazeera article isn't just about the group's denial, but specifically about their Web site's denial. And I can't find the Web site with Google. How do we know it even exists?

I'm just curious what such a Web site would look like, not that I expect it to be in English for my convenience. I mean, how much effort to they put into the interface, the aesthetics, presentation? Do they maybe have some nifty mouse-over before-and-after photos of blown up bystanders? A nice coat of arms, crossed-sabres over a field of camelshit rampant?

Just wondering.

Aljazeera.Net - Group website claims US marine beheaded: "Ansar al-Sunna"

Amnesty for insurgents?

Ya gotta love it. If the interim government in Iraq grants amnesty to those who've resisted the Bush occupation, it will drive the Limbaughs and the Savages and the Michael Reagans absolutely nuts. I wouldn't be surprised if we have riots in the streets of middle America. Not surprised at all. Delighted.

"We're not Saddam"

That's the mantra of Rummie and Wolfie, when confronted with the prisoner-abuse photos. Well, now it turns out that our military has killed suspects during interrogation, one by stuffing him in a sleeping bag and suffocating him, another by shoving him off a bridge.

And the investigations have just begun.

The grand manipulation

For a well-written exposition of how we were tricked into attacking Iraq, check out this article by a Frenchman, of course.

A bitter pill

I feel so sorry for the Iraqis. I've read post after post on their blogs expressing hope for a new and democratic Iraq, free from terror and violence, governed by the people. And yet we know, because Bush has proudly told us, that Iraq is a haven for terrorists, that it's better to fight them there than in the US, and that he wants to "bring 'em on" in Iraq.

So, we've created in Iraq a battleground for the terrorists, and then have told the Iraqis to govern it, to seek peace and freedom in a battleground we've created out of their nation.

If I were a citizen of that nation, I would be hurling more than epithets at the US. And I wouldn't have much hope.

Ooops

Seems like the Iraqis are taking this sovereignty thing a bit too seriously, whipping and abusing criminal suspects. It seems the US isn't quite finished intervening in Iraq's internal affairs after all.

Not with a bang, not with a whimper

But with a thud, the "turnover of sovereignty" takes place in a hasty, secret meeting, with Bremer on a plane home to the US two hours later.

What a public relations coup for Bush!

And of course the arabs aren't fooled, not for a minute. They've been down this road before. There are still foreign tanks in the streets of Baghdad, and that's what counts.

Iraq Returned to Self-Rule Two Days Early

Cool! Now all our surviving troops can come home and carry on protecting us from real dangers, right? Heh heh. I amuse myself.

Yahoo! News

Right on, Reaganites

Former international experts under Reagan speak out and have authored a book pillorying the neocons, Wolfowitz, Rummie, Pearle, Cheney, et al., for their idiotic promotion of US imperialism. They take on Condi, too, calling the National Security Adviser ineffective. Their attacks from the right sound like the attacks on Bush from the left. Is there some nexus, some middle ground where these forces can meet and topple Bush?

Good for you, John

For refusing to cross the Boston Police picket line to address the US Conference of Mayors. You showed some class, adhering to your mantra that you don't cross picket lines, even though it cost you a political opportunity to spread your message about aid to the cities. Sticking to your ideals in spite of sacrifice is right on, bro.

Finally

a mainstream publication, WaPo, has discovered that which we bloggers have pointed out long ago, that Tribune Bremer has tried to tie the hands of the interim government in Iraq with a detailed and lengthy series of edicts and appointments that purport to bind Iraq for years into the future. Will there be any fallout from this revelation, in the US or in Iraq? Probably not. This is how an empire works, with impunity, without opposition, regardless of how hypocritical it is.

A Parting Shot

This is how Knight-Ridder News Service reports the upcoming handover event:

Ordinary Iraqis can watch the ceremonies live on television, provided electricity is working in their power-starved neighborhoods. But there are still no details on where or when the events will take place. Iraqis inside the new leadership, meanwhile, are bracing for attacks and more criticism that they are simply a proxy government for their former occupiers.


"It'll be nice," one incoming Iraqi official said sarcastically when asked to describe the ceremonies. "Our new ministers will take an oath that'll go, `I swear by almighty God to be faithful to the United States and its Republican administration."


While the civilian occupation will dissolve, the U.S. military remains firmly in place. The patrols, checkpoints and tanks that have become part of Iraq's postwar landscape aren't going anywhere.

Off to Sonora

I'm taking a few days off from blogging, visiting my family in Tucson. A bit of bad news (among all the other bad news): Someone stole my protest sign. It's a big deal, kinda, because it was an ornate, two-sided sign, made of white panel-board that allowed me to overwrite slogans, changing them as events demanded. My last slogans were, "Hey,Hey, USA, How many soldiers died today?" and "Take Back America. Re-defeat Bush/Cheney."

I hope whoever stole it is a progressive who'll make good use of it. Hey, I may even spot it at a peace rally one of these days.

Sovereignty lite

Apparently, Iraq will have to make do without a military force, without armor or artillery. That much sovereignty, the US says, is too much.

Nice Mouth, Mr. Vice President!

F**k yourself,' said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Says the Washington Post, "...Even if the Senate were in session, the vice president, though constitutionally the president of the Senate, is an executive branch official and therefore free to use whatever language he likes."

Well, I'm a private citizen and also free to use any language I like. Dick Cheney is a contemptable, unmannered, self-serving dipwad who attained his position through a stolen election, the nefarious act of a politically partial Court. He should still be running Haliburton, which is where his loyalties obviously lie.

We've got to dis-appoint this cabal in November!

The handover

The June 30 date, which I'm sure the Bushies anticipated would be a fabulous photo op, with flags and trumpets and would boost Bush's ratings, will now have no such trappings, no such effect. Indeed, the pundits are saying that it could be Iraq, not the economy, that defeats him in November.

Could history be so ironic? After all of Bush's twisting and wriggling to avoid going to war in VietNam, could he become a casualty of this new war?

Clinton

I watched Clinton being interviewed by Charlie Rose and, for the first time, felt that Rose was out of his element. Too slow, too behind-the-curve, to deal with the incredibly intelligent, quick- and well-spoken Clinton. So it meant Clinton was on his own to expound his views, slightly guided by Rose, but not penetrated.

Here's what I came away with. Clinton is a business-as-usual Democrat, the very reason I voted Green in 2000. I feel sorry for Gore because Clinton's loss of principle and leadership cost Gore the election. Now I'm a Gore fan, but Clinton? Glad to see him cast into the dustbin of history. I didn't like him in office, I like him less as a has-been.

Sometimes I despair

for our world, led by powers, including the US, who are headed toward nuclear oblivion. A few voices with influence are, however, calling us to account. Good for them, and to those who listen, like Senator Ted Kennedy.

You've come a long way, Reverend

Twenty-five years ago, I defended the Moonies against charges that they brainwashed their young recruits. The Reverend Moon was thought of as a demon, later convicted after a federal trial on tax evasion charges.

Now, however, owner of the conservative newspaper The Washington Times, he's being celebrated, in fact he's being crowned, in the halls of Congress.

An historic critique

by twenty-seven former diplomats (many Republicans), calling for Bush's defeat, not only gets precious little coverage in the mainstream media, but causes Bush's approval rating to rise four points.

This is certain: Bush has hardcore support among forty-four percent of likely voters (and they will vote). Kerry has somewhat softer support among the same percent (who may vote in greater numbers this year due to Bush antipathy). To beat Bush, therefore, the undecideds must be convinced to support Kerry in a high percentage, and the pro-Kerry vote must turn out in great force.

We activists must realize we can't cause the hardcore Bush supporters to change their minds. They have no minds.

For the full text and signatories of the critique of Bush, go here.

the perfect metaphor...

Don't sniff now, but our boys are really stuck in the shit in old Baghdad.

Call me crazy

but I wonder why, if Michael Moore wants Fahrenheit 911 to "wake up the choir" to cause them to alert the blacks, the browns, the youth, and the disaffected voters to the evils of Bush and his ilk, why doesn't Moore, with financing from Soros and Turner, crank out millions of free DVDs of the movie and flood the market with them--for free? Once the distributor has made back his investment plus a decent return, the free distribution would both ensure wide dissemination and would be such a departure from traditional movie-making that it would break ground on many fronts, including the political. If Moore does this, he'll surely benefit hugely later in his life.

Iraq's new dictator

Bush/Bremer have installed a new strongman, but, to their credit, they chose one who's their dictator.

Duh

This Rasmussen poll reveals the obvious: Fox News viewers prefer Bush by a wide margin; CNN viewers prefer Kerry by a comparable margin. In other words, the biased reporting by Fox to the faithful, ie, the stupid, cancels out the somewhat less biased reporting by CNN to the somewhat less stupid. The yet less stupid, those who view PBS, prefer Kerry almost to a person; while the cretins who listen to Rush Limbaugh are Bushies, bigtime.

No figures, of course, on the alternative media, such as Pacifica or other liberal outlets.

Somewhere in the basement

of the Washington Post is a lunatic headline-writer (certainly a Republican) who writes, to capture Clinton's recent statements about the Iraq war, that "Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War but Questions Invasion's Timing."

Certainly, as the story points out, Clinton's position isn't as clear as could be, but one thing is certain: He didn't support invading Iraq but instead wanted the UN weapon-inspection process to continue. It wasn't a question of "timing" but of going to war at all--a difference of billions of dollars and thousands of human lives.

So much for full disclosure

Remember during the hearings on the Abu Ghraib torture when the witnesses in the Bush administration said that "the difference between us other governments is that we disclose our faults and will chase all leads to find out who's at fault?" Remember that?
Well, here's what it's come down to. Standard stonewalling and politics.

I smell a rat

These two paragraphs appear at the end of an article in Middle East Online.

"Amid the unrest US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the US-led invasion, and Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary at Britain's ministry of defence met Iraq's new prime minister and others in Baghdad to discuss their countries' future ties.

"The visits come as both the United States and Britain work to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the government, which is due to take limited power once the coalition hands back sovereignty at the end of the month."

A "Status of Forces Agreement" is the formal name for the contract with various nations under which the US operates it bases worldwide, including Japan, Germany, Kuwait and so forth. They are binding documents that by their terms last for decades and survive changes in government.

So--Wolfie and Rummie and Bush are trying to bamboozle Iraq (and the US and the world) into signing off on such a significant, long-term agreement as negotiated with the interim government (the one that's "completely sovereign," according to them, but not sovereign enough to take custody of Saddam, for example) before an elected government takes over, knowing that the interim government is a US stooge.

I'll check around to see if anybody else has noted this development and report back.

Update: This WaPo article says that because the interim government has agreed not to subject US troops to its local laws, a status of forces agreement isn't needed. So what's Wolfie doing in Baghdad?

Oops

Bremer funds a poll of Iraqis last month to learn what the "man in the street" thinks of us, specifically, whether they want us to leave or stay, and how they regard our troops, and so forth. It's so negative that Bremer has tried to hide the results, to no avail, however.

Never mind

If I were a member of the US military--the Marines in Fallujah, the Army in Najaf--I'd be mightily pissed off. Scores of soldiers were killed (not to mention Iraqis) from the invasions of those town, in Fallujah to capture those who killed and mutilated the four "civilian contractors," in Najaf to "capture or kill" al-Sadr for his alleged participation in the killing of a cleric. In both cases, however, the armed forces didn't complete their mission, handing responsibility over to the Iraqi "security forces" who, we're learning, aren't doing their job.

I'd hate to be the parent or kid or loved one of a soldier who lost his life or limb in those exercises, in view of the obvious fact that the incursions were called off because of the political exigencies of Bush's campaign director.

Sick, sick, sick

Language buried in the final resolution of the recent G-8 summit meeting, as it relates forgiveness of Iraq's indebtedness, contains the insidiously obtuse language quoted below. This is what it really means: We well-heeled nations will reduce portions of the debt (the debt having been incurred by Saddam, and long touted by Bush as an unfair, crippling burden on Iraq's citizens) if Iraq follows the previously-imposed "privatization" of its commerce, as called for by the International Monetary Fund; that it keeps up its payments (sustainability); and that these measures are effected by Iraq before the elected government is in place, i.e., "in 2004."

"Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation. The reduction should be provided in connection with an IMF program, and sufficient to ensure sustainability taking into account the recent IMF analysis. We will work with each other, within the Paris Club, and with non-Paris Club creditors, to achieve that objective in 2004."

Site

Tipping point

The Carl Rove machine has adopted a prophylactic defense of the president in the face of the wave of lies, errors and outrages his administration has perpetrated on the US public and the world. Their method is simple: With the arising of each new revelation an immediate staunching counterattack is launched, as with the attacks on Treasury Secretary O'Neill, intelligence chief Clark, Ambassador Wilson and so forth. Rove knows that unless immediately righted by counterattack, his ship of state will sink.

To counter Rove's plan, the attacks on Bush's lies and misdeeds must become so pervasive, so overwhelming, that finally there are too many of them to allow righting, so that the ship becomes inalterably swamped. With the new revelations of miscalculation of terrorism attacks, the condemnation of Bush by past diplomats, the ongoing prisoner-abuse scandal, the continuing deaths in Iraq and the deterioration of the status in Afghanistan--at some time, these have to weigh too heavily on Bush to allow him, even with the compliant, correcting media, to bail himself out of his self-created political debacle.

Soldier Who Robbed Bank Receives Help

I've been saying since the first hours of shock and awe that our people are going to come home traumatized.

Link

Criminal Probes of Our Troops

Give me a break. We sent them over there to kill people. We knew darn well they'd become killers.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Not Worth It!

I'll bet this is harder to swallow than that pretzel was ...

A majority of U.S. voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq and feel the United States is getting bogged down there, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published on Friday.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Can't we plant this guy?

My God, how long must we endure these egregious eulogies, these silly ceremonies, this platitudinous speechifying on Ronnie's death? If you were alive and aware during his presidency, you'd be shocked at all this piffle over his passing. I'm sure Reagan--if he's the man all these speeches say he is--is appalled.

Never mind

The earlier report by the Bush administration that terrorism is abating is, quite simply, wrong, the product of cooked books.

I'm going fucking nuts

with the ceaseless commemoratives of Reagan. That's all I can find on the news channels--hour after hour of pulp banter about his fine qualities, ignoring Iran/Contra, the multiple scandals of his administration and his unstinting retribution against those less fortunate than he. The man was no saint. He wasn't even a good person. He was an actor, and not much of one at that, who stumbled through eight mediocre years as our chief executive.

So--I decided to tune to Turner Classic Movies channel, for a respite from all the mainstream mendacity. Guess what: A series of Reagan features in honor of his death.

I'm leaving America, no shit. Be back when Carter dies.

Meanwhile, back on the ground

The Security Council passed, unanimously, the US/UK resolution on the handover of authority in Iraq. The G-8 group passed, unanimously, the US-sponsored resolution concerning democratization of the Middle East. Bush, say some pundits, is soaring with these successes. Soaring, however, is not quite the proper word to apply to the situation in Iraq, where the reality is that the violence is unabated. Apparently, the Iraqis don't know how well off they are.

Indescribable

As a writer, I'm not pleased to admit that I can't find a word--can't even find an approximation--to capture the outrage I feel upon hearing BBC's radio broadcast a moment ago of several UN Security Council members' reaction to their passage of the mealy-tongued Iraq-"self-government" resolution yesterday. The diplomats used phrases like, "recognizing the new reality," "putting the past behind us," and "coming together in the interests of Iraq's future."
So--the US/UK are forgiven. Everything is coming up roses. The thousands of dead and maimed and tortured Iraqis are forgotten, as are the young American and British troops who gave their lives and limbs for this patent violation of the UN Charter and international law. The violence we've done to the tenets of world order by the lying and intimidation we used to invade Iraq is subsumed in the slime of realpolitik. All's well that ends well. The end justifies the means.
I'll never--never--accede to such a cynical view of human governance. It's not governance at all, but an exercise in facile fakery by which those in power maintain their positions, then attempt to justify our keeping them there.
The two-year debacle we've witnessed within the United Nations (and, chiefly, without it) shows me this: Nothing has changed in the world order, or in the conduct of human affairs. We are, at base, still animals. Might, as always, makes right.

Call me insensitive, call me crass

but I'm already bored blind by remembrances of Ronald Reagan on TV during this week of mourning--and it's only Tuesday!

Crunch time

The proposed US/UK Security Council resolution on Iraq has been revised by the US four times, each time ceding more authority to Iraq's interim government, including the power to tell the US military to leave the country. Of course the US knows that that won't happen, but what might happen is that there is a disagreement between the interim government and the US Army or Marines over various military actions in Iraq.

A typical example would be the Fallujah debacle, in which the maltreatment of four "civilian" workers (read, mercenaries) led to the Marines' assault on Fallujah with hundreds dead on both sides, eventually leading to a withdrawal by the US and Fallujah in the hands of Sunni sheiks and their minions. (BTW--We never caught the Iraqis--if they were Iraqis--who killed the contractors, just as the US is pulling out of the Shiite towns without "capturing or killing" al-Sadr, which was the reason we invaded those towns.)

So, what happens if some US general, or Rummie or someone decides to launch an invasion of some segment of Iraq, perhaps on "intelligence" that al-Qaeda is lodged there or that Iranians or Syrians are sneaking in and up to no good? And, let's say, the interim government fears that such an action might end up killing hundreds of its citizens, as it might well do?

Well, as of the latest draft, we don't know. The two entities are supposed to exercise "close coordination" of such exercises.

What does that mean? Does it sound like "full sovereignty" to you?

The US/UK wants a vote on this draft Tuesday. France and Algeria are resisting, unless the above question is clarified, giving the Iraqis the power to negate any US military action. Sounds right to me, but who knows how long they can hold out against pressure from the other Security Council members, who are less strident on the subject.

Of course my dream is that just such a situation as I've described above comes to pass. The US makes a military move over the objection of the interim government and refuses to desist. The interim government appeals to the UN and/or calls out its own soldiers and the US is shown to be the warmongers that it lately has become. On Bush's watch, of course.

He who lives by the media dies by the media

Whoever planned Bush's sojourn to Europe to grab media attention around D-Day's 60th anniversary must be miffed that Ronnie chose this weekend to die. Bush's PR folks couldn't plan for this, of course, but are learning that the media are such whores that they'll cover the latest video-worthy event no matter what it is, and "great man" attributions to Reagan, plus peals of memorials and remembrances trump time-worn D-Day anytime.

Kinda like how Bush benefited from the coverage of the violence he inflicted on Iraq. He's now suffering from the media's coverage of the violence of "reconstructed Iraq."

Whatever goes around comes around.

I have two reactions to Rummie's speech yesterday

the report of which is headlined in the Seattle Times as follows: "Rumsfeld Fears Losing War on Terrorism." Rummie was in Bangladesh seeking support for the war in Iraq, fretting that the terrorists are churning out recruits faster than we can kill them.

My first reaction is, Wow! What an admission. Wouldn't you think that might make the mass media?

My second reaction is: Duh. And so you want more bombing and killing?

What the hell...

Call me a gossip, a scandal monger, whatever. Long ago I blogged on the prospect of designating Bush crazy, somehow scaring the undecideds to his opponent. Well, I'll spread this report, just doing my part.

Drip, drip, drip

Tenet resigns (plus a deputy operative in the CIA) on the eve of a stinging report about the intelligence before 9/11. Drip. That report will be issued in a couple of weeks. Drip. It will be followed by a report on the intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Drip. Bush hires a lawyer to deal with the Valerie Plame disclosure. Drip. Indictments in that matter are likely imminent. Drip. Afghanistan is seething before its national election in September. Drip. The turnover in Baghdad is problematical and may lead to further violence, possibly with tension between the "coalition" and the interim government. Drip. The prisoner-abuse trials and investigations are just getting started, with subpoenas being issued for higher-ups, including Rummie and Wolfowitz. Drip. And I haven't enumerated the bribery scandal over the passage of the Medicare drug bill, the investigation of which is still pending, nor the numerous investigations of Halliburton, B&R and others for larceny in the reconstruction of Iraq, nor the numerous other scandals among Bush-supporting businesses, including Enron and its boss, "Kenny-boy".
When the ground becomes saturated, the dripping will turn into a flood and will carry Bush out of office. Right?

Finally, a super reaction by John Kerry

I've read that Kerry's team has decided to stay out of the day-to-day decline of Bush's administration of foreign policy, to stay on a positive message, to hover above the fray. This has drawn the ire of activists, including me.
But Kerry has leapt in at just the right time, on the right issue: the "backdoor draft" by Bush of enlisted personnel by extending their tours of duty by means of a "stop loss" order. Kerry should hit hard on this issue throughout the summer as these soldiers swelter and die in orderthat Bush, for political reasons, can maintain that he's not increasing the deployment of forces in Iraq.

Now what we want is coverage of Kerry's outrage, so that the military's outrage will follow.

Okay, I'm now a believer

that the New York Times has become untenable dogshit. Not just because of the recurring scandals about its misreporting, its acknowledged screwups in plumping for war in Iraq, its complete lack of truly investigative reporting in the last decade or so. These are symptomatic, merely, of being so wedded to the capitalistic system that it can't see history, can't see beyond the present-day morass, can't address anything larger than last week's stale headline.

(I just watched columnist Tom Friedman on CNN defend foreign outsourcing as good for our workers "in the long run," even though it costs American jobs in the short run; and waffle, totally, on the question of sovereignty in Iraq. This guy gets a salary?)

What have we become?

The results of this Gallup poll are more disturbing to me than even the state of public sentiment about George Bush and his wars: In answer to the question whether in the US the death penalty was imposed "too often," "the right amount" or "not enough," the percentages were 23%, 25% and 48%, respectively. Almost half of us feel we don't execute each other often enough? More than two-thirds think we're executing each other at about the right rate?

Is this the United States? If so, maybe those America-haters are right.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan

The poppy harvest is proceeding apace. Amazing incompetence. Almost makes you wonder if Rummie is one of the warlords who's taking a cut.

Elephant in the living room

Not talked about by the mainstream media is a principal reason Bush decided to invade Iraq: the establishment of US military bases in Iraq in order to gain leverage in the Middle East. With already-existing bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Iran and Syria would be surrounded by American forces.

I'll bet Rummie and Halliburton and the gang have already constructed huge installations in Iraq, probably using "reconstruction" money, and that we'll learn about this sometime this summer when the interim leadership of Iraq decides to question it.

Maybe not--but why isn't it a burning question when we are told that Iraq will gain full sovereignty?

Timid liberals

As this essay points out, all but a few democrats are strikingly mute in this election season, giving Bush a free pass about this nightmare he's created in the Middle East. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy have spoken out of late, as has Senator Robert Byrd (who's been doing so for more than a year), but others? Daschle, Feinstein, Boxer, Harkin--where are they? Why aren't we hearing from them daily, railing, as they should, against the militarism, incompetence, evil of Bush/Cheney?

Is it "timidity" as the author of the essay says? If so, who are they afraid of? The media, their constituents, the Republican attack dogs? All of these?

The effect of the lack of liberal-based critics is that those who do speak out may be isolated by the Republicans and assailed as "demented," as Gore was after his fiery speech last week.

C'mon, you liberal chickenshits. Join the democracy!

Memorial Day

I attended the evening ceremony at East Beach yesterday at a display of white crosses that the Veterans for Peace lay out every weekend. Each of the 810 crosses (one for each soldier that has died in Iraq) was underlit by a red votive candle, just after sunset, while "Taps" was played.

I got weepy, actually teary-eyed, during the ceremony. I was surprised, because, frankly, I haven't been proud of much of my nation's actions over the last several years. Fact is, I suppose I do "love America" in some deep recess--cultural conditioning, no doubt--and I was moved by the fact that so many of those assembled did so too. Many of them, like me, continue to care very much for the ideals which our founding documents set forth and in the sometimes fulfillment of them by our elected leaders.

Enough. Time to get back to work to defeat Bush/Cheney's election.

Pat Buchanan and me

I never thought I'd agree with this guy--old wounds take time to heal--but on the antiwar issue he's right on. He and "true conservatives" (as opposed to neocons) think this Iraq thing is nuts. Now, he believes Bush has got the message, and is merely posturing until he can find a graceful way out, a la Nixon and Vietnam.
Well, as I foretold a year ago, here's whazzup. After the "turnover," regardless of the state of security and so forth, Bush will announce major withdrawals of US forces just before the election, declaring a "victory" in time to help with his re-election.

(If he's re-electioned--God forbid--he'll "redeploy" troops into Iraq in a heartbeat, you bet your ass, because his dream for a US-dominated Middle East will still be extant, and now he'll have four full years to effect it.)

Sooo--stay tuned.