October surprise

I've for so long feared a Bush-Rove October surprise--the idea being that in a close race they'd pop some big development at the last minute (capturing Osama bin Laden, withdrawing troops from Iraq, whatever)--that I didn't focus on the Democrats' prospect for same. What could Kerry/Edwards come up with that would swing the election their way in the last few weeks?

Discovering a nonwhite love-child of Bush? Maybe an under-the-desk intern? Perhaps, even, an allegation by Kobe Bryant's "friend" in Colorado about a similarly forceful tryst?

I'm open to suggestions, and to a means of effectuation thereof.

If you read nothing else about our foreign policy this week

please read this piece in the Observer about Brent Snowcroft. A voice once in the thick of things, now in the wilderness.

Here's whazzup in Iraq

As the school year begins, Iraq's colleges, including Baghdad University, the nation's largest, are in shambles eighteen months after the occupation started. Iraqis who are working for the US are being regularly shot down. The Iraq Assembly is under mortar attack. The number US wounded is approaching 7,000 and the number of US war dead stands at 975, many killed in the weeks since the "handover of sovereignty." Hostages are being executed by the dozens. The US is still bombing Iraqi cities, still killing civilians.

You hear nothing of this in the major media. And certainly not while the Republican Convention is blaring on every TV channel, celebrating Bush's coronation.

God, if you're out there, please help us.

The Upside-Down Recovery

For a thorough and entertaining exposition of the quality of Bush's recovery, specifically how it differs dramatically from recoveries after previous recession--in detailed detail--check out this series of graphs, charts and essays.

Imagine

The following is a copy of a letter I've emailed to the editor of the News-Press, our local paper. I'll let you know if it gets published. I don't read the News-Press religiously, so if you happen upon my letter, let me know.

Just imagine if eighteen months ago President Bush had waited three more weeks—just three more weeks—until Hans Blix, who headed the United Nations weapons-inspection team in Iraq, had completed his work. Blix would have reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction (as indeed turns out was the case), the UN inspection teams would have remained active (under the terms of the previous Security Council resolution) and the “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq would continue to be patrolled by US and UK warplanes, ensuring that Saddam Hussein would remain boxed, figuratively and literally.

Given the severity of the ongoing UN sanctions, Saddam may have decided, as did another evil-doer, Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi, that it made economic and political sense to change his approach and to join the community of nations. (Recall, Qadaffi was once considered as awful a tyrant and international demon as Saddam, so much so that US warplanes bombed his residence in 1986, killing his infant daughter.) But putting aside such speculation, this much is certain: Nine-hundred seventy-six American soldiers and 10,000 Iraqis would be alive; 6,000 American soldiers wouldn’t have been maimed; and $87 billions of American tax dollars would be here at home, benefiting Americans in ways we can only imagine.

Just imagine.

Meanwhile, down south

Shi'ite militia, funded and armed by Iran and other neighbors, have taken over the infrastucture of Basra, the largest city in southern Iraq. We have created the perfect climate for revolution and takeover of Iraq by forces who despise us.

Absolutely no surprise, no surprise at all.

A view of Bush's heroism

This article in Slate says all there is to say about Bush's heroism, pre- and post-9/11. It concludes,

I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops? Isn't it embarrassing to see Bob Dole, the GOP's previous presidential nominee, praise Bush's heroism while suggesting that Kerry's three combat wounds weren't bad enough to justify sending him home from Vietnam?

Watching the attacks on Kerry and the glorification of Bush reminds me of something Dole said in his speech to the Republican convention eight years ago. It was "demeaning to the nation," Dole argued, to be governed by people "who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned."

You tell me which of this year's presidential candidates that statement best describes.

Thank you KTLA

The Los Angeles TV station that's carried by cable here in SB did a report on the status of violence in Iraq in the two months since the "handover." A hardcopy appears here.

This is the only news to such an effect that I've seen on any mainstream outlet. They're too busy covering the convention, the Kobe case, the Jackson case and so forth, I suppose.

An advertisement worth watching

This tv spot has a serious message. Check it out at

http://www.n3t.net/humor/Seriously.mpg


The ad takes a bit of time to load, but it's worth the wait, especially the end, where a truly profound observation about Bush is made by the concerned mother.

Hat tip to Erika.

Oh, for a blue dress

What does it take to get a president out of office. An expanding spy scandal at the highest levels? Ongoing violence in two theaters of operation: Iraq and, again and still, Afghanistan? Increasing poverty and loss of health insurance for millions of Americans? Evidence of expanding responsibility for torture of prisoners? Investigation of national security leak of a CIA's operative's name to the press?

And, it is said, Bush's numbers in the polls are increasing!

If the majority of Americans re-elect Bush, they deserve him.

Whazzup in Iraq

While all the media attention has been on Najav lately, check out this NYT exposition of the status of the "democracy" in Fallujah and other points west of Baghdad. Not surprising, not heartening. Not worth all those billions of dollars and hundreds of American, not to say Iraqi, lives.

What a debacle this Iraq adventure has become.

Devil in the details

Here's a quote from Islam Online, detailing the points of agreement under which al-Sadr's militia moved out of the shrine of Najav:

Late Thursday, Sadr signed a five-point plan put forward by Sistani that insisted on the departure of all armed elements from Najaf and its twin city of Kufa.

Sadr ceded control of the Imam Ali shrine to representatives of the religious leadership Friday, August 27.

But fighters of his Mehdi Army refused to surrender their weapons to Iraqi authorities, defying one of three conditions laid down by the caretaker government for halting its US-backed assault on the militia.

Reports said fighters hid their Kalashnikov rifles at home, while mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were stashed in safe houses in the Old City.

That's why I read Islam Online. For the details.

Okay, here goes

High-ups in the Pentagon, an inch away from the highest-ups, are handing Israel our state secrets. Let's see. What can that mean?

To me, it proves that the neocons--the men who've taken over the Defense Department--are, and have always been, bent on establishing a system in the Middle East by which the US, with Israel as its local nuclear-armed ally, dominates the oil-rich region. To resident Muslims, it confirms precisely that, and that both Israel and the US are the mortal enemies of Islam.

I'm an American citizen. I have no designs on the Middle East, I want energy independence from the region and want our government to stop supporting regimes that allow our corporations to exploit their oil, at the expense of the citizens of the nations that own the resources.

I certainly don't side with Israel in its constant war with the arabs who are trying to regain lands long ago inhabitated by them and promised them by the United Nations sixty years ago.

This latest Bush administation scandal--Feith-gate--tells me this: Our nation is so egregiously off course in its dealings with the rest of the world, and in its treatment of the world, that revolution is inevitable.

Photo Finish

OK folks, the race is on and Bush is way ahead. We need to give our blogger Erik some encouragement. See, this is the 950th post on All That Arises. There are currently 971 US casualties of the Iraq war. The question is, will George W. Bush bring home the 1000th dead American before Erik can post his 1000th entry?

Here are the rules: no dividing essays into multiple posts, no multi-bagging of remains. It's gonna be a photo finish, folks, possibly in time for W's acceptance speech. Well, no photos involved, exactly; I doubt Erik will let us in his comfy crib with a digital camera, and no photos are allowed at Andrews AFB. ...

Sorry Erik, but personally, my money's on Bush. Somebody get Vegas on the line.

I mean no disrespect for our troops or their families. I know this post is in terrible taste, but so is this damn war. If this made you uncomfortable, good.

Cute

In an interview with the NYT, Bush has apparently admitted "miscalculations" in his assessment of postwar Iraq. Miscalculations. Sounds alot like "mistakes," doesn't it? As in Vietnam?


Sounds even more like Goebbels explaining the retreat from Stalingrad. Miscalculations. Tell that to the dead GI's, the dead Iraqis, the dead allies. Tell that to the American taxpayers, whose payments have been wasted, whose goodwill has been wasted over the world.

A miscalculation of enormous proportions. Certainly big enough to warrant Bush's replacement as president.

The moderate force arrives

The Shia cleric, al-Sistani, is about to lead a march into Najav. He's being styled as the the "moderate influence" in Iraq, whose presence will quiet the conflict.

What? Does that mean that we, the US, who're supporting the Interim PM, Alawi, are on one extreme, and that al-Sadr is on the other, so that a moderate influence is needed? Yes? Well, whaddya know. I thought we were supposed to be the moderating influence in Iraq. Silly me.

Isn't this refreshing?

An actual mass-media source, USA Today, taking the higher-ups in the Pentagon to task for the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison.

Counterbalanced, however, with the report I saw this evening by Tom Brokaw on NBC (I rarely watch network news, but it was on, so what the hell): Brokaw reported the Iraqi soccer team's rejection of Bush's political ads with a soft-spoken, denigrating attitude, like the soccer players were stooges or something.

NBC, and Brokaw, are owned, are stooges themselves. I must tell you, I've lost respect for our media, all of it, except, occasionally C-Span and of course the truly good radio stations, like KPFK locally and AirAmerica nationally.

If I were an ally of the United States

I'd be pissed off bigtime. While Bush is claiming he's made America safer from terrorism by his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the nations that supported us--Saudi Arabia,Spain, Australia, Italy, many others--have each suffered devastating attacks. So maybe during the last couple of years we haven't been attacked, but if you line up the series of nations, it pretty much looks like we're next. Let's just hope it doesn't come in a form, or at a time, that does other than show Bush to be what a cheap imposter he is as a chief executive.

Could it be, could it possibly be

that the story about the Iraqi soccer team's refutation of Bush's campaign ads that tout their success as Bush's success will finally make it to the major media? Finally, the LA Times has picked up the story. Can it now be ignored? Let's see.

The latest scam in Iraq

After all the trumpeting of the "handover of sovereignty" two months ago, one would think that Iraq's "election" of the interim governing body would be met with trombones and tubas ablaring. But no. Hardly a word's been heard about the event, even though the body is supposed to have veto power of the interim PM's decisions, and to have legislative power until the nationwide elections, supposedly to occur in early 2005. Reason for the silence? The "interim national council," as it's called was chosen without fair ballot, over the protest of numerous of those assembled to vote on it, and consists largely of the same hand-picked US puppets, mostly foreign-dwelling Iraqis, who the US installed initially. And the vote to select these 100 council members? Forget about it. A four-person tribunal made the selection.

Sound familiar?

My brother's email to the Kerry campaign

Right on, John.

"Mr. Kerry should shout to the world that it doesn't really matter who did what as to their military service over 30 years ago, but that what's important is that he had the guts, along with our [Arizona's] great Mo Udall, to be one of the first to protest the wasteful and fruitless war in Vietnam and that he initiated a protest movement that successfully brought our troops home after the country realized the truth of his message. He should be prouder of his heroism in delivering this message than he is about his military decorations."

Somebody set me straight on this

but wasn't Hitler the host of the 1936 Olympic games at which, for the first timne, the national anthem of the nation of the gold medalist was played during the medal-presentation ceremonies? Indeed, didn't Hitler start this mad national medal-counting that the US has since found so compelling, so overwhelmingly important?
I'm so tired of NBC's continual playing of the US national anthem that I'm about to puke. I love this country--its magnificent geography, the verbiage of its founding documents, a few other things--but for God's sake, enough of this media-hammered xenocraziness.

I'm pissing in the wind, I know it. But in a few centuries, my voice will be heard. Just think about it. Do we imagine that in an advanced society, such as we might find on a planet ten thousand years from now, they have boundaries, nations, national anthems?

What the hell are we doing?

We're bombing the Sunnis in Fallujah, we're assaulting the Shias in Najav. If anybody out there in cyberspace--anybody reading this blog, if there's anybody reading this blog--can tell me why the US is doing this, please feel free to share.

Iraq Coalition Casualties

I haven't been posting much to All That Arises lately. My longtime hobby, ontological bungie jumping, has been keeping me busy this summer. But I'll continue occasionally, as a contributor to Erik's estimable blog. And of course, I wouldn't miss the opportunity to leave semi-literate, smartass comments on Erik's posts.

To prove my intentions are honorable, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that coalition casualties now number well over one thousand. 1094 to be exact.

Please keep this in mind as we endure the RNC convention and the continuing breaking news coverage of vapid insinuations about Kerry's military service. Thanks.

Iraq Coalition Casualties

If Bush wins this election,

it's because Kerry failed to contest him on the dominant issue in the campaign, the war in Iraq. This Time magazine essay calls Kerry's position on the war as a straitjacket, and rightly so. Kerry has been wholly complicit in Bush's mishandling of the war, silent about the ab-graib prison scandal, silent about the ongoing killing, about Halliburton's defalcations, about even the on-again, off-again conduct of military operations.

I'm miserable, watching Kerry give away all these points while being hammered for his war record. I'm actually angry at Kerry for misguaging the issues so grossly.

Ouch, this hurts

When ninety-plus Muslim leaders from middle-eastern countries condemn the US occupation of Iraq. And in not too generous terms, either.

So, Can we finally put this matter to rest?

Here's the story of the commander of a swift boat adjacent to Kerry's. The man had for decades wanted to avoid talking about it, but couldn't stay silent any longer. Read it and resolve this: As between AWOL flyboy Bush and Lt. Kerry, guess who wins the "What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?" award.

A must read: Raimondo on Buchanan

Libertarian Justin Raimondo reviews Pat Buchanan's recent book, to terrific effect. If you need to be motivated to keep Bush from gaining a second term, read/buy Buchanan's book, Where the Right Went Wrong.

If oil prices remain high

this economist predicts that the American stock market will suffer a long, slow decline, along with the economy in general, with the middle class suffering under the "tax" that increased gasoline prices imposes on their pocketbooks.

Could it be, could it possibly be?

That after years of display of undiminished timidity in the face of the supreme power of the corporate entities that own them, there may finally have arisen in the media a sense of outrage against this administration? They've let Bush slide past the absence of WMD in Iraq, the absence of any link to al-Qaida, the long series of prevarications and abuses that have driven his administration. But now, maybe, with these false allegations against Kerry's medals in Vietnam, maybe, just maybe, they've sensed what we've always known: That Bush and his minions are evil. Lying slimeballs, monsters, corrupt and base beyond any that our system has so far experienced. Maybe, just maybe, out of a sense of moral outrage--a burst of principle--the media may finally get it, may try at last to redeem the years of ass-kissing solicitude they've given Bush and his cadre of evildoers.

Or maybe not. Remember, they're still owned by Bush's buddies.

Two takes on Iran's latest expression

When a high official in Iran said that pre-emptive strikes were not the sole prerogative of the United States, there are (at least) two possibilities. One, this is what we've reaped from what we've sown; or two, this is precisely what Bush meant to encourage with his agression, so that he can now justify agression against any nation that dares to utter the doctrine.

Depends on who(m) you listen to

The record high price of oil won't cause too much of a ripple in the world or US economy in the long run, or is cataclysmic.

Another lost story

While the news is filled with stories about Kerry's Vietnam war experience, this item--about the Iraqi soccer team and captain taking sharp exception to Bush's use of them to further his campaign, including strong condemnation of American troops occupying their country--barely makes the news.

Eye off the prize

On the eve of the Republican convention, Bush/Rove have managed to deflect the campaign from the truly relevant issues to Kerry's Vietnam war activities. Of course. They're evil geniuses, except for Bush, who's an idiot.

Among the missing issues: Jobs and real income of wage earners. They're in the pits and nobody knows it, except of course those who are experiencing the difficulties. Must we rely merely on their getting out of the house to vote on election day, or will the Kerry folks somehow manage to turn the debate to the real questions that need to be answered?

Too many brushfires

It's maddening, the number of false or biased reports that are being fed to the public by the mass media; and the stories the public aren't told.

Nowhere is it reported that the British are furious at Bush's administration for "outing" their source of al-Qaida intelligence by issuing an alert, clearly based on the source's information. Americans aren't informed about the undemocratic selection of the national assembly in Iraq, aren't kept abreast of the increasing death toll of US soldiers. They're given no information about the billions of dollars--that's with a "b"--that are unaccounted for from the Iraq reconstruction funds, the latter story carried by Reuters, but nowhere televised on the major broadcast or cable media.

We're inundated with stories about celebrity trials, with "spin" stories about campaign smears, with the latest violence and weather problems.

The dumbing down of America? It may be in large part the fault of Americans themselves. It surely is the fault of the media, too. They've long blamed themselves for this, but have done nothing about it.

Talk about a flip-flop

The Pentagon's on-again, off-again sanctioning of KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary, for failure to abide by the massive contracts in Iraq is either a strong showing of graft, or just simple incompetence. Not neither, probably both.

Another reason to abolish the electoral college, unless you're from Montana

Check out this analysis, demonstrating how skewed the system is against the will of the people.

I'm getting suspicious

I regularly check on the status of US military fatalities in Iraq, but somehow it escaped me that seven (yes, seven), American soldiers were killed in action on August 15. The deaths weren't posted by the Department of Defense on a timely basis, so the Casualty Count website only published them piecemeal.
If the deaths had been reported widely, on the day they occurred, there would have been outrage. Recall when five soldiers died from a helicopter crash in April?
Is DOD dribbling out the reports on purpose?

If Kerry should lose the election,

it may very well be because of his consistent hawkishness about Iraq. He's trying to convince "the center" that he's no wus, but in so doing he may lose not only the liberal edge of the Democratic party, but the true conservative/libertarian portion of the opposition, who are outraged by Bush's foreign policy. The website, Antiwar.com, is basically libertarian, is alienated by Bush's invasion of Iraq. But Kerry offers no contrary position, and so won't get their votes.

Nuance over madness

The Republicans have made much of [Kerry's]... record; the Kerry campaign is haunted by replays of the theme song from the old TV show "Flipper." Mr. Bush, however, has a far more dangerous pattern of behavior. On issues from tax cuts to foreign policy, the president tends to stick stubbornly to his original course even when changing events cry out for adaptation. His explanations seem to evolve every day, but his thinking never does.

This is how the NYT put it, in an editorial about Kerry's vote on the Iraq war resolution. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Toldja so

A year ago (unfortunately, our archive doesn't go back that far) I predicted that Bush would withdraw American troops just before the election. Now he's done just that, ordering 70,000 soldiers back from abroad.

Problems: It's too far before the election to make a difference in November. And they're not the troops that count, because they're to be taken from noncombat areas, not from Iraq or Afghanistan. On this account, it looks like a bald political ploy and may indeed backfire. Let's hope so.

Hurricane Charley

Damn. If only the hurricane had waited until the Republican convention. It's dominating the TV news--absolutely overwhelming all channels--that nothing else can find its way through to the US viewer. Okay, I'm sorry for the 15 or so who died in the storm, but what about the hundreds who've died over the last week in Iraq.

(On CNN, they just had a two-minute segment called "other news" and it featured three reports, in this sequence: 1. The path of Charley. 2. Governor Jeb Bush's upcoming visit to wrecked sites from Charley. 3. The ending of the "truce" in Najav, Iraq. Now CNN's back to hurricane coverage. BTW, coverage not of the storm itself, but photos of its damage, and efforts to gain insurance coverage.)

"Wrenching changes"?

A Bloomberg report about about the widening US trade deficit contains a frightening quote from a recent Federal Reserve Board meeting:

Growing trade deficits contribute to a widening gap in the current account, the broadest measure of trade because it includes investments, and put the dollar at risk because the U.S. needs to attract more and more foreign capital to finance it.

Fed officials are watching the growing trade imbalance and its contribution to the $144.9 billion current account deficit. Staff members made a special presentation at the Fed's policy meetings June 29th and 30th, saying that ``outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely.''

While adjustments to the imbalances aren't ``necessarily imminent'' and would likely be ``benign'' when they happen, ``more wrenching changes could not be ruled out,'' according to minutes from the meeting released yesterday.

What, I wonder, are these changes, and whom, do you suppose, they'll wrench?

If Kerry wins the election

it will be an astounding victory for truth, for reality, over the ignorance of the masses, fed by media tripe. The level of discourse on the TV channels is so base that one wonders how a citizen can be asked to make an intelligent decision. I point, as today's example, to the media's castigation of Kerry for rising to the "bait" that Bush fed him, by saying that he would have voted for the Iraq war, even knowing what is now known about the absence of WMD.

I haven't read the details of that particular exchange, but that's not the issue, that's not what's at stake in the upcoming election. What's at stake isn't debating points or "gotchas" or mean-spirited smears by and of these two men. What's at stake is the future of the planet.

I can only hope that Americans can somehow see through the media's grossly inadequate presentation of the issues and gross distortions of fact. I don't know how they'll do this, and hence must rely on hope.

My God, what are we doing?

Our ferocious invasion of sacred cities, our massive attacks throughout Iraq, these are not only immoral, illegal and monstrous, they're inflaming the entire Muslim world, Sunni and Shia and in between. I can't believe our media, and hence our populace, can sleep through this violent rampage. But somehow they manage to do so, day after despotic day, month after murderous month. This is how empires end.

What do they know that we don't?

All three major 5-year indices, the Dow Industrials, Nasdaq (mostly high-tech companies) and S&P 500 (the broadest index) show the end of the "recovery" and a downward U-turn, and this in spite of record profits for many of the major corporations. Obviously the body of investors in American corporations sense something in the economy that bodes ill for business.

I wonder why we don't have reports of this consistent phenomenon. Could it be that the entities that control the news are buddy-buddy with, indeed are part of, the companies whose stock makes up these indices?

On the other hand

This AP story is headlined, "Leak allowed al-Qaida suspects to escape"--a direct statement, although not attributing the leak to a source. The story itself, on the other hand, does its best to bury the import of the story, that is, that US officials, giving an interview with newspeople on background, leaked the name of the terrorist, causing obstruction of ongoing investigations.

Update on October Surprise

Okay, so the conventional wisdom was that if al-Qaeda, or somebody, attacked the US before the election, it would benefit Bush/Cheney on a kind of "don't change horses in the middle of a war" theory. Accordingly, I fretted about such an attack, and I'm sure the Bushies longed for it.

But now that the Bushies have spouted that the recent spate of terrorist arrests have defused the threat against the US, an attack now might play into the Democrats' hands on the theory that once again the Bush administration has failed to assess intelligence and threat correctly. So suddenly I'm rooting for an attack, to spark a turn toward Kerry/Edwards. If such an attack should occur, Kerry/Edwards might just be elected by near-acclamation.

Sensing this, the Bushies have been quick to downplay the significance of the recent arrests, insisting that the danger remains. They don't want for a moment to lose the leverage that continuing fear of terror gives them, even at the expense of our sanity, our serenity, or the truth. And, to combat this cynicism, I assert my own.

For a synopsis of the pundits' ruminations on the subject, and related subjects, check out this Christian Science Monitor article.

Oops

An official in Basra (a Shiite city in the south of Iraq, where the major port is located) is calling for secession of three southern provinces from the rest of Iraq? Blaming Alawi for the bloodshed in Karbala and Najaf, and threatening to turn off the oil from the port?

Ouch!

This is the way it is now

A succinct summary of the craziness that's extant in Iraq today, and not all of the craziness at that. The allegations against Alawi aren't included, nor is the story about the Oregon national guardsmen witnessing brutality by the Baghdad police and being ordered to "walk away". (See "What are we doing?" post, below.)

War is hell, I know. But this war's a cut below that.

A followup

Some days ago I blogged about Iraq's Interim PM's murder of prisoners, and of the US medias failure to cover the event. Here's an explanation, in journalistic terms, not political. An explanation, but not satisfying, not at all.

So there's no mistake...

the whole picture must be understood. True, bin Laden wants Bush to win in November, so that he'll continue his "war on terr'r" and thus cause more recruits to the terrorist cause. So, a pre-election attack is being planned, bin Laden's prediction being that this will skew the electorate toward Bush out of fear or something. So far, the thinking is clear and probably correct.

But what it fails to appreciate is that Bush needs terrorism too, and needs it to be feared for at least two more months. Accordingly, we're in for two months of threat and counterthreat, with no certain results, just more fear on our side, more anger on theirs.

Who are these guys?

Who keep screwing up our effort to capture and convict terrorists? First, from a longstanding story now being revived, the Justice Department obstructed a federal prosecution of terrorists in Detroit. Absolutely amazing story that only now is getting legs again.

Getting legs because just last week administration spokepersons "outed" an alleged al Qaeda operative--a Pakistani named Noor Khan--while he was still of value in providing information about the network. The Brits are outraged, because this caused them to accellerate a series of arrests, as well as to fold up an ongoing sting operation. And why was the name released? Condi Rice says it was to "level with" the American citizenry. Bullshit. We didn't need his name in order to be warned. It was done simply to lend credence to the administration's claim that the latest alert wasn't just old news, now released because of political motives. As always in the Bush White House, politics trumps everything, even the safety of the nation.

Advice to Kerry/Edwards campaign: Use Fear Tactic

Not physical fear, not of terrorism, but economic fear, fear of bankruptcy. Bob Herbert of the NYT has some startling numbers showing what's happening to the middle class in Bush's economy.

Whaaat?

"Iraq" (whoever that is) issues an arrest warrant for Chalabi (the Pentagon's pet snitch), for counterfeiting? This war is getting crazier and crazierl

A succinct analysis

As Knight-Ridder puts it:

After the past two days of fighting in southern and central Iraq, the difference between firebrand cleric Muqtada al Sadr and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi couldn't be any more clear: Al Sadr has an army, and Allawi does not.

In Iraq, security is politics. When Allawi took office, the self-styled strongman lost little time before declaring that his government wouldn't tolerate the insurgency that's swept the country.

But as in previous battles, when al Sadr's Mahdi Army militia began to overrun Najaf and several neighborhoods from Baghdad to Basra, the Iraqi police force and national guard fought for a little while, then ran.

And as in previous battles, Iraq's Achilles' heel was revealed: To defend their country, Allawi and the interim government must go to the American military, an institution that's widely reviled by many Iraqis as an occupational force run amok.

What are we doing?

We kill 300 "insurgents" on Thursday, another 43 today, an on and on. Is it the US/Iraqi-"Interim government" plan to kill everyone who resists their view of how Iraq should be governed? Al-Jazeera is silenced, the Iraqis are cowering and roasting in their homes, the occupation force--the US, supporting Alawi--holding sway on the streets. Doesn't this sound like Saddam Hussein is still in power, except he's our Saddam?

Listen: We are the evil ones in that region now. We've replaced an earlier evil with our own concept of how Iraq should be run, with the same methodology, except with higher-tech fire power. And if there's any doubt about what kind of "democracy" we're creating in Iraq, check out this report from some Oregon national guardsmen.

And this report by Al-Jazeera (which the arabs read) reveals how the US attacks in Najav are perceived in that world. And we are the "liberators"?

It has been a long time

since I learned something so fundamental as this about the US democracy; and so important to my future involvement in the political system. Thom Hartmann is a hell of a writer and thinker and deserves praise (which I've given him in an email) for his succinct, direct appraisal of the American two-party system, and how most effectively to change it into a more representational, progressive form of government.

What's in a name?

Not recent news, I know, but a tiny insight into matters that may matter. While perusing the world's best encyclopedia, I came across this article that revealed that after a bit of a flap about it back in the early days of Bush's term, Chevron quietly rechristened its oil tanker, The Condoleeza Rice, presumably to avoid the appearance of a connection between Bush's National Security Advisor and the oil company.

What's in a word

While CNN's headline trumpets that "the Marines report" the death of 300 insurgents, the Islam Online story about the attack uses a different word, "admit",to an entirely different effect.

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.