Socialism and capitalism

In this piece, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, in the course of discussing the present state of China's economy, makes a remarkable assertion:

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other. That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets. As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.
Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive. It’s true that democracy needs capitalism. Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy. For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government. Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and therebyprovides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

Oh, really? The nations of Scandinavia, Britain, India? To name a few. What's Reich talking about?

Cost of medical attention in America

A bit off the Iraq beat. I just watched a PBS News Hour report about the astounding increase of health-care costs in the US, which coincides with an overall decrease in the quality of the care in the US. Much hand-wringing, much puzzlement during the PBS report, especially over the question of why we in the US pay more for medical care than do other western countries, and get less. Much hand-wringing, but not a single observation that we might want to look at the difference between the systems.

Theirs: single-payer plans, funded by taxes. Ours: Private insurance coverage with gigantic profit-driven corporate bureaucracies between the doctor and the patient, and private, profit-driven companies making our drugs and running our hospitals? Has it ever occurred to anyone that capitalism, for all its good qualities in making cars and speedboats, ought to get the fuck out of health care?

Risen is full of shit

Last night I watched Charlie Rose's interview of James Risen, author of a new "expose" of Bush's march to war in Iraq. (A commentary on some of Risen's assertions in the book may be found here, and of course Risen's been all over the tube lately, including The Daily Show.) What struck me was Risen's statement that "everybody" thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's before the invasion, and that, as a result, Risen opined that Bush/Cheney didn't "lie" about their existence, they just convinced themselves of that fact in spite of the absence of hard evidence, a kind of "wishful thinking."

First of all, there was plenty of evidence of the absence of WMDs, as Risen himself states in the portions of the book cited by above-linked article. In addition to the failure of the UN weapons inspectors to find any WMD despite open access to all sites in Iraq, there were repeated prewar statements by Scott Ritter and others--inside Iraq, inside the federal government and outside--that the decade-long surveillance and sanctions on Iraq made it unlikely that WMD's could have been developed. Second--and this pisses me off no end--the issue in the weeks before the invasion wasn't "does Saddam have WMD?", it was, "given that it's still not clear whether he does or not" what is the remedy, the proper course of action?

With UN inspection teams driving in their white vans all over the place (recall those images?), scurrying unannounced and unobstructed in their searches and time after time finding nothing, what should the US do? Invade and bomb, or continue with the inspections, as Blix and al Baradei and all but Britain in the Security Council urged? Saddam was surrounded by our massing forces, his every move was watched, his nation was being scoured for evidence. So--even if it was "wishful thinking" that led Bush to conclude Saddam had WMD, what should he have done as leader of the "free world": Made war--or made certain?

Moving on from MoveOn.org

This article's right on about the war in Iraq and the position of most Democrats and their supporters, including MoveOn.org, about what to do next to cease this grotesquery. I say, to hell with those who call for more arms and soldiers, regardless of party, regardless of their other stances. If you call for more troops, or are silent about the ongoing carnage, you're complicit in America's quest for world dominance. You're worse than a neoCon, because at least they stand for something.

I report, you decide

Was the war about Iraq's oil? (Scroll to near-bottom of article, although the rest of it's illuminating, too.)

In case you're not keeping track

the current death toll (as DOD-reported) of US soldiers in Iraq is over 2,200. In case you think there's any trend here--up or down--check out this graphic graphic.

Okay, gang, keep me posted

Let me know when/if this story of Rumsfeld's misfeasance ever reaches the MSM. How can it not, since the linked-to report is an AP dispatch? Maybe Rummie has kept his job all this while by suppressing adverse news of his performance, via blackmail from information he's gleaned from the Pentagon's spying operation. Otherwise, I have no clue how come he hasn't been fired, and, for that matter, tarred and feathered and roasted on a spit.

I smell a rat

You may recall that I predicted during the summer of 2004, in the months before the presidential election, that Cheney would resign, citing failing health, so that Bush could run with a different vice presidential candidate, given Cheney's unpopularity. It didn't happen, of course, but these latest trips by Cheney to the hospital have me speculating again. Wouldn't it be clever if Cheney "with great reluctance resigned the office due to ill health," and the neocons got a new veep to fill out Cheney's term and hence to have the inside track on the presidential nomination in 2008? They must be horrified by the prospect of loose-cannon John McCain's nomination, and this would be a handy way to come up with a strong, tested successor to their puppet, Bush.

I suggest we raid the hospital and grab Cheney's medical records from this latest visit and check them out. They probably say, "Complains of shortness of breath. Patient, however, is asymptomatic, except for a terminal case of fascist prevarication, as diagnosed on previous visits."

The state of the nation

Not about Iraq or spying or scandals, this time. Although you wouldn't know it from the MSM, it's the economy, stupid. And once the masses get it--if they ever do--the Republicans had better run and hide.

Hearts and minds

What the hell are the US troops doing in Iraq? Raiding Sunni clerics, invading their mosques, painting crosses on the walls?

Those magnetized "yellow ribbons" to "support our troops"

have their origin as celebratory symbols to welcome home imprisoned persons. This website, "Straightdope," one of my favorites, tells the story.

So, it has come to this

Now we're building walls around cities in Iraq. Does this occupation begin to sound like the Nazis in Poland, or the Romans in Jerusalem? Or has it sounded like that for a long time?

A benefit of modern medicine?

Not as many soldiers die in Iraq; their lives are saved so that they can survive horrific injuries and be disabled for the rest of their lives. Oh, goody.

Another fine mess...

So, the Shiites by the thousands are protesting against the US ambassador's "coddling" of Sunnis, blaming them for the hundreds of killings of Shiites in recent days; and of course the Sunnis are deeply resentful of the US occupation, and the most radical of them are doubtless behind the attacks on US troops. As a result, the US is caught in the middle of competing forces in Iraq, taking flak from all sides except the Kurds (until the Kurds take action to split away from the rest of Iraq, taking the oil-rich area around Tikrit with them).

The solution: Get the hell out of there. Now.

Under Cheney's definition, Bush is a traitor

If disclosure of the details of the NSA spying program is traitorous, as Bush, and more forcefully, Cheney, have said, then what about Bush's assertion that the program is "limited," and intercepts only incoming calls from suspected al-Qaeda operatives? Either Bush is lying, or he's telling the truth, and is accordingly revealing details of the program, giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," which is the definition of treason.

Fascism Watch

My earlier-announced Fascism Watch has been in abeyance during the last few months (and may go there again), because of overwhelm: Bush's actions toward corporate/executive/religious dictatorship are too numerous to follow with this posting mechanism. But this item, relatively unnoticed, must be mentioned: After all that hullabaloo accompanying Senator McCain's showdown with the White House over a torture ban, Bush has determined that he'll adhere to the Congressionally-mandated ban--or not.

A day in the life

While the US mourns the death of 11 men in a mine explosion--a sad occurence, without a doubt, and accordingly subject to incessant cable TV news coverage--Iraq suffers through another day of deaths, including the bombing of a funeral procession, killing 36. Puts the scope of Iraq's ongoing trauma into perspective, eh?

Get out your raincoats or snowshoes, depending

It's gonna be necessary to take to the streets this winter. The Iraq occupation is going to wear on, Bush's poll numbers will remain mediocre, and with the latest Republican scandals and investigations, it's likely the Bush administration will find it necessary to create a crisis. In the absence of a terrorist attack on US soil (which I'm sure Bush is praying for), he'll no doubt launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear plants and make sure Syria is sanctioned by the UN for its involvement in the assasination of a popular leader of the opposition. This will elevate the crises in the Middle East to a flashpoint.

So, we'll have to remain vigilant, ready to protest with vigor (civil disobedience, even), to try to stop the madman from his ongoing administration of fear and force. It's going to be a long, cold winter, everywhere.

An interesting development in reporting

and, I think, a favorable one: After, or before, the publication or airing of an interview, the subject of the interview posts the entire transcript on a website to ensure that the aired or published portions not be unbalanced.

NSA surveillance

In the next several days the media will present arguments pro and con about the recently-revealed domestic spying operation authorized by Bush shortly after 9/11. Bush is already lying about it, calling it "a limited program" involving only "a few numbers" of al-Qaeda operatives outside of the Unites States, when the facts are otherwise. It was a widespread, full-net surveillance, its information widely disseminated throughout the federal government's intelligence community.

Let's hope--and I'm certain it's only a hope--that Congress gets its back up on this one, calling for hearings, calling to account those, including Attorney General Gonzales, who persuaded Bush it was legal. And make no mistake: It wasn't, not even close.

You want fine writing?

Sheriff Tate to Atticus Finch:

"I may not be much, Mr. Finch, but I'm still the sheriff of Maycomb County. And Bob Ewell fell on his knife."

One of the finest lines in all moviedom. From To Kill a Mockingbird, of course.

I turned on cable this New Years morning, and although I've seen the film ten times, I couldn't turn it off, couldn't leave the room. Best rendition of a novel to film, ever. IMHO.

Top 10 stories of 2006

A funny post by the Freeway Blogger, whose blog--showing the how-to and results of freeway blogging--is cool.

Yes!!

A list of words to be banished from the English language.

You're not going to believe this

Forty-four percent of those polled by Rasmussen responded that 2005 was a "good" year (or better than "good" because many of those rated it "the best ever" or "excellent").

On what planet do those respondents live? Or could it be they lived only during 1929 and 1941?

Good news

I suppose the fact that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into NYT's publication of the existence of the administration's domestic spying operation should be bad news, showing how quickly an investigation can be started if it suits the administration, as opposed to how languidly the administration reacts to other leaks, such as the Plame case. But for me, this DoJ's decision is good news, ensuring that the story of the clandestine, illegal bugging will remain in the MSM spotlight for months, maybe years, to come.

Quagmire defined

This is how our nation will ensure that it gets dragged into Iraq's civil war.

Who's on first?

Abbott and Costello couldn't create a more comical routine.

Letter to the editor

Some weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press that wasn't published in the letters section but in the "Voices" section, so I didn't realize it had made the cut. Recently someone told me they read it and a friend downloaded it for me. (This is in addition to the letter I wrote two days ago.) Here's the earlier letter:

New awareness prompts talk of withdrawal
12/4/05
Voice From Santa Barbara: Erik O'Dowd

With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?"
It is to diffuse this growing doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.
Twenty-nine months after Bush/Cheney's invasion and occupation of Iraq, after untold thousands of deaths and maimings of Iraqis, Americans and others, and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are hearing suggestions from some in the Bush administration that "withdrawal" or "redeployment" of some coalition forces is likely, even imminent.
These utterances are no doubt prompted by the growing rejection by the U.S. public of our continued presence in Iraq, which is in turn based on a new awareness among the majority of our citizenry that the reasons the administration gave for the invasion were false: No weapons of mass destruction, no connection of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, no "imminent threat" by Iraq to the U.S. or its allies.
With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?" It is to diffuse this growing doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.
Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was always about establishing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, and so when they speak of withdrawal or redeployment of forces, they don't mean our troops will come home, or even leave the area. They'll be ordered to stay indefinitely in the region to show U.S. power -- and use it if necessary -- to enforce U.S. interests (read access to oil and natural gas by our corporations). Indeed, we are presently building four "enduring" bases in Iraq to ensure our permanent military presence there.
These bases will only ensure continued attacks on U.S. targets in the region and throughout the world, by those who've long demanded that we give up our designs on the territory and resources of the Middle East. We'll continue to spend billions of dollars and risk innocent lives, just in slightly different locales.
We mustn't grow complacent. We must keep up the drumbeat, continue to demand to "support our troops" -- not by moving them a few miles farther into the desert, but by bringing them home. Home to the United States. Now.
The author
lives in Santa Barbara.

To which I would add, as I've noted before, don't be fooled about the recently-increasing US bombing of cities in Iraq, which may lessen our casualties, but will increase Iraqis', and is equally, if not more, outrageous.

Rogue Nation

Check out this list of international treaties that the Bush administration refuses to honor.

Letter to the editor

Herewith a letter I wrote to the SB News-Press. I've had passable luck getting them published, so long as I adhere to the 250-word limit, as--by 2 words--I've done in this piece. A muted statement, I agree, but what the hell.

Many Americans are in despair, having given up on the political system that twice (maybe) elected Bush/Cheney, resulting in a growing chasm between rich and poor, between ideology and humanity, between truth and lies, between war and peace. But now Bush has gone too far, uniting in outrage both liberals and true conservatives (not, however, their evil cousins, the cabal of neo-cons that have Bush’s ear).

The straw that broke Bush's back?: His secret order authorizing warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency of Americans’ private communications; and, once revealed, his unfounded assertion that the “war on terror” grants him that unprecedented power, followed by his obdurate insistence that he’s entitled to maintain the surveillance, unchecked by courts or Congress.

The Liberals' outrage is predictable, but no less so than that of true conservatives because of their innate distrust of federal power, particularly executive power, power that’s expressly limited by the Constitution’s reservation of lawmaking to Congress and oversight by the federal courts.

To be sure, the Bush/Cheney administration is in for a rough 2006. “Plame-gate” will expand; DeLay and other scandals will ripen; the occupation of Iraq will become even more poisonous; and the economy, now that the real estate bubble has popped and interest rates are rising, will slide into mediocrity.

But Bush’s Achilles heel is his arrogant assertion of executive (read dictatorial) power to intrude, unchecked, into the private communications of Americans. All sensate Americans know where this leads, and they won’t be led there.

Democratic presidential candidates in 2008

Here's a quick analysis of the status of various Democratic candidates for the next presidential election. God, how ugly. Except for Feingold (who's unelectable), the field is awful. Is there no such thing as a charismatic, strong "progressive"?

Meanwhile, back in Iraq

Check out these numbers of Iraqi casualties from our invasion and occupation.

The birth of Jesus

Okay, all my life I've thought about Christianity--Roman Catholicism, mostly, but the other Jesus-based religions, too--and I now conclude that as fine a message as that young man preached (and I suppose he actually walked on the planet at about the time it's said he did), the idea that he was the son of God is a crock (even assuming there's a God, or a god.) The whole tale is absolute bullshit, just as the notion that Muhammed is divine or any other human being has been placed on Earth for some divine purpose.

Indeed, it's more than that I don't believe it, I find the notion abhorrent to the concept of humanity, mean of purpose (to rob humans of their essential human condition), and ruinous in effect.

And the celebration of Christmas--the idea that for a couple of days we should sing and pray and be of good will--it's worse than the recent idea of "black history month." Why is there a weekend for acting benignly, when Christians, as an historical group, are essentially a murderous group of zealots abetted (now, as much as ever) by wimpy believers who do nothing while Jesus' name is used to justify killing of persons all over the world.

Religion, in my mind--and Christianity is as bad as any--is a curse, an evil force.

Who's counting?

Ya know, with Rummie's recent announcement of a withdrawal of some troops from Iraq, I got to thinking. We'll have about 140,000 soldiers there afterward (if you believe the Pentagon), and I got to thinking. Does that count the sailors on board ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf? What about the soldiers stationed in Kuwait and Qatar and other nearby sites? And what about this: Now that we're using thousands of "private contractors" to perform services that our military used to do--KP, transport, security operations--our soldiers are freed to perform truly military duties, right? Unlike Vietnam, where our 550,000 troops (at the height of the war) were doing all such things.

It's possible, by such reckoning, that our total military commitment to the outrageous, illegal war is comparable to the outrageous illegal war in Vietnam, only, so far, not quite as long.

Class warfare

These numbers are proof that the Republican version of an "economic recovery" is where the corporations (their highly-placed officers, their stockholders) benefit, and the workers don't. Why are the blue-collars silent? Why, for that matter, are the white-collars, who're not gaining income, but are simply spending borrowed money, drawn from their refinanced houses and credit cards? Are these folks so stupid, so unaware of even their own plight? Answer: Yeah.

Soldier bloggers

Here's a fine piece, quoting American soldiers' blogs from Iraq. Some fine images, some fine writers, some fine folks we've sent off to kill.

While Bush withdraws the troops from Iraq

during the next six months, bear in mind that, unless restrained by the "elected" government of that puppet nation, US military forces, by airstrikes through fighters,missles and drones, as well as by withdrawing to four permanent bases inside Iraq's borders, will very much continue its dominance of the region. Don't be fooled, readers. Bush/Rummie/Condi/Cheney will try to fool us with numbers, but their plan will remain intact. They want to rule the Middle East by military power, and we'll continue to be their dupes unless we "stay the course," namely, continue to demand that we get the hell out of the region.

President Bush's problem

I finally figured out why Bush invaded Iraq in furtherance of his "war on terror": He's dyslexic, having read Saddam's name as "Osama." Both words contain an s, an m, two a's, the only difference being an o, which looks like a zero. No difference, really.

Prime time slime

I didn't (couldn't) watch Bush on TV last night, but I've read news reports of his speech. My reaction: "Yawn."

Here's the deal: We're told he was "more realistic," "almost apologetic," and "convincing." He asked us to be patient in Iraq, that there were hard times ahead and that these difficulties weren't foreseen. He'd earlier in the week allowed that the intelligence that led to our invasion was flawed and that the responsibility for the decision to invade was his.

And? And? And nothing. Nothing new. Same old cliches about winning the war, progress being made, and so forth. Same speech we heard from LBJ and Nixon for years while our troops, and the Vietnamese, were being decimated in Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile, "on the ground" here's how it's going in Iraq. And meanwhile, Bush's authorization of domestic wiretaps without a warrant, and the Pentagon's surveillance of antiwar groups, give credence to this sage observation (not mine, but I can't recall the source):

"Bush said that Osama bin Laden hates us for our freedoms, and so Bush's solution is to take them away from us."

I laughed 'til I cried

when I read the quoted sentence below, which was buried in an article recounting Cheney's "surprise visit" to Iraq.

After detailing Cheney's talk to the troops (during which their questions and reactions weren't entirely favorable), Cheney toured a military base where Iraqi and US soldiers were present, during which "U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns."

Yup, we're sure making progress with Iraq's military. One day we may trust them with weapons in our leaders' vicinity.

The most populous Muslim nation

Indonesia, responds to US tsunami aid predictably, given the actions and policies of Bush's neocon friends.

Another surprise visit?

Cheney's "visit" to Iraq today is termed a surprise by the mainstream media, just as are all "visits" by US administration officials. Why not call them what they are: "sneak appearances," made so because there's no way Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi could safely appear in that nation if the trips were announced in advance, and if they were more prolonged or significant than quick drop-ins to a military base or the fortified Green Zone.

Okay, I've noted this before, both the fact of it, and the manner of reporting. I understand the facts aren't likely to change, but won't the media ever tell it like it is?

I told you so

You see, I was right. The NYT published the report about Bush's secret order authorizing DIA spying on US residents, after holding it for a year, only because someone else was about to publish the story. (Check out my previous post, "Outrage.")

I wasn't cynical enough, though. Apparently, there's a book coming out--authored by a NYT reporter--and so the publication of the spying story is timed to boost its sales.

Then, profit: we learn that what changed between now and a year ago was that a Times reporter, James Risen, is about to publish a book about the entire affair and thus publishing the story now will mean maximum pre-sale buzz in January when the book is released - a key for any big book sales.

How is it that

a decade into the "information revolution" brought on by the personal computer and the Internet, there's still so much ignorance in the United States?

Has it come to this?

Are we now a nation, a culture, in which the end justifies the means? I've been watching CNN, Faux News, even the "real networks," (CBS, ABC, NBC), extolling the marvel of the voting in Iraq. Here's their message. Even though we invaded a sovereign nation without justification, murdered thousands of innocents--ours and theirs--all is subsumed, all is forgiven, by an "election" conducted by citizens who're under our occupation. Iraq, we are told, is now exercising democracy and so we of the US can be forgiven for our violations of international law and of decency.

My take on this: If we are forgiven, then so are the worst of the world's transgressions, because even Attila the Hun believed he was bringing a better world to those he conquered.

Outrage

This NYT report on Bush's secret executive order allowing warrantless wiretaps on US citizens inside the country is outrageous enough, in particular the administration's insistence that Bush has inherent power to conduct such surveillance, unchecked by the Congress. This is another example of the "9/11 changed everything" ethic that Bush has used repeatedly to justify his ongoing illegalities.
But equally outrageous is that the Times sat on the story for a year in order, it says, to conduct "additional reporting." Number one: What chickenshits! Number two: What liars! It's clear that the NYT would have sat on the story indefinitely but for the recent lies by the administration, in particular by Cheney's minions, that the federal government had no such program, as quoted in the NYT article itself. I suspect, too, that another publication was about to go public with this information, and NYT didn't want to be shown to be what it is: a craven tool of the Bushites.

Riverbend's take on the election

Baghdad Burning's author prefers the Allawi "list" of candidates, even though they're puppets of the US, because when you're facing death a fever is just fine.

Alarming arrogance

When Bush, back in 2003, reacted to the millions of protesters of his invasion of Iraq with a shrug, and an offhand, "I respectfully disagree," I thought he'd reached the apex of arrogance. I was wrong. For months he's refused to discuss the Plamegate case on the ground that he wouldn't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation; but today, after he was questioned about the propriety of his comment that Tom Delay was innocent of the pending charges, his press secretary simply said it was his presidential prerogative to do so.

We gotta get rid of this guy.

A prediction

It's been four-plus years since the 9/11 attacks. At the time, I viewed the attacks as "the price of empire," and in the succeeding months and years I interiorly entertained my predictions about the outcome of the resultant "war on terror," including the invasion of Iraq, that Bush initiated. I didn't announce these predictions (except for one prediction--so far wrong, it turns out--about the decline of the dollar against foreign currencies), but each of my imaginings has been on target. So now, I'll articulate a prediction, so you can hold me to it.

I predict that by the end of 2006, Iraq (and likely its neighbors Syria and Iran) will have embroiled the US in such a God-awful mess that VietNam will look like a cakewalk. In the wake of today's elections, Iraq will become fragmented, will begin to look like a "failed state," to the alarm of nearby Arab states. The schism between "insurgents" and "terrorists" in Iraq, already emerging, will widen; antagonism between Shia-dominated nations and Sunni/Wahabbi nations will increase, and the US will try to straddle all of these conflicting forces, leaving our troops targets from a hundred directions.

Those of us who opposed the war are often chided for taking pleasure in seeing US failure in Iraq. Well, to be honest, I do. I want the US public--I want the world--to learn that the Bush version of democracy (you know what I'm talking about) cannot be imposed on the world by force, and should not be because of its illegitimacy. I want the Iraq experience to result in debacle so profound that we don't ever get talked into (lied into) repeating it.

I wish thousands of US soldiers didn't have to die to make this point, and I certainly feel awful about the dead and wounded Iraqis who've been made to pay this price. But, to me, if their suffering teaches the US to become a decent nation, a true leader of a fine, loving world, the price is, if not worth it, at least worth something.

A perfect model of democracy

I've been reading complaints about the Iraqi election: The rapidity of the timetable for voting, plus the danger on the streets has limited campaigning to television advertisement, which are so expensive that only financially-empowered candidates can afford them, and these ads don't address substantive issues but consist merely of clever sloganeering and attacks on the opponents.

So--we've created Iraq in our own image, right?

Vote for what you believe in

Late Senator Paul Wellstone's slogan. So to my thousands of readers in New York, vote for ABC--anybody but Clinton--in the upcoming Senate primary. And if you need more evidence, check out this hypocrisy.

Once again on dialup, and ever more frustrated

I'm away from my broadband connection and so am speechless (as they say), except to howl at my powerlessness. There's so much to comment about: today's 9/11 Commission report, the outrageous bullshit that Condi spouted about "rendition" of "enemy combatants" (What have we become?), the likelihood that the Fitzgerald inquiry may merge with other investigations to reveal, via the Plamegate matter, a vast conspiracy to lead the US to war, implicating Israeli influence on NeoCons, including Rummie, Hadley, Cheney and their ilk. (I can dream, can't I?)

I'll be keeping track, of course, but not blogging with my usual assiduousness. But take heart, I'll be back online bigtime in a couple of weeks.

Maddening, maddening

"Ten soldiers killed in Iraq today," crawls across the TV screen. The pundits, too, announce this as a news coup, a significant development. This drives me crazy. In the first place, it's flat wrong. Eleven died. But that's not what drives me crazy. Several days in the last few months ten or more soldiers have died in a single day, but didn't die in a single incident or whose deaths weren't reported in a single dispatch; and on numerous days the death toll has been seven, eight, nine. A brief survey of the above-linked website will demonstrate this.

Another thing: All this hoopla about the Pentagon planting news in Baghdad dailies. Yup, it's a bad thing. But in the face of all the outrages we've been committing in that country--killing civilians, jailing innocents, torturing, destroying cities--how can such a story even get traction in the US?

Because it's about the media, stupid. We are at the mercy of the media in America, and that's the most maddening of all.

What's in a word?

The Downing Street memo, isn't a "memo," it's minutes of a meeting. And the "Bush-bombing-of-al Jazeera" memo isn't a memo, either. It's a transcript. I know they're off the radar right now, but with some luck they'll come back, during impeachment proceedings of Bush/Cheney, let's hope.

Withdrawal defined

With all this discussion of "withdrawal, "draw-down," and so forth, of our forces in Iraq, let us not be misled. As Tom Engelhardt points out in this lengthy piece, these various phrases disguise the following eventualities, if the NeoCons have their way: (1) Continued support of the Iraqi "forces" by US naval air power, missiles and planes, from ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, as well as the US Air Force stationed nearby, their targets called in by Iraqi forces on the ground; (2) the presence of US ground troops in at least one--probably more--permanent bases in Iraq and nearby, to rush in as needed to assist in the suppression of any violence in Iraq; (3) the control of oil and other business opportunities in Iraq by Western interests; (4) protection of the "independence" of the northern region of Iraq, "Kurdistan," to the dismay of the remnants of Iraq and of its neighbors of the region.

Make no mistake. Nothing in the current debate addresses these issues, and Bush is keeping quiet about them. But when we crazies chant--as we have for three years--"Out of Iraq!" we don't mean any of these things. We mean that the US should get out of Iraq entirely, get our troops out of harm's way and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. That's withdrawal.

Monsters

These soldiers--happen to be Brits--are more evil than the worst movie villain, as evil as evil can be. Here's the video of them shooting randomly at civilian autos, while an Elvis CD plays in the background. Imagine, for a moment, what it feels like to be subjected to automatic weapon fire, your car and person torn to shreds by huge bullets sprayed from the vehicle ahead! Think of the horror, the rage!

We've got to get our troops--all of them, Brits, Aussies, U.S.--out of Iraq to let them come home and return to humanness because this war is making some of them into monsters.

Colin Powell, the wimp

This article sums up my feelings about Powell, as well as my contemporaneous reaction to his presentation to the Security Council in the runup to our invasion of Iraq. Maybe because of my lawyer background I videotaped Powell's speech and went through portions of it afterward, especially his dog-and-pony show about the mobile labs for producing biological weapons, and it had a familiar smell to it: bullshit. I recalled at the time the U-2 overfilight photos that President Kennedy showed the nationwide TV audience to demonstrate the Soviet Union's actions in Cuba to install long-range missles. Now there was evidence! But the video graphics of Iraqi trucks equipped with laboratories?--c'mon, already.

As to Colin Powell? I've defended him heretofore as a "soldier," honor-bound not to denigrate his commander, the Commander in Chief. But I've changed my mind after these weeks of hearing from his Chief of Staff, Col. Wilkerson. Obviously, Wilkerson's statements are Powell's too, and so now it's clear that Powell is hiding behind Wilkerson's skirts to save his image.

It's time for Powell to step forward in person. Not as a soldier, not as a diplomat, but as a human being. Otherwise, I label him a coward, and so, I hope, will history.

Amen

This type of analysis of America's outrageous disparity of resource and income distribution is long overdue. Our policies, the innate greed of the capitalist system and its child, unbridled consumerism, have brought us to this point. I've lived through times when the existence of well-paid, unionized workers, a respected middle-class, and a fair apportionment of the nation's wealth were fundamental precepts. No more. Now, with a greed government at the helm, with corporate profits the aim and end of our system, we've become an indebted, impoverished nation, consuming on credit, living beyond the insecure, stingy means that we're given by a beaten-down economy, and buying and borrowing more.

Meanwhile, the poor in America have nothing and, under recent Bush legislation, will have even less in the future. Yeah, it's a human rights issue, nothing less.

Throw out the bastards, all of them...

except, maybe, Murtha, Feingold and of course Kucinich. A few others, maybe, maybe.

I've just watched Lehrer's interview of Senators Warner and Reid, a Republican and a Democrat, who hummed the same tune backing today's Presidential "speech" about Iraq, in particular, withdrawal of our troops. In essence, never.

We, the people, have got to take back America, because our representatives aren't doing our will.

We've got to start somewhere

How 'bout sending Rummie to Iraq, without a full military guard?

'Splain this to me

A college kid, a golfer on the University of Arizona, a year ago loses his entire family--both parents, his sister--when their private plane crashes on the way home from watching the kid play in a tournament. A young girl, allergic to peanuts, dies an agonizing death, seizures and great pain, after kissing her boyfriend who'd eaten a peanut butter sandwich nine hours before.

Does God have a plan? If He's omnipotent, can't He control such events? Was He too busy? If so, why bother to live a life that accords with His supposed dictates? Or maybe He just doesn't care.

Whazzup?

Uh oh

Some weeks ago we learn of the first female suicide bomber in Iraq, and now we learn of the first female European suicide bomber, a Belgian woman.

Good job, Bush. You finally succeeded at something. Creating a truly global war of terror.

Let me get this straight

We invade Iraq on various pretenses and finally settle on the "we deposed a dictator who tortured and abused his fellow citizens" rationale, only to turn the place over to a regime that tortures and abuses its fellow citizens.
Sounds like a hell of a deal for $300 billion and 17,000 killed or wounded US soldiers, eh?

Come the revolution...

It will start because of this.

How do you spell mutiny?

Check out these letters to the editor of Stars and Stripes, the Army's daily, Middle East edition, especially the first letter, but others as well. Do they sound like the Army's TV commercials to you?

Well, now isn't this interesting...

The EU has got some balls, after all. Threatening to sanction members states that have harbored the CIA's secret jails and demanding that their location and activities be disclosed.

Maybe it's time to move over there--past time.

I never doubted it

This post by Juan Cole, citing Sy Hersh's report in the New Yorker, tells of US plans to withdraw troops on the ground in favor of supplying air power in support of Iraqi forces to put down the insurgency. Not only is this madness--empowering the Shiites and Kurds to call down bombing on Sunnis--but it's hardly the stable democracy, with sovereignty and freedoms, that we're supposed to be establishing. What a God-awful mess, leaving the Middle East in a much worse position than when we invaded.

Cole also has a word of advice for George Bush about his heritage, worth reading.

Ann Coulter

author of this mad monlogue, shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves.

Now you tell me...

Does this sound like a whitewash to you?

Letter to the editor

The following is a copy of a letter I wrote to the editor of the SB NewsPress. It probably won't be published--it's a bit lengthy--but what the hell.

Thirty-nine months after Bush/Cheney's invasion and occupation of Iraq,
after untold thousands of deaths and maimings of Iraqis, Americans and others,
and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are hearing
suggestions from some in the Bush administration that "withdrawal" or
"redeployment" of some coalition forces is likely, even imminent. These utterances are no doubt prompted by the growing rejection by the US public of our continued presence in Iraq, which is in turn based on a new awareness among the majority of our citizenry that the reasons the administration gave for the invasion were false: No weapons of mass destruction, no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, no "imminent threat" by Iraq to the US or its allies. With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?" It is to diffuse this growing
doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.

Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was always about establishing US hegemony in the Middle East, and so when they speak of withdrawal or redeployment of forces, they don't mean our troops will come home, or even leave the area. They'll be ordered to stay indefinitely in the region to show US power--and use it if necessary--to enforce US interests (read access to oil and natural gas by our corporations). Indeed, we are presently building four "enduring" bases in Iraq to ensure our permanent military presence there.

These bases will only ensure continued attacks on US targets in the region and
throughout the world, by those who've long demanded that we give up our designs on the territory and resources of the Middle East. We'll continue to spend billions of dollars and risk innocent lives, just in slightly different locales.

We mustn't grow complacent. We must keep up the drumbeat, continue to demand to "support our troops" not by moving them a few miles farther into the desert, but by bringing them home. Home to the United States. Now.

You read it here first

That is, here. No surprise, I suppose, that our oil barons are planning to rip off the Iraqis, but it still bears reporting, right?

I regularly check out Al-Jazeera's webpage to see whazzup. I know it's thought to be a shill for the bad guys--even a target of our bombing--but it seems moderately moderate to me, and it certainly publishes news that others don't touch, especially our MSM.

Of course that's why Bush wants it destroyed.

I'd like to attend a press conference

where President Bush is asked about Hugo Chavez's decision to deliver below-market heating oil to various cities on the east coast of the US. I hope the question comes up--maybe as part of the the Thanksgiving festivities--perhaps by means of a question like this: "Mr. President, Are you having turkey, or are you eating crow?"

Who's on first?

We are told that there's a new strategy for US forces: "go and stay." This involves not simply clearing various hotspots of insurgency, whole towns in many cases, but thereafter leaving a residual force sufficient to keep the town free of a return of the insurgents. However, this involves a significant increase in the number of troops on the ground for a significant period.

On the other hand, there are the hints by Condi Rice, that troop reductions in Iraq are in the offing. Is it possible that Condi's bullshitting us, just saying what the Bush administration thinks will placate the growing resistance to the war? Naa. Couldn't be, not in this administration with its implacable dedication to truth.

Craigslist rocks

Seems like alot of things rock for me today. This one--Craigslist--surely does.

When I was apartment-hunting in SB three months ago, I logged onto Craigslist hourly almost, to find the latest listings and to communicate by email with the owners. Really quick and efficient, an important feature being that when the space was rented, it was removed from Craigslist, unlike in the classifieds of the SB News-Press, where a rental could appear available long after it was rented. Other features, too, making Craigslist far superior to the newpaper for classified advertising. I'm certain that it, along with eBay and uBid (both of which I've used as well) are part of the problem the papers are facing, as shown in their declining revenues.

And now Craigslist is taking on the news component of newspapers. Right on, dog!

Depends on whose ox is being phosphorused

Is "white phosphorus" a "chemical weapon," the use of which in warfare is illegal? It is if you're Saddam Hussein, but not, apparently, if you're the good ol' USA.

The enemy of my enemy

I'm sure on many issues I don't agree with Libertarian Justin Raimondo, whose blog, AntiWar.com, is one of my first sources for essay and news each morning. I trust he's anti-liberal on social issues, probably too on environmental questions. But as to this war in Iraq--and in critiquing those politicians of both parties who support it--he's right on. This post, to me, says it all, especially its castigation of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for their weak-kneed, mendacious positions on our occupation. I commend it to you.

BTW--There's a quote in this post, cited by Raimondo, which is attributed to Claire Booth Luce, criticizing FDR's actions in triggering our entry into WWII:

The President "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it."

Seems like history repeats itself each generation. FDR in 1941, LBJ in 1966, GWB in 2003. Like the song says, "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"

Juan Cole rocks

I've mentioned this before, I know, but the blog of this university professor, a Middle East expert, is must reading for those wanting to follow the developments in the region. Professor Cole speaks Arabic and has studied the area for years, as well as traveling there regularly.

Today's posts deal with Bush's conversation with Tony Blair, wherein the latter talked Bush out of bombing the Qatar broadcast station of al Jazeera (and the post describes the network accurately, in my opinion); the attempt by Big Oil to pirate Iraq's oil to their own profit; the disclosure that Bush was personally told by way of a President's Daily Brief (PDB) long before the Iraq invasion that there was no operational connection between Iraq and al Qaeda--and that Bush nevertheless told the US public that there was, and withheld the PDB from Congress in the runup to the war.

Other tidbits, too. All part of a day in the dwindling decade of our empire.

Read it and weep

How can you not? And, for those of you who aren't doing anything to get the US out of Iraq, get off your butts.

Triangle of Death

An Iraqi reporter tells of his observations of the Iraqi army's actions in these villages. I guess you'd say we need to do a bit more training of them--or are they just following our example?

Loose tongues

I'm getting tired of this. When those people in Iraq who are fighting with small arms and crude IEDs the US occupation troops and the US-sponsored Iraqi military, they are called, variously, "insurgents" (not, of course, "patriots") and "terrorists," and if they shoot our troops the event is called an "ambush."

Does our media ever--I mean, ever--cast what's happening in Iraq as anything other than bad guys vs. good guys? I mean, isn't it at least possible that we're the bad guys? We are, after all, the invading army, invading in violation of international law, in the face of UN opposition, without justification. Can't at least one MSM headline writer at least try to fairly characterize what's really going on in Iraq?

"The Nation" takes a stand

To which I say, Right on, dog.

A word of caution

I gotta admit, with the marvelous skein of bad news for Bush lately, and his plummeting poll numbers, it's hard not to gloat. For example, check out this graphic, charting the poll numbers of Nixon, Clinton and Bush II, and entitled "Bush--Hot on Nixon's Trail."

But these NeoCon people and their puppet, Bush, still control the media, still control all facets of government, still have three years (let's hope not!) years to rule. Now--more than ever--it's time to exploit this momentary advantage, with care and diligence, and with effective insight into the process.

For example, does the Left challenge the Alito nomination? I mean, do they threaten a filibuster? Would that be a waste of energy? Would it win? Would it alienate the moderates?

Does the Left relent a bit, and lean toward the middle? Does it howl until the middle moves Left? Does it do nothing--that is, allow the Bush administration to implode in the eyes of the middle-of-the-road congressmen (and, more to the point, women) and in the middle-of-the-road voters?

I say no. Give no quarter. Attack, attack, attack!--Just like they do. You see, their issues--drilling in Anwar, continuing the Patriot Act, "staying the course" in Iraq--are so awful, and so unpopular, that the Left has wide-open area for attack.Soo--attack!

I don't get it

Add up these numbers: Environmentalists, peaceniks, liberal/progressives, the poor, blacks, browns, unionists, womens'-rightists, academics, and add in libertarians and true conservatives. How many millions is that? Surely the vast majority of them, opposed to this outrageous war, make up a huge majority of Americans. Indeed, who favors the war? All I can think of is thick-necked white males, ages 27-40 who drive pickups with gunracks, and affluent white retirees who drive golfcarts.

So why are we still at war?

Well, now

Maybe all the marching and chanting we've been doing for the last three years is having an effect. The House of Representatives is beginning to sound like the British House of Commons. As we sometimes shout while marching, when accosted by opponents, "This is what democracy sounds like!"

The other sock

just dropped. As I predicted, Fitz is pissed. He's filed a document telling the court that he's proceeding with the leakgate investigation in front of a new grand jury.

Bush the pariah

He leaves the White House to campaign for the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, sending the candidate to defeat, then he travels to the far east, stopping in South Korea to this effect:

"South Korea has announced plans to pull a third of its troops out of Iraq
next year.The announcement from the Korean Defense Ministry comes a day after
President Bush met with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (noh moo-hyuhn) and praised him as a staunch ally in the Iraq conflict.

Is the bottom falling out?

I've referred to this poll, Pollkatz, in previous posts. It summarizes and charts, with fine graphics, the numerous polls on numerous issues.

The "Bush index" is a definitive polling indicator, because it measures the spread between Bush's approval and disapproval numbers, as determined weekly by averaging the polls concluded during that week.

Well, as you can see, the news ain't good for Bush, not at all. Pollkatz's figures reveal the highest spread ever between those figures--24.2--whereas no previous index had risen above 20. This means, according to the broad sample of polls, 36% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of his presidency, and 60% do not.

A "silent majority" has arisen, to be sure. And it's a big majority, growing bigger by the week.

Damn, I wish I'd come up with that

but I didn't. I found it in the middle of this essay on the state of the nation. A fine piece, to be sure, but this observation is the capper:

Bush's version of battling the war on terror is this: "Since 'they hate us for our freedoms,' we'll just eliminate the freedoms."

Hillary/Biden watch

Ya wanna see something fun? Watch over the next few months how Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, in their bid to stay in the hunt for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, try to slither from their ongoing "send more troops to Iraq" mantra, to adoption of a pitch for withdrawal. Neither of them has an ounce of principle, and so I'm quite certain the it's just a matter of time, since even the most hawkish of Democrats in Congress are suddenly climbing on the get-out-now bandwagon. Being alone among their peers on this issue ain't going to get them any primaries, that's for sure.

My guess is that at some point in Bush's meaningless "quarterly progress reports" on Iraq, one or both of them will ease into a reversal, citing some figures or some developments in the reports. There'll be no abrupt change of heart, a la John Edwards, that's for sure. The last thing Biden or Clinton wants is a flip-flop moniker. So, keep your eyes and ears open, tune in to nuance when they speak. Let's see how cleverly they do it--and how cleverly we can spot it.

PS--Scroll down the above link, past the news release of Murtha's statement, and read the statement i

An early analysis

The revelation that Bob Woodward of WaPo says he learned from a White House source the identity and CIA position of Ambassador Wilson's wife two weeks before Scooter Libby is said to have leaked this information to Judith Miller of the NYT, does put an odd twist on prosecutor Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby. Recall, Fitzgerald claimed in his news conference that Libby was the first leaker, and hence had reason to lie about having leaked, since to do so would likely jeopardize national security. Now, with Woodward's earlier knowledge, the strength of Fitzgerald's case against Libby is a bit, but just a bit, questionable.

This article assails Woodward, and rightly so. I've always been somewhat guarded in my assessment of his reporting. He seems to me to be so enamored of his role as contemporary chronicler of political history that he sacrifices insight in favor of churning out a middling mush, becoming first to press but only that. In the process, his recounting is more like regurgitating.

But unlike the author of the above-linked piece, I don't see Woodward's claim to be ruinous to the prosecution of Libby. On the contrary, I believe that "junkyard dog" Fitzgerald--who's taken Woodward's depostion now--will not take kindly to Woodward's last-minute disclosure, and will demand of Woodward that he reveal this source, and that he'll seek a contempt citation, a la Judith Miller, if Woodward doesn't fess up. Woodward may go to jail to protect his source, but he might not. After all, such a sacrifice isn't newsworthy anymore (BTDT--"Been there done that") and besides, Woodward's got a book to finish.

So Woodward will doubtless squeal, and since it's likely his source was Cheney himself, Fitzgerald will likely want to depose Cheney too--not simply chat with him, in Bush's presence and not under oath, as before--and if Cheney lies: perjury. If he tells the truth: violation of a substantive statute, possibly. Either way, Fitzgerald's gonna have himself a field day--and we're in for a hell of a ride.

Compromises, or sellouts?

Two Congressional deals in two days: A half-measure that essentially overturns the recent Supreme Court decision on the rights of "enemy combatants" to have access to federal court; and a bullshit 90-day "reporting" duty imposed on Bush, with no timetable for exit, as to the war in Iraq.

The Republicans have won two battles, defusing the Democrats' issues on two important issues, and looking magnanimous in the process.

The Democrats, the gutless party, caved in twice, handing Bush a way out of his own barbarism. He can now comply with these weak-kneed laws and slide through his murderous policies unscathed.

Lies list

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

Liar, liar

I guess maybe it'll finally come to light--the evidence of Bush/Cheney's prevarications that led us to war in Iraq. On this score, in addition to the piles of circumstantial evidence, from the Downing Street Memo to the testimonies of cabinet members and advisors of Bush to the outright clarity that Bush/Cheney plotted this war long before they launched it, add this fact: There was massive bombing of various parts of Iraq in the months before the invasion, while Bush was all the while pretending to be abiding by UN resolutions. This last bit of evidence has been rarely alluded to in this debate, but it must not be forgotten, because it, as an affirmative act, proves more than anything else, that the war was underway long before we were told it was and that fact, as much as any other fact, proves the intent to deceive.

Winston Churchill

is said to said this: "Americans will always do the right thing, as soon as they've run out of alternatives."

Have we?

Iraq hic diem.

Let's see. Mass arrests of civilians by the military of an occupying nation. Regular killings of military forces and mercenaries who are hired by the occupier to provide security. A diffuse, undifferentiated insurgency. Killings of Iraqi civilians by the insurgents. Systematic propaganda by the occupier, seeking support from the populace.

A day in the life of an emerging democracy.

Am I missing something?

Jimmy Carter abjures the administration's insistence on the power to torture prisoners, on its pre-emptive war doctrine, on its actions to invade our privacy in pursuit of its "war on terror," and many other outrages, all as recounted in his newly-published book.

My question: since Carter's a born-again Christian, are there two versions, the ones, like Carter, who follow the teachings of Jesus, and the others--those who vote for Bush repeatedly--who follow Bush?

Maddening

Torture vel non. This will be the question of the upcoming week, no doubt, as the Congress debates various proposals to exempt the CIA or other entities from the Geneva Convention, US military regulations and standard police investigative practices that have been the law of the land for centuries. It is said that we must have information from our captives to protect our troops and our homeland and that departure from our norms may be needed to secure it.

Why are we having this debate? Didn't we need information during the world wars, during Korea and VietNam? Wasn't it likely (wasn't it even more likely?) that captured troops or guerillas could supply it, and wouldn't the same argument apply to them, that harsher methods of interrogation might obtain more information, might save lives? And yet we stuck by the rules in world war--and we stuck by them during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union posed a documented nuclear threat to the U.S.

We're told that "9/11 changed everything." Well, maybe so. Maybe we've allowed the Bush administration to convince us that, but to me all that's changed is the American psyche. "We Have Met the Enemy...and He is Us."

Incompetence or conspiracy?

I seldom watch the Sunday "news" shows, because they've become (were they always?) uninformative shouting matches, without deliberation, without elucidation, just noise. But today I glimpsed Wolf Blitzer's (his real name?) program, interviewing Senators Pat Roberts, R. Kansas, alongside Carl Levin, D. Michigan, on various topics. Among the questions was why various Bush administration officials kept repeating as fact that Iraq had trained al Qaeda operatives before 9/11, when that assertion had been debunked in a Defense Intelligence Agency report long before. It seems that the source, a captured al Qaeda fighter, was said to be unreliable, saying whatever it took to maintain his captors' interest.

Pat Roberts' answer was succinct. "The DIA report didn't reach the policymakers."

And Wolf's next question: "Isn't that a terrible commentary on our intelligence system?" or words to that effect, turning to Levin, an avoidance that Levin bit on.

You don't have to be a trial lawyer to know that the next question that Wolf should have asked Roberts was this: "How do you know that?"

You take it from there.

I know it's early, but

I gotta tell ya, if the race for president is between Clinton and McCain, I'm gonna blow up the 154 bridge over Cold Springs Canyon, the 101 north and south of SB, and lead the movement to secede from the US. Why not? We'll have plenty of offshore oil, plenty of fish and veggies--avocados, lemons, walnuts in massive amounts--and, of course, wonderful weather. Hell, SB even has a desalinization plant, so they can't cut off our water supply.

The only economic source we'll have to go without is tourism, to which I say...oh well.

Ya gotta love it

"Early November is a beautiful time in Wisconsin." So begins a letter to Bush asking him to visit that state on the eve of the election in 2006 to campaign for Republican candidates.

The rub: the letter (pdf) was authored by the head of the Wisconsin Democratic party.