Am I crazy or is Bush?

Here's a quote from a Bush news conference today:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he [Bush] said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."


This madman in the White House is using language straight out of Dr. Stranglove, not in connection with an imminent attack on the US, not even an imminent attack on a treaty-bound ally, but to threaten world war based on a titular-president's rhetorical attack on foreign nation with which we have no reciprocal-defense treaty obligations. Furthermore, Bush's threat is made solely on the prospect that Iran might obtain the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." My God--talk about moving the goalposts, now our nation is going to start a world war because another country has "knowledge"? Because another country's president has made some untoward remarks about another nation? What about our statements about Iraq/Iran/North Korea/Libya/many others? We've been much more threatening to them that Iran is to Israel (and certainly to the US) and our threats aren't mere rhetoric but are backed by demonstrated nuclear weaponry.

Look, I knew before we invaded Iraq that Bush was going to go forward regardless of the protests or that facts "on the ground." But I've so far pooh-poohed the prospect of his attacking Iran. Call me stupid or in denial or just plain Pollyanna-ish, but I've until lately believed that with respect to Iran, Bush was "all hat and no cattle." But I fear I've been wrong. Language like the above demonstrates to me that he's absofuckinglutely nuts, that he's decided already to take out Iran's nuclear reactors/facilities whatever the state of negotiations/evidence/diplomacy. There's no other explanation for such incendiary language by the commander-in-chief of a world power.

Folks, we've got Dr. Strangelove in the Oval Office. Worse, we've got General Jack D. Ripper.

A graphic

is worth a million words.

Letter to the LA Times

In the past, my letters to editors have been to the SB Independent and News-Press.
With the following letter, I've decided to go bigtime. If anyone should see it in print in the Times, please let me know, because I'm only an occasional reader of that fine paper.

Dear editor:

I am curious. I wonder if any of your readers could point to a single feature or measure of the Bush administration—just one, in any field (except corporate profits and rising stock prices)—that has proven successful. We know too well the mind-numbing string of failures. The faulty pursuit of Osama bin Laden; the illegal and inept invasion and occupation of Iraq—and (it lately appears) Afghanistan; the worsening Middle East mess; the declining dollar; the loss of decent American jobs and the gigantic gap between rich and poor; the health care debacle; the growing environmental crisis; the upward-spiraling price of oil; the humongous federal deficit and international trade imbalance; the alienation of our allies and the disdain in which the US is held around the globe; the violations of our civil liberties; the corruption and incompetence of government; the decline of our military readiness—to name a few. Even the rise in home ownership that President Bush once touted has proven to be a Potemkin village, as thousands of foreclosures of easy-credit mortgages have reversed the numbers, resulting in a net decline in ownership during Bush’s tenure.

Some will argue that the U.S. hasn’t been attacked again since 9/11, to which the easy answer is this: If the purpose of bin Laden was to wreck America and instill fear and uncertainty in its citizens, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, aided and abetted by the abhorrent policies and ruinous actions of his effective accomplice, George W. Bush.

In a nutshell

here's the situation, the dire situation, in Iraq that explains both the Anbar Province "success" and the future Iraq disaster. Note the author's prediction that the disaster will obtain under candidate Clinton as well as under any Republican candidate.

Pray for us, for our kids, for our grandkids. Bush/Cheney have created an endless nightmare.

Another day in Iraq

Take a look at this list of killings in Baghdad today, Tuesday. (Scroll down to "security incidents.") The total dead from bombings and shootings is, by my count, 38, with 104 wounded. Another 47 dead in other parts of Iraq.

I'm going to keep beating this drum until somebody listens.

What's new?

Ya know, I'm getting sick and tired of reading stories--"news" accounts, they're called--of events that many sensible students of history and human behavior predicted would occur years earlier. The accounts adopt a breathless, urgent tone, as if the latest development materialized out of thin air, with no warning, no foreknowledge by anyone. The most obvious example is of course the debacle that has become Iraq--even Cheney knew that was going to happen, having warned against invading Iraq a decade earlier when he was SecDef to Bush I.

The Blackwater outrage. How could it not happen that that would finally blow up? A bunch of young, highly-paid former soldiers, armed to the teeth, immunized from legalisms such as the prohibition of murder, driving helter-skelter through the cities of Iraq with supposed urgent duties and God on their side? That they'd run amok? Whoodathunkit?

The collapse of the dollar? The subprime mortgage mess? The rising price of oil and of corn for ethanol? The loss of US manufacturing jobs and the growing income disparity? There are so many of such predictable--predicted--disastrous developments that I've tired of chronicling them, even of observing them. I've taken to reading headlines only, because the body of the stories don't say anything I don't already know, and have known for years.

Revisionism redux

This "stab-in-the-back" story, so common to justify a nation's military defeat, is already in progress with respect to the inevitable sad ending to America's Iraq adventure, as Eric Alterman points out. But I must add that Congressional Democrats have only themselves to blame for its viability. Had they acted promptly to de-fund the war nine months ago, in accord with the mandate they gained from the 2006 elections, Bush would not have been able to pawn the war off onto the next president, whichever Democrat it is, to damn him/her with its eventual horrific conclusion. As it now stands, the Iraq occupation will drag on for another several years, and when it ends the inevitable decline of Iraq into bloody bedlam will be laid at the feet of those then in power, leaving Bush/Cheney and their apologists able to escape blame for the consequences of their egregious misuse of America's military might.

Doubting Thomas

Here's an essay about Clarence Thomas, with a long string of comments pro and con, dealing with his just-released memoir and his Sunday interview on Sixty Minutes. I watched the latter (I'm not going to buy the book for obvious reasons), and my impression was clear, pure, direct: This man is a small-minded, foul-spirited person, as low a form of life as can be found on the planet--with apologies to bacteria. If/when the interview comes online, give it a look and tell me what you see.

A leader of the pack of rats jumps ship

Tom Friedman, an "economic essayist" for the NYT and a staunch supporter of the invasion and occupation of Itaq, finally realizes that the "war on terror" was a mistaken concept and that it's time has come to get out of Iraq and cut our losses. His reason: it's bad for business.

Compassionate conservatism?

I'm not on fire about user fees for our national parks and monuments. It does make some sense to me to charge a fee to the folks to visit them, as opposed to supporting them solely by taxation, even though they're our common, national property. I makes some sense, although of course I understand the contrary argument, and I even understand the vehemence with which opponents of user fees express themselves.

But here's a fee that's nothing but mean-spirited and unfair and outrageous. Charging a $25 fee to recipients of more than $500 a year in child support payments to fund the governmental effort to collect delinquent support payments from others. Part of the Republicans' Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Now you tell me: Is that fair? Is that governance you recognize? Is that even sane?

Havasu? No, have a headache.

I've recently driven through the towns that have sprung up along the Colorado River: Havasu City, Parker, Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada. They are as foul, as purposely ugly and hot and crass as an American town can be. I vowed never to return, to avoid being exposed to such miserable conditions, such a wretched culture. And now, I have another reason to stay away.

Lost in translation

With all the press that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is getting these days about his remarks at Columbia University and the UN, it would be wise, I think, to test the reportage of his statements in the MSM against the accuracy of the accounts of his now-infamous "Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map" speech a few years ago. As this detailed translation of his Farsi words demonstrates, he said no such thing. Given the tenor of the times, we'd better be darned sure what we're being told about his statements is accurate. I'd hate to start another war based on falsities, wouldn't you?

World War III

Is this what it would look like? If so, to what Pacific island would you relocate?

Credit crush

Here's an insider's explanation of (1) why the collapse of the housing/mortgage market isn't all the fault of heedless borrowers; and (2) why it's likely to spiral into a truly disastrous downturn.

Spoiler: It's the moneychangers' fault.

I'm worried

that Bush will invade Venezuela, not to secure its oil, but its soup.

Just a thought

Since it's clear that Bush intends to hand the Iraq mess off to the next president, thereby allowing his base to claim (when the present debacle turns into an outright disaster) that it wasn't Bush's fault, one would think the Democratic presidential candidates--and, of particular relevance, the pro-war Democrats in C0ngress--would be howling to have the war end now, right now. Otherwise the Democrats, who will control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, will be blamed for the mess in Iraq that will undoubtedly result from our withdrawal.

Indeed, by allowing Bush to continue the war until now, Bush has likely snookered the Democrats already. There's no way the Iraq invasion and occupation will end other than badly, but now that bad end will be on the Democrats' watch. And the Democrats now deserve it.

I keep hoping

that Bush and his minions will become human, will tell us something other than their party line. But no. Bush's speech, following the congressional appearances of General BetrayUs, are strictly par for the course. And now, surprise, surprise, it turns out we're in Iraq for the long haul--the eternal haul. Did you ever think otherwise? If so, you're a fool.

Class warfare is here!

It couldn't be any clearer than what happened today in the financial markets. The Dow Jones index of large corporate stocks has gained almost 150 points (the other indexes have gained too) on news that the amount of new unemployment claims rose by "only" 4,000 in the preceding week. (The Yahoo! headline and the content of its financial article keep changing, but at some point this morning it read "Markets gain on jobs report," the report being of the sixth straight week of increasing jobless claims.)

The reason for the stock market's rise in the face of this news, which in some reports is indicative of an impending recession, is that in the short run the Federal Reserve may discern that because higher interest may slow "economic growth" it should lower its benchmark interest rate, thereby making common stocks more attractive to investors than debt instruments. In other words, what's bad for the workers is good for the investment class.

Marx/Engels/Trotsky were right. The argued for "permanent revolution" that pitted the proletariat against the petty bourgeoisie, unrelentingly opposing the tug of capitalism toward materialism and greed-based culture. Well, we see now how strong that tug is, with its new proponents in the Far East, in Russia and its former satellites, where CD players outnumber books, stiletto heels abound and Burger King rules.

For the stock market to rise because the labor market plummets? What could be a clearer indicator that Karl Marx was right?

How do they do it?

This videoclip from The Daily Show reveals (1) the best critique I've seen of Petraeus' Congressional testimony about the Iraq war, and (2) the genius of the writers and crew of that TV show. They put this segment together within just hours of the general's appearance and although they probably had some lead time (given how predictable was Petraeus' testimony), I gotta say, these folks must really love their work.

Lucky them. Lucky us.

I'm curious

Your thoughts on this story? And while you're at it, check out the Comments.