I have two reactions to Rummie's speech yesterday

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

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

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

What the hell...

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

Drip, drip, drip

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

Finally, a super reaction by John Kerry

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

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

Okay, I'm now a believer

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

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

What have we become?

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

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

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan

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

Elephant in the living room

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

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

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

Timid liberals

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

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

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

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

Memorial Day

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

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

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

Pat Buchanan and me

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

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

Sooo--stay tuned.

If I were an Iraqi, I would be mightily pissed off

at the mendacity of Bush and his minions. On the one hand they say that they must keep our troops in Iraq to ensure its security; on the other hand they boast to US citizens that they've succeeded in luring the terrorists to Iraq, so as to fight them there, rather than on our soil. Finally, Bush claims, our mission in Iraq is to bring the Iraqis peace and democracy. How infuriating it must be to try to exist in the meatgrinder we've made of their nation.

When Do Workers Get Their Share?

Check out this study from the Economic Policy Institute, comparing the percentage participations of workers, through increased income, and corporations, through increased profit, during the last three "recoveries." Profits now are higher than in any previous recovery, by multiples, while income increases are pitiful compared to previous times. And these increases are actually decreases when the soaring costs of medical benefits are taken into account.

When are those to whom Bush's "trickle" isn't trickling going to rise up and smell the fraud?

Who's Bush trying to kid?

Bush has been on the telephone telling members of the Security Council, including the Russians, that "full sovereignty" will be transferred to Iraq on June 30. Putting aside the question of the immutability of laws previously imposed on Iraq by Bremer, which I've referred to in previous posts, the Security Council resolution proposed by the US/UK is specific on the point. It reaffirms the structure of the "multinational force" (led by the United States) and then provides that the Security Council

"6. ... decides that the multinational force shall have authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq including by preventing and deterring terrorism..."

No mention whatsoever of the involvement (certainly not of a "veto power") of the Iraqis in taking these "necessary measures." How would we like to have a international force stationed in the US (say, with bases outside of New York, Washington, Los Angeles) with such powers? Would the neo-cons, much less the macho George Bush, call this "full sovereignty"?

Proof that Bush supporters can't think or write without assistance

Here's a page on the Bush/Cheney website urging visitors to write specific formulations to their newspapers, presumably so Google will pick them up.

Stopping at nothing

This analysis of a paragraph in Attorney General Ashcroft's press conference today shows how far the Bushies will go to gain their man's re-election, even so far as to suggest that Osama bin Laden might attack the US in the pre-election period in order to swing the election to Bush's opponent, citing the outcome of the terrorists' train bombing in Spain. Ashcroft implied, of course, that bin Laden would prefer a Kerry to a Bush presidency, the further implication being that Kerry would be softer on terrorism than Bush.

I don't think Ashcroft's quite evil enough to stage an attack on the US just before the election (although I'm not as certain of this as I'd like to be). I have this hunch, however, namely, that Ashcroft and FBI Muller's list of seven terrorists that was presented at the same press conference contains one or more already-incarcerated people. They'll be dribbled out one by one between now and the election by means of a series of announcements of their capture and immediate incarceration (incommunicado, of course, at Gitmo). This way, Ashcroft can assure Bush's re-election without having to rely on the not-quite-so-reliable Osama bin Laden.

Transition or manipulation?

This is my third post in two days on this subject, but Bush's hypocrisy won't allow me to stay silent. He speaks of "full sovereignty" for Iraq as of July 1, 2004, both in his speech last Monday and in statements thereafter, when trying to assuage the French and German about the extent of the "transfer of power." What a crock! Does he think his audience, like he, doesn't read?

Even CNN/MSNBC have caught on to the tension between Tony Blair's statement that the Iraqis will have a "veto" over military operations in Iraq, including, presumably, US forces, and the insistence by Colin Powell and other US officials that this is not so. Military force is of course a vital question of sovereignty--and will no doubt draw much attention during the debate on the UN resolution that the US is presently seeking.

But the focus on sovereignty should be much wider. Naomi Klein, many months ago--as noted in a few of my posts back then--pointed out actions by Tribune Bremer that locked in US hegemony over Iraqi law, including privatization of commerce and control over resources. These laws, by their terms, extended long past any "turnover of sovereignty" and were immutable by subsequent legislation. Now, she's not alone in her analysis. No less a Bush supporter than the Wall Street Journal has observed that Bremer's actions have, in essence, frozen Iraq into acceptance of a complex of laws for years to come, laws covering a broad span of authority under any definition of sovereignty.
The WSJ article, however, appeared on May 13, 2004, and so far hasn't gotten any play beyond its pages. Is that because the networks and cable stations still don't want to ask the tough questions even after months of discrediting reports about Bush's handling of the occupation of Iraq? Or are they just incompetent? Or both?

Religiosity in the US

This current and historical Gallup poll on the religious beliefs of Americans is, to me, amazing. I had no idea these figures were so elevated--high percentages of believers in heaven, angels, the devil. Astounding percentages believing in the literal truth of bible stories, such as Noah's Ark.

I don't believe in God in any traditional religious sense, but the concept of some form of grand force or design in the formation of our material world makes some sense. But the notion that this force created the great flood, parted the Red Sea and so forth--am I missing something?

Testing, testing

Okay, this story --that a learned study has found that al-Qaeda has grown remarkably, not diminished, since Bush began his war on terr'r--has made it to the Associated Press. Will it make the cable and network newscasts? Any readers who spot it on these sources, please let us know.

Update: A report about the study appeared on CNN this morning (5/26). It wasn't an incisive interview, however, and didn't make the point that the numbers of terrorists have grown due to the invasion of Iraq, which was a major thrust of the report.

Okay, fair's fair

If (as shown on CNN) George Bush can invite Iraqi businessmen to the White House to shake their "hands" (that is, their prosthetic hands supplied by the US, their real ones having been cut off by Saddam Hussein), thereby by inference claiming that we're better than Saddam because we brutalize our prisoners more subtley; then Michael Moore can say anything he wants to about Bush, because he's right: Bush is capable of anything to gain and keep his power.