What is the biggest threat facing the US public?
Osama Bin Laden? Al-Qaeda? Islamic Terrorists? Sponge-Bob SquarePants? Mexicans? Liberals? Gays? Hillary Clinton? Global Warning? Apathy? Ignorance? The MSM? Drugs? Obesity? Bloggers? Bush? Cheney?
To quote the crustiest, angriest talking-head on television (McLlaughlin): WRONG!
It is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez; our own 21st Century Torquemada, Cardinal Richelieu and Machiavelli all rolled into one.
Whilst George Bush and Dick Cheney have ignored the US Constitution, Gonzalez has been shredding it.
Whilst Bush and Cheney have ignored the law, Gonzalez has been re-writing it.
According to Gonzalez the office of the President (as occupied by George Bush) wields supreme executive power. And thus as the appointed premier “legal authority” of King George, Gonzalez wields supreme legal authority.
When George used the newly-coined phrase “enemy combatant” Gonzalez made it a ‘legal’ term defined solely by the President, to be used exclusively by him. Gonzalez overturned by fiat the US’s legal obligations to the “quaint” Geneva conventions. Without review he re-defined torture as the equivalent to the distress or actual fact of organ failure.
He determined that any law passed by congress could be nullified by the President with a post-it note. Gonzalez has also consistently claimed that his opinions and actions may be revealed to the public or obscured from examination according to his own private judgment which for reasons of self-appointed executive privilege he insists he is not obliged to reveal.
In August of 2006, whilst the public interest was directed to global warming, Joe Lieberman’s political schizophrenia, Israel’s collective military punishment of Lebanon, Mel Gibson’s drunken rant, George Allen’s macaca slur and so on, Gonzalez’s DOJ was busy firing eight state prosecutors for no justifiable reasons.
No matter how powerful you think you are, it’s always best to deliver bad news on Fridays or avoid public notice by appointing unqualified political cronies or conducting political purges in August.
Some six months on, the DOJ’s purge has come to the attention of, yes the Democrats.
Gonzalez has claimed that the prosecutors were fired for “performance” issues. Yet Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) showed that one of those fired, Carol Lam (of San Diego, CA) had received, in August, a favorable performance review from the DOJ.
David Iglesias, State Attorney for New Mexico was also fired for “performance” reasons but as TPMuckraker reports (theyhave been all over this issue):
“… the statistics kept by the Federal Judiciary don't reflect an inability for Iglesias' office to move more quickly on cases -- in fact, quite the opposite. In 2001, when Iglesias took over, the data (pdf) shows a median of 4.6 months for a criminal case in the New Mexico office to move from filing to disposition (dismissal, guilty plea, or trial). In 2005, that time had dwindled to 3.7 months.
And that's a time when Iglesias' office was increasingly snowed under by more cases. His office opened 1,548 criminal cases in 2001; in 2005, the office opened 2,915.
So Iglesias' office was opening more cases and handling them faster than his predecessor. Maybe that's why he received a positive performance evaluation? “
Seattle, Arkansas, Nevada. Arizona have also lost their state attorney’s by the same ‘process’ in the same timeframe and for the same ‘reasons’.
As the House continues to conduct it’s hearings on this matter Gonzalez’s response has been that the attorney’s dismissals “could have been handled better”.
In other words the problem is not that these attorneys were fired based on trumped-up charges of poor performance, but that firing them during August with a major international conflict raging to distract the public from domestic issues simply didn’t provide Gonzalez’s DOJ enough cover to prevent their insupportable actions from going un-noticed.
In itself this purge is bad enough, and Gonzalez’s lame excuses and obfuscation typical. But what is really going on? The geographic distribution of this purge seems rather specific—Washington, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada; Arkansas is the “odd man out” in this regard.
Now take what you know about Gonzalez (as I crudely summarized in my fifth paragraph) and add that to this attorney purge. Then bear in mind Bush and Cheney’s political standing at the moment and combine that with the current view of Republicans and their policies. And then add this:
"The Bush administration has accelerated its Internet surveillance push by proposing that Web sites must keep records of who uploads photographs or videos in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate, CNET News.com has learned.
That proposal surfaced Wednesday in a private meeting during which U.S. Department of Justice officials, including Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, tried to convince industry representatives such as AOL and Comcast that data retention would be valuable in investigating terrorism, child pornography and other crimes
[-]
Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been lobbying Congress for mandatory data retention, calling it a "national problem that requires federal legislation." Gonzales has convened earlier private meetings to pressure industry representatives. And last month, Republicans introduced a mandatory data retention bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would let the attorney general dictate what must be stored and for how long."
I think it’s fair to conjecture from past and current actions that Gonzalez is, as discreetly as possible, using his position to subvert the foundations of US law and constitutional government. Whilst he has the power he is ensuring that Bush, Cheney and the entire neocon cabal, including himself, are rendered immune from investigation, let alone prosecution. He twisting the law to serve himself and his colleagues and to suppress the rights and options of the public to determine their own governance and he is doing so in private.
Bush and Cheney can take the public heat until 2008 whilst Gonzalez functions as the faithful lieutenant, manipulating the system to preserve their comfortable and unassailed retirement which Gonzalez himself will also enjoy.
Those who believe in the rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution will feel obliged to uphold them as they reverse their abuses by Bush, Gonzalez who in turn will then, as they already have done, use the very same articles and principles they have abandoned and perverted, to defend themselves and avoid all accountability for their actions and their crimes.
Bush and Cheney will leave office (not soon enough, but soon) but Gonzalez is quietly ensuring that the rights and privileges they have illegally claimed will continue, whilst the public’s rights and privileges will continue to be denied.
Bush and Cheney have crippled America, but Gonzalez is poised to strike the killing blow. It is he, not Bush or Cheney who is the biggest threat this country faces.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Why Wait? The People Have The Power Of The Purse
The power of purse doesn’t just lie with the Congress, but with the tax-payer.
If on April the 15th the public filed income-tax extensions to delay the continued funding of policies with which the majority do not agree, and by which they do not benefit, then perhaps our government might finally act to satisfy the will of the people whom they are constitutionally, morally and legally bound to serve.
Why wait for 2008?
Now, I fully realize that the government isn't living from paycheck to paycheck (every April 15th) and plenty of people count on their refunds.
Deferring income-tax payments until August wouldn't change a damn thing. But the act of doing so, en-masse, as a protest, might keep the pressure on this profligate administration and provide further ammunition for the Democrats who are being stymied by an evenly split Senate in their efforts to end the Iraq occupation.
It wouldn't be an exercise in power, but perhaps in influence.
However, as brilliant as this idea is in theory, it has been brought to my attention that in may not be practical. Trouble is a hell of a lot of people simply can't afford to follow this suggestion.
Still, for those who can, why not?
And besides even if it is a stupid, impractical idea, so was the Iraq war and look at what an impression that made! If just the notion got some publicity, who knows what might happen ( hopefully nothing bad).
If on April the 15th the public filed income-tax extensions to delay the continued funding of policies with which the majority do not agree, and by which they do not benefit, then perhaps our government might finally act to satisfy the will of the people whom they are constitutionally, morally and legally bound to serve.
Why wait for 2008?
Now, I fully realize that the government isn't living from paycheck to paycheck (every April 15th) and plenty of people count on their refunds.
Deferring income-tax payments until August wouldn't change a damn thing. But the act of doing so, en-masse, as a protest, might keep the pressure on this profligate administration and provide further ammunition for the Democrats who are being stymied by an evenly split Senate in their efforts to end the Iraq occupation.
It wouldn't be an exercise in power, but perhaps in influence.
However, as brilliant as this idea is in theory, it has been brought to my attention that in may not be practical. Trouble is a hell of a lot of people simply can't afford to follow this suggestion.
Still, for those who can, why not?
And besides even if it is a stupid, impractical idea, so was the Iraq war and look at what an impression that made! If just the notion got some publicity, who knows what might happen ( hopefully nothing bad).
Perle's Lost Lustre
So there I was, face to face with the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle.
According to my intelligence sources I’d have been justified in launching a unilateral strike in his ‘crotchal’ region, yelling “Whose your Baghdaddy now, bitch?!!!
But before I could act a nervous young man handed me his camera so that he, the only fan of Perle’s out of nearly 500 attendees, might have a memento of the day he met one of his heroes. He offered a paperback copy of one of Perle’s screeds for an autograph whilst I preserved the moment of political porn.
The dirty deed was done and then it was my turn.
Neuron’s fired chemo-electric charges across myriad synapses commanding my muscles into action and in the blinking of an eye I was shaking Perle’s hand and telling him “Good job!” and then he simply disappeared into the darkness from whence he came.
No, I wasn’t having a nightmare.
Perle was attending as a panelist in one of a series of town-hall discussions being conducted by PBS, anchored on its new documentary series America at a Crossroads which will air in April.
This particular event was hosted at DePaul University’s Merle Reskin Theater (under the auspices of DePaul’s Offic of Islamic Studies in conjunction with the Global Voices lecture series) in Chicago and I just happened to be helping-out.
Why, given the opportunity, didn’t I take Perle to task for his active promotion of a policy that has killed many thousands of innocents?--because it would have been pointless; my complaints would have fallen on deaf ears, and besides there was no need.
Perle did actually do a “good job” during the discussion and the question period. Maintaining his usual specious arguments, flawed logic and revisionist rhetoric he clearly demonstrated his inadequate intellect, willful ignorance and the bankruptcy of the neo-con philosophies and policies.
Although he has opined of late that his fellow neocons have mismanaged US policy he still maintains the absurd underlying neocon philosophy of an imperial, militarily aggressive America ultimately benefits the global community. And though he no longer officially advises on US policy his fellow neocons are still entrenched in positions of power and influence.
Having committed to several more appearances anchored on the PBS series in which he will invariably face skeptical audiences Perle has unwittingly begun to knot the rope with which he will ultimately hang himself (and by association condemn his fellows) in full view of the public.
So ultimately that’s why I shook his hand and encouraged him, instead of berating him or punching him in the face. He has chosen to step into the light, he will shrivel under it, and there will be no one to blame except himself. And we all get to watch.
According to my intelligence sources I’d have been justified in launching a unilateral strike in his ‘crotchal’ region, yelling “Whose your Baghdaddy now, bitch?!!!
But before I could act a nervous young man handed me his camera so that he, the only fan of Perle’s out of nearly 500 attendees, might have a memento of the day he met one of his heroes. He offered a paperback copy of one of Perle’s screeds for an autograph whilst I preserved the moment of political porn.
The dirty deed was done and then it was my turn.
Neuron’s fired chemo-electric charges across myriad synapses commanding my muscles into action and in the blinking of an eye I was shaking Perle’s hand and telling him “Good job!” and then he simply disappeared into the darkness from whence he came.
No, I wasn’t having a nightmare.
Perle was attending as a panelist in one of a series of town-hall discussions being conducted by PBS, anchored on its new documentary series America at a Crossroads which will air in April.
This particular event was hosted at DePaul University’s Merle Reskin Theater (under the auspices of DePaul’s Offic of Islamic Studies in conjunction with the Global Voices lecture series) in Chicago and I just happened to be helping-out.
Why, given the opportunity, didn’t I take Perle to task for his active promotion of a policy that has killed many thousands of innocents?--because it would have been pointless; my complaints would have fallen on deaf ears, and besides there was no need.
Perle did actually do a “good job” during the discussion and the question period. Maintaining his usual specious arguments, flawed logic and revisionist rhetoric he clearly demonstrated his inadequate intellect, willful ignorance and the bankruptcy of the neo-con philosophies and policies.
Although he has opined of late that his fellow neocons have mismanaged US policy he still maintains the absurd underlying neocon philosophy of an imperial, militarily aggressive America ultimately benefits the global community. And though he no longer officially advises on US policy his fellow neocons are still entrenched in positions of power and influence.
Having committed to several more appearances anchored on the PBS series in which he will invariably face skeptical audiences Perle has unwittingly begun to knot the rope with which he will ultimately hang himself (and by association condemn his fellows) in full view of the public.
So ultimately that’s why I shook his hand and encouraged him, instead of berating him or punching him in the face. He has chosen to step into the light, he will shrivel under it, and there will be no one to blame except himself. And we all get to watch.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Playing President
George Washington shakes hands with actor George Bush playing president, as the nation observes President's Day.
(Thanks to AP for the photo and Fox News for contributing to the caption).
"The Army You've Got"
The Washington Post this week highlights in disturbing detail how the Pentagon and this administration “supports” our troops and “thanks” them for their service—by treating their medical needs and the troops themselves as an irritating post-war expense.
Little wonder then that the Bush administration and its lackeys in the US military have similar contempt for their “coalition” partners and allies that they so often tout in their press releases and speeches.
Four years after two Air National Guard A-10 pilots strafed a clearly-marked patrol, killing one and injuring four British soldiers, the US finally released—only to the official government inquiry and the soldier’s families and NOT to the public—the cockpit video/audio recordings of the attack, and only after the footage had been leaked and published.
Little wonder then that the Bush administration and its lackeys in the US military have similar contempt for their “coalition” partners and allies that they so often tout in their press releases and speeches.
Four years after two Air National Guard A-10 pilots strafed a clearly-marked patrol, killing one and injuring four British soldiers, the US finally released—only to the official government inquiry and the soldier’s families and NOT to the public—the cockpit video/audio recordings of the attack, and only after the footage had been leaked and published.
The US claimed “security” concerns in not releasing the tapes until now, an excuse of transparent breathtaking stupidity and arrogance they maintained for four years. And even now they refuse to let the pilots and the mission controller be interviewed or give written testimony to the UK inquiry.
The US was similarly uncooperative in another official inquiry into the shoot-down by a US Patriot missile battery of a returning British Tornado strike aircraft that killed the two-man crew, also very early in the Iraq war.
The Guardian is now reporting on yet another four-year old case of American obstruction and obfuscation regarding the actions of its troops against its allies.
The US was similarly uncooperative in another official inquiry into the shoot-down by a US Patriot missile battery of a returning British Tornado strike aircraft that killed the two-man crew, also very early in the Iraq war.
The Guardian is now reporting on yet another four-year old case of American obstruction and obfuscation regarding the actions of its troops against its allies.
From The Guardian--
US army officials are due in London this week to interview Corporal Jane McLaughlan, Staff Sergeant James Rogerson, Corporal Stephen Smith and their interpreter, Khalid Allahou, almost four years after all were seriously injured when their Land Rover was struck twice from behind by the US transporter. McLaughlan, who was driving, was unable to keep control and the Land Rover crashed off the road. All four passengers were thrown from the vehicle.
Although the initial British investigation managed to identify the American military unit and driver involved, the US authorities denied any record of the incident. Only after substantial pressure, said Doyle, did the Pentagon admit the existence of a three-page statement by the US National Guard convoy involved in the incident, which mentioned they 'had run some guys off the road'.
In the crash, McLaughlan, 35, sustained multiple skull fractures, brain damage and punctured internal organs. Rogerson, from Scotland, received head and spinal injuries and is understood to be due to leave the military this year as a result of his injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone with a British wife and had volunteered as a translator for the British army, is also understood to have suffered long-term effects.
In the crash, McLaughlan, 35, sustained multiple skull fractures, brain damage and punctured internal organs. Rogerson, from Scotland, received head and spinal injuries and is understood to be due to leave the military this year as a result of his injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone with a British wife and had volunteered as a translator for the British army, is also understood to have suffered long-term effects.
It seems the US just might actually own up to the incident (but not the cover-up of course) and possibly for the very first time pay compensation for just these three British soldiers injured through US military criminal incompetence.
But meanwhile US soldiers injured by the administrations policies are abandoned in the halls of Walter Reed or dumped at home without support. Bush is now proposing to reduce the budget of the VA even as its services are and will be more needed than ever.
The callous use and abuse of soldiers by Bush and his Pentagon cronies is criminal and sickening.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Camel's Back
NOTE: Apparently I have a couple of Polish readers and I just want to say hello to Grazyna!
According to Bush and most of the Republicans US troops must stay in Iraq in order to deliver the functioning publicly accountable government, social and legal equality, professional, meritocratic defense force, progressive economy, improve quality of life and stabilize the region.
Otherwise, they say, terrorists “emboldened” by the US withdrawal will have Iraq’s resources at their disposal to launch devastating attacks against American “interests”, foment Sunni-Shia conflict throughout the region, and threaten US allies and conduct major attacks against America itself.
Could the Republicans be right, for once? Would staying in Iraq prevent a region-wide conflagration and facilitate more and larger-scale attacks against the US?
Not likely.
The essential problem with the Republican argument is that it assumes that the political and religious dynamics in the Middle East are monolithic—which they demonstrably are not.
In all the Middle East conflicts and radical political shifts in power since WWII each country has pursued its own particular interests above anything else. Alliances and opposition have shifted according to rational need more than emotional desire.
The 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel involved respectively Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then just Egypt and Syria. No other Arab nations got involved in any relevant way.
The 1975-1985 Lebanese Civil-War ostensibly pitted Christians against Muslims (the majority, but of many sects). The Sunni Syrians got involved for strategic reasons. The Palestinians in Lebanon goaded Israel into the fight. But all the other Arab nations in practical terms steered clear of the conflict.
In 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Shia rule began. The Shia population in Suadi Arabia was not inspired to overthrow the ruling family.
Also in 1979 Saddam Hussein became the president of Iraq. Iran did not then rush to the aid of its Shia brethren who were already being discriminated against.
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war was started by Hussein over control of waterway and not because of religious differences (Hussein favoring Sunnis of course). Egypt and Syria, having both Sunni leadership and Sunni public majorities and being political active, did not rush to the aid of Iraq as it struggled against the Iranians. Saudi Arabia, Sunni-ruled but with a Shia public majority, stayed out of the conflict.
Incidentally when Israel bombed Hussein’s Osirak Nuclear reactor in 1980 (finishing the job the Iranians had begun) no major action was taken by other Arab nations against Israel.
The Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s was defeated by the CIA arming and training Afghanis with 50% of the costs secretly provided by the Saudis. No other Arab nations provided any significant aid to their Muslim Afghani brothers fighting against the godless Communists.
In the 1991 Gulf War Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was either opposed by other Arab nations or garnered only mild and obtuse rhetorical support from some.
The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden was overwhelmingly supported by Middle Eastern governments and significantly supported by the “Arab street” despite some cheering for the 9-11 attacks.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not very well supported but it wasn’t that strenuously objected-to either as Hussein was quite the irritant and not much of a champion of Arab causes (certainly not religious ones). The subsequent occupation however is widely condemned but nonetheless there has once again been no significant action by Arab governments against the US.
The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (it was NOT a “conflict”) only elicited rhetorical condemnations but again no action by Arab governments.
In all these conflicts and wars Middle Eastern nations have overall maintained a status quo in their governments and their societies. The Iranian revolution was not driven just by religion but more by social politics. The Lebanese civil war was driven by politics as well.
Religion is a tool of politics, something that allows politicians to exploit mass emotions for a particular cause and to conveniently identify supporters and opponents of a cause.
All the strife in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) is a result of politics not religion. Does anyone really think that the average professional Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi really gives a damn about establishing a Caliphate or making the whole world Muslim? Does anyone really think the average Arab farmer or cook or shepherd or nomad give a damn about such ambitions? Did the average Briton demand an Empire that covered one quarter of the globe? Of course not!
The majority, anywhere and everywhere, has far more limited ambitions—to be able to get by at least and maybe enjoy life at best. That’s it. For the majority religion is personal—if it weren’t then everyone would be busy trying to convert everyone else to their faith or killing the faithless, or else refusing to interact at all.
So I really don’t see religious strife encompassing the Middle East should the US depart Iraq. And as to leaving national resources for terrorists to exploit—what exactly would be left? First of all the Iraqi’s would have to sort themselves out before they could exploit anything—there’s a few years right there. Other Arab nations have demonstrated their caution often enough so they aren’t likely to rush in to the mess—add another few years of cuatious low-key involvement .
Those with the ambition to attack the US and western interests will continue to do so with limited resources and limited support. How effective they might be has little to do with the Middle East and far more to do with US and western actions and reactions.
For six years the Republicans have painted everyone and every issue with the broadest brush possible and they are doing so again in their prognostications regarding a US withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is there no reason to believe them this time around, there is no reason to believe them according to historical and present evidence.
Leaving Iraq will mean leaving a bloody mess, one that will continue in that country. It’s a horrible choice but no worse than the choices that have been made thus far. But it’s not going escalate enmity towards the US (most Iraqis want the US to leave) and it’s not going to create any more terrorists than it already has.
The Republican policies have increased global terrorism not diminished it and it is not withdrawal but escalation on their part that would fulfill their dire scenario.
If Bush decides on even a limited strike against Iran under the guise of his "war on terror", that might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
According to Bush and most of the Republicans US troops must stay in Iraq in order to deliver the functioning publicly accountable government, social and legal equality, professional, meritocratic defense force, progressive economy, improve quality of life and stabilize the region.
Otherwise, they say, terrorists “emboldened” by the US withdrawal will have Iraq’s resources at their disposal to launch devastating attacks against American “interests”, foment Sunni-Shia conflict throughout the region, and threaten US allies and conduct major attacks against America itself.
Could the Republicans be right, for once? Would staying in Iraq prevent a region-wide conflagration and facilitate more and larger-scale attacks against the US?
Not likely.
The essential problem with the Republican argument is that it assumes that the political and religious dynamics in the Middle East are monolithic—which they demonstrably are not.
In all the Middle East conflicts and radical political shifts in power since WWII each country has pursued its own particular interests above anything else. Alliances and opposition have shifted according to rational need more than emotional desire.
The 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel involved respectively Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then just Egypt and Syria. No other Arab nations got involved in any relevant way.
The 1975-1985 Lebanese Civil-War ostensibly pitted Christians against Muslims (the majority, but of many sects). The Sunni Syrians got involved for strategic reasons. The Palestinians in Lebanon goaded Israel into the fight. But all the other Arab nations in practical terms steered clear of the conflict.
In 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Shia rule began. The Shia population in Suadi Arabia was not inspired to overthrow the ruling family.
Also in 1979 Saddam Hussein became the president of Iraq. Iran did not then rush to the aid of its Shia brethren who were already being discriminated against.
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war was started by Hussein over control of waterway and not because of religious differences (Hussein favoring Sunnis of course). Egypt and Syria, having both Sunni leadership and Sunni public majorities and being political active, did not rush to the aid of Iraq as it struggled against the Iranians. Saudi Arabia, Sunni-ruled but with a Shia public majority, stayed out of the conflict.
Incidentally when Israel bombed Hussein’s Osirak Nuclear reactor in 1980 (finishing the job the Iranians had begun) no major action was taken by other Arab nations against Israel.
The Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s was defeated by the CIA arming and training Afghanis with 50% of the costs secretly provided by the Saudis. No other Arab nations provided any significant aid to their Muslim Afghani brothers fighting against the godless Communists.
In the 1991 Gulf War Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was either opposed by other Arab nations or garnered only mild and obtuse rhetorical support from some.
The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden was overwhelmingly supported by Middle Eastern governments and significantly supported by the “Arab street” despite some cheering for the 9-11 attacks.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not very well supported but it wasn’t that strenuously objected-to either as Hussein was quite the irritant and not much of a champion of Arab causes (certainly not religious ones). The subsequent occupation however is widely condemned but nonetheless there has once again been no significant action by Arab governments against the US.
The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (it was NOT a “conflict”) only elicited rhetorical condemnations but again no action by Arab governments.
In all these conflicts and wars Middle Eastern nations have overall maintained a status quo in their governments and their societies. The Iranian revolution was not driven just by religion but more by social politics. The Lebanese civil war was driven by politics as well.
Religion is a tool of politics, something that allows politicians to exploit mass emotions for a particular cause and to conveniently identify supporters and opponents of a cause.
All the strife in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) is a result of politics not religion. Does anyone really think that the average professional Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi really gives a damn about establishing a Caliphate or making the whole world Muslim? Does anyone really think the average Arab farmer or cook or shepherd or nomad give a damn about such ambitions? Did the average Briton demand an Empire that covered one quarter of the globe? Of course not!
The majority, anywhere and everywhere, has far more limited ambitions—to be able to get by at least and maybe enjoy life at best. That’s it. For the majority religion is personal—if it weren’t then everyone would be busy trying to convert everyone else to their faith or killing the faithless, or else refusing to interact at all.
So I really don’t see religious strife encompassing the Middle East should the US depart Iraq. And as to leaving national resources for terrorists to exploit—what exactly would be left? First of all the Iraqi’s would have to sort themselves out before they could exploit anything—there’s a few years right there. Other Arab nations have demonstrated their caution often enough so they aren’t likely to rush in to the mess—add another few years of cuatious low-key involvement .
Those with the ambition to attack the US and western interests will continue to do so with limited resources and limited support. How effective they might be has little to do with the Middle East and far more to do with US and western actions and reactions.
For six years the Republicans have painted everyone and every issue with the broadest brush possible and they are doing so again in their prognostications regarding a US withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is there no reason to believe them this time around, there is no reason to believe them according to historical and present evidence.
Leaving Iraq will mean leaving a bloody mess, one that will continue in that country. It’s a horrible choice but no worse than the choices that have been made thus far. But it’s not going escalate enmity towards the US (most Iraqis want the US to leave) and it’s not going to create any more terrorists than it already has.
The Republican policies have increased global terrorism not diminished it and it is not withdrawal but escalation on their part that would fulfill their dire scenario.
If Bush decides on even a limited strike against Iran under the guise of his "war on terror", that might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Friday, February 09, 2007
It Polls For Thee
Of all George Bush’s many hobbies (such as pretending, hoping, praying, believing, and decidering being just a few) his most favoritest is ignoring—his dad, responsibility, reason, the Constitution and of course, polls.
And well he should as his approval rating in the US has lately been no higher than 30%.
Let me put it this way: If ten randomly selected Americans got on a plane piloted by George Bush, seven of them would rush the cockpit.
Well, now there’s a new poll for Bush to ignore.
Every year a survey of six Arab countries is conducted in which the respondents are asked this simple question: Who do you dislike the most? The respondents aren’t given a list of likely people they’d dislike but are free to choose absolutely anyone.
And the winner is…
George Dubya Bush!
The award invariably goes to whoever is the Israeli Prime Minister but this year for the first time ever an American president has received this distinction! (In fact Bush got more votes than Ehmud Olmert and ex-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon combined--kudos to the comatose Sharon for such a strong showing!).
Congratulations, George! All that freedomating and democratizing finally paid-off!
The mystery prize package will be addressed to you, George W. Bush, but when you hear the doorbell ring don’t bother to get up, don’t ask for whom the bell tolls—the American people will get it.
Monday, February 05, 2007
RIght-Wing 'Comedy' Kills Me!
Over at the very estimable Red Tory blog a lengthy discussion ensued as to the amusement-ocity or some-such of right-wing 'comedians'.
Red Tory and about 50 commenters all posited that right-wing politics and humor are about as compatible as fried eggs and the floor.
But long-time (yet plucky) Red Tory heckler 'Biff' countered that there was at least one (well, only one...) right-wing comedian to counter the thousands of lefty comedians—none other than Dennis Miller who Biff thinks is “very, very funny.”
Whilst I was impressed that Biff didn’t also offer up self-appointed-comedians-when-they-risk-hate-speech-lawsuits Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I couldn’t agree less with Biff.
Dennis Miller is the Hillary Clinton of right-wing comedy—both Miller and Clinton are the only names everyone recognizes but only half of everyone actually likes.
Nonetheless the right-wing does in fact have a pantheon of brilliant humorists who, like the jazziest of jazz musicians, are really only appreciated by those who listen beyond what sounds like random noise and in the discordant melee of invented musical notes, find elements of fundamental truthinessand thus joy.
Without a doubt the Miles Davis’s and Stockhausen’s of right-wing fundamental funsters are of course Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and Neil Cavuto of Rupert Murdoch's Fair and Balanced Circus.
I’ll report their latest comedic stylings, and let you decide:
From Bill O’Reilly--(the Jack Benny of Fox, master of the deadpan delivery)
"For my money, pardon the pun, capitalism is a good thing. It gives opportunity to people like me who started with zero money to work our way up…Republicans generally believe you should work for what you get and not take other people's money."
From John Gibson--(Fox's Jerry Seinfield; just two shallow observations can be turned into an entire episode of comedic gold):
"I like ‘Big Oil’-company profits because I think every American should have the opportunity to buy shares in a hugely profitable enterprise, as the oil companies have demonstrated they are."
From Neil Cavuto--Fox News'..umm…Tony Danza? Or maybe Beaver Cleaver? (OMG I just realized how hilarious that name is for an 8-year old boy!)
"Two years. It's a long time. But to most in the media, it's a waste of time. Too little to get too much done—so he's [Bush] done. I don't know about you, but two years is a pretty long time to me.
That's about two-thirds of JFK's entire presidency. That's two Thanksgivings. Two Christmases. Two New Years. Two years from now we'll be two years older than we are now. A lot can happen in that time. Look what's happened in the last two years. Two years ago Pope John Paul II was alive. So was Terri Schiavo — remember her?"
Dennis Miller isn't even fit to be smeared by these comedic geniuses. And why? Because Dennis Miller tries to be ironic whereas O'Reilly, Cavuto and Gibson were born ironic! ( And they don't do "blue" material!)
Funny?!! Funny like looking for non-existent WMD's under your desk!
And that’s just Common Sense, My Word and today’s Most Ridiculous Item.
Red Tory and about 50 commenters all posited that right-wing politics and humor are about as compatible as fried eggs and the floor.
But long-time (yet plucky) Red Tory heckler 'Biff' countered that there was at least one (well, only one...) right-wing comedian to counter the thousands of lefty comedians—none other than Dennis Miller who Biff thinks is “very, very funny.”
Whilst I was impressed that Biff didn’t also offer up self-appointed-comedians-when-they-risk-hate-speech-lawsuits Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I couldn’t agree less with Biff.
Dennis Miller is the Hillary Clinton of right-wing comedy—both Miller and Clinton are the only names everyone recognizes but only half of everyone actually likes.
Nonetheless the right-wing does in fact have a pantheon of brilliant humorists who, like the jazziest of jazz musicians, are really only appreciated by those who listen beyond what sounds like random noise and in the discordant melee of invented musical notes, find elements of fundamental truthinessand thus joy.
Without a doubt the Miles Davis’s and Stockhausen’s of right-wing fundamental funsters are of course Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and Neil Cavuto of Rupert Murdoch's Fair and Balanced Circus.
I’ll report their latest comedic stylings, and let you decide:
From Bill O’Reilly--(the Jack Benny of Fox, master of the deadpan delivery)
"For my money, pardon the pun, capitalism is a good thing. It gives opportunity to people like me who started with zero money to work our way up…Republicans generally believe you should work for what you get and not take other people's money."
From John Gibson--(Fox's Jerry Seinfield; just two shallow observations can be turned into an entire episode of comedic gold):
"I like ‘Big Oil’-company profits because I think every American should have the opportunity to buy shares in a hugely profitable enterprise, as the oil companies have demonstrated they are."
From Neil Cavuto--Fox News'..umm…Tony Danza? Or maybe Beaver Cleaver? (OMG I just realized how hilarious that name is for an 8-year old boy!)
"Two years. It's a long time. But to most in the media, it's a waste of time. Too little to get too much done—so he's [Bush] done. I don't know about you, but two years is a pretty long time to me.
That's about two-thirds of JFK's entire presidency. That's two Thanksgivings. Two Christmases. Two New Years. Two years from now we'll be two years older than we are now. A lot can happen in that time. Look what's happened in the last two years. Two years ago Pope John Paul II was alive. So was Terri Schiavo — remember her?"
Dennis Miller isn't even fit to be smeared by these comedic geniuses. And why? Because Dennis Miller tries to be ironic whereas O'Reilly, Cavuto and Gibson were born ironic! ( And they don't do "blue" material!)
Funny?!! Funny like looking for non-existent WMD's under your desk!
And that’s just Common Sense, My Word and today’s Most Ridiculous Item.
Friday, February 02, 2007
More Dirt!
Hillary to Donors: “No Money to Anyone Else” is the title of a new “article” on The Huffington Post.
Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street,'" in the '08 presidential race, says a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out.
And what's the reaction been? "People don't like it, but they're afraid of her." Yet the far more palpable fear for Democrats, discussed constantly, is that she'll have so much money she'll sail to the nomination.
There is no verifiable attribution to this 'report". Both 'quotes' are paraphrases from an anonymous source. Democrats are really afraid of Hillary Clinton! (if Democrats are afraid, imagine how shit-scared Republicans ought to be!).
Who is this “longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out”? We aren’t told. Maybe it’s the author or the source who are scared.
And how is this source who isn’t involved in the campaign, privy to Hillary’s (or her staff’s) calls to major contributors?
Why is this person “sitting this one out”, when Hillary already has a huge campaign chest and the Democratic Party is favored over the Republicans; where win or lose this well-connected person could still make a useful living from working on the campaign?
It is impressive how this story fits the Obama Madrassa/Hillary Political-Hardball sham; anonymous author, anonymous source "close to Clinton", NO evidence and Clinton painted as a manipulative calculating ambitious bitch.
And then there is this NewsMax post, from September 21, 2003:
Dick Morris: Hillary Discourages Donors to Other Dems
"U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is actively discouraging potential donors from contributing to any of the announced Democrat presidential candidates, so they'll have political cash on hand if she decides to run next year.
So says Dick Morris, who pointed to a meeting two weeks ago between Bill and Hillary Clinton and 150 party fat cats held at the former first couple's mansion in Chappaqua, N.Y."
Dick Morris worked for Bill Clinton on his 1996 re-election campaign but resigned on the day Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination due to Morris’s extra-marital affair with prostitute Sherry Rowlands. The vast majority of his political consulting work had been for Republican governorship candidates, but since the Rowlands affair he has not actively consulted US politicians.
He has however made a partial career as a Hillary Clinton critic in the print press and as a frequent pundit for FOX News where the vast majority of his insights and predictions about Hillary Clinton’s political career have so far proven to be wrong.
The anonymous Huffpo piece may not actually be Dick Morris's work--after all he's been publicly gunning for Hillary for years now--but any like-minded person can plagiarize him for their own coincednetal poltical purpose.
Crtiticism and dissent ought to be based on reasoned and substantiated argument, not unexamined rumor and emotional manipulation. But these days "debate" is not chaired by a disinterested obudsman but by partisans where unsubstantiated utterances are not only given the same consideration as carefully developed arguments but are actually promoted with zealous deference.
This story might actually be true, but if so it should be able to stand the test of open debate and disclosure. Truth is defined by the tests of disagreement, lies are revealed by them. But until the champion of this story stands up to be tested, it remains only a story a particle of the common soil, deserving of disinterested until its quality is revealed and houses might be built from it.
But thus far this looks like dirt to me, not clay.
Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street,'" in the '08 presidential race, says a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out.
And what's the reaction been? "People don't like it, but they're afraid of her." Yet the far more palpable fear for Democrats, discussed constantly, is that she'll have so much money she'll sail to the nomination.
There is no verifiable attribution to this 'report". Both 'quotes' are paraphrases from an anonymous source. Democrats are really afraid of Hillary Clinton! (if Democrats are afraid, imagine how shit-scared Republicans ought to be!).
Who is this “longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out”? We aren’t told. Maybe it’s the author or the source who are scared.
And how is this source who isn’t involved in the campaign, privy to Hillary’s (or her staff’s) calls to major contributors?
Why is this person “sitting this one out”, when Hillary already has a huge campaign chest and the Democratic Party is favored over the Republicans; where win or lose this well-connected person could still make a useful living from working on the campaign?
It is impressive how this story fits the Obama Madrassa/Hillary Political-Hardball sham; anonymous author, anonymous source "close to Clinton", NO evidence and Clinton painted as a manipulative calculating ambitious bitch.
And then there is this NewsMax post, from September 21, 2003:
Dick Morris: Hillary Discourages Donors to Other Dems
"U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is actively discouraging potential donors from contributing to any of the announced Democrat presidential candidates, so they'll have political cash on hand if she decides to run next year.
So says Dick Morris, who pointed to a meeting two weeks ago between Bill and Hillary Clinton and 150 party fat cats held at the former first couple's mansion in Chappaqua, N.Y."
Dick Morris worked for Bill Clinton on his 1996 re-election campaign but resigned on the day Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination due to Morris’s extra-marital affair with prostitute Sherry Rowlands. The vast majority of his political consulting work had been for Republican governorship candidates, but since the Rowlands affair he has not actively consulted US politicians.
He has however made a partial career as a Hillary Clinton critic in the print press and as a frequent pundit for FOX News where the vast majority of his insights and predictions about Hillary Clinton’s political career have so far proven to be wrong.
The anonymous Huffpo piece may not actually be Dick Morris's work--after all he's been publicly gunning for Hillary for years now--but any like-minded person can plagiarize him for their own coincednetal poltical purpose.
Crtiticism and dissent ought to be based on reasoned and substantiated argument, not unexamined rumor and emotional manipulation. But these days "debate" is not chaired by a disinterested obudsman but by partisans where unsubstantiated utterances are not only given the same consideration as carefully developed arguments but are actually promoted with zealous deference.
This story might actually be true, but if so it should be able to stand the test of open debate and disclosure. Truth is defined by the tests of disagreement, lies are revealed by them. But until the champion of this story stands up to be tested, it remains only a story a particle of the common soil, deserving of disinterested until its quality is revealed and houses might be built from it.
But thus far this looks like dirt to me, not clay.
Dirty Politics, Dirty Pundits and the Dirty Press
“The first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race illustrated how easily dubious information can spread” writes New York Times journalist David D. Kirkpatrick in his article Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False in which he follows the progress of an anonymously-sourced and anonymously written political story that major news outlets deemed worthy of 11 days of serious coverage.
The original story was posted at InsightMag.com on January 17th 2007 with this lede: .
"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. "
But as Kirkpatrick notes not even the gossipy and often standards-free Drudge Report that frequently links to Insight paid any attention to the story.
“So, as usual, (empahasis added) [Kuhner] e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC” whereupon it then got the exposure Kuhner seemed to think it needed on TV, in the print press and on radio
CNN and ABC, already publicizing the story. felt obliged to confirm it given its obvious lack of provenance. On the 22nd of January John Vause of CNN reported from the “maddrassa” that it was in fact and always had been a secular school.
ABC reporters checked with Obama’s political strategist David Axelrod who instead of exploiting the article’s claim by simply saying that it ‘might be possible’ instead said he "did not believe ... for a second" the story's claim against the Clinton camp.
With the “maddrassa” assertion proven false and the Clinton ‘attack by proxy’ unfounded the only source left was Insight’s editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner. But he refused to even name the author and offered nothing to substantiate the story other than to say:
“CNN's claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News -- who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim heritage.”
At this point much of the media began to distance themselves from the story and thus also neatly ignored their own roles in peddling it. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times however went searching for the story behind the story—and then studiously ignored his own research.
“In an interview Sunday, Mr. Kuhner, 37, said he still considered the article, which he said was meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign (emphasis added), to be “solid as solid can be.” But he declined to say whether he had learned the identity of his reporter’s sources, and so perhaps only that reporter knows the origin of the article’s anonymous quotes and assertions” writes Kirkpatrick.
So the story wasn’t investigative journalism; it was an unsubstantiated opinion piece with a political purpose. So what does Kirkpatrick conclude?
“And at the start of a campaign with perhaps a dozen candidates hiring “research directors” to examine one another, the Insight episode may be a sign of what is to come.”
Oddly enough FOX hack John Gibson arrived at a similar though more specific and partisan conclusion on January 22nd –a week before Kirkpatrick’s article:
"Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism. And that, my friends, is real political hardball in action…Are Hillary's fingerprints on the story? Doesn't seem so because they can deny these stories with a straight face…My point is simply this: The senator from Illinois is going to get a baptism by fire if he thinks he's going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination."
Gibson properly identifies one function of the fake report (to smear Obama) and perpetuates the second function (to smear Clinton) by strongly implying that Clinton will probably engage in such tactics (the tertiary smear of Democrats overall is thus a 'given') .
Gibson actually gives the game away, and what is Kirkpatrick’s revelation?
Not that a right-wing hack of record pushed a propaganda piece onto biased media outlets that ignored professional standards and willingly turned it into national “news”, but that campaign staff in general may increasingly use websites as a back-channel for political dirty tricks!
The facts are that Kuhner could count on FOX to give the story legs and could count on its rival MSNBC to put competition before professionalism. Others followed suit, giving the lies relevance through mere repetition.
And yet even Kirkpatrick (who bothered to apply some professional diligence) misses the real story—which is that right-wing operatives (not left-wing) employed these “dirty tricks” and will continue to do so because they will invariably be abetted by the pseudo-journalists and ignorant pundits that infect today’s MSM--and neither will be held to account.
Of course there will be more to come but it will likely be mostly from the Republicans and the right-wing who have the greatest motivation and the greatest means, thanks to the MSM (this event is just the latest in a long line) that will be sure promote each and every smear the right generates
To quote Mr Kirkpatrick, “as usual”.
The original story was posted at InsightMag.com on January 17th 2007 with this lede: .
"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. "
But as Kirkpatrick notes not even the gossipy and often standards-free Drudge Report that frequently links to Insight paid any attention to the story.
“So, as usual, (empahasis added) [Kuhner] e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC” whereupon it then got the exposure Kuhner seemed to think it needed on TV, in the print press and on radio
CNN and ABC, already publicizing the story. felt obliged to confirm it given its obvious lack of provenance. On the 22nd of January John Vause of CNN reported from the “maddrassa” that it was in fact and always had been a secular school.
ABC reporters checked with Obama’s political strategist David Axelrod who instead of exploiting the article’s claim by simply saying that it ‘might be possible’ instead said he "did not believe ... for a second" the story's claim against the Clinton camp.
With the “maddrassa” assertion proven false and the Clinton ‘attack by proxy’ unfounded the only source left was Insight’s editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner. But he refused to even name the author and offered nothing to substantiate the story other than to say:
“CNN's claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News -- who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim heritage.”
At this point much of the media began to distance themselves from the story and thus also neatly ignored their own roles in peddling it. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times however went searching for the story behind the story—and then studiously ignored his own research.
“In an interview Sunday, Mr. Kuhner, 37, said he still considered the article, which he said was meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign (emphasis added), to be “solid as solid can be.” But he declined to say whether he had learned the identity of his reporter’s sources, and so perhaps only that reporter knows the origin of the article’s anonymous quotes and assertions” writes Kirkpatrick.
So the story wasn’t investigative journalism; it was an unsubstantiated opinion piece with a political purpose. So what does Kirkpatrick conclude?
“And at the start of a campaign with perhaps a dozen candidates hiring “research directors” to examine one another, the Insight episode may be a sign of what is to come.”
Oddly enough FOX hack John Gibson arrived at a similar though more specific and partisan conclusion on January 22nd –a week before Kirkpatrick’s article:
"Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism. And that, my friends, is real political hardball in action…Are Hillary's fingerprints on the story? Doesn't seem so because they can deny these stories with a straight face…My point is simply this: The senator from Illinois is going to get a baptism by fire if he thinks he's going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination."
Gibson properly identifies one function of the fake report (to smear Obama) and perpetuates the second function (to smear Clinton) by strongly implying that Clinton will probably engage in such tactics (the tertiary smear of Democrats overall is thus a 'given') .
Gibson actually gives the game away, and what is Kirkpatrick’s revelation?
Not that a right-wing hack of record pushed a propaganda piece onto biased media outlets that ignored professional standards and willingly turned it into national “news”, but that campaign staff in general may increasingly use websites as a back-channel for political dirty tricks!
The facts are that Kuhner could count on FOX to give the story legs and could count on its rival MSNBC to put competition before professionalism. Others followed suit, giving the lies relevance through mere repetition.
And yet even Kirkpatrick (who bothered to apply some professional diligence) misses the real story—which is that right-wing operatives (not left-wing) employed these “dirty tricks” and will continue to do so because they will invariably be abetted by the pseudo-journalists and ignorant pundits that infect today’s MSM--and neither will be held to account.
Of course there will be more to come but it will likely be mostly from the Republicans and the right-wing who have the greatest motivation and the greatest means, thanks to the MSM (this event is just the latest in a long line) that will be sure promote each and every smear the right generates
To quote Mr Kirkpatrick, “as usual”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
