.. who would you vote for?
-=*=-
I found this article:
September 13 / 14, 2008
CounterPunch Diary
Panic!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
It talks about how the Obama campaign has been 'spooked' by Palin's candidature for VP.
That's definitely one of the current 'presenting symptoms' of Dummo angst, but it's not the real problem.
The real problem has its roots in lies; both 'sides' tell 'em, and although we might've become accustomed (shame!) to expect lies from 'the right' ("All politicians lie!" having been deployed by the right in 'defence' of Howard et al., as one component of the lying, illegally invading, brutally occupying B, B & H) - we still have trouble 'handling' lies coming from 'our' side, i.e. the (putative) left. (To add insult to injury, Blair was supposedly of the 'left.' More shame.)
But even then, lies are still only a contributing factor to the 'real' real problem, which is a lack of meaningful democratic choice. Take, for example, Rudd's promise to act on the greenhouse, and his government's actual proposed 'solution.' In very few words: a piss-weak cop-out. Just like the Libs, the Labs are copping-out to local industry (apart from food and services, now mainly only miners & finance), itself just another cog in the wheel of 'global commerce' which is in turn a cipher for (overwhelmingly US) capitalism.
Over the years, this malignant capitalism has taken more and more power to itself (sadly, no-one has effectively acted upon Ike's "Beware the M/I-plex!" warning) - and it would appear that neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there,' can act contrary to the dictates of this grotesque malignancy. Q: Why is this capitalism so malignant? A: Because a) it's leading directly to the destruction of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere - our one and only life-support system, b) it's unmercifully crushing the lower class and squeezing the middle class and c) all this to the benefit of 'the spoilers,' an extremely few already obscenely-rich fat-cats.
Now back to democratic choice: we (the voters, sheople® almost to the wo/man) have so little choice it's near enough to none; neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there' differ significantly; simply none of them is prepared to act to save our planet - or to stop the vile wars, let alone to stop their lying.
No choice, no truth, no democracy and no justice - we're 'ruled' by criminals and proxy-murderers we cannot be rid of; vote one side out and the other does much of the same, as we slowly, agonisingly, drown in a vast sea of filthy lies - and the creeping, ever nearing greedastrophe®, the excess-CO2 caused climate chaos that may well finish most of us off.
-=*=-
If Obama manages to win, it will be largely despite what he says, rather than the other way around, i.e. that he claims to be some sort'a agent for change. By almost all measures, he is nothing much more than 'more of the same,' with his "All options!" vis-à-vis Iran, say, or his immediate reassurances (aka grovelling) to the Israel Lobby - or his stupid 'surge success' comments, all of which recalls my headline, namely betrayal[1]; here's a quote:
«Betrayal is a moral issue, and with respect to war, mass destruction, maiming, and death, it is a moral issue of the highest order. Betraying trust is a matter of deception that knowingly leads to significant harm. There is little doubt that the Iraq War and its aftermath have done considerable harm -- to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to our nation as whole. It is equally clear that there has been a considerable amount of deception in the instigation of the war and throughout the occupation.»
[huffpo/George Lakoff/Whose Betrayal?]
My comment: Well, we know all that; some of us have for a looong time, now. But the killing doesn't stop, nor the planning for the next slaughter. The lies keep sluicing out'a our TVs...
If Obama 'goes down,' that'd be three Dummos in a row; Gore, Kerry and him. Dummos have the 'rocky' path; they are supposed to be progressives, i.e. goodies. Repugs are known to be bad, they may well even be expected to lie and kill, while Dummos have to lie and kill too, all the while pretending they're goodies (cognitive dissonance, anyone? - Ouch!) As 'proof,' note that the Dummo Clinton did get himself elected, but just like the Repugs, he managed - when not being sooo distracted - to bomb and kill, and then there was Albright's 'the price [1mio 'collateral' Iraqis dead incl. ½mio kids] was worth it.' The name of the game is to say one thing ("They hate us for our freedoms!") and to do quite another, namely murder for spoil. Hypocrisy is a very minor crime, compared to murder. Always the same 'game;' it's imperialism, US-style.
Here's another quote:
«(3) Imperialism has multiple interacting facets, which mutually reinforce each other: The mass media and culture in general are weapons for securing consent and/or acquiescence of the masses in pursuit of empire building which prejudices their material and spiritual existence. Imperialism cannot be isolated and reduced to simple economic reductionism. Economic exploitation is only possible under conditions of subjective subordination and that refers to education, entertainment, literature and art as terrains of class relations and class struggle linked to the empire.
(4) The social, ideological and political loyalties of the political elite, which direct the imperial state, determines the tactics and strategy which will be pursued in empire building. One cannot automatically assume that the political leadership will prioritize the interests of the MNCs in every region of the world at all times. When imperial leadership has divided loyalties with another state imperial policies may not coincide with the interests of the MNCs. Under these special circumstances of rulers with divided imperial loyalties, the ‘normal’ operations of the imperial state are suspended. The case of Zionist power in the US imperial state is a case in point. Through powerful and wealthy socio-political organizations, representation on powerful Congressional committees and strong presence in senior Executive offices (Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury) and the mass media, the Zionist elite dictates US Middle East policy. The US military serves Israeli colonial-expansionist interests even at the expense of the major US oil companies which are prevented from signing billion-dollar oil contracts with Iran and other oil-rich countries at odds with Israel.»
[ICH/James Petras/Empire and Imperialism and the USA]
My comment: look at the keywords, para (3) says there's a wide-spectrum info-war against the sheople, para (4) says there's an immoral ideology out'a all control. Finally, using the word 'elite' is simply *wrong*, there's nothing élite[2] about bullying, let alone lying, cheating, stealing and murder - the main business of the US of A, Israel (which one dog/tail?), UK & Aus, aka the wannabe hegemon, its illegitimate sprog, the poodle with dag.
What a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?
-=*end*=-
PS
«Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.»
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (antiwar.com)
More: if the sheople are not informed, or even deliberately misinformed (they are), if the choice of candidates is not a meaningful choice (it's not), then any resulting government is not just not popular, it's illegitimate. No legitimacy, no rights, neither to pass laws nor give orders. Any (i.e. the military) accepting orders from such an illegitimate authority, any who go on to kill (not all, but mostly innocent 'collaterals') are murderers, and exactly the same as the order givers, make themselves criminals.
Facit: Such undemocratic regimes must be seen, even by Blind Freddy, for what they are; if you, dear voter, appreciate that the choice 'presented' to you is not a meaningful choice, then it would only be correct to indicate as much: put both the major parties last on your preference list (your order, natch) - or perhaps it may be better not to vote at all.
PPS
There is a not-so-small "Ah - ha!" in here, it's been bubbling up (within me) for some time: the whole, wide world (or at least, as much as can I see of it) is totally dominated by propaganda, thanks, but "No, thanks!" mainly to the so-called leaders of the (not-so-free) world, the good - actually bad - old US of A. I realised - shock, horror! - that we were being propagandized a long time ago now (my 1st published mention was 13May'03). Recall that almost by definition propaganda[3] (selected information, etc., usually derogatory) differs somewhat from the truth - i.e. it's basically lies. One corollary of this - recall also that "All politicians lie!" - is that all politicians must therefore lie, just to compete - so's to say (the alternative would be to get some spine). Also, we can now better understand the main complaint about Conned-a-sleazer; that she's 'a bad liar.' This is what makes any election campaign such a pain, the fools have to continually manoeuvre in a fake-space of lies. Think about that, i.e. lies, for a while (take your time), and whether that'd be your 'preferred world,' presuming you had a (meaningful) choice, that is...
A final tut-tut: all those who realise what is really going on, but do not resist to the very best of their ability - well, they will have 'deserved' their fate; and ignorance, in this case, won't be bliss either - Oh no, not at all.
Once again (looping, as usual), what a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] betray v. 1 be disloyal or treacherous to (a friend, one's country, a person's trust, etc.). 2 reveal involuntarily or treacherously; be evidence of. 3 lead astray. betrayal n. [from *be-, obsolete tray from Latin trado hand over] [POD]
[2] élite n. 1 (prec. by the) the best (of a group). 2 select group or class. 3 a size of letters in typewriting (12 per inch). [French: related to *elect] [ibid.]
[3] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate] [ibid.]
2008/09/14
betrayal ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
G'day Phil, and where is the debate on a vital matter, ie., the "Bush Doctrine" asks Glenn Greenwald.
One last point, perhaps the most important one: as the above-excerpted exchanges from the debates make clear, both Obama and McCain understand what "the Bush Doctrine" is and have fundamentally different positions on it, at least as they've expressed those positions during the campaign (whether that would translate into any real differences is a separate question). McCain supports the Bush Doctrine and Obama opposes it. Where is the debate over that fundamental difference? Why isn't the Obama campaign making an issue of John McCain's hair-trigger willingness -- desire -- to start even more wars against countries that haven't attacked us?
McCain was one of the most vocal boosters of the attack on Iraq, which most Americans still believe was a grave mistake. He has sung songs about bombing Iran. His leading foreign policy ally, Joe Lieberman, explicitly advocated a new war against Syria. His Vice Presidential selection openly and blithely mulls the potential need to start a new war against Russia. And in general, McCain advocates the right and need of the U.S. to start wars against any country even if it hasn't attacked us or imminently intends to do so.
That difference affects every last issue. Having the U.S. start new wars that way, occupying and re-building more countries, will almost certainly bankrupt the U.S. It will at least destroy any prospects for domestic investment. It will demolish the military capability of the U.S. It will mire us further and further in a state of endless and permanent war and all of the liberty abridgments that accompany that. Sarah Palin may not have any opinions on the defining Bush foreign policy doctrine, but the voting population has vehemently rejected George Bush and it stands to reason that McCain's expressed embrace of his central foreign policy doctrine and Obama's expressed opposition to it is one of the most important differences in the election -- both politically and substantively. Palin aside, isn't that something that one ought to hear much more about from the Obama campaign?
So much for the Bush Doctrine disappearing with the end of Bush's presidency. McCain could be worse. But why not highlight the differences, perhaps one concern is being spun as weak on defence if Obama suggests the US shouldn't wage wars of aggression.
G'day Phil, follow the money - from Tomdispatch Frida Berrigan "Military Industrial Complex 2.0".
the lesser of two evils ...
.. is still evil, so what's to debate?
.. subtitle: "War is a racket - Butler, Ike: "Beware the M/I-plex ...
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
The fact that both McCain & Obama have "All options!" on the table vis-à-vis Iran ("All" must encompass nukes - death to the world!) - makes that policy 'bipartisan,' essentially a 4-letter word in the 'democracy' frame. I'd go so far as to say that such bipartisanship is deeply undemocratic; the sheople are simply offered no meaningful choice.
A properly functioning opposition candidate would offer a meaningful alternate - one might'a thunk, but Oh no! Not 'our' Obama. But he's not ours (we the sheople® anywhere), he's 'theirs,' where 'they' are the 'rulers' of the M/I/C-plex. Obama was warned: "Don't do this!":
George Lakoff
The Mind and the Obama Magic
July 6, 2008 | 09:10 PM (EST)
«Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. ...»
[huffpo/lakoff]
As to the M/I/C-plex (military/industrial/congress complex), what Ike warned about sooo long ago, it just grew and grew - as such things tend to do, with a little help from the criminal kleptocracy that runs the good - actually bad - old US of A.
The fact that the military is being extensively out-sourced fits the neoliberal economics frame, here's an article about that:
August 29, 2008
An Interview with Michael Hudson
How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy
By MIKE WHITNEY
«You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. ...»
[counterpunch/whitney]
G'day Phil, below par so a Chris Floyd piece on dirty doings is a way of clearing some cobwebs ...
Another way station on our plunge into darkness was passed last week with the publication of Bob Woodward's new book, The War Within. Along with the usual backstairs gossip dished out by self-serving insiders eager to plant their spin on events, Woodward revealed -- or, rather, confirmed -- the existence of what he called the key element to the "success" of Bush's escalation of the war crime in Iraq: a "secret killing program" aimed at assassinating anyone arbitrarily deemed a "terrorist" by the leaders of the foreign forces occupying the conquered land.
In a TV appearance to puff the book, Woodward celebrated the arbitrary murder, by methods unknown, of people designated "terrorists," by criteria unknown, as "a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have." The White House acknowledged the existence of the assassination program, but insisted that it was the "surge" of troops that was mainly responsible for the drop in violence from the howling hell of 2006 to today's level, which, as Juan Cole has pointed out, is still greater than some of the most horrific civic conflicts of the last century. (It is a strange country indeed that can celebrate the creation of a blood-gushing sinkhole of violence and destruction as a "success beyond our wildest dreams," to use Barack Obama's new take on the surge.)
Of course, Woodward, the consummate Beltway courtier, embraces this bipartisan conventional wisdom about the success of the surge. And he is certainly right, at least from one point of view, as we noted here recently:
The "surge" -- which in addition to an influx of troops included the ruthless ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, the walled ghettoization of vast swathes of the city, and the arming and funding of violent sectarian militias across the land -- certainly succeeded in extending the duration of the murder, suffering and chaos engendered by America's armed and belligerent presence in Iraq. So it is indeed a great "success" ... in the same way that, say, Albert Speer's miraculous efforts to keep the Nazi war machine going from 1943 to 1945 -- resulting in the deaths of millions of people, including the worst ravages of the Holocaust -- was a "success."
But beyond this little insider quibble over the most effective element in the prolongation of the war -- Woodward, a former military intelligence officer, naturally plumps for the covert op, while the White House ballyhoos the high-profile presidential directive to increase troop levels -- what is most noteworthy about the "revelations" is that they have provoked no controversy at all. The United States admits that it is operating secret death squads in Iraq, and this barely rates a passing mention in the press, and certainly no comment whatsoever on the campaign trail, no debate among the national leadership. And this despite the fact that, as Woodward makes clear, the targets of the American death squads are not merely "terrorists," as the general public broadly understands the term -- i.e., religious extremists in the al Qaeda mold -- but anyone arbitrarily designated an "insurgent" or a leader in "the resistance."
That is, anyone who resists the invasion and occupation of his native land is deemed a legitimate target for a secret death squad. For execution without charges, without trial, without evidence. And this, to Woodward, is "wonderful" and "amazing." By this logic, of course, the Nazis were fully justified in murdering leaders of the French resistance in World War II. The British would certainly have been justified in sneaking into George Washington's house and killing the insurgent leader in his bed. (And his wife too, no doubt, as an acceptable level of "collateral damage.") In fact, Woodward sternly warns members -- members, mind you, not just leaders -- of "the resistance" to "get your rear end out of town;" i.e., leave your native land or else be murdered in your bed by secret assassins of the occupying power.
This is the heroic, honorable stance of the American elite in the 21st century. What the Nazis did, we do, and for the same reason: to secure the forcible occupation of a land we conquered through an unprovoked war of aggression. It is indeed wonderful and amazing that such a state of affairs -- such an abyss of depravity -- is accepted so calmly by the great and good among us....and by tens of millions of our fellow citizens.
That is just the start ...
G'day Bob,
"The lamps are going out all over [America]: we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."
Just when you think you've heard the worst, they sneak up and surprise you - loop that...
I had a theory of *how* Howard could've gone sooo bad; once the 1st serious 'sin' was done - and gotten away with, the path was only - or at least largely - downhill. I recall thinking that point was SIEV-X - or Tampa or whatever, there were lots of possible 'points of no return.' Then we got Iraq - loop that...
Death squads are not new; look up "Salvador option" - ooops! Did someone say 'Negroponte?'
Salvador option, yes, as CF reminds us ... and on a less gory issue Glenn Greenwald on domestic spying.
But on a brighter note, a gathering of some who want redress ...
On Saturday morning in Andover, Massachusetts, as about 120 activists, adademics, constitutional scholars, public officials and legal experts gathered in the Wyndham hotel, the building suddenly went dark.
Electricity had been cut off just prior to the start of a landmark war crimes conference, the goal of which was to plan the prosecution of Bush Administration officials. The first of its kind conference, already featuring a laundry-list of notable speakers, was suddenly in flux ... If only for a few moments.
"We were already so effective, the government tried to shut us down," said conference organizer Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, in an interview with RAW STORY.
"Of course, when I said that at the conference opener, the power had been restored. I was only joking," said Velvel with a slightly nervous laugh. "A fuse box fried, but the local electric company fixed it before we even began."
The 'Bush war crimes conference,' according to its organizers, is a "throwback to the framers of the constitution," which aims to establish "necessary organizational structures" to pursue those guilty of war crimes "to the ends of the Earth."
Dare I say "Bring it on"?
G'day Bob,
The 'money para' in GG's "domestic spying" article is this:
«Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate in May, 2007, all of the top-level DOJ officials -- including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- told President Bush they would resign immediately because Bush ordered the NSA surveillance program to continue even after his own Justice Department told him it was patently illegal. Comey drafted his resignation letter, calling Bush's spying activities "an apocalyptic situation" because he had "been asked to be a part of something that is fundamentally wrong."»
Recall that the names in that para are all committed GWBush&Co 'associates' (I personally prefer the term 'accessories'), and for them to threaten to resign ... what *actually had been going on* ("ordered ... to continue") must'a been something truly horrendous - as well as having been kept secret from those named ... Oh, 'only' the AG & FBI boss ... sooo, Q1: IF they had kept it so long secret ('01-'04), how could we know it's been ever stopped? Q2: What could'a been sooo bad (apocalyptic)?
Well spotted, Phil. What was that horrendous act? We'll have to keep digging.
On action plans, see here.
Some links within the above worth following, such as the Dershowitz and the "full range of crimes".
the Salvador option ...
.. about as 'charming' as COIN[1] gets
Quote:
«The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.»
[wikileaks/death squads]
Recall "The Economic Hit Man" (spelt with a silent S); what they can't get without violence, they get with, all the way 'up' to mass-murdering theft. As in El Salvador (anyone considered even vaguely 'left,' aka "Commie!" - or 'just' commercial advantage), so in Afghanistan (pipeline, carpet of gold/bombs) & Iraq (oil, 'our' bastard).
There're two things to note: 1) Recall Reagan's Oh, so super-cynical "Freedom fighters;" 9/11 itself might'a been 'blow-back' from US black-ops in Afghanistan (assuming that the named 19 were the real perpetrators, not at all proven, even if possible), and b) the overwhelming majority of any people attacking US personnel in both Afghanistan and Iraq must be considered to be doing so because the US invaded, now brutally occupies those countries, and that more or less illegally.
Neither any US personnel nor a US puppet-government wields any *legitimate* authority in Afghanistan or Iraq, so fighting against any such illegitimate power is not an insurgency. More, because the US electorate itself is callously, Oh, so super-cynically lied to continuously but not only, the sheople are deliberately psychologically manipulated via and by the venal MSM, then any election 'over there' cannot be considered 'free and fair' - irrespective of the subsequent fact that the representatives having been elected fail to properly represent. I term the US regime criminal, a true shocker when they present themselves as 'world leaders.' So-called leaders deploying such methods as lying, thieving and murdering, eh? But if the elections are corrupt, then any resulting regimes are also illegitimate.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] counter-insurgency[2]
[2] insurgent —adj. in active revolt. —n. rebel. insurgence n. [Latin surgo surrect- rise] [POD]
G'day Phil, a news report that might have "interesting" consequences.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.
The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tension between Washington and a key ally against terrorism.
Pakistan's civilian leaders have protested the raid but say the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic channels.
However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.
"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."
G'day Phil, following up and following on ...
From Tomdispatch Tariq Ali.
More of Tariq Ali from DemocracyNow!.
AMY GOODMAN: This latest incident, your comments?
TARIQ ALI: Well, I think it’s a disastrous situation. For the last year, there’s been a big debate within the US administration on whether to strike across the border or not. Many people, not part of the administration, but certainly part of the defense and political establishment, have behind-the-scenes been trying to put pressure on them, saying, “Don’t do it.” And the reason they’ve been saying that is because if this becomes a pattern and US tries to have hit-and-run—I mean, hit missions across the Pakistan border, it actually is going to help those people who they claim they are trying to fight.
AMY GOODMAN: How?
TARIQ ALI: In the sense that the Pashtun population of the North-West Frontier Province will say foreigners are now coming into our part of the country and attacking us; we’ve got to fight them. And they will join, in growing numbers, the movement against the occupation, which already exists now.
AMY GOODMAN: And Senator Obama has made clear that he does believe that the US should engage in unilateral targets if there are high-value targets there that are not being dealt with by the Pakistani government.
TARIQ ALI: I think this was a big mistake that Senator Obama made. He will regret it, because I don’t think he was briefed on what the situation in Afghanistan is. You know, historically, every time the US occupiers are cornered in a country, they try and blame the neighboring country—the same in Vietnam when they started bombing Cambodia, saying it was Cambodia’s faults. The threats against Iran, even as we speak, and now the missions in Pakistan, the bombing raids in Pakistan, the killing of civilians in Pakistan, when the real crisis and the real problem is a war and an occupation inside Afghanistan which has gone badly wrong.
After all, it’s many years, Amy, seven years since 9/11. They have had that country for seven years, and with each passing year, the situation gets worse. They antagonize more and more people who live in that country, and they are incapable of winning the war. So in order to justify their failure to win the hearts and minds of most Afghan people, they are escalating the war into Pakistan, which is going to make conditions inside the Pakistani military very serious indeed, because there will be real anger.
And this report yesterday that there was a clash between Pakistani military and US helicopters trying to land Marines close to the Pakistan border, I think is probably accurate. The report comes from the Pakistani military; the US is denying it. But it’s a very serious situation.
Glenn Greenwald - "The oversight joke".
Chris Floyd.
As many people have noted, the drop in violence in Iraq from indescribably hellish to merely unbearably horrific was not due to the actual "surge" itself -- the much vaunted increase in troop levels ordered by George "W for Widowmaker" Bush -- but to a number of other factors. The Iranian-brokered stand-down of the Mahdi Army, for example. And the fact that the frenzy of "ethnic cleansing" before the surge had walled much of the country into separate enclaves, reducing the need for sectarian militias to conquer new territory. And the fact that four million Iraqis had fled their homes, and millions more stayed hunkered down to avoid being killed by the occupying forces and the various violent extremists that the American invasion had loosed upon the land.
One of the chief reasons for the relative decrease in the slaughter engendered by the American invasion and occupation, of course, was the policy of buying off violent Sunni extremists and putting them on the American payroll. This tactic began well before the surge, and, in conjunction with the strategic withdrawal of the Mahdi Army, has proven effective in lowering the level of violence somewhat. The tactic is itself largely a matter of "ethnic cleansing," as America's new hired guns were given control over the dwindling Sunni enclaves. But from Andrew Jackson to David Petraeus, ethnic cleansing is the American way, so no one really cares about that. Kill 'em, pen 'em up, move 'em out on trails of tears, put 'em under the rule of local strongmen: that's just what you do with the lesser races, it's not even a matter of debate in polite society.
But there is one other thing you can always do with the lesser breeds: abandon 'em when they no longer serve your purpose. And that's what the Americans are doing now with al-Sahwa, the "Sons of Iraq," the warriors of the Sunni "Awakening": turning them over to the tender mercies of the Shiite-dominated security organs of the American-installed Iraqi government.
What could have been done with all the money the US spends on defence? Chalmers Johnson on the costs of that defence spending.
That collection will keep you busy.
G'day Phil, just a Chris Floyd for now. But "just" is enough to be going on with.
Fed’s $85 Billion Loan Rescues Insurer (NY Times)
The bailout [of American International Group]... effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with.
Do you get it now? The rich and powerful spend years making foolish deals in a market they rigged with the connivance of utterly corrupted politicians on both sides the aisle; their fraudulent scheme finally collapses, exposing them to some of the most horrific financial losses in history....and YOU will have to pay for it. For generations. Not only directly, with the tax money straight from your pocket, but even more so in the further degradation of national life: infrastructure, services, programs, amenities that will be starved or abandoned as even more of the government's money is poured out to shield the wastrel elite from suffering the consequences of their own rapacious folly.
And with all the talk of a "new Cold War," who knew that it would be Washington and Wall Street, not the Kremlin, who resurrected socialism in the 21st century, in what the Times called "the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank’s history"? Socialism for the rich only, to be sure. Ole Joe "Bankruptcy Bill" Biden and his bipartisan cohorts in Congress have long made sure that any ordinary citizen -- especially the old, the sick, the poor, the most desperate -- will be squeezed to the last drop to pay off their debts, even if these were incurred through illness or misfortune. But for our boardroom Bolsheviki, the state is always there, to cushion and to coddle.
And who knew there was so much money in the federal coffers? Endless, roaring torrents of money available for the ever-expanding operations of the global Terror War (up to $3 trillion for the rape of Iraq alone), and all of this on top of an ever-expanding "regular" military budget that tops half-a-trillion dollars each and every year. And now tens of billions for Bear-Sterns, Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac, A.I.G. and the next fat-cattery to go under. Gosh, you mean all that cash was just lying around under the federal mattress all along?
You mean we could have used some of it for, say, building schools and hospitals, or national health insurance, or rebuilding our globalization-gutted cities, or drug rehab programs, or caring for our elderly, or helping people start businesses, or repairing our rotted infrastructure, or supporting the arts and sciences, or building parks and other "common pleasures, to walk abroad and recreate yourselves"? You mean there has been enough money there all along to help create a more just, equitable, enjoyable and civilized society? Don't that beat all?
Well, there will be none of that now, thank god. Even if a party that was actually committed to the well-being and security of ordinary citizens (a description that of course excludes the ticket of "Wall Street Barry" and "Bankruptcy Bill Joe") were to somehow take power one day, they will be hogtied by the mess left behind by the elite's financial boondoggles and their many wars. They'll be lucky if there is enough spare cash on hand to buy a few sandbags the next time a hurricane turns toward New Orleans, much less address any of the massive civic, social, economic and infrastructural disasters that confront us.
Just so. And then he goes to Silber.
Some good comments as well.
G'day Phil, back to the US ops in Pakistan - Gareth Porter on who wanted action.
G'day Phil, more from Glenn Greenwald on ignoring the law.
Joe Conason - "The corporate finaciers are wrong".
Sept. 19, 2008 | Now that we're all about to take on hundreds of billions or perhaps a trillion dollars in new public debt to redeem the nation's super-smart corporate financiers, there is one thing I hope we can expect in addition to postponing the apocalypse. Will they all please shut up about the wonders of the unfettered free market and the horrors of big government?
For decades, the investment class and their mouthpieces in the conservative movement have been telling Americans that if only we repealed all those musty old New Deal rules and programs, then we could enjoy unprecedented prosperity. Repeated endlessly by the think tanks, magazines and academics of the right-wing machinery, this message eventually drowned out the reality-based ideas of the American liberal tradition. Although those were the ideas that had actually built this country over the past century, they were erased from public consciousness by a combination of amnesia and propaganda.
Amazingly, many and perhaps most Americans failed to perceive the deceptions in that propaganda, even after a series of horrific experiences with right-wing ideology run amok. We have been here before, after all -- or at least we have been somewhere that looked a lot like this, and not so long ago.
We ought to have learned the way the world really works -- that is, how privilege, power, entitlement and greed undermine free markets -- during the teaching moments of the savings and loan debacle, the corporate scandals of George W. Bush's first term, or any of a number of smaller crises when taxpayers had to rescue major enterprises that were "too big to fail." Indeed, there has been a similar result -- along with higher unemployment, falling family incomes, rising debt and deficits, and neglected public infrastructure -- every time we have bought into the free-market extremism of the Republican right.
So now is a good time to try to remember the disastrous consequences of ideological rule. Although the same pattern can be traced back to the 19th century, when robber barons and Republicans pillaged the nation, we need go back no further than October 1982. That was when Ronald Reagan signed the legislation to deregulate the savings and loan industry, long a stable bulwark of the housing market and family finances. "All in all, I think we've hit the jackpot," he quipped charmingly.
It was a jackpot for the crooks who took over the thrifts, milked their assets and drove them into bankruptcy -- and for the political cronies of the Republicans who eventually swept up the remains in profitable work-out deals with the government. It was not a jackpot for the taxpayers, who ate the trillion-dollar bill for cleaning up the fiasco and taking over the bad debts because ... well, because someone had to pay the price.
Around and around it spins. A few get the cream, the rest get shafted. Yet they keep falling for it.
Back to a matter covered elsewhere - if you goo down to the park today you're in for a big surprise .. the RNC clampdown on video.
Now that we've had a few weeks to settle, a look back at Labor Day in the Twin Cities. Labor Day was of course also Day One of the Republican National Convention. Video was released today of an apparent mass arrest of utterly peaceful concert goers at the SEIU Labor Day concert.
My personal favorite moment in the tape is an off-camera exchange. Police in riot gear have surrounded loungers in a waterfront park. They announce, "Ladies and Gentlemen, You're Under Arrest" and you hear one young woman say incredulously "Are you serious?"
Yep, I'm afraid they are.
Here's the press release that came with the video, from the Glass Bead Collective:
BURIED TAPE REVEALS USE OF FORCE AND AN UNWARRANTED MASS ARREST OF BYSTANDERS DURING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
ST. PAUL, Minnesota (September 18, 2008) Video released today shows the indiscriminate arrest of a crowd of two hundred at the waterfront across from a concert on Harriet Island Regional Park during this month's Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The video includes multiple angles of the event as well as an interview with the cameraman who buried his footage and was one of almost two hundred people arrested for rioting without probable cause.
More than eight hundred people were arrested in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention. This video shows that at least twenty percent of the eight hundred plus arrested were seized without due cause.
It doesn't pay to hang out .. or go to concerts .. or even try going to work.
G'day Phil, on the matter of betrayal, Limp Dick has no peer, as this story shows.
This week, I agreed to deliver a "Constitution Day" talk on a college campus. My talk was not partisan. Yet the subject matter I selected was prompted by the most incredible - not to mention the most deadly - lie Dick Cheney has yet told, which was reported earlier this week.
Last year, Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman and Jo Baker, now of the New York Times, did an extensive series for the Post on Cheney. Now, Gellman has done some more digging, and published the result in a book he released this week: Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. The book reveals a lie told to a high-ranking fellow Republican, and the difference that lie made. In this column, I'll explain how Cheney defied the separation of powers, and go back to the founding history to show why actions like his matter so profoundly.
Cheney's Bold Face Lie To Congress
According to Gellman (and to paraphrase from the Post story on his finding), in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the White House was worried about the stance of Republican Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas, who had deep concerns about going to war with Saddam Hussein. According to the Post, Armey met with Cheney for a highly classified, one-on-on briefing, in Room H-208, Cheney's luxurious hideaway office on the House side of the Capitol.
During this meeting, the Post reports, Cheney turned Armey around on the war issue. Cheney did so by telling the House Majority Leader that he was giving him information that the Administration could not tell the public -- namely (according to Armey), that Iraq had the "'ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,' which had been 'substantially refined since the first Gulf War,' and would soon result in 'packages that could be moved even by ground personnel.' In addition, Cheney linked that threat to Saddam's alleged personal ties to al Qaeda, explaining that 'we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda.'"
The Post story continues, "Armey has asked: "Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" His answer: "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation's fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.
Cheney's monumental dishonesty, the news of which has been buried under the current meltdown of the nation's economy, did not strike me as a topic for a Constitution Day speech. But a realistic discussion of the working of the separations of powers did seem a fitting topic, for college students need to understand the basics of our system. After we remind ourselves of those basics, Cheney's great lie can be viewed not only as a great immorality and violation of the criminal code, but also and more fundamentally as the significant breach of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution that it is.
Our Constitutional Separation of Powers
Historians, not to mention contemporary historical documents, establish that no issue was more important to the founders of our national government than that of what its structure should be. Accordingly, in anticipation of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, James Madison of Virginia plowed through historical accounts of governments and concluded that there are three basic forms of government: monarchy (the one), oligarchy (an elite few) and democracy (the many). Each form, however, had serious drawbacks.
As a result, Madison sought to take the best of each to create a "republic" - as had been done in varying degrees with many of the American colonies. Republics, of course, had been around a long time, for they were the forms employed by the Greeks and Romans. Thus, the republic was a form of government those who were meeting in Philadelphia well understood, in which sovereignty resides with the people who elect agents to represent them in the political decision-making process.
Madison's republic combined elements of each type of government, in a mixing of forms. It featured an executive who incorporated the strength of monarchy without the evils of a King; a Senate that embodied the wisdom of an oligarchy; and a House that balanced the self-interest of such elites with a throng of representatives who spoke for the people of the nation.
Many delegates at the founding convention were mistrustful of a pure democracy since none had worked well in the past; moreover, the country was too large and diverse to directly involve everyone. Later, Madison nicely explained the differences in Federalist No. 14: "[I]n a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
Most importantly, Madison's structure had three separate branches of the government - legislative, executive and judicial -- and each branch was empowered to check and balance the others, and thereby diffuse power.
Madison's system, however, has not worked as designed even in the best of times, not to mention when there is an all-powerful Vice President hell-bent on gaming the system.
And what has resulted from Limp Dicks perfidy? A review of "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan".
MARFA, Texas, Sep 16 (IPS) - Aside from the Iraqi people, nobody knows what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq better than the soldiers themselves. A new book gives readers vivid and detailed accounts of the devastation the U.S. occupation has brought to Iraq, in the soldiers' own words.
"Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation," published by Haymarket Books Tuesday, is a gut-wrenching, historic chronicle of what the U.S. military has done to Iraq, as well as its own soldiers.
Authored by Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and journalist Aaron Glantz, the book is a reader for hearings that took place in Silver Spring, Maryland between Mar. 13-16, 2008 at the National Labour College.
"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the U.S. Marines who served three tours in Iraq. "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realised that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."
Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement in Iraq, and how lax they were, even to the point of being virtually non-existent.
No apology for posting this "anti-Amerikcan" material.
G'day Phil, Juan Cole has a reason why the American people keep going back for more ...
I have concluded that Americans, who pretend in public to be straitlaced, are in fact rabid masochists addicted to whips, black leather and the application of fists. It turns out that large numbers of people throughout the world are accidentally asphyxiated every year because they need to be choked for maximum pleasure.
The diagnosis of national masochism is the only thing that can satisfactorily explain the poll numbers in the presidential race.
Let's get this straight.
The Republican Party came to Washington, DC, in 2000 with a solid majority in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court, allowing them to steal the presidency, as well. If you wanted to know what a pure Republican-Party government unhindered by the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens or Socialists might look like, this was the moment.
Then he looks at various activities ...
Post a Comment