If you want an extensive by incomplete list of what was done to combat terrorism under the Clinton administration, go read Herald Blog.
Then bookmark him and start checking back on his blog before July 26, 2007. He promises to live-blog the Christian terrorist ceremonies conducted in Milwaukee July 26 to 29.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Christian Terrorist supporters to celebrate the terrorist Paul Hill
Digby has warned us that the "Christian" groups who opposed abortion plan a four day long celebration of the terrorist Martyr Paul Hill in Milwaukee, WI in late July.
This from Talk to Action:
All these terrorists have assumed the right to kill people they cannot convince to accept their beliefs, and they do it in the name of an unreasoning God that only they hear telling them to kill. All involve a few active terrorists supported by a much larger group of active supporters of terrorism, and the larger groups recruit and encourage other killers to do their bidding by calling them "heroes."
Those people represent Satan's Armies, not those of any God or of Allah. Those terrorists are Evil, and so are the people who wish to make heroes of them. Wilson and Hiess applaud those terrorists for killing umbelievers, and want to recruit more of them for more killing.
The unbelievers the the Christian terrorists want to kill in America are the majority of us who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. The Islamic terrorists consider the western attitude of allowing our women to let others see her face or her body. In both religions it is terrorists who demand that women be controlled by them. Since the terrorists represent minority extremist cults but demand that everyone obey them, they are frustrated beyong belief. So they send their evil terrorists out to kill unbelievers.
In both cases they consider the beliefs of the unbelievers to be a violation of what they interpret to be God's (or Allah's) Law, and they use this as justification to kill the unbelievers without warning or mercy. Then the congregation members of these dangerous cults present the terrorists as 'heroes' to get their own children to emulate them.
Make no mistake. These people are every bit the same as the terrorists like Muhammed Atta and his crew of 18, or for that matter like Timothy McVeigh.
But Hey! Maybe Terrorists are an oppressed minority too. Why shouldn't their supporters celebrate them and hold them up as heroes for their children to emulate? If that's the case, then think that "Children Need Heroes," "Street Preach" and "Army of God" are thinking too small. Four days in Milwaukee for just a single martyred terrorist? Just one miserable terrorist? Surely they can do better. They need to expand their horizons. They need to celebrate the terrorist actions of lots of terrorists. Like Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, Mohammed Atta and his 18 helpers, Osama bin Laden, the London terrorists, the Madrid terrorists, and all the other worthy terrorists who have been so prominent in killing those God hates in recent years.
So I think that we in the blogosphere should help them. We need to thank all those fine businesses and churches in Milwaukee for their support of terrorism. And it should be on a non-sectarian basis. Any religious terrorist deserves to be honored during Paul Hill Christian Terrorist Days.
I am proposing that we here in the blogosphere all send letters, emails and FAXes to organizations there in Milwaukee and Madison, WI. thanking them for their support of Paul Hill Christian Terrorist Days.
Just to start the ball rolling, here are a few addresses and phone numbers to contact:
Hey, this is a great way for all those governments, religious organizations and businesses to be recognized for their support to the community of terrorists. Of course they will be happy to hear from us. So let's let them know we recognize their efforts.
Politely, of course.
This from Talk to Action:
Our winners [of the Theocrat of the Week award] this week plan to reenact the the actions of theocratic martyr Paul Hill next month in Milwaukee. On July 29, 1994 Paul Hill, who sought to set a good example for Christian theocratic revolutionaries, assasinated abortion provider Dr. John Britton and James Barrett one of his escorts, and seriously wounding another, June Barrett, outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.Paul Hill, Shelly Shannon, James Kopp and Eric Rudolph are all Christian terrorists. There is no difference between them and the Islamic terrorists who strap on suicide bombs to kill "unbelievers" in the Middle East to enforce Burkhas on their women.
George L. Wilson of Children Need Heroes and Drew Heiss of Street Preach are planning to honor Paul Hill in a series of events called "Paul Hill Days" in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26th - 29th -- "to honor him as God's man and our hero."
Planned events include:
Activities at our two remaining killing centers
Literature distribution
Ministry at the Federal Courthouse
Reenactment of 7-29-1994
Paul Hill March
Ministry at other public forums
It should be noted that George L. Wilson, the proprietor of Children Needs Heroes, recognizes two other heroes he believes America's children should learn about: Shelly Shannon, who was convicted of the attempted assassination of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, among other serious crimes, including a series of arsons; and of course, James Kopp, who was convicted in the sniper assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian in Amherst, New York. Kopp is also the chief suspect in several other shootings.
All three are recognized as Heroes of the Faith by the Army of God, members of which are likely to be on hand for the festivities.
All these terrorists have assumed the right to kill people they cannot convince to accept their beliefs, and they do it in the name of an unreasoning God that only they hear telling them to kill. All involve a few active terrorists supported by a much larger group of active supporters of terrorism, and the larger groups recruit and encourage other killers to do their bidding by calling them "heroes."
Those people represent Satan's Armies, not those of any God or of Allah. Those terrorists are Evil, and so are the people who wish to make heroes of them. Wilson and Hiess applaud those terrorists for killing umbelievers, and want to recruit more of them for more killing.
The unbelievers the the Christian terrorists want to kill in America are the majority of us who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. The Islamic terrorists consider the western attitude of allowing our women to let others see her face or her body. In both religions it is terrorists who demand that women be controlled by them. Since the terrorists represent minority extremist cults but demand that everyone obey them, they are frustrated beyong belief. So they send their evil terrorists out to kill unbelievers.
In both cases they consider the beliefs of the unbelievers to be a violation of what they interpret to be God's (or Allah's) Law, and they use this as justification to kill the unbelievers without warning or mercy. Then the congregation members of these dangerous cults present the terrorists as 'heroes' to get their own children to emulate them.
Make no mistake. These people are every bit the same as the terrorists like Muhammed Atta and his crew of 18, or for that matter like Timothy McVeigh.
But Hey! Maybe Terrorists are an oppressed minority too. Why shouldn't their supporters celebrate them and hold them up as heroes for their children to emulate? If that's the case, then think that "Children Need Heroes," "Street Preach" and "Army of God" are thinking too small. Four days in Milwaukee for just a single martyred terrorist? Just one miserable terrorist? Surely they can do better. They need to expand their horizons. They need to celebrate the terrorist actions of lots of terrorists. Like Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, Mohammed Atta and his 18 helpers, Osama bin Laden, the London terrorists, the Madrid terrorists, and all the other worthy terrorists who have been so prominent in killing those God hates in recent years.
So I think that we in the blogosphere should help them. We need to thank all those fine businesses and churches in Milwaukee for their support of terrorism. And it should be on a non-sectarian basis. Any religious terrorist deserves to be honored during Paul Hill Christian Terrorist Days.
I am proposing that we here in the blogosphere all send letters, emails and FAXes to organizations there in Milwaukee and Madison, WI. thanking them for their support of Paul Hill Christian Terrorist Days.
Just to start the ball rolling, here are a few addresses and phone numbers to contact:
Milwaukee Wisconsin Chamber of CommerceThe Catholic Diocese in Milwaukee would also like to hear from us, I am sure.
Metro Milwaukee, WI.
Association of Commerce
756 N. Milwaukee St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-287-4100
Fax: 414-271-7753
Milwaukee, WI Official Chamber of Commerce Website:http://www.mmac.org
Tom Barrett
Mayor of Milwaukee
200 E. Wells Street
City Hall Rm.201
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 286.2200
FAX: (414) 286.3191
mailto:mayor@milwaukee.gov/
Governor Jim Doyle
Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
608-266-1212
www.wisgov.state.wi.us/
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/contact.asp?locid=19
[Governor’s office in Milwaukee]
Milwaukee Office
Room 560
819 North 6th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Chamber of Commerce
501 E. Washington
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 258-3400
Dirksen Federal Building
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604 or
619 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building
517 E. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Hey, this is a great way for all those governments, religious organizations and businesses to be recognized for their support to the community of terrorists. Of course they will be happy to hear from us. So let's let them know we recognize their efforts.
Politely, of course.
Victim of Republican political prosecution demands reimbursement for costs
Georgia Thompson, a state of Wisconsin employee who was falsely accused of corruption by Milwaukee U.S. Attorney, Steven Biskupic, has requested that that the state reimburse her $360.000 for the costs she incurred when Biskupic tried to throw the governor's race to the Republican candidate by faking a case and prosecuting Thompson for illegally steering a state contract to -- oops - the lowest bidder(??). This was a case that the Wisconsin Dane County District Attorney turned down because there was no evidence that any crime had been committed.
Ms. Thompson resigned when she was convicted, and was immediately sent to federal prison, where she spent four months while her case was on appeal. The Appeals Court looked at the case and immediately threw out the conviction due to a simple lack of evidence and the Appeals Court Judges were so incensed at the miscarriage of "Justice" that they took the extremely unusual action of dismissing the case from the bench at the end of oral arguments.
Ms. Thompson has been reinstated in her job with back-pay.
Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee.
Steve Benin provided an abbreviated list of other similar criminal actions in which the Department of Justice has been used to sway elections to the Republicans:
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales are working hard to implement Karl Rove's vision of a single party Republican dominated authoritarian regime. Steven Biskupic is one of the members of the new, destroyed American so-called Justice system.
Carol Lam, then Republican U.S. Attorney of San Diego, successfully prosecuted the single most corrupt Congressman ever to "grace" the halls of Congress, Randy "Duke" Cunningham. This case has also led to other indictments and has ended the similarly corrupt careers of Republican Representatives Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle. Carol Lam was then fired as U.S. Attorney December 7, 2006.
Biskupic has prosecuted an innocent person for the specific purpose of creating an issue that can be used by the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin to replace the otherwise well-respected Democrat, Doyle. Biskupic was pressured by the Department of Justice to do something to sway that election, as indicated by his position on the firing list of U. S. Attorneys, and as confirmed by his removal from that list after he convicted the innocent Georgia Thompson for a non-crime. That he did this was made perfectly clear by the Appeals Court who threw out the conviction. Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee under Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.
It looks to me like it could be time for a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican Party in the Federal government under the RICO statutes.
Can there be any doubt that the Republican Party is in fact a corrupt organization? All of the growing evidence says yes, and there are no countering defenses.
Ms. Thompson resigned when she was convicted, and was immediately sent to federal prison, where she spent four months while her case was on appeal. The Appeals Court looked at the case and immediately threw out the conviction due to a simple lack of evidence and the Appeals Court Judges were so incensed at the miscarriage of "Justice" that they took the extremely unusual action of dismissing the case from the bench at the end of oral arguments.
Ms. Thompson has been reinstated in her job with back-pay.
Doyle [Democratic governor of Wisconsin and the target of U.S. Attorney Biskupic's criminal action] against Ms. Thompson] aide Matt Canter said the governor supports the claim.This single case is the clearest evidence of the politicization of the federal government under Bush and Rove to try to create an American single-Party government which cannot be removed by democratic methods. Steven Biskupic had been on the firing list of U. S. Attorneys, the rest of whom were fired in the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney Purge. Immediately after this conviction of Georgia Harris became fodder for the Republican attack machine against Governor Doyle, Biskupic's name came off the firing list.
"It's actually the U.S. Department of Justice who should pay this, not Wisconsin taxpayers," Canter said. "But she is an innocent woman, and she shouldn't be caught up in this any longer."
In the claim, Hurley said the state should pay because the charges against her related to her job duties - duties the appeals court found she performed legally.
"Georgia Thompson's criminal prosecution, then, was wholly related to the proper discharge of her position within state employment," Hurley wrote.
Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee.
Steve Benin provided an abbreviated list of other similar criminal actions in which the Department of Justice has been used to sway elections to the Republicans:
These and many other similar criminal activities by the Bush administration have led to the investigation of the politicization of 20 federal agencies for the express purpose of creating a single-party non-democratic state of the United States.
- Paul Krugman noted a couple of weeks ago, for example, that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued subpoenas as part of an investigation against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) shortly before last year’s election.
- In New Hampshire, Democrats want Congress to investigate whether prosecution of a Republican phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 was intentionally delayed until after the presidential election two years later.
- Did the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania intentionally target Bob Casey allies to undermine his Senate campaign against Rick Santorum?
- Why was the career U.S. Attorney in Guam removed in 2002 after he started investigating disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff?
- Why has Western Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, spent a disproportionate amount of her time launching public-corruption investigations against Democrats, while overlooking Republicans?
- In July 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Denver decided not to pursue a matter in which bouncers at a Bush event impersonated Secret Service agents to throw out three law-abiding ticket-holders because of their bumper sticker (the Denver Three controversy). Did politics dictate the decision?
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales are working hard to implement Karl Rove's vision of a single party Republican dominated authoritarian regime. Steven Biskupic is one of the members of the new, destroyed American so-called Justice system.
Carol Lam, then Republican U.S. Attorney of San Diego, successfully prosecuted the single most corrupt Congressman ever to "grace" the halls of Congress, Randy "Duke" Cunningham. This case has also led to other indictments and has ended the similarly corrupt careers of Republican Representatives Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle. Carol Lam was then fired as U.S. Attorney December 7, 2006.
Biskupic has prosecuted an innocent person for the specific purpose of creating an issue that can be used by the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin to replace the otherwise well-respected Democrat, Doyle. Biskupic was pressured by the Department of Justice to do something to sway that election, as indicated by his position on the firing list of U. S. Attorneys, and as confirmed by his removal from that list after he convicted the innocent Georgia Thompson for a non-crime. That he did this was made perfectly clear by the Appeals Court who threw out the conviction. Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee under Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.
It looks to me like it could be time for a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican Party in the Federal government under the RICO statutes.
Can there be any doubt that the Republican Party is in fact a corrupt organization? All of the growing evidence says yes, and there are no countering defenses.
Brady Keisling - an American hero
I hate it when I overlook an outstanding Digby post. They aren't rare, but that is a good reason to double check repeatedly so as to not miss one. But I missed this one.
Brady Keisling is "the career diplomat in Greece who dramatically resigned in 2003 rather than continue to support the Bush/Iraq war." But that is just the beginning. Go read what Digby has to say about him.
Then buy Keisling's book, Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower - and send Digby a few dollars to keep up the good work while you are at it. I do, and I really can't afford it.
Brady Keisling is "the career diplomat in Greece who dramatically resigned in 2003 rather than continue to support the Bush/Iraq war." But that is just the beginning. Go read what Digby has to say about him.
Then buy Keisling's book, Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower - and send Digby a few dollars to keep up the good work while you are at it. I do, and I really can't afford it.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Blair dispaired of Bush war planning even as he sent British troops.
A newspaper reports that even as he planned to send troops to Iraq to support Bush's war in Iraq he was disturbed by the lack of planning and the apparently unconcern the Bush administration displayed when preparing for the war. See the story at the Huffington Post.
I am still at a loss to determine why Blair supported the war in Iraq in the first place. He seemed to have even less reason to invade Iraq than bush and the NeoCons did.
I am still at a loss to determine why Blair supported the war in Iraq in the first place. He seemed to have even less reason to invade Iraq than bush and the NeoCons did.
Office of Special Counsel investigating politization of Federal Civl Service
The U.S. Attorney purge was just the very tip of the program to totally politicize the federal government, using it to raise money and get Republicans elected everywhere. Once locked up, the machine that Rove was building would have left America as a one-party state in which elections mean nothing more than did the elections in the USSR or in Saddam's Iraq. Think Progress reports on the investigation now being conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the politicization of the Federal Government.
Politicization of the federal government has been illegal for decades. The 1939 Hatch Act specifically prohibits partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property, including federal agencies. But in 2005, Ken Mehlman, formerly one of Bush’s top political advisers, outlined the White House’s strategy of utilizing government resources for partisan gain:This was - and is - a coup-de-etate conducted by the American right-wing extremist conservatives, both economic and religious. It is beginning to be exposed, but the exposure is mostly surface so far.One of the things that can happen in Washington when you work in an agency is that you forget who sent you there. And it’s important to remind people that you’re George Bush people. … If there’s one empire I want built, it’s the George Bush empire. [One Party Country, p. 102]
With that imperial partisanship in mind, the Bush White House has engaged in an unprecedented quest to politicize the federal government, giving briefings and PowerPoint presentations everywhere from the Interior Department to NASA on how to secure Republican victories. Said one Interior Department manager, “We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results” (One Party Country, p. 103). Bush loyalists in federal agencies have also helped generate millions for favored political candidates.
Iran having economic, social problems.
Kevin Drum reports that Iran is having internal problems of the kinds that can cause a government to be replaced. The Iranian government is using the traditional panicky reaction of a threatened government. They are putting the screws of cultural crackdown on the population.
Of course, the next stage after that is to start a war with some other nation. The works very nicely when both government involved in the war want to fight a war. this is what the Argentine Generals did when they attacked the Falkland Islands. Thatcher was having problems staying in power, and was delighted to join the Argentines in a mutual war of government survival.
Iran, of course, has a perfect war-buddy. Dick Cheney really needs a war to shore up his falling stature in American government. This is at least part of what is behind the internal conflict between Cheney and Rice over how to deal with Iran. Talking Points Memo discusses the current bureaucratic battle between the Department of State (Rice) and The Office of the Vice President (Dick Cheney). The International Herald Tribune reported on that bureaucratic battle yesterday, but It's really old news. Steve Clemons reported it May 24, 2007.
The U.S. doesn't need another useless war in the Middle East, but Dick Cheney sure does.
Of course, the next stage after that is to start a war with some other nation. The works very nicely when both government involved in the war want to fight a war. this is what the Argentine Generals did when they attacked the Falkland Islands. Thatcher was having problems staying in power, and was delighted to join the Argentines in a mutual war of government survival.
Iran, of course, has a perfect war-buddy. Dick Cheney really needs a war to shore up his falling stature in American government. This is at least part of what is behind the internal conflict between Cheney and Rice over how to deal with Iran. Talking Points Memo discusses the current bureaucratic battle between the Department of State (Rice) and The Office of the Vice President (Dick Cheney). The International Herald Tribune reported on that bureaucratic battle yesterday, but It's really old news. Steve Clemons reported it May 24, 2007.
The U.S. doesn't need another useless war in the Middle East, but Dick Cheney sure does.
More about the Hamas victory in Gaza
This started out as a comment over on the M.J. Rosenberg thread at TPM Cafe. But one idea followed another, and it actually jelled into something I wanted to post here. So here it is.
The talk coming out of Gaza today looks like the leaders of Hamas have gotten what they were fighting for there, then suddenly realized that there is going to be another dawn after the day of victory and the portents for that new day do not look good. When you have spent a long time digging holes to live in and occasionally poking your head up to shoot, and suddenly the shooting stops, there is very suddenly a new and broader perspective than was possible while the bullets flew.
I would suspect that Hamas in Gaza has been fighting mostly as individual cells or small units without much central leadership. The centralizing functions that have been performed have been either support to civilians or providing weapons and food to the fighters. There may be some strategists at work in Gaza Hamas, but their effects have been limited recently. Day to day fighting and survival were the top priorities.
Now, suddenly, the fighters are getting the chance to lift their heads out of the foxholes and look around them. The shooting has stopped, but what they see is not very pretty. Just feeding the million-and-a-half population of Gaza is extremely uncertain, and to do that they are going to have to depend on the kindness of some of the very people they were shooting at yesterday.
I don't think that it is much of a positive statement about Hamas that at the last second when disaster looms they try to stand up and yell "King's X". The Grant of Amnesty to Fatah Leaders (none of whom are in Gaza anymore) is good PR, little else. So is the call for Alan Johnston's release. I'm not sure that even meets the absolute minimum to be expected from the newly empowered Hamas-in-Gaza.
That said, this is a good time to try to get them to the table while preventing a disaster that every Muslim nation in the world would consider genocide. Starving the Palestinians in Gaze is simply not a rational strategy.
But the take-over of Gaza by Hamas is a signal to all sides that the time for talking has arrived. Any idiot (*cough* Cheney - Neocons - extremist and Likud Jews *cough*) who show up with guns and threats at this time clearly don't want any solution at all.
Hamas has won what is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. They will really win only by the grace of their enemies. But the right-wingers (American and Israeli) have been badly embarrassed, and to recover their sense of "face" they are going to refuse to acknowledge the Hamas victory and attempt to step on the throat of the Hamas Palestinians and force them to acknowledge how wrong they are. That would be a stupid move, but certainly the kind of logic that heney and the NeoCons used to get America to invade Iraq. [Their logic - Always use force to gain compliance. Talk doesn't work. Which is true for mouth-breathers whose idea of talk is "Do this or I'll slug you." Read Krauthammer and William Kristol.]
Making something positive out of this change in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict will require that Hamas be brought in to the table of the powerful and melded with Fatah to provide a negotiating partner, while keeping the American and Israeli right-wing idiots from salving their wounded pride. Any Israeli who begins to thread this needle successfully better watch his back - literally. Unfortunately, there is no American in a position of power who is capable of contributing to the solution, especially with Cheney and the NeoCons still very active and conducting the kinds of bureaucratic terrorism that John Bolton is famous for. Even without those impediments, Condi Rice simply isn't capable of contributing. [Maybe if she were bribed with shoes? Naw, she's still not up to it. No matter how she is motivated, the capability is not there.]
In any case, this is a real potential turning point. It could get somewhere. But the enemies of success don't like that, and the window won't remain open more than about one Friedman Unit.
That's my opinion from here in the sticks of Texas, anyway.
The talk coming out of Gaza today looks like the leaders of Hamas have gotten what they were fighting for there, then suddenly realized that there is going to be another dawn after the day of victory and the portents for that new day do not look good. When you have spent a long time digging holes to live in and occasionally poking your head up to shoot, and suddenly the shooting stops, there is very suddenly a new and broader perspective than was possible while the bullets flew.
I would suspect that Hamas in Gaza has been fighting mostly as individual cells or small units without much central leadership. The centralizing functions that have been performed have been either support to civilians or providing weapons and food to the fighters. There may be some strategists at work in Gaza Hamas, but their effects have been limited recently. Day to day fighting and survival were the top priorities.
Now, suddenly, the fighters are getting the chance to lift their heads out of the foxholes and look around them. The shooting has stopped, but what they see is not very pretty. Just feeding the million-and-a-half population of Gaza is extremely uncertain, and to do that they are going to have to depend on the kindness of some of the very people they were shooting at yesterday.
I don't think that it is much of a positive statement about Hamas that at the last second when disaster looms they try to stand up and yell "King's X". The Grant of Amnesty to Fatah Leaders (none of whom are in Gaza anymore) is good PR, little else. So is the call for Alan Johnston's release. I'm not sure that even meets the absolute minimum to be expected from the newly empowered Hamas-in-Gaza.
That said, this is a good time to try to get them to the table while preventing a disaster that every Muslim nation in the world would consider genocide. Starving the Palestinians in Gaze is simply not a rational strategy.
But the take-over of Gaza by Hamas is a signal to all sides that the time for talking has arrived. Any idiot (*cough* Cheney - Neocons - extremist and Likud Jews *cough*) who show up with guns and threats at this time clearly don't want any solution at all.
Hamas has won what is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. They will really win only by the grace of their enemies. But the right-wingers (American and Israeli) have been badly embarrassed, and to recover their sense of "face" they are going to refuse to acknowledge the Hamas victory and attempt to step on the throat of the Hamas Palestinians and force them to acknowledge how wrong they are. That would be a stupid move, but certainly the kind of logic that heney and the NeoCons used to get America to invade Iraq. [Their logic - Always use force to gain compliance. Talk doesn't work. Which is true for mouth-breathers whose idea of talk is "Do this or I'll slug you." Read Krauthammer and William Kristol.]
Making something positive out of this change in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict will require that Hamas be brought in to the table of the powerful and melded with Fatah to provide a negotiating partner, while keeping the American and Israeli right-wing idiots from salving their wounded pride. Any Israeli who begins to thread this needle successfully better watch his back - literally. Unfortunately, there is no American in a position of power who is capable of contributing to the solution, especially with Cheney and the NeoCons still very active and conducting the kinds of bureaucratic terrorism that John Bolton is famous for. Even without those impediments, Condi Rice simply isn't capable of contributing. [Maybe if she were bribed with shoes? Naw, she's still not up to it. No matter how she is motivated, the capability is not there.]
In any case, this is a real potential turning point. It could get somewhere. But the enemies of success don't like that, and the window won't remain open more than about one Friedman Unit.
That's my opinion from here in the sticks of Texas, anyway.
Who gave Gaza to Hamas? Bush, Cheney and the NeoCons are largely at fault.
One of the most significant events in the Palestine/Israel situation has just occurred. The results of the election which the Palestinian government of Fatah was forced into have come to fruit. Fatah has been kicked out of Gaza and the extremist Islamic Iranian-backed Hamas has taken over. As M. J. Rosenberg describes the situation:
But anyway, the question is still on the table? Who lost Gaza? Whose fault is THIS disaster?
Remember that time seven years ago when then-President Bill Clinton was able to get the Israelis and Fatah to sit down together and nearly agree to settle the Israeli - Palestinian problem? It was torpedoed by one man, Yassir Arafat. With a solution that close, Arafat could have been dealt with but it was time for Bush to take over the Presidency.
Bush and the NeoCons wanted much grander solutions, which included invading Iraq and setting up a demonstration state that showed how free elections (the form is what democracy is all about, isn't that so? Rule of Law? Traditions? Unimportant!) and a free-market small-government economy could bring the Muslims out of the Dark Ages and into the Modern World.
So the Bush administration dropped the ball on things that Clinton considered important and workable, like resolving the Israeli - Palestinian conflict and preparing to prevent terrorist incidents, and instead embarked on what is now clearly known to be the most disastrous series of foreign policy blunders in all of America's history. So we got 9/11, the occupation of Iraq, and now the total collapse of rational Palestinian government. Oh, yeah. We also got an expensive and still non-working white elephant called the Missile Defense System.
When you combine the idiocies of conservative free-market ideology with the ignorance of and refusal to learn about the cultures you intend to transform, then you ignore the experience of the Generals who tell you how things work while you go off headlong into an unneeded and unwinnable war, and give this entire witches-brew over to the tender mercies of the extremist wings of the Republican Party to finance and steal money from, the makings of the current disasters in American domestic policies, economic, taxation and the almost entirely Bush-made disaster that has overtaken the Middle East become clear. This mess that the Republicans have created will take generations to recover from, and historians will be looking back in horror for centuries.
It has been an educational period of time. After Nixon - Agnew - Kissinger I thought I understood how bad the Republican Party could be if placed in power. This administration has shown me that my imagination just couldn't reach the depths of depravity and ignorance the Republicans have gone to in reality. And just think. A lot of us have been permitted to watch the Republican train-wreck unfold, live and in color.
I think I would have preferred to go to Cleveland, thank you. Or gone to see a slasher movie that I could have walked out on.
Gaza has fallen to Hamas. Abu Mazen's Fatah is on the run. Unless a United Nations force (like UNIFIL) steps in, a sliver of territory with a population of 1.4 million, a short drive from Tel Aviv will become a dagger aimed at Israel's heart and perhaps even an Al Qaeda staging ground. A humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions is a certainty.Yep. No one needs to negotiate with the Islamists or their Iranian and Syrian backers, and the Palestinians are their own worst enemies, so just fence then away and every time one of them gets out of like and bombs those he considers the oppressors, just oppress them harder. Then just ignore the nasty beggars. They'll go away. Don't believe that? Continue reading Rosenberg's excellent analysis of what happened. Here is a key point he makes:
...it is not difficult understanding how Hamas won the legislative elections in 2006. This is another ugly part of the story. First we demanded that the Palestinians hold elections (Abbas didn’t want them), then we dispatched monitors to certify sure they were “free and fair” which they were, but when we didn’t like the election results we rejected them and promised that the Palestinians would “pay.” Almost immediately Members of Congress rushed to stop almost all forms of aid not just to Hamas-run institutions but to the Palestinian people at large.Sure has worked well, hasn't it? I'm sure that the NeoCons and Dick Cheney are delighted, while I wonder if anyone has bothered to mention the bad news to Bush. Bush gets testy with underlings who dare give him bad news, and it's really not like Bush has a clue regarding what to do. Does he dare create an Israel - Palestinian Czar to turn it over to as he has just done the Iraq - Afghanistan twin disasters with "Czar" Lute? Might not be all that bad an idea, but how much of the Presidency can Bush offload onto other people because he can't figure out what to do? At some point it becomes logical to simply bring in a real President who is up to the job himself.
There was another way we might have gone. We could have welcomed Hamas’s participation in the election as a sign that Hamas was implicitly accepting the Oslo framework (which it was), insisted on the complete cessation of violence, and then used carrots and sticks to encourage the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority to mend its ways. But we offered no carrots, just sticks. And we didn’t even make much of an effort to strengthen Hamas’s arch-enemy, President Mahmoud Abbas, with Congress hastening to impose redundant and insulting conditions even on aid that was to be sent through him.
It was all fun and games, politics as usual. Meanwhile, Hamas looked better and better to a people whose salaries were not being paid, thanks to the US sponsored international boycott of the PA, and whose schools and hospitals were collapsing.
Today it is almost amusing to contemplate the professions of horror on the part of right-wing Israelis (and their neocon friends) who scream “bloody murder” about an outcome they helped effect and actually welcome.
The name of their game was, is, and always will be making sure that Israel has “no partner” with whom to negotiate. Their worst fear is of Palestinians like Mahmoud Abbas who is a credible negotiating partner.
But anyway, the question is still on the table? Who lost Gaza? Whose fault is THIS disaster?
The Palestinians, of course. But hardly theirs alone. As Nahum Barnea, Israel's finest journalist, put it today in Yediot Achronoth, "The US and Israel had a decisive contribution to this failure. The Americans, in their lack of understanding for the processes of Islamization in the territories, pressured to hold democratic elections and brought Hamas to power with their own hands…. Since the elections, Israel, like the US, declared over and over that "Abu Mazen must be strengthened," but in practice, zero was done for this to happen. The meetings with him turned into an Israeli political tool, and Olmert's kisses and backslapping turned Abu Mazen into a collaborator and a source of jokes on the Palestinian street."M. J. Rosenberg continues with his excellent analysis, which you should go read.
The failures to which Barnea refers didn't start with the Palestinian elections either, not by a long shot. Back when Hamas was just a gleam in Sheik Ahmad Yassin’s blind eye, Israeli right-ringers were implementing a strategy to eliminate the authority of Palestinian moderates by building up religious extremists. These Israelis (some very high in Likud governments) believed that only supplanting Arafat’s Fatah with Islamic fundamentalists would prevent a situation under which Israel would be forced to negotiate with moderates.
Remember that time seven years ago when then-President Bill Clinton was able to get the Israelis and Fatah to sit down together and nearly agree to settle the Israeli - Palestinian problem? It was torpedoed by one man, Yassir Arafat. With a solution that close, Arafat could have been dealt with but it was time for Bush to take over the Presidency.
Bush and the NeoCons wanted much grander solutions, which included invading Iraq and setting up a demonstration state that showed how free elections (the form is what democracy is all about, isn't that so? Rule of Law? Traditions? Unimportant!) and a free-market small-government economy could bring the Muslims out of the Dark Ages and into the Modern World.
So the Bush administration dropped the ball on things that Clinton considered important and workable, like resolving the Israeli - Palestinian conflict and preparing to prevent terrorist incidents, and instead embarked on what is now clearly known to be the most disastrous series of foreign policy blunders in all of America's history. So we got 9/11, the occupation of Iraq, and now the total collapse of rational Palestinian government. Oh, yeah. We also got an expensive and still non-working white elephant called the Missile Defense System.
When you combine the idiocies of conservative free-market ideology with the ignorance of and refusal to learn about the cultures you intend to transform, then you ignore the experience of the Generals who tell you how things work while you go off headlong into an unneeded and unwinnable war, and give this entire witches-brew over to the tender mercies of the extremist wings of the Republican Party to finance and steal money from, the makings of the current disasters in American domestic policies, economic, taxation and the almost entirely Bush-made disaster that has overtaken the Middle East become clear. This mess that the Republicans have created will take generations to recover from, and historians will be looking back in horror for centuries.
It has been an educational period of time. After Nixon - Agnew - Kissinger I thought I understood how bad the Republican Party could be if placed in power. This administration has shown me that my imagination just couldn't reach the depths of depravity and ignorance the Republicans have gone to in reality. And just think. A lot of us have been permitted to watch the Republican train-wreck unfold, live and in color.
I think I would have preferred to go to Cleveland, thank you. Or gone to see a slasher movie that I could have walked out on.
The silent civilian surge in Iraq
As the U.S. military conduct their "surge" by bringing in replacement troops early and delaying the departure of others, there is a second surge going on, mostly unreported on. Here, from MSNBC is part of this otherwise untold story:
One in seven supply convoys protected by private forces has come under attack this year. One security company reported nearly 300 "hostile actions" in the first four months of 2007. The logistics directorate, after much prodding to include the civilian figures with those of the military, reported that 132 security contractors and truck drivers had been killed and 416 wounded since fall 2004. Four security contractors and a truck driver remained missing, and 208 vehicles were destroyed. Only convoys registered with the logistics directorate are counted in the statistics, and the total number of casualties is believed to be higher.
But ignore, for the moment, the simple sheer idiocy that has taken the American military into the Middle Eastern desert where it has no function other than to be chewed to bit. This entire superstructure of security forces has been built to compensate for the utterly idiotic decision implemented by Jerry Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and refuse to rehire any Iraqi who had belonged to the Baath Party. No doubt this monumental act of stupidity was a solid conservative Republican follow on to the world class foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq in the first place. This series of government decisions by the Re[publican administration of George bush is a disaster unmatched in sheer stupidity since Hitler invaded the USSR.
Since the U.S. military is not large enough to do what remains to be done as long as the Republican stupidity in Iraq continues, and since there is no political support for a draft to maintain the stupidity called "Iraq," the solution is to throw tons of money at the problem and create a massive mercenary army to support the American military.
The creation of these mercenary outfits is just another small disaster stacked on top of the massive disaster that is the Republican war in Iraq.
Iraq is not an American War. It is a useless war started by and continued by the Republican Party and permitted by careerist senior military officers like Richard Myers and Peter Pace. It is a distraction from the efforts needed to make America more secure.
Somehow the Republicans have worked to give the idea that criticizing the military for poor performance is failure to support the troops in combat. First, these troops are fighting and dying for the Republican Party, not for America. Second, look at the mercenaries who are also fighting and dying in this ridiculous excuse for a botched occupation. Who are they dying for? Their corporate masters? At least in their case the Republicans have removed the fiction that they, at least, are getting killed for their country. Because they aren't. The mercenaries are dying and being wounded purely for a buck. And it's not worth it.
There are more that 100 security companies operate in Iraq, not under Iraqi law. The U.S. military uses between 20,000 to 30,000 security contractors to offset chronic troop shortages. “Armed contractors protect all convoys transporting reconstruction materiel, including vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police. They guard key U.S. military installations and provide personal security for at least three commanding generals, including Air Force Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees U.S. military contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Snip]
The military plans to outsource at least $1.5 billion in security operations this year, including the three largest security contracts in Iraq: a "theaterwide" contract to protect U.S. bases that is worth up to $480 million, according to Scott; a contract for up to $475 million to provide intelligence for the Army and personal security for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and a contract for up to $450 million to protect reconstruction convoys. The Army has also tested a plan to use private security on military convoys for the first time, a shift that would significantly increase the presence of armed contractors on Iraq's dangerous roads.”
One in seven supply convoys protected by private forces has come under attack this year. One security company reported nearly 300 "hostile actions" in the first four months of 2007. The logistics directorate, after much prodding to include the civilian figures with those of the military, reported that 132 security contractors and truck drivers had been killed and 416 wounded since fall 2004. Four security contractors and a truck driver remained missing, and 208 vehicles were destroyed. Only convoys registered with the logistics directorate are counted in the statistics, and the total number of casualties is believed to be higher.
“Sharon, 61, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is rail thin with a weathered, intelligent face shaped by chain-smoking and four decades of military work. He works out of a small office that is also his bedroom. A humidor sits on his desk. A U.S. flag covers his window. Cartons of Marlboro Reds are stacked behind him near a leather-bound copy of the Koran.This is something which has grown, unplanned, to try to compensate for the incompetence with which the Bush administration has tried to fight the unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq.
Sharon called Falcon Security a "private military company."
"When you have this many men, you don't manage it as you do a corporation. You manage it very much in the military style," he said. "My men aren't carrying potatoes; they're carrying AK-47s. It's not pilferage we're worried about. It's people storming the walls."
Falcon performs "a military-like role" in Iraq, he said, "with one key exception: We do not, and have no desire to, conduct offensive operations."
But even behind the blast walls, the private and public wars collide, Sharon said. Last year, insurgents attacked a passing U.S. military convoy on a highway outside the gates. Kurdish guards in one of the towers opened fire, killing two insurgents. "The Americans were thrilled," he said.
"All of the work that's being conducted here in Iraq by private security companies would have to be conducted by somebody, and that somebody is U.S. military personnel," he said. "If you had 500 soldiers here, that's 500 less soldiers that you have on the battlefield. And this isn't the only site. There are hundreds of sites around Iraq where you have private security. Where are you going to get this personnel?"
But ignore, for the moment, the simple sheer idiocy that has taken the American military into the Middle Eastern desert where it has no function other than to be chewed to bit. This entire superstructure of security forces has been built to compensate for the utterly idiotic decision implemented by Jerry Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and refuse to rehire any Iraqi who had belonged to the Baath Party. No doubt this monumental act of stupidity was a solid conservative Republican follow on to the world class foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq in the first place. This series of government decisions by the Re[publican administration of George bush is a disaster unmatched in sheer stupidity since Hitler invaded the USSR.
Since the U.S. military is not large enough to do what remains to be done as long as the Republican stupidity in Iraq continues, and since there is no political support for a draft to maintain the stupidity called "Iraq," the solution is to throw tons of money at the problem and create a massive mercenary army to support the American military.
The creation of these mercenary outfits is just another small disaster stacked on top of the massive disaster that is the Republican war in Iraq.
Iraq is not an American War. It is a useless war started by and continued by the Republican Party and permitted by careerist senior military officers like Richard Myers and Peter Pace. It is a distraction from the efforts needed to make America more secure.
Somehow the Republicans have worked to give the idea that criticizing the military for poor performance is failure to support the troops in combat. First, these troops are fighting and dying for the Republican Party, not for America. Second, look at the mercenaries who are also fighting and dying in this ridiculous excuse for a botched occupation. Who are they dying for? Their corporate masters? At least in their case the Republicans have removed the fiction that they, at least, are getting killed for their country. Because they aren't. The mercenaries are dying and being wounded purely for a buck. And it's not worth it.
Friday, June 15, 2007
OK. So Nifong is going to resign.
But he still needs to lose his law license. An Assistant District Attorney might just get a five year (or whatever is appropriate) suspension, but Mike Nifong is the guy elected to be responsible for such decisions. Even if he had had the inklings of a case, he still stepped far, far over the line with his efforts to try the case in the media. He blew it really badly, and should never again be an attorney. In addition, civil lawsuits are certain. But they will never be enough.
In addition, there needs to be a really good study to determine why the most significant actions were performed. What decisions by what people determined each major action, and why were those decisions so far from the ones that would have been ethical?
Yeah, I admit it. I'd swap my soul to be part of the team doing that study. The psychology and sociology of that kind of decision-making and its implementation fascinate me.
Don't know what I am talking about? Go read the story at Talkleft.
In addition, there needs to be a really good study to determine why the most significant actions were performed. What decisions by what people determined each major action, and why were those decisions so far from the ones that would have been ethical?
Yeah, I admit it. I'd swap my soul to be part of the team doing that study. The psychology and sociology of that kind of decision-making and its implementation fascinate me.
Don't know what I am talking about? Go read the story at Talkleft.
New name, same magazine
The new name
It also seems to be a really appropriate name for a web magazine like this, in which I am continually trying to find out "WTF" and understand it. I don't have the answers here, I often don't even come very close to the questions. But with luck, I'll get closer. I will keep trying. This name seems to me to be a better approximation of what this process is all about.
I didn't like "Politics Plus Stuff" much as a name when I chose it, but nothing better seemed to strike me. That was September 2004. It's lasted a lot longer than I ever expected, and it still could stand as a subtitle. If I had the room for a subtitle.
So, here is is. New name, same location, same subjects, same treatments. I hope my regular readers like it. Both of you.
Interesting - the blogger spell-checker recognizes the spelling of "fuck." I find that somehow reassuring. The word as used here is an interjection, not a description of sexual practice. Anyone with an adequate education can pick that up from the context. You remember what interjections are, don't you? You had that in English classes in grades 4, 5, 6 and/or 7.
Also, this new name gives an interesting double meaning to my occasional interpolation in a quote where I will point out "Bolding mine - Editor WTF." :-}
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? - over
is the phonetic alphabet for WTF - over. This is an expression that is often heard over military radios, either as the initials, here, or when someone is really surprised it may just be "What the Fuck? Over." What I find really fascinating is that proper radio procedure is always used - ending a transmission with "over".It also seems to be a really appropriate name for a web magazine like this, in which I am continually trying to find out "WTF" and understand it. I don't have the answers here, I often don't even come very close to the questions. But with luck, I'll get closer. I will keep trying. This name seems to me to be a better approximation of what this process is all about.
I didn't like "Politics Plus Stuff" much as a name when I chose it, but nothing better seemed to strike me. That was September 2004. It's lasted a lot longer than I ever expected, and it still could stand as a subtitle. If I had the room for a subtitle.
So, here is is. New name, same location, same subjects, same treatments. I hope my regular readers like it. Both of you.
Interesting - the blogger spell-checker recognizes the spelling of "fuck." I find that somehow reassuring. The word as used here is an interjection, not a description of sexual practice. Anyone with an adequate education can pick that up from the context. You remember what interjections are, don't you? You had that in English classes in grades 4, 5, 6 and/or 7.
Also, this new name gives an interesting double meaning to my occasional interpolation in a quote where I will point out "Bolding mine - Editor WTF." :-}
Interesting - is the conservative - liberal split world-wide?
Does every democracy tend to break down into two parties, one that belongs to the wealthy elites who fear loss of what they have and think that government exists to protect their property, and the other that thinks government has a responsibility to coordinate activities in the national interest not well dealt with by the market (like health care) and provide a real safety net for those who have the bad luck not to be part of the elites?
Matthew Yglesias has the discussion going over at his place.
If this is a widespread phenomenon, (and I suspect that is) then my bet is that it will center on whether people in one group or the other base their world-view mostly on fear or on empathy.
Matthew Yglesias has the discussion going over at his place.
If this is a widespread phenomenon, (and I suspect that is) then my bet is that it will center on whether people in one group or the other base their world-view mostly on fear or on empathy.
Republicans in DoJ still working to suppress votes
The major reason why the Pearl Harbor Day eight were fired was that many of them would not go along with the DoJ in attempting to bring spurious charges of voter fraud in efforts to cause large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters to avoid registering or voting their own interests.
Here is the latest, from the Charlotte Observer.
Here is the latest, from the Charlotte Observer.
Sort of like stove piping Intelligence data. All you have to do is cherry-pick the data that supports what you want everyone to believe while suppressing all data that shows that there is no real problem. This is clear Republican practice, and they sure haven't stopped.State, feds say rolls out of date, push changes; official says no need
DAVID INGRAM
dingram@charlotteobserver.com
RALEIGH --
State and federal officials are mounting two broad challenges to the way North Carolina maintains its voter rolls, charging widespread irregularities that include votes cast under the names of dead people.
The accusations attempt to call into question the accuracy of registration records and election returns from 2004 to the present.
So far, though, the officials have not made public any evidence of irregularities, and N.C. election officials argue that the state's maintenance of voter rolls is among the most careful and comprehensive programs in the country.
The dispute comes amid growing national attention to suspected voter fraud. The U.S. Justice Department has devoted more resources to that area -- a decision that voting advocates say could disproportionately affect minorities and the poor ahead of the 2008 election.
In a letter two months ago, the Justice Department said it was reviewing North Carolina's voter rolls and that it found irregularities in the number of people registered to vote. Similar reviews have led to lawsuits against election officials in seven other states, including Georgia.
The second broad challenge is from State Auditor Les Merritt, whose office began a review of the state's voter rolls in January.
His staff presented preliminary findings to the State Board of Elections last week. According to the board, Merritt's staff cited 24,821 invalid driver's license numbers in the voter registration database, 380 people who appear to have voted after their dates of death and others who were under age 18 when they voted.
Gary Bartlett, executive director of the elections board, responded Wednesday with a stinging 10-page letter declaring many of the findings invalid. He accused Merritt's office of misleading the elections board and of rejecting its help.
"(Y)our office appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the data that was reviewed or about the federal and State laws governing the voter registration process," Bartlett wrote in the letter, which he provided to lawmakers Thursday.
For example, Bartlett said, many of the people who appear to have voted after their dates of death voted absentee and then died prior to Election Day. At least some people under 18 who voted did so legally, Bartlett said, because state law allows 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election if they will be 18 the day of the general election.
Who are the honest conservatives? Rick Perlstein provides a metric.
From Brad Delong we get (by way of Rick Perlstein)
Of course, while I find this interesting, I am not sure how useful it is. I don't really see that even the very best of the so-called "honest conservatives" has any greater value than the dead-ender anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida. Or even the value that Ex-rep and current felon Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Or for that matter, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson.
Here, he quotes the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek who speaks of "a witty formula of life under a hard Communist regime: Of the three features—personal honesty, sincere support of the regime and intelligence—it was possible to combine only two, never all three. If one was honest and supportive, one was not very bright; if one was bright and supportive, one was not honest; if one was honest and bright, one was not supportive. The problem with Dreyman is that he does combine all three features."Of course, Krauthamer and Krystol are dead-enders. I'm not sure where I would put Pat Buchanan (but the shock of realizing that he is saying stuff that I agree with has not yet totally receded.)
And here he reflects that the old Eastern Bloc jape " applies just as well to the Bush regime. Sincere conservative supporters are not bright. Bright conservative supporters are not honest. Bright and honest conservatives are not supporters...."
He proposes, thereby, a taxonomy. You might find it handy, too. I leave out the names. The names are not important.
Class of 2000: People who in 2000 said, "George W. Bush is not qualified to be president, and we should be really worried about this."
Class of 2001: People who in 2001 said, "I supported Bush in 2000, but George W. Bush is not listening to his honest conservative policy advisers, and we should be really worried about this."
Class of 2002: People who in 2002 said, "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2001, but 911 has unhinged the administration; it's detention and other policies are counterproductive; it needs to be opposed."
Class of 2003: People who in 2003 said, "I supported Bush over 2000-2002, but enough is enough. That's it. I supported the invasion of Iraq because I was certain there was evidence of an advanced nuclear weapons program--otherwise invading Iraq was just stupid. Well, there was no advanced nuclear weapons program. Invading Iraq was just stupid. Plus there's the Medicare drug benefit. These people need to be evicted from power."
Class of 2004: People who in 2004 said, "I've been a Bush supporter. I'm a Republican and a conservative, but I've had enough: I'm voting for Kerry."
Class of 2005: People who in 2005 said, "I voted for Bush in 2004. But I made a mistake. A big mistake."
Class of 2006: People who in 2006 said, "I know I supported Bush up to last year, but that shows I'm not the brightest light on the clued-in tree."
The class of 2007--people who are now opposed to Bush only because they think Bush will drag the Republicans down in 2008--doesn't count. Dead-enders who are still claiming that Bush is Teddy Roosevelt don't count. They aren't honest conservatives. They are only worth scorn, and fit objects for nothing but mockery. One just doesn't joust with them in honorable intellectual combat. It's not done.
I say divide "honest conservatives" into the classes of 2000 to 2006, rank them by seniority according to the date of their public honesty, and use that as a ranking for who to read, who to respect, and who to promote as worthy intellectual adversaries. Refer to them using this citation form:
Brent Scowcroft, Honest Conservative Class of 2004...
Of course, while I find this interesting, I am not sure how useful it is. I don't really see that even the very best of the so-called "honest conservatives" has any greater value than the dead-ender anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida. Or even the value that Ex-rep and current felon Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Or for that matter, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson.
Qualified Republican Presidential nominees "Well, does Fred Thompson at least smell manly?"
TRex over at Firedoglake points to Chris Matthews' comments regarding the potential Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Poor Chris. He is reduced to asking if Fred at least "smells manly." (Crooks and Liars has the video.) Give Chris credit. When there's not much to work with, Chris will work with what he has. That's what a good public relations flack does.
So Chris Matthews is reduced to trying to push Fred Thompson's Presidential candidacy based on the manliness of his smell, we viewers might well suspect that the FOX/MSNBC Republican machine (and its associated political party) has hit a spot of trouble in politics. Ya think?
Well, let's look at the situation.
The Republicans have a bench of potential nominees that even the Republicans can't stomach. Everyone is looking at Romni, Guilliani and McCain in incredulity, with Democrats saying "Thank you, God." and Republicans saying "Oh. My. God!"
When the best person on stage is an ancient crackpot Obstetrician (from the Texas District next to that of the disgraced Tom DeLay) whose claim to fame is a strong following among anti-government Libertarians and who is famous for regularly voting against the entire House of Representatives on basic things like the military budget, the phrase “Houston, we have a problem.” takes on all new level of meaning to Republicans.
But all is not lost. There is, somewhere deep in the Tennessee woods, a lobbyist, actor, one-term do-nothing ex-Senator with no significant credentials or accomplishments beyond appearing old and gruff. He is not known for standing for anything of any kind politically, and beyond being elected to the Senate during the Republican landslide of 1994, has zero political accomplishments. OK. Positive side – think “Political blank slate”. And he does have that tiny, perky little trophy wife about half his age with the cute giggle. Compared to the current potential Republican dwarfs, that's a real positive.
Of course, he makes depressed basset hounds look positively attractive, but who else is there? How do the Republican flacks repackage this utter political do-nothing vacuum into someone who desperate Republicans can vote for??
Well, how does he smell? Is it manly enough? That's what Chris Mathews is trying out. And why shouldn't he? Matthews has no reputation to protect, and he is as desperate as the rest of the Republicans to find someone or something better than the current crop of potential nominees.
If FOX and MSNBC can't somehow use the do-nothing cradle robbing ex-Senator lobbyist into a viable candidate who makes Republicans' hearts go pitty-pat -
The lobbyist-actor Thompson with the remarkably unmanly name "Fred" is really the best they have. Expect to see the Wurlitzer to push him as hard as they can.
[ h/t to Glenn Greewald]
So Chris Matthews is reduced to trying to push Fred Thompson's Presidential candidacy based on the manliness of his smell, we viewers might well suspect that the FOX/MSNBC Republican machine (and its associated political party) has hit a spot of trouble in politics. Ya think?
Well, let's look at the situation.
The Republicans have a bench of potential nominees that even the Republicans can't stomach. Everyone is looking at Romni, Guilliani and McCain in incredulity, with Democrats saying "Thank you, God." and Republicans saying "Oh. My. God!"
When the best person on stage is an ancient crackpot Obstetrician (from the Texas District next to that of the disgraced Tom DeLay) whose claim to fame is a strong following among anti-government Libertarians and who is famous for regularly voting against the entire House of Representatives on basic things like the military budget, the phrase “Houston, we have a problem.” takes on all new level of meaning to Republicans.
But all is not lost. There is, somewhere deep in the Tennessee woods, a lobbyist, actor, one-term do-nothing ex-Senator with no significant credentials or accomplishments beyond appearing old and gruff. He is not known for standing for anything of any kind politically, and beyond being elected to the Senate during the Republican landslide of 1994, has zero political accomplishments. OK. Positive side – think “Political blank slate”. And he does have that tiny, perky little trophy wife about half his age with the cute giggle. Compared to the current potential Republican dwarfs, that's a real positive.
Of course, he makes depressed basset hounds look positively attractive, but who else is there? How do the Republican flacks repackage this utter political do-nothing vacuum into someone who desperate Republicans can vote for??
Well, how does he smell? Is it manly enough? That's what Chris Mathews is trying out. And why shouldn't he? Matthews has no reputation to protect, and he is as desperate as the rest of the Republicans to find someone or something better than the current crop of potential nominees.
If FOX and MSNBC can't somehow use the do-nothing cradle robbing ex-Senator lobbyist into a viable candidate who makes Republicans' hearts go pitty-pat -
(NO! Keep him away from Dick Cheney until after his surgery for his new defibrillator battery next Summer! What if the build-up works? Some people's hearts just can't DEAL with pitty-pat!)- they may be forced to pull a wooden or fiberglass puppet out of the closet from somewhere. (Wooden IS preferred. It has to appeal to conservatives, after all.) Then Chris Matthews will be lauding the beauty of this new candidates' hinges while his handlers whisper urgently into his ear mike (Chris - don't talk about the strong, pretty strings!)
The lobbyist-actor Thompson with the remarkably unmanly name "Fred" is really the best they have. Expect to see the Wurlitzer to push him as hard as they can.
[ h/t to Glenn Greewald]
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Libby to go to prison, not pass Go but he will collect millions in wingnut welfare.
As expected, Judge Walton denied Libby's request that his entry into the federal prison system be delayed until Bush feels he can Pardon him with relatively little political damage ///uh... I mean until Libby's appeals are denied.
Digby lists some of the more prominent forms of planned wingnut public grief.
Digby lists some of the more prominent forms of planned wingnut public grief.
Pushback. The commonality of the current civil wars in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq
Daniel Levy (bio) writes a really interesting analysis over at TPM Cafe of why Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq are all undergoing major internal sectarian warfare. He starts thus:
The article essentially documents how a large number of people in the Middle East have reacted to the Bush/Cheney attitude which can be briefly characterized as: "You are doing it all wrong, and we have the right way. You will do it the way we demand or we will invade your countries militarily and force you to do what we demand. Oh, and no back-talk. We don't care what you have to say or why you are resisting."
What does pushback really mean? Let me offer a personal example. I have exactly the same reaction when some religious cultist demands that I mouth their creed of "I will accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." I can guarantee that if anyone ever hears me saying that, then they need to call the cops fast. I have been kidnapped and someone crazy is holding a gun to my head. My religion is my business, most religious evangelists are bigots and fools, and no one is going to force me to adopt their idiocy under any circumstances short of torture or threat of death - in which case I will say it all with my fingers crossed while I determine how to screw the evangelists over as soon as I get a chance. And no, I am not an Atheist. Atheism is another false faith-based religion evangelized by mentally ill people. It depends on knowing as a certainty things that cannot be known, and acting as though that certainty is true, is worth forcing on other people, and is valid reason to ignore what others want for themselves.
The real relevance of my example above is not that I am right and the evangelistic idiots are wrong, or vice versa. The key is that I am primed to react negatively to any form of evangelism that tries to force me to do or to believe something without considering my knowledge, experience or goals. Try pushing me, and anyone who knows me even just a little will know to expect a pushback, perhaps even a disproportionate pushback.
People who know the Middle East understood that Cheney's NeoCon fantasy of imposing a western style society on the Islamic Middle East was going to result in a pushback. Can anyone doubt that there has been such a reaction?
I suspect that western globalization is causing much the same reaction. The winners from expanded international free trade can be expected to be bought off. But what about the losers? They are forced to change by an uncaring outsider - generally a foreigner or group of foreigners, who do not know their culture, is working to destroy that culture, and doesn't care what the losers want. Again, pushback is to be expected.
Reacting to (the easily anticipated) pushback with increased force will be more likely to increase the pushback than to resolve it.
But don't bother telling that to the NeoCons. They have their perfect conservative ideology, and all pushback is, by definition, wrong. So is listening to any objection to the prescriptions of the perfect conservative ideology. Those who object to the perfect conservative ideology are are just haters, and according to the perfect conservative ideology, haters are to be ignored and forced into compliance using any power tools (military, police, authoritarianism, etc.) available.
Gaza seems to be descending towards a civil war, Lebanon lurched closer to conflict with the killing today of MP Walid Eido and ongoing clashes at the Nahr El-Bared camp, and the Iraqi civil war, already long underway, took another desperate turn with the re-bombing of the Shia mosque at Samarra.I strongly recommend reading this. The comments are nearly as informative as the article itself.
Each of these situations has its own complex circumstances and particular set of actors, causes, and dynamics. They cannot be neatly filed under one common rubric -- say extremists vs. moderates, or Iran vs. the US. Yet it is possible, perhaps, to discern at least one unifying theme: each of these conflicts is, in part, the pushback against the neocon transformationalist agenda for the Middle East. I am not suggesting that the US is solely responsible for the woeful state of the region, but the contribution of a mistaken and rigid ideological dogma applied to the region has been dramatic and devastating. [Highlighting is mine - Editor PPS]
The article essentially documents how a large number of people in the Middle East have reacted to the Bush/Cheney attitude which can be briefly characterized as: "You are doing it all wrong, and we have the right way. You will do it the way we demand or we will invade your countries militarily and force you to do what we demand. Oh, and no back-talk. We don't care what you have to say or why you are resisting."
What does pushback really mean? Let me offer a personal example. I have exactly the same reaction when some religious cultist demands that I mouth their creed of "I will accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." I can guarantee that if anyone ever hears me saying that, then they need to call the cops fast. I have been kidnapped and someone crazy is holding a gun to my head. My religion is my business, most religious evangelists are bigots and fools, and no one is going to force me to adopt their idiocy under any circumstances short of torture or threat of death - in which case I will say it all with my fingers crossed while I determine how to screw the evangelists over as soon as I get a chance. And no, I am not an Atheist. Atheism is another false faith-based religion evangelized by mentally ill people. It depends on knowing as a certainty things that cannot be known, and acting as though that certainty is true, is worth forcing on other people, and is valid reason to ignore what others want for themselves.
The real relevance of my example above is not that I am right and the evangelistic idiots are wrong, or vice versa. The key is that I am primed to react negatively to any form of evangelism that tries to force me to do or to believe something without considering my knowledge, experience or goals. Try pushing me, and anyone who knows me even just a little will know to expect a pushback, perhaps even a disproportionate pushback.
People who know the Middle East understood that Cheney's NeoCon fantasy of imposing a western style society on the Islamic Middle East was going to result in a pushback. Can anyone doubt that there has been such a reaction?
I suspect that western globalization is causing much the same reaction. The winners from expanded international free trade can be expected to be bought off. But what about the losers? They are forced to change by an uncaring outsider - generally a foreigner or group of foreigners, who do not know their culture, is working to destroy that culture, and doesn't care what the losers want. Again, pushback is to be expected.
Reacting to (the easily anticipated) pushback with increased force will be more likely to increase the pushback than to resolve it.
But don't bother telling that to the NeoCons. They have their perfect conservative ideology, and all pushback is, by definition, wrong. So is listening to any objection to the prescriptions of the perfect conservative ideology. Those who object to the perfect conservative ideology are are just haters, and according to the perfect conservative ideology, haters are to be ignored and forced into compliance using any power tools (military, police, authoritarianism, etc.) available.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Why did the Soviet Union fall?
I stumbled [H/T to Kevin Drum.] across this article at Marginal Revolution and found it remarkably informative. True? Let's say that I suspect there is a lot of truth in it.
Here's why I suspect there is a lot of truth in this.
An interesting tale told me by one of those great fiction artists, an academic Economist, shed some light on the collapse of the economy of the USSR.
It was a planned economy, one in which markets did not provide price the signals an individual business needed in order to plan and function over a period of time. The end of the planned economy was brought about using what was called "Shock therapy" by Economists like Jeffery Sax. Suddenly, bad as it had frequently been under central planning, individual businesses had no idea where to get their raw materials nor did that know what they would be likely to cost. Most of the businesses that did survive this period were large, raw material-based industries run as monopolies. They were large enough to internalize the central planning process that was abandoned by Moscow. Most of the rest of the economy simply didn't survive the change-over.
In the meantime, government was getting out of the business of providing housing, health care and such basic amenities to the population.
For a little over half a decade, the manufactured output of the entire economy of the USSR had a market value that was significantly less than what could have been obtained simply by selling the raw materials used by the economy on the world market. This is fascinating. The entire economy of the USSR actually created a net reduction of the value of the raw materials it had to work with. If this has ever happened over a lengthy period of time to any other economy in the world I certainly have not learned of it.
Given that amazing ~negative~ economic output, the Russian government had to borrow money internationally just to allow a larger percentage of the population to survive. As it is, the reduction in life spans clearly shows what a strain the entire economy was under. A reduction in military spending or in corruption (alternative proposed reasons for the economic problems of the USSR) would have only the effect of limiting distribution of income.
Given these economic circumstances, this story makes a lot of sense. Victor Putin's recent international aggressiveness towards the U.S. rather suggests that the Russian economy has recovered a great deal from the late 80's and early 90's. Putin's nasty tone towards Bush is probably more of a distraction for his population than a real threat towards the U.S., since life spans and general quality of life are recovering slowly.
Any agreements or disagreements?
In a simplified way, the story of the collapse of the Soviet Union could be told as a story about grain and oil.
That is from Yegor Gaidar. In the 1980s it was necessary to import more and more grain, and Saudi Arabia was no longer supporting oil prices. It worked like this:
The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.
As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership.
First, dissolve the Eastern European empire and effectively stop barter trade in oil and gas with the Socialist bloc countries, and start charging hard currency for the hydrocarbons. This choice, however, involved convincing the Soviet leadership in 1985 to negate completely the results of World War II. In reality, the leader who proposed this idea at the CPSU Central Committee meeting at that time risked losing his position as general secretary.
Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion, the amount the Soviet Union lost when oil prices collapsed. But in practical terms, this option meant the introduction of food rationing at rates similar to those used during World War II. The Soviet leadership understood the consequences: the Soviet system would not survive for even one month. This idea was never seriously discussed.
Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex. With this option, however, the Soviet leadership risked serious conflict with regional and industrial elites, since a large number of Soviet cities depended solely on the military-industrial complex. This choice was also never seriously considered.
Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of effectively disregarding the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely...
The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.
In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy.
Here is the full article.
Here's why I suspect there is a lot of truth in this.
An interesting tale told me by one of those great fiction artists, an academic Economist, shed some light on the collapse of the economy of the USSR.
It was a planned economy, one in which markets did not provide price the signals an individual business needed in order to plan and function over a period of time. The end of the planned economy was brought about using what was called "Shock therapy" by Economists like Jeffery Sax. Suddenly, bad as it had frequently been under central planning, individual businesses had no idea where to get their raw materials nor did that know what they would be likely to cost. Most of the businesses that did survive this period were large, raw material-based industries run as monopolies. They were large enough to internalize the central planning process that was abandoned by Moscow. Most of the rest of the economy simply didn't survive the change-over.
In the meantime, government was getting out of the business of providing housing, health care and such basic amenities to the population.
For a little over half a decade, the manufactured output of the entire economy of the USSR had a market value that was significantly less than what could have been obtained simply by selling the raw materials used by the economy on the world market. This is fascinating. The entire economy of the USSR actually created a net reduction of the value of the raw materials it had to work with. If this has ever happened over a lengthy period of time to any other economy in the world I certainly have not learned of it.
Given that amazing ~negative~ economic output, the Russian government had to borrow money internationally just to allow a larger percentage of the population to survive. As it is, the reduction in life spans clearly shows what a strain the entire economy was under. A reduction in military spending or in corruption (alternative proposed reasons for the economic problems of the USSR) would have only the effect of limiting distribution of income.
Given these economic circumstances, this story makes a lot of sense. Victor Putin's recent international aggressiveness towards the U.S. rather suggests that the Russian economy has recovered a great deal from the late 80's and early 90's. Putin's nasty tone towards Bush is probably more of a distraction for his population than a real threat towards the U.S., since life spans and general quality of life are recovering slowly.
Any agreements or disagreements?
Only a minority of Americans hold conservative beliefs
The majority of Americans hold progressive views. From "Our future":
This report by the Campaign for America’s Future and Media Matters for America shows that in study after study, solid majorities of Americans take progressive stands on a full spectrum of issues, from bread-and-butter economics to the so-called “values” issues where conservatives claim preeminence.So go read the report (.pdf)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)