SSA Blog |
You can find the new "SSA Blog" from The Sun State Activist by clicking here. There you will find constantly updated opinion and insight from SSA Editor Jerry Rose and occasional guest contributors. So bookmark the following address for the latest opinions from The Sun State Activist! http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
Diplomacy and the DLC On this the day following the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, I went to the website of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to see what this “centrist” group might have to say about the fate of Lieberman who might well have been for the DLC as for George Bush, their “favorite Democrat.” I found nothing on that but my eye fell on an item on the website's home page: a thumbnail description of what it felt should be America’s policy in the current Middle Eastern crisis: The United States should lead diplomatic efforts aimed at disarming Hezbollah, reining in Hamas, and imposing real sanctions on Iran and Syria for their complicity in terrorism. A click inside elaborates on this interesting concept of “diplomacy” but adds nothing to this definition of U.S. policy that could have been written by Israel itself: the way to stop the war is to stop the “terrorist” organizations and their state sponsors from carrying on their violent acts. I thought diplomacy was supposed to involve a negotiation between opposing sides in which agreements are reached on which both sides can agree. Can you imagine a negotiation in which one side says to the other: “you do exactly what we want you to do or we’ll continue our belligerent acts.”? That is the DLC’s stance on the Lebanese crisis, and the stance would unfortunately change little if you went from this centrist group's position through other groups whose views are far to the DLC’s left. Right now the Lamont victory in Connecticut is rightly seen as being a landmark of evolution of public opinion toward rapid withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. But even left-of-center Lamont, as I noted in a recent post, is in far from a “diplomatic” frame of mind when it comes to Israel. What will it take for another evolution in public opinion which brings it around to an “out of Lebanon” demand? It will take, I suspect, some development which entails direct U.S. military involvement and a casualty level for American troops comparable to the level in Iraq. If the “reining in and disarming” of Hezbollah and Hamas and the placing of “real sanctions” on Iran and Syria requires the deployment of a significant number of our “brave men and women” who unfortunately die during their missions, we might indeed look for an “out of Lebanon” (or more generally and better “out of the Middle East” or better still “out of the internal affairs of countries everywhere“) movement in our land. As a people we tolerate a great amount of pain and suffering and death in wars if they involve others fighting our battles for us. When the body bags start to come home, we start to have qualms. I don’t like to think that we come only to a project of diplomacy and peace-making in revulsion against a siege of strife and suffering, but the facts of our recent history seem to suggest that this may be the case.
Confessions of a Serial Marital Fraud I knew a man (let’s just call him Mr. J) who, before he passed to the great beyond, confessed to me a shocking career in which he perpetrated three marital frauds---and without knowing until just before he died this week that he had committed these crimes. He realized it when he read a Washington judge’s opinion in a case which upheld the state’s ban against gay marriage. Not that Mr. J. was gay---his partners had all been women---but the judge’s “reasoning” in upholding the ban had profound implications for his own marital history. The judge said that there is a legitimate societal interest in banning the marriage of people of the same sex, since the social purpose of marriage is procreation (you know: “Hi, egg…hi sperm…want to get together? That‘s what marriage is, Linus). Mr. J. then realized that all three of his marriages had been based on frauds, since procreation had resulted from none of the three. He then proceeded to tell me how he had perpetrated his fraud against “society.” His first wife and he were sexually active enough, but she never became pregnant, and there was some question about whether one or other of them was fertile and they then adopted three children. Clearly, had Mr. J. read the Washington judge’s opinion he would have annulled the marriage, as men in Biblical days used to divorce their wives if they couldn’t begat any children (especially male ones). But he didn’t; he went right ahead and stayed with her and the adopted children until they finally divorced. So that was Mr. J’s first crime. His second wife he married when he was in his late fifties, she was (slightly) still pre-menopausal so there was a possibility of her “procreating,” which would have been life-threatening in her delicate health condition. So again he should have put this wife “aside” as they could not think seriously about procreating. So did he? Of course not, he had a vasectomy and the sinful couple went on their evil way of screwing without begatting…until she died after a few years. Well, by this time Mr. J was in his middle sixties and, since he was no longer able biologically to procreate, he definitely should not have remarried, and no doubt an upright clerk at the marriage license bureau should have denied a license to marry between a man his age and the third woman who comes into the picture, somewhat older than himself and definitively post-menopausal, people who the clerk should have realized were flaunting the “societal” interest in procreation. But, and here his confession takes an especially dark turn, he put a wig over his bald head and told the clerk he was 42, so that the license could be issued. So not only did this couple, now in their seventies, enter the temple of marriage that is supposed to be reserved for procreators….by virtue of their good health, a loving relationship, Viagra and their depraved mentalities, they had as much s-e-x (sh) as they mutually wanted to have. Now this isn’t exactly a true story but it is based faithfully on the true life of one person. It shows, I hope, the utterly ludicrous position of the Washington judge and so many of her fellow citizens that gay couples represent a threat to society that must be countered by laws and constitutional amendments that are given the obscene label of “Defense of Marriage” regulations. They reflect, I think, a mentality that is not only anti-gay but more broadly anti-sex. Haven’t our various Pope Incredibly Piuses told us that sex is for marriage and marriage for procreation? Maybe the PIPs would come down harder on homosexuals if so many clergy were not themselves involved in clandestine affairs. As it is they, along with their colleagues in the Protestant evangelistic faiths, vent their wraths on contraception and abortion as the true sins, because they break that nexus between sex and conception that get their balls into such an uproar. Contraception at least is the “sin” that nearly every American has committed but they can say as they swallow “the pill” that “the Pope doesn’t know everything”---but relatively few (10-15%?) are involved in homosexuality, so that gays are a relatively easy target of folks expected to bear the burden of a “defense of marriage” by refraining from a marriage without procreation. Well, I don’t know, I’m admittedly reaching for an explanation of why the generality of our population is so concerned about gay marriage and why it’s such a wedge issue that you-know-who uses because it works, because it appeals to something in our collective unconscious that we know we should “defend” when we all have guilty knowledge of our own sins. I wish Mr. J were still alive, he went through all this stuff in his own life and was pretty smart to boot, so maybe he could explain it better.
Ned Lamont and Israel In my last post I referred, somewhat in passing, to the likelihood that the “anti-war” candidate in the Connecticut Senate race, Ned Lamont, would be supportive of Israel’s actions in Lebanon, at the same time that he was critical of our Iraqi involvement. My suspicion is supported---to a considerable degree---by the actual statement issued July 24, 2006 and reprinted here. It’s a little lengthy, but I think very instructive in understanding how “out-of-Iraq caucus” types are able (most of them) to reconcile their demand for troop withdrawal from Iraq with their willingness to give “strong support” for whatever Israel deems necessary to “defend itself.” At the bottom of the statement I’ll have some comments. ……………………………….............................................................................................. Ned Lamont has issued a statement on the Israel-Lebanon conflict. He affirms his support for Israel and criticizes the Bush Administration for its ineffectiveness which he in large part ties to the war in Iraq. At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel's security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united. ....Unlike previous administrations - Republican and Democratic - President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...Let's be clear that Bush emphasized Iraq at the expense of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, and we are reaping the consequences. Just think what the situation could have been if the United States had invested its power, prestige, and resources in a peace settlement. Instead we chose a failed war and stand virtually alone, paying a heavy price for a profoundly failed set of decisions. His proposal: Lamont Policy: Change Priorities and Pursue a Peace Settlement All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president. But I do have some strategic suggestions about what our country should do moving forward. After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority. Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help. The outlines of a peace agreement are there; both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security. Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region. There's no reason why this President should not reverse course and become engaged for peace. ………………………………............................................................................................... While this statement seems to be a condemnation of the President (and by implication Joe Lieberman) for failing to pursue a “peace process” in the Middle East, there is nothing in it to suggest to me that Lamont has any vision of a “sustainable” peace based on a knowledge and appreciation of the historical background of the conflict. The “cycle of violence” that Lamont rightly says must be stopped did not begin a few weeks ago with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier; it began in 1882 with the first activity of the Zionist project of relocating Jews in their Palestinian “homeland” and the violence and counter-violence between Jews and Muslims and with the clash of ethnicities that inevitably arose. The whole tone of the Lamont statement is to lay the blame on the Hezbollah/Hamas “terrorists” without even a suggestion of the terrorism being visited as we speak on the people of Lebanon. It’s the “oh-my-lets-say-or-do-nothing-that-might-offend-Israel” that is understandable enough for a candidate in a state with a large proportion of Jewish voters, but says little for Lamont’s credentials as a warrior for peace that so many hope to find in him or who view the Lamont/Lieberman contest as a fight for the “soul” of the Democratic Party. There is a “soul” there, but its keeper today is found in the handful of men and women who opposed the “strong support for Israel” resolution in the Congress. I am not encouraged to believe that, if Ned Lamont is elected, he will join that sturdy little band.
Convicted shoplifter Claude Allen, a former top Bush administration official, made quite an excuse when he pleaded guilty to the theft charge against him on Friday, apparently blaming the fact that he stole merchandise form Target 14 times on the "tumultuous time" after Hurricane Katrina last year. He's got to be kidding...
The new Republican strategy: "Who's George W Bush?" The new Republican strategy for this fall's elections has been defined at the RNC's summer meeting. It's message to GOP candidates is shockingly simple: Distance yourself from President Bush (who??) as much as possible. "This is going to be an election about choice, not a referendum on the president," said RNC spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser. "The president is not on the ballot." This is, of course, very different from the 2004 elections, when posing with the Prez was a sure-fire way to win by 20%, and the GOP did everything possible to make sure every single election was a referendum on Pres. Bush. That was when right-wingers were still being lauded as "patriots" and the Dems were seen as comparable to Al Qaeda. The GOP was a Rove-powered juggernaut. But now, with Bush's approval rating at barely 40%, the growing chaos and civil war in Iraq, and the President and most all GOPers doing nothing about high energy prices, GOP candidates practically need to bash Bush to be seen as credible. However, the war will be the most important factor in November. Nobody except the most fervent right-wingers and Bush apologists (like Fox News) are supporting the President's position on Iraq. That would be to change nothing and keep 100,000 troops there until at least 2010. Americans want a real plan to get out of Mesopotamia, and the Prez isn't providing that. His stance seems to be; "let the next guy deal with it". Very responsible... The problem is, most other Democrats and Republicans have zero plan of their own, letting the most important issue of the election fall to the wayside, replacing it with crappy little things like gay marriage, "death taxes", and, yes, even the minimum wage (important, yes. But AFTER we get out of Iraq). The candidate - in any election - that can put together a feasible and rapid plan to get troops out of Iraq will win. All of this should favor the Dems, right? Come on; W is choking on the Middle East, the GOP is being shredded in the polls, and Iraq is seen as a mess by all voters. A stunning victory to regain the House should be easy, right? Not at all. At least, not with their current "Bush lite" strategy, and certainly not if they continue to follow in the footsteps of their bumbling GOP foes.
Making the world safe for plutocracy. As the 2006 election season progresses there is a widespread concern, and very rightly so, about the “integrity” of our elections, whether these elections will be “stolen” as there is good evidence that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, as well as were those in many other places and races around the country. The ongoing controversy in Mexico recapitulates the American nightmare on tainted elections, as there appears again to be a justifiable suspicion that the presidential outcome would be different if only the electoral commission would mandate that the country “count the vote” in an honest way. We seem to operate on an assumption that we will attain the ideal of democracy----government of, by and for the people---if we have elections in which each citizen is able to express his or her will by voting for a candidate of choice, and having that vote counted. Thus we tout as legitimate and democratic the elected government of Iraq and (if we are thinking correctly) of the Hamas-controlled government of Palestine because the results of their national elections seemingly involved little vote tampering. From this perspective, the spread of “democracy” is just a matter of insuring that the will of the people is expressed and fairly tabulated in their electoral processes. I guess it’s pretty obvious that I’m leading up to a “yes, but…” statement about democracy. Here’s what I’m thinking: that we could have verifiable paper trails and enforced laws against intimidating voters and all those things that insure that every citizen has both the opportunity to vote and the right to have his or her vote counted and included in the final electoral result. Yes but...we can have these good things and have a government which, however much it might be “by” the people and even “of” them, will not be “for” them, and will act not in accord with the general welfare of the people but for the welfare of those who in effect sponsor the elections and insure that those people will be “legitimately” elected who will do the bidding of the sponsor. The “democratically” elected government of Iraq, under the control of the sponsoring occupation power, the United States, is an example of what I mean. The Iraqi government is often and without too much injustice called a “puppet” government, to relate it to all those puppet or satellite governments of history, such as those installed by the Nazi regime and later by the Soviet one in Europe. But I’m thinking of another type of sponsored government, that of the United States of America, at all the levels of government from the federal through the state and local. If, when people vote, they are going to have to vote for candidates “for” the people if the outcome of their voting is to be truly democratic. Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” (and I heard Frank say on a Bill Moyers interview that his book is really about what’s wrong with America) is based on the theme that the people in Kansas and elsewhere do not really vote “for” the interests of themselves as a people but “for” those of the right wing sponsors who offer them raw meat wedge issues of abortion, prayer, guns, gay marriage etc.---issues on which they never really deliver because they are (to an extent) intractable on constitutional grounds. What the Kansans get when they vote “for” anti-abortion positions is not anti-abortion action but (for a very current example) the repeal of the “death tax” (as the estate tax is so cleverly framed) and so many other political results to the benefit of the wealthy. To move outside Kansas, folks in Connecticut who vote “for” Lamont in preference to Lieberman (as I sincerely hope they do) are not going to get an end of the war in Iraq, because that war’s sponsors are a bi-partisan group the bonding of which is around the Israel lobby, and there is little evidence that the U.S. is going to be involved in any serious effort to determine the “root causes” of the Middle East conflict, since all or many roads seem to lead to Israeli aggression toward their Arab neighbors (I don’t even know what Lamont’s position on Israel might be, but I suspect he would join the “Out of Iraq” crowd most of whose members are of the persuasion that “Israel has a right to defend itself.”) The point of this---without sounding too C. Wright Mills, The Power Elit-ish, is that U.S. government at all levels is dominated not by the will of the people but by those who hold wealth and power and are willing and eager to lavish their wealth on any officials who will do their bidding, through campaign contributions traditionally and, more baldly these days, in the form of outright bribes. It isn’t too outrageous to say that Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches of the federal government are effectively “owned” by such entities as the “energy” industry and the pharmaceutical one, that Tallahassee is effectively owned by big campaign donor groups like the NRA and “development” industry groups representing bankers and builders. Our democracy, in a word, is really a plutocracy or government controlled by wealth. So yes, of course, we should heed every call to demand paper trails and felon voter registration and for removal of control of elections from folks the like of Harris and Blackwell. But we should give just as much attention to the equally if not more complex problem of how we rein in campaign financing and how we control the ability of lobbyists to secure assent to their interests by their “gifts” to legislators. The history of campaign finance reform and lobbyist “ethics” is one of great difficulty in achieving these goals, but unless we give it our very best shots we have no chance of having a real democracy as opposed to the plutocracy we now have.
Who are the terrorists? Between the virtual massacre at Qana and just the "normal" routine of Israeli bombing, Lebanon is swiftly becoming a human rights catastrophe. Cases of post-traumatic stress disorder are skyrocketing in Lebanon, with children especially affected. Also, the group Human Rights Watch denounced the recent Qana bombing as a "war crime" and called for a UN investigation into the incident.
"The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.
I don't think we needed HRW to tell us that, however. Apparently, to the Israeli's, 56 dead Lebanese are worth destroying one Hezbollah rocket launcher, which would have probably not even wounded any Israeli's , at least going by H's track records with accuracy. I really hope that Israel will stop bitching about any dead Israeli citizens after this, because those complaints are hollow now. If they are trying to say that hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians are a "fair price" for the 15-20 Israeli civilians killed in this thing, then they deserve whatever Hezbollah throws at them. Dead Israelis are just as bad as dead Lebanese, but, apparently, not to Israel. They sound like Rush Limbaugh. The Qana attack was cynically deliberate, as the comments after the fallout showed. They didn't say that it was a mistake. They barely even apologized for it. Their excuse was that Hezbollah was launching rockets from near the building - thus, they attacked it. That's it? You blow up anything you want with no regard for whatever people are near? That sounds like a certain terrorist organization that Israel is fighting. What is especially telling is the fact that while Hezbollah apparently accepted the Israeli 48-hour cease-fire, firing only three mortar shells near the border Israel blatantly ignored their own truce and launched dozens of attacks throughout Lebanon. Maybe Hezbollah did not stop their attacks for humanitarian means, but at least they stopped. That is a hell of a lot more than can be said of the IDF. Although the MSM has basically ignored this, it is amazingly clear that this was a plot to hoodwink Hezbollah into a false sense of security and then continue the strikes. Okay, lie to a terrorist organization - that fine. But don't tell frightened Lebanese civilians that they can evacuate the south through a 24-hour safe passage timeframe and then renege on the whole deal, starting the strikes anew. With these and other actions throughout this conflict, Israel has, in my mind, conducted itself no different from the "evil" terrorists that it is fighting; carrying out a policy - total destruction of a sovereign nation - that this terrorist group also has pledged. This isn't about whether or not Hezbollah is "better" than Israel. All hands are bloodied in this conflict. This is about what what Israel has become. And that answer is fairly simple. The Israeli government and Hezbollah are, at this point, ideologically the same: Terrorists.
TPM has the entire report from Rep. John Conyers on the myriad laws that have been broken by President Bush adn his administration. That ought to be a good read.
CA-50 lawsuit A lawsuit has been filed regarding the alleged vote tampering in the California-50 Duke Cunningham special election between GOPer Brian Bilbray, the winner, and Democrat Francine Busby. Accusations of widespread vote fixing had been swirling around this election for quite some time, with some action finally being taken. The lawsuit, which asks for the results to be tossed, is pretty heated, basically saying that the election was fraudulent and that Bilbray and the elections officials in California are lying cheaters. No surprise there... Unfortunately, Busby, the Dem challenger, is having no part of the lawsuit. From Francine: “I have no reason to question the legitimacy of the election or the results of it,”. Awfully disappointing to have this supposed "progressive Democrat" caving to pressure from the Democratic party to disavow this challenge, all because she's running for the entire term this fall. Speak up! The main point in the lawsuit - and the issue that I find most bizarre - is the fact that the elections officials allowed poll workers to take voting machines home with them before the election. This was ostensibly done to assure polling places opened on time. But the lawyer for the two California voters who filed the lawsuit isn't buying that.
“The thing you've got to know about using computers in the election is that computers do whatever they're told to do, without any regard to law, ethics or morality,” Lehto said, adding he believes some machines were tampered with. "When you send them on 'sleepovers' from anywhere from three days to over a week, then you've lost all illusion about any kind of security.”
Is this practice common? Is this really allowed? I find it really strange that poll workers can just take these machines - I'm assuming they're the electronic Diebold machines - home with them. I'm curious to know whether this is business as usual.
So the Democrats want out of Iraq... The news with accompanying letter, published on this page yesterday, that prominent Democrats in both houses of Congress have called on the President to end our unlimited commitment to a victory in Iraq is certainly welcome news. Some of the signatories, like Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman and Steny Hoyer, have more often seen their names mentioned in the “war hawk” category. The problem, as I pointed out in an earlier post (7/21/06), is that congressional Democrats have already shot themselves in the foot when it comes to restraining aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Every Senator on the list, if you can trust the unanimous “voice vote” declaration, and every House member as well, voted in favor of resolutions of strong support for the Administration’s backing of a “sustainable” solution of the Lebanese crisis---Israel’s déjà vu sounding plan to “stand down” from its assaults when Lebanon "stands up" to disarm Hezbollah: a great recipe, as I said, for a “sustainable conflict” of indefinite duration. Having to a man and woman already endorsed such a self-defeating formula for ending the Lebanese crisis, how can they be so critical of the Administration’s pursuit of exactly the same policy in Iraq? Of course I believe they are right on the Iraqi issue, but having been so wrong on the Lebanese one, how can they expect that their voices can carry much influence?
Some top Congressional Democrats have apparently come together in support of beginning a withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq. In a letter to President Bush today, some big-name Dems - like Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Biden, and John Murtha - are in full agreement on the need for a withdrawl by the end of this year.
Fla GOP tells Katherine Harris they won't support her A letter sent from the Florida Republican Party to Katherine Harris on May 7 - and just made public now - confirms that the state GOP does not think that she can beat Bill Nelson and that they will not support her in her Senate bid. A few national GOP members also signed the "Dear Katherine" letter.
"Katherine, though it causes us much anguish, we have determined that your campaign faces irreparable damage," the letter said. "We feel that we have no other choice but to revoke our support." "The polls tell us that no matter how you run this race, you will not be successful in beating Bill Nelson, who would otherwise be a vulnerable incumbent if forced to face a stronger candidate," it said. No wonder that Harris has been going wacko for a few months. This is painful to watch. Wait...no it isn't.
The desperate attempt by Texas Republicans to get Tom DeLay off the November ballot is in serious trouble after a panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and seemed quite skeptical of the GOP effort. The GOP is trying to prove that DeLay has "permanently" moved to Virginia after his disgraceful exit from Congress, which would supposedly make him ineligable to be on the ballot in Texas. It's quite obvious that this is all a silly sideshow by the GOPers, and the court panel agreed with that view. "How can it be conclusive if you can always change your voter registration," said Justice Edith Clement, a Republican appointee to the court. From Justice Pete Benavides: "I lost a campaign for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals when my opponent was in Europe, but he was still a resident of Texas."
NYT Editorial
Condi's record on Mideast cease-fire: 0-2 After what appears to be yet another failed round of diplomatic talks on Mideast peace, Condi Rice is set to head home for Foggy Bottom on Monday, continuously blocked by the stubborn Israelis. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns didn't help matters either, praising the Israeli response and going on about the Israeli's "right to defend themselves". To hell with Mideast peace, right?
While watching Fox News last night (noooo!!), I came upon a wonderful nugget of what FNC is really all about. One of their reporters in Israel was doing a mini-report on Al-Manar TV the "propaganda organ" of Hezbollah, which owns the network. At the end, the reporter gave us concrete proof of Iran's involvement in the entire Mideast blowup. Hezbollah TV "frequently shows dubbed Iranian movies, showing its close connection to Iran". I'm not kidding. "Dubbed Iranian movies" are really Iranian nukes in disguise. I had to share it even though I have no proof of this beyond my word, but you must believe me. Right...?
NYT to endorse Ned Lamont In a mini-bombshell today, the New York Times announced that it will officially endorse Ned Lamont over the battered Joe Lieberman in that rather entertaining Connecticut Senate race. The announcement appeared in a very subdued news article on the NYT website, with only one line breaking the news... The editorial page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security. How cryptic. I'll be interested to see how this decision will be fully explained in tomorrow's edition. This truly marks what must be the beginning of the end for poor Joe Lieberman. He's being scorched by nearly all Dems over everything from his continued support of the war in Iraq, to his stance alongside Tom DeLay in interfering with Terri Schiavo's case, to his vote to approve the epitome of D.C. pork, Alaska's bridge to nowhere. Not even an endorsement from Bill Clinton could stop the seemingly inevitable implosion of the Lieberman campaign. Perhaps this quote from a CT voter explains why Joe is done: "The last three times I voted for him, but I will never vote for him again''. Yikes... Perhaps more importantly, it heralds the evolution of anti-war sentiment from being seen as "far-left", or even "un-patriotic", to now being observed as the only sane course available. Ned Lamont is not exactly a charismatic candidate; he only expressed what a majority of Americans - and even more Democrats - are feeling toward Iraq and President Bush right now. Thus, he' the only way to go. Now that the Dems seem to have firmly rallied behind Lamont, will the right stop taunting the left and Dems as being "divided"? "GOP" Joe's dead, so give it a rest...
A "vicious hate crime"? Drop the hate from that description Indiscriminate Israeli bombing in Lebanon has finally having some bitter consequences here in the U.S., as, reportedly, a "Muslim man" burst into a Jewish synagogue in Seattle yesterday, apparently shouting "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel," before shooting 6 people, one of whom died at the scene. Seattle police are increasing security at both synagogues and mosques in the area, as there surely will be a violent response to this. Now the Seattle authorities are calling this a hate crime. The Seattle mayor went into full O'Reilly mode following the attack:
"This was a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own," Mayor Greg Nickels said at the news conference.
Well, maybe not completely BO'R. He didn't say there was a vast "Islamic fascist" conspiracy to take over the country. Anyhow, there are several questions that must be answered in this case. First, did this guy shoot up the place because he was an "angry Muslim-American" or because he was just a nut? A big concern should be the sort of rapid conclusions that we saw after 9/11, when any threat or mid-range crime was carried out by "evil terrorists". The same thing is happening here. The victims that allegedly heard the guy make his "Muslim" statement were cowering in fear and being shot at. Did they really hear that statement? Good question. The guy was actually recently arrested ifor exposing himself in public. Doesn't exactly sound like a devout "jihadist" to me. Sounds more like a random and demented lunatic. If this was an "angry Muslim-American", the bottom line is that this is what was coming after Israel started unilaterally bombing and killing hundreds of Muslim civilians in a Muslim nation for no good reason. We all knew a backlash was on its way. It's not what they deserve, but it is what is to be expected. People are angry and that is 100% understandable. Going out and shooting 6 people is not the way to express that anger, obviously, but if they feel that they have to do something, go ahead. Innocent people should never get caught up in this sort of thing, but a few shattered windows in an Israeli embassy is not a horrible thing. By the way, I'm not condoning that... The right is, of course, going to jump all over this and immediately call for all Muslims to be deported or something, but I find very little difference between this incident what happened after 9/11. "Angry" white conservatives went after anybody with brown skin, anything that passed for a turban, and any sort of an accent. When confronted with criticism of these actions, the right went into their "Patriotic" and "American revenge" tirades. We all knew that was going to happen. "Angry Muslims" that are apparently taking their deep anger out on any person or symbol of the Jewish faith that they can find are no doubt similar, if not more justified, in their actions. Both are dead wrong, but one can surly see where that anger is coming from. Problem is, the U.S. didn't have a 9/11 every day for three weeks. Lebanon is experiencing that - and counting.
Howard Dean calls Katherine Harris "Stalin", and Ann Coulter calls Al Gore a "total fag". Gotta love politics... Oh - the ever lovable AC also called for Iran to be nuked into "the Stone Age". Very nice.
Minimum wage sham House Republicans seemed to have finally seen the light and are backing a bill that would initiate an increase in the federal minimum wage. Sounds great, right? Dead wrong. As usual, the GOP will agree to do something that benefits a large number of ordinary American workers only if their multi-millionaire best friends get a cut of the action. The House and Senate GOP are attaching a provision to the min. wage bill that would eliminate estate taxes on the largest and wealthiest estates imaginable. That's just great. Sen. Bill Frist is apparently a driving force behind what most certainly amounts to blackmail.
"(Frist) is looking forward to bringing to the floor two bills that will strengthen pension funding rules, help to bring sanity to the tax code and offer a first step toward full repeal of the unfair death tax," said Frist spokeswoman Carolyn Weyforth.
What this political ploy is meant to accomplish is the swift death of any raise in the minimum wage at all. The Dems would be viewed as terribly hypocritical (like they aren't already...) if they vote for this immense giveaway to the rich. Thus, they absolutely cannot vote for this sham of a min. wage bill. Thus, the GOP brings this to a vote. I can see the October attack ads now, showing a Dem vociferously calling for an increase in the min. wage, then cutting to a shot of the House or Senate vote; "Mr./Mrs. Democrat...nay". It's positively despicable...positively Rovian.
The right-wing blogosphere, probably getting talking-points directly from John Bolton, has found their latest chance to shred Kofi Annan, the UN, and anyone who has criticized the Israeli bombing campaign in Israel. They are trumpeting an article in the Ottawa Citizen that supposedly shows that the UN was really sheltering dozens of Hezbollah fighters at their post that was bombed by Israel in southern Lebanon. One line in an email from one of the dead peacekeepers has them smirking. It concerns the fact that the folks at the UN post happened to see some Hezbollah fighters in the vicinity.
This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Then some blowhard former NATO general happily paraphrased what this meant:
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said
Thank you very much for your insight Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, I never would have construed that meaning from the email. How brilliant you are! To put it lightly, that is a HUGE stretch to come to the conclusion that the guy was saying that Hezbollah fighters were using a UN post as a shield. Why didn't he come out and say that? There was no reason for him to lie about it. If H was using them as shields, somebody would have known that, and not used the phrase "tactical necessity" to pass along that info. Okay, so even if the targeting wasn't completely blatant, that still doesn't answer why the hell the IDF planes continued to bomb the UN post for several hours, while the people inside the post were contacting all levels of the Israeli forces to tell them to stop. Okay, Israel accidentally drops a few shells near the post while battling Hezbollah. That's completely understandable. What's not understandable is the Israeli forces strafing the entire compound with 500-pound bombs from morning until evening. Does this mean that Israel is so hell-bent on killing Hezbollah fighters that they don't care about killing innocent bystanders even when they know where they are located and that they are in their line-of-fire? Sounds familiar...
New Lebanon death toll The Lebanese health minister gave a grim update to the daeth toll in Lebanon due to Israeli attacks, saying that as many as 600 civilians have been killed. 382 is the confirmed number, but the rest are probably still buried in rubble and thus are uncounted, according to the official. The slow counting of the bodies is because most victims are so deeply buried in tons of rubble that it can take days to extract even one victim.
President W Bush seriously ratcheted up the threat of U.S. military action against Iran today by sharply criticizing what he believes is their close connection to Hezbollah.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel. I know Hezbollah is connected to Iran," Bush said tersely at the end of Oval Office meetings with Romanian President Traian Basescu. "Now is the time for the world to confront this danger," Bush said.
Wait a minute...I'm a bit confused. I thought that Pes. W had fingered Syria as "the real problem" in the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Seems even Pres. Bush is having a hard time hiding his administration's real objective in all of this. Of course, that would be nuking Tehran. Bush also still refused to back any sort of cease-fire, giving his unconditional support to whatever the Israeli forces are doing,m which includespurposefullt targeting unarmed UN forces. Still no real comments from him on that matter.
Sustainable cease-fire: a good word hanging with the wrong crowd I think George Bush’s advisers must occasionally stumble (accidentally) into some progressive media sources to snatch a term that they can turn to their regressive purposes. We of said media like to talk and think and advocate about “sustainable” social policies; for example the Sun State Activist has a section on “sustainable development” the focus of which is on how development of human “infrastructures” can be accomplished in ways that are consistent with long-term human need and are therefore “sustainable.” A housing project without adequate provision for schools, roads, water supply, etc. is not a “sustainable” project; nor is a coal-burning power plant that pollutes the air and water atmospheres that help sustain human life, health and contentment. So now the administration has discovered the term “sustainable” and The Boss, in his usual re-iteration of a term to stay “on message” (if you have a good word, play with it) has discovered a soothing syrup coating for the bitter pill of U.S. policy toward the conflict in Lebanon. What that policy is, devoid of the sugar coating, is a cynical realpolitik determination to allow the conflict to go on until ours and Israel’s geo-political goals in the Middle East are accomplished. Our common goal is to smash Islamic power in that region, by weakening its militant manifestations---as well as the divide et impera policy of setting Muslims against Muslims, Shiites against Sunni. As Bush explains, a precipitous cease-fire would only leave the status quo in place, allowing Hezbollah to re-group and carry on their long-term depredations against the “security” of Israel. The U.S. and Israel both want Hamas as well as Hezbollah destroyed. Never mind that this approach of dominance through force has not and will not work in Afghanistan or Iraq, force is the only force that neocon-crazed “thinkers” will recognize: if the force you use is not enough…well don’t back off and start negotiating a settlement where no “victory” can be achieved…but use more force which will create more counter-force which will produce…you get the picture. In advocating for a “sustainable cease-fire” that avoids immediate cease-fire and negotiation, the administration is in effect promoting a system of “sustainable conflict,” which will feed off itself until finally every one on one side is dead or just barely able to mumble “uncle” and the few survivors on the “winning” side can raise their flag of victory over the remaining rubble.
The news for Katherine Harris (or, according to DNC chair Howard Dean, Stalin) continues to be really bad. Two new polls of her race with Bill Nelson show Nelson cruising to a shockingly easy vistory, with the Mason-Dixon poll putting Nelson at 57% and Harris at 29%. The Strategic Vision poll was even worse for Harris: Nelson 60% Harris 22%. And now it's reported that some in state GOP circles are plotting her demise after the GOP Senate proimary. They're going to dump Harris and replace her with the probable number two man in the GOP Florida Governor race, Tom "Spousal Abuse" Gallagher. This according to the Tallahasse Democrat. Wow, when was the last time the Republican's were in deep trouble in Florida?
U.S. troops could very well be heading for Lebanon Harpers is reporting that the Bush administration is seriously considering a plan to send a large force of U.S. soldiers to Lebaon is place of the shelved NATO peacekeeping plan. The BA is epecially agitated to send tropps to help Israel after the blatant failure of Condi Rice in Rome. No cease-fire, no pledge for an international force, not even a single cohesive plan came out of that meeting. So much for Condi 2008... Here's an excerpt from the Harpers article: There's much discussion of putting a multinational, NATO-led force in southern Lebanon as part of a ceasefire agreement in the Israel–Lebanon conflict, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to a story in the Washington Post, has said that she does “not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground forces . . . are expected for that force.” However, a well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is in fact considering exactly such a deployment. The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations' lack of commitment, any “robust” force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea. ... if the administration decides to move forward, my source said, “It would be viewed in the Arab world as the United States picking up a combat role on behalf of Israel.”
The BA is already sending Israel tons of weaponry, whu not send some boots on the ground? The U.S. military is understandably opposed to this outline, with all effective troops deployed in Iraq. Who will win out? If the Bush administration does indeed send troops to Lebanon on behalf of Israel, that would be the most stupid and most dangerous thing that the BA has ever done, and could very well bring on total world chaos. U.S. soldiers fighting alongside Israel? Are the strategists at the BA that suicidal?
Maliki speech Today's speech in front of Congress by Iraqi PM al-Maliki was not close to being anything new. Same old crap from when al-Jaffari and Allawi were doing this stuff. Truthfully, it sounded like a GWB SOTU. "Iraq is the battle that will determine the war," "This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak." There was nothing about the increasingly deadly sectarian violence in Iraq. Nothing about when U.S. troops will finally leave. Nothing about the non-existent Iraqi police and army. Just a bunch of sunshine and ignorance.
Democratic hypocrisy Hypocrisy is the usual domain of the GOP and right-wing types, but it can certainly be a bipartisan condition. Consider the recent meltdown of the Democratic leadership over some "controversial" remarks from Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Last week, al-Maliki said that Iraq was urging the international community "to take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure." "What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has -- and Lebanon does not," he said.
al-Maliki only presented what is a widely held view in the Muslim world, especially considering Maliki is a Shiite Muslim - the same sect as Hezbollah. The Dems should find this independent comment from the Iraqi leader refreshing, considering he is mainly a Bush administration stooge in every other way (see above post). And with the Democrats rightfully angry at Pres. Bush's "lack of involvement" in the Mideast conflict, criticism of the Iraq war, and their general latching onto the anti-war movement, one would think that the Dems would be supportive of Maliki's comments, and join with him in opposition to the Israeli assault. Oops. In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader's comments troubling. "Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said. The controversy escalated, with several Democrats in the House calling on Speaker Dennis Hastert to cancel Maliki's planned speech to Congress today. Hastert and the GOP refused, of course, and Maliki delivered his BA-approved pack of lies earlier today (see above). But I'm still very confused over the actions of the Dems. There is enough ammo to use against the Maliki and the crumbling U.S. occupation of Iraq without resorting to blatant vote-pandering and poorly disguised hypocrisy. It's obvious that the real reason they blasted the remarks of Maliki in this manner was to try and show that the war in Iraq is going nowhere, and that Iraq is now led by a "violent Islamic fundementalist" that hates the West. But why discard the principles that the Democrats have been attempting to strengthen since the 2004 debacle - firmly anti-war and pro-diplomacy - and return to the flip-flops of John Kerry? It started with the "support Israel at all costs" vote in the House and Senate, with I believe 7 Democrats in the House were the only no votes. And now this: Boycotting Maliki's speech and spitting out more pro-Israel and pro-war vitriol than any GOPer.
"I will not attend Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki's speech today, because I believe that his recent remarks blaming Israel and absolving Hezbollah were wrong and unwarranted," Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said in a statement.
This sounds like the work of some over-caffeinated Democratic poll-watcher. I'm curious as to how the Democrats are explaining their violently pro-Israel stance. With the cable networks showing Hezbollah rocket attack footage 24/7, any politicians remarks are not getting airtime. And, besides this recent blowup, the cowardly Dems have been awfully quiet on the Mideast. What I don't think they realize is that this is their chance to reveal the BA's lackadaisical reaction to the violence. To show that all W cares about is a pretext for an invasion of Iran. To flex their supposed diplomatic muscle and pressure W for action concerning Middle East peace. To not let Condi Rice launch her 2008 campaign by "saving the world" in Rome. Instead, they give us talking points straight from AIPAC. They're beyond Bush Lite; they're closer to Jim Beam.
Til the peacekeepers come. Israel has now decided (if the decision wasn’t made before the conflict started) to occupy a “security zone” in southern Lebanon, saying they will remain there only until the “peacekeepers come.” How long will that be? Recent news articles suggest that no single country in the world, including the United States, is willing to send peacekeepers into that decidedly non-peaceful part of the world. Well, the UN then? Fat chance after yesterday’s Israeli raid on a UN observation post that killed 4 of these unfortunate “observers.” Israel expressed its regrets, but Kofi Annan charged “deliberate targeting” of their post. It makes sense, if Israel is totally insincere about its desire to have “neutral” forces in the battle zone. This has all the earmarks of the extended occupation of Lebanon after 1982, in which Israeli, American, UN and god-knows-what-other forces stayed in the country for years on end until Lebanese resistance finally ran out the whole peacekeeping caboodle. Fasten your seat belt, we have a long occupation ride ahead.
Obama '08 talk New momentum for Democratic star Barack Obama has calls for an Obama 2008 campaign gaining strength. In a two-part series, the Washington Post political blog The Fix gives us the reasons why Obama should go for it all in '08. And, although the Post posting (ha ha) is somewhat dismissive of any talk of the imminent birth of an Obama presidential campaign, other signs are obvious that Barack is seriously considering joining the already crowded Dem field. Foremost among those signs is his recent announcement that he will take a jaunt to Iowa in September for an important Democratic event hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin. Obama is refusing to discuss any presidential plans and downplays the impending trip: "Basically, my rule has been that if I can help in the '06 cycle, then I'm going to do it," Obama said Thursday. "The only reason not to do it would be the symbolism of Iowa, which probably wasn't a good reason for us not to help out." "I've already been to 30 states," he said. "Why not Iowa?" "Why not Iowa"? What a rookie. Either that, or he's being incredibly coy. However, all of this talk of a possible Obama run in 2008 isn't very exciting for the progressive community. Although Barack tries to portray himself as a left-to-moderate anti-war guy, his record and previous statements prove that he's anything but.
"[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
Sorry Barack, but if you're anti-war, why are you okay with the idea of bombing Tehran or Pakistan? It just doesn't add up. Frighteningly, this could be John Kerry all over again. Nooooo...!! Obama 2008 merchandise? That's a hoot.
Israeli bombs kill 4 UN peacekeepers A direct Israeli air strike targeted and destroyed a UN observer post, killing 4 UN peacekeepers today. Reports indicate that the building was struck directly, and that it wasn't a mistake. US ambassador to the UN John Bolton had a tepid response:
"It is something we take seriously," Bolton said. "We are going to focus on this incident, see what we can find out about it." Now, if only Israeli warplanes could "take ten floors" off of the UN building in NYC...That's something Bolton would like. This latest incident is either another example of the alarming lack of "precision" in the Israeli arsenal of precision bombs, or is a deliberate attack to derail any hopes of a UN force along the Israel/Lebanon border. Israeli bombs continued to fall even as survivors picked through the rubble. This was most certainly not an accident. The targeting of UN personnel in Lebanon is not limited to Israe, of coursel. Hezbollah wounded a UN observer last week in a battle with Israeli troops. However, that one looks like it was perhaps an accident, as it occurred in a heated gun battle with IDF troops. Either way, I thought Israel are supposed to be the "good guys" that cared about international observers and civilians while Hezbollah are the "dirty terrorists". Doesn't look like there's much difference there.
Here's a great analysis and general viewpoint that explains the myriad drawbacks of the Israel/Lebanon conflict from Gideon Levy, a writer for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Yes, an Israeli newspaper, not a Muslim "Hexbollah apologist" or whatever the right whines about. A small excerpt: Israel went into the campaign on justified grounds and with foul means. It claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon. It has gotten most of what it could have out of this war. The aerial "target bank" has mostly been covered. The air force could continue to sow destruction in the residential neighborhoods and empty offices and could also continue dropping dozens of tons of bombs on real or imagined bunkers and kill innocent Lebanese, but nothing good will come of it. That's the bottom line for all of this. It's not going to accomplish anything, so why kill hundreds of civilians?
Lebanon death toll and the futility of the Israeli assault Here are the latest casualty figures for Lebanon. 362 dead and at least 1350 wounded. How many Hezbollah "terrorist fighters" have been killed in the hundreds of "precision bombing raids" made by Israel? A total of 6. Yes, 6. Meanwhile, 34 Israelis have been killed. This crap isn't helping anybody. Let's arrest Nasrallah and Olmert for war crimes and get it over with. We all know that the Israeli assault is only strengthening Hezbollah and will ultimately solve nothing as far as the problmes of anti-Israeli sentiment and support for militant organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. If you want to view this cynically, it's just a convenient way of reducing the Muslim population in the Mideast.
While our blowhard UN ambassador John Bolton haughtily prods the Senate to confirm his interim nomination to the post... "The problem last year, of course, was we couldn't get a vote at all. I'm hoping we can avoid that this time and let there be a vote on the floor,"
...Democratic Senator Chris Dodd vows to carry on a "bruising fight" over JB's confirmation.
"This is going to be a bruising fight," Dodd said on CNN's "Late Edition" program. "I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this."
This as Bolton's standing at the UN is at its nadir, with colleagues at the world body unable to work with JB due to his unbridled arrogance and hostility to anything he disapproves of. That basically means the entire UN. This guy's a bomb that won't stop exploding. Better get him out of there.
Saddam in hospital Saddam has been taken to a Baghdad hospital today after his hunger strike went south. Saddam on a hunger strike? Bizarre...
A new Human Rights Wacth report includes a detailed look at Iraqi detainee abuse from the soldiers themselves. Pretty harrowing stuff. "Most of the harsh interrogations were in that room. . . . Sleep deprivation, environmental controls, hot and cold, water. . . . I never saw anybody who was hot, you know, but it was cold a lot of times or we used cold water, we poured cold water onto them. [Certain times interrogators would] take clothes from the prisoners and so forth. . . loud music, strobe lights—they were used as well." Jeff said that some interrogators would beat detainees in the black room—hitting and kicking them during interrogations.
Wacthing TV and browsing several stories on the web, it appears that a full-fledged Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon is starting. This huge assault, with apparently thousands of Israeli soldiers and reserves massing at the border, will no doubt complicate the crisis further. Today, the Lebanese defense minister vowed to that the Lebanese army will contest the Israeli invasion. What other choice do they have? Israel isn't fightin Hezbollah, they're fighting Lebanon. That was made clear after Israeli bombs fell on several Lebanese army bases in the last several days. They will, and should, fight against any Israeli incursion. Israeli actions in this conflict don't seem to be aimed at halting the violence or preventing against civilian casualties. The indiscriminate strafing of Beirut and Tyre demonstrate that. And now a ground invasion? Is this in response to Kofi Annan's demand for a UN force along the border? Is Israeli purposely invading to make sure that doesn't happen? Looks like John Bolton has the ear of Ehud Olmert. Watch out Bashar, Damascus is next. \ Out of Iraq…and Into the Abyss Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives voted 410-8 with 4 members answering “present” and 10 (including Florida’s Jim Davis) not voting, H.R. 931, “condemning the recent attacks against the state of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.” Whether it was for such “another purpose” on not, the resolution in fact provided congressional approval for President Bush to continue the “policy” of giving carte blanche support for whatever war crimes Israel might commit in the pursuit of its “right to defend itself.” In an earlier headline posting, I suggested that perhaps 30 “men and women of conscience and discernment” would stand up in opposition to this resolution. The 8 who did so, even combining with these the 4 members of that type who voted as “present” shows how grievously I overestimated the level of conscience and discernment in the House. Of particular disappointment was the performance of the 70 members of the “Out of Iraq” Caucus, those 70 men and women who have exercised their conscience and discernment to insist that we must do just what their caucus title indicates. Of the 8 who voted against the resolution, 5 were Caucus members, 3 were non-members including Republican Ron Paul, who spearheaded what opposition appeared in the chamber’s “debate.” All four “present” voting members were Caucus members, including Dennis Kucinich, who spoke along with Paul so eloquently in protest of the resolution. With 3 Caucus members who were non-voters and 2 whose vote I was unable to locate, this leaves 56 of the 70 members of the Caucus who voted for the resolution, including even 5 of the 8 “co-founders” of the caucus (Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters voted “present”; only John Conyers voted against). A disappointing result indeed. The House and the parallel voice vote action in the Senate are more than disappointing; they are profoundly dangerous actions to the actual security of Israel, Lebanon and indeed of the whole world. As Israel this morning is poised to make a ground invasion incursion into Lebanon and with Hezbollah adamant in refusing to yield to Israeli demands, the world teeters on the very abyss of world war. The targeting by the House and Senate resolutions and the actual policy of the Bush administration of blaming the violence on Islamic militants and their “state-sponsors” (Iran and Syria) presage the outline of another Guns of July scenario in which the assassination of a political leader leads to…which leads to….which leads to….World War I. (see Meyerson’s article referenced in today’s headlines). It appears more apparent each day that the Lebanese crisis will escalate into a full-scale international one unless “cooler heads prevail” than the hot ones of Israeli military pride and Lebanese outrage at the destruction of their country and people. Only a world-sponsored ceasefire and maybe an outside peacekeeping force can pull us from this abyss, but the hot heads who prevailed in the House debate heaped their scorn on anyone suggesting such tepid “diplomatic” solutions. So Israel’s “whatever it takes” (in military action that is) to tame the Hezbollah monster will go on and the Shiite opposition of Iran, Syria and now Iraq (to the extent that government can operate independently of U.S. control) will be drawn inexorably into this conflict. If Israel’s grand geo-political plan to eliminate Iranian and Syrian rivals goes forward, these countries will also will be bombarded and invaded, their own “self-defense” will result in escalated attacks against Israel as well as “terrorist” targets around the world, especially among the vulnerable population of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course the U.S. will have to retaliate with a “nuclear option” that isn’t just a figure of speech but already in the planning stage where Iran is concerned. Then will other “nuclear powers” like China and Russia “stand by” while the U.S. and Israel alter the geo-political map of Asia? Sadly, this is little more than a rhetorical question, and the guns of July scenario impends. So why would 56 of 70 of our presumably our most discerning and conscientious representatives lend themselves to this transparent plan to provide public “support” for a certain escalation of U.S. military involvement…resolutions that, believe me, will be used and re-used by the Bush administration to justify whatever dangerous, stupid and immoral foreign policies it might choose to perpetrate, just as it has used and re-used the Iraq war “authorization” resolutions of Congress? In an earlier posting, I followed the thread suggested by Tom Hayden in tracing the influence of a “Jewish lobby” to which politicians of every ideological persuasion have supposedly “sold out” to the wealth and power of that lobby and, in their Faustian bargain for personal power, have committed to support of whatever Israel demands. In the case of our Out of Iraq Caucus, I’m not so sure that explanation applies, at least as a total explanation of their political behavior. Rather, I feel that the House resolution was so cleverly crafted to blame the conflict on “terrorism” and the intransigence of Islamic state-supporters, and the debate so crafted to portray Israel as the innocent victim of Arab violence (some debaters didn’t hesitate to trot out a parallel to the real victimization of Jews in the Holocaust) that these men and women of conscience felt that had to pay “lip service” at least to a resolution condemning violence and anti-Semitism. I witnessed, and painfully so, the appearance of Dennis Kucinich in the debate. As opposed to the hot-heads of the resolution-supporters, Dennis had the most somber and measured demeanor that I have ever seen for a man of chronically up-beat and fiery rhetorical temperament. He (like Ron Paul) laid out the “facts” of the situation that were being ignored in the debate, but there was no thunder and lightning in his presentation. (His fire against the resolution may have been tempered by the fact that, as he explained, he had introduced a resolution calling for a cease-fire and other “diplomatic” measures that were being scoffed at by the hot-heads.) His whole manner, in a word, was that of a man in moral anguish. I have yet to see him explain his “present” vote on the resolution, but I suspect it was the very anguish of competing moral claims that other members of the Caucus (those of conscientious disposition; there are a few to whom I would never ascribe that disposition) must have experienced in deciding their votes. Whatever the anguish of the 70 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the practical effect of their action can scarcely be denied. Their votes undercut not only any lingering hope of congressional restraint on the madness of U.S. and Israeli foreign policies, but probably the credibility of their “out of Iraq” agenda---if indeed that initiative was having any effect on U.S. policy. It’s a thought almost too horrid to contemplate, but it must be said that we may well be impelled to get out of Iraq as Americans trapped in Lebanon are now being impelled to get out: in a “rescue” of Americans under siege as Islamist “militants” (increasingly, the whole Islamist world) begin to take out their vengeance on the U.S. as Israel’s “strong supporter.” Nice NewsHounds piece on the lack of reporting from the lone Fox News Channel correspondent in Beirut. I was questioing Greg Burke's reports myself, even before this NH article. The guy always seems to find the absolute nicest live shot locations possible. Once he was on the beach (with Isralei warplanes supposedly shelling the city, I don't know how the hell that's possible). Another time he was in front of some posh hitel abnd gardens. Another time he was only on the phone. Is he even in Beirut? And he always has absolutely nothing important to say. He'll go on about about "Hezbollah strongholds" in Lebanon, and that's about it. Meanwhile, FNC has blanketed the Israeli side of the border with reporters, combing the countryside looking for heroic shots of Israeli tanks and the like. And Shep Smith (how I hate that man) is in some northern Israeli town talking about how the Israeli children "have to play with their toys on their basments. That struck me, kids forced to play in the basement because of Hezbollah rockets". How about the scores of Lebanese children (see below) killed (or murdered; depends on your point of view) in Lebanon? They'll never play with toys again. How'bout that, Shep?
A UN report on casualties in the Israel-Lebanon conflict has found that one-third of the Lebanese casualties are children. Who are the "terrorists" again?
Lieberman falls behind Lamont In a new poll done for this hotly contested Connecticut Senate race, Joe "I'm W's lover" Lieberman faltered considerably, falling behind anti-war challneger Ned Lamont. The latest polling done for the Joe v Ned showdown has Lamont at 51% and Lieberman at 47%. Keep watching.
Of course, as we all know, Pres. Bush made good on his threat to veto the Congressional stem cell bill legalizing embryonic stem cell research. W was not bereft of right-wing hyperbole in his grandiose celbration in the Rose Garden yesterday afternoon. "If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I'm not going to allow it," Bush said. Bush was surrounded by dozens of babies, toddlers, and thier parents, the children apparently being "adopted from discarded embryos at fertility clinics", or so said Pres. W. Didn't Tony Snow say in his briefing yesterday that the event would be small and private? Here’s how it works, because I know a lot of you have had questions. There will be no photographers, no ceremony. What the president will do is, in his office, he will sign a veto message, he will hand it to a clerk, who will convey it to a clerk of the House, and then you go through the formalities of announcing a message from the president, and at some point the House will vote on the veto. QUESTION: Is there a reason why he’s not having photographers in, at least? SNOW: Because he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate. He’s signing a veto.
Guess that means Tony Snow is an outright liar. But we all knew that already, didn't we? Anthow, this veto, while seemingly a safe pander to the extreme right, is apparently a "risky move". That's because 70% of Americans either support or do not oppose soke form of stem cell research. Too bad W doesn't pay attention to polls.
Today, We’re All Israelis……so said Ken Melman, Republican National Committee chairman, in describing the bi-partisan consensus in “strong support” in America for Israel’s recent actions in and against Lebanon. Having gone through the humbling experience last night of listening to a couple of hours of “debate” in the House of Representatives on a resolution expressing just that viewpoint, I must say that, to an extent that is almost soul-searing, Melman’s observation is too damned close to truth of the situation. Except, of course, that the “we” in the quote refers to our lawmakers and other “representatives” whose views don’t necessarily represent the views of the majority of Americans; we seem to have a reservoir of common sense among “us” the people which is appropriately critical if not outraged at Israel’s attitudes and actions, far beyond the sum total of zero Senators who are recorded as opposing a similar resolution in that body or the handful of House members like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who may be expected to vote against the House resolution when it finally comes to a vote. (A CNN poll yesterday of close to a million people was showing a 55-45% margin of opposition to Israeli actions, not representative and purely voluntary, blah, blah, blah, but an interesting straw in the wind). Listening to Republican Paul and Democrat Kucinich, it struck me how occasionally that populist consensus on good sense and fair play can also work out in a bi-partisan way. Their well-constructed arguments were totally convincing that the only way out of the new “quagmire” that is now Lebanon that does not totally destroy Lebanon, Israel and every other involved party (including the U.S.) is a recognition of the historical origins of the conflict (it didn’t start when Hezbollah agents went across the Israeli border and kidnapped an Israeli soldier in an “unprovoked” act of war; Israel had been kidnapping and otherwise provoking Hezbollah and Hamas operatives for months and years and were all-too-eager to seize on one retaliatory act as the excuse to undertake an attack on Lebanon which it hoped and expected would lead to further attacks on Iran and Syria) and that diplomatic efforts, including prisoner-swapping, would be necessary for a sustainable solution to the conflict. Of course Paul and Kucinich were “rewarded” for their good sense and appeals to fair play with sneering comments about diplomacy not having worked: naïve Israel traded land (control over Gaza and Lebanon…or did when they finally withdrew their occupation forces (or did they?) for peace but in fact, oh sob and oh what injustice; they didn’t get the peace after they gave the land…so much for give and take with these dishonorable A-rabs. It was sickening, as I have said, to sit through the bipartisan repetition of the self-same justifications of Israel having the “right to defend itself” along with the implicit threats being launched against Syria and Iran as the source of Islamic terrorism. To see Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi join this bipartisan foolishness makes one realize all the more acutely the startling disconnect between the good sense of most Americans and the self-serving insulation of our “leaders” from any reality that is either moral or pragmatic. Why is this? An article by Tom Hayden on yesterday’s Counter Punch site says a great deal if it doesn’t say it all. In a touching presentation of a personal mea culpa, Hayden describes how he was himself seduced and misled by the Jewish lobby in his frantic desire to launch a political career in California in the early l980s; and how his catering to that lobby caused he and his then-wife Jane Fonda to go to Israel in 1982 to express approval of Israel’s aerial attack on Beirut in 1982. This lobby’s influence especially that of AIPAC has, of course, been the subject of much spilled ink and cyberspace bytes But I think the current exercise of “vigorous support” for Israel in both our major parties should really put to rest any question about that influence. It also explains the “disconnect” between our elected leaders and our people that I mentioned earlier. A friend of mine who has been something of a “perennial” candidate for public office told me he thought he would retire from political campaigning because, as a private citizen and an “activist” one at that, he would be freer to express his true feelings in his public actions; otherwise there is always the fear of offending the campaign contributors without whose money, all candidates seem to think (maybe rightly) they can’t win an election in this media-driven culture. So I think it’s not so much a “Jewish lobby” that controls our politics as it is a lobby of “monied” interests and one can say (without a shade of anti-Semitism because I don’t begrudge Jewish people their wealth and the civic consciousness that impels them to use their wealth in causes in which they believe) Jewish Americans are likely to have a great deal of politically-disposable wealth. Since the rest of “us” don’t have or depend on that support which is the life-blood of our elected leaders, we are indeed more free to let our brains and our consciences control our actions, rather than our anticipation of other peoples’ support. Whether we’ll ever be able to rein in the influence of money on politics I don’t know. In the long run, yes, in the shorter run we might hope that wealthy Jewish people who are both liberal and critical of Israel’s international aggression will be willing to channel some of their support to leaders of a more anti-Israeli bent. Granting that money talks, does it all have to talk in the same language?
New reports indicate that Israel "accidentally" shelled a UN compound in southern Lebanon that was filled with UN peacekeepers and 36 civilians seeking safety from the constant Israeli assaults. No casualties were reported. I can't help but think that somewhere, probably at the UN HQ that he wanted to take 10 floors off of, John Bolton is grinning uncontrollably.
Here we go again... The GOP-controlled House is once again politicizing religion by taking up a bill to ban any legal challenges against the Pledge of Allegiance because of its unconstitutional "Under God" statement.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., said America was a nation of God-given inalienable rights and that's why the country is in a war against "radical Islamists." Democrats wouldn't want to "cut and run" in Iraq, he said, "if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God and that's why the pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial."
This guy, a notorious right-wing trouble-maker, is really tweaking me. Not only is he basically saying that America (i.e. the evangelical right-wing) is in a jihad against Muslims, he also manages to get in a jab in support of never-ending war in Iraq. Did Akin happen to have Republican talking-points with him when he stepped up to the House podium? The bottom line is that this bill is a ridiculous waste of time, effort, and Congressional lung power. The Middle East is being shredded by Israeli bombs, America is on the brink of a middle-and-lower class economic collapse, and dozens of U.S. soldiers are still being killed in Iraq. Meanwhile, the "patriotic/family values" right-wing is worrying about gay marriage, flag burning, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Message to the right-wing Congress: Stop hijacking religion to expound your Iranian-style extremist views and get to work on real issues. Like raising the minimum wage; protecting the environment so that we all won't die in 20 years; getting U.S. troops out of Iraq so they won't die today; and stopping the senseless and indiscriminate killings of Lebanese civilians by U.S.-made Israeli jet fighters. Whew...
U.S. and Lebanon: Haaretz says it all. This from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, showing U.S. complicity in the war crimes being committed in Lebanon:
Diplomats in Washington say there is agreement at this stage to allow Israel to continue its actions against Hezbollah and Lebanon before any real international intervention to resolve the crisis. This policy has thus far not garnered criticism of Israel from senior American politicians on the left or the right.
The article refers to "Meet the Press" interviews of Newt Gingrich and Joe Biden, both of whom expressed support of the Israel action. Newt Gingrich, he of the "beginning of the Third World War" persuasion about the events of Lebanon, doesn't surprise me. Joe Biden is hardly an exemplar of "left" politics in America, but he is certainly a Democrat and the "ranking member" of the Senate Intelligence Committee and his endorsement of the policy that in effect dooms Lebanon to destruction is disturbing and is probably all too typical of "senior" politicians of the "left" (if any such there really be) but more ominously of the "center" Democrats of the DLC-stripe (think Hillary Clinton). If you ever, ever doubted the sinister power of the "Jewish lobby" in American foreign policy, well doubt no more.
CBO Report: 40,000 U.S. troops could be in Iraq until at least 2016 Some dedicated SSA Blog readers may remember this post from July 14, in which SSA revealed a report indicating that the military was planning for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until at least 2016. Now, three days later, the MSM is confirming this story. An article in the Washington Times relates how U.S. commanders see some troops remaining in Iraq until 2016. Just remember, you saw it on SSA Blog first. Here's a link to the CBO Iraq report
No end in sight These startling comments from General Peter Schoomaker, the U.S. Army's highest ranking officer, on Friday in D.C. make the timeline (yes, an Iraq timeline!) outlined in the recent Congressional Budget Office report on current and future Iraq spending more plausible. That had U.S. troops in Iraq until at least 2010, with one scenario keeping them in Mesopotamia through 2016. Closer to the beginning? That's right.
It seemed like a routine question, one which military leaders involved in prosecuting the war in Iraq must ask themselves with some regularity: Is the U.S. winning? During a Capitol Hill briefing for an audience of mostly congressional aides, Schoomaker paused for more than 10 seconds after he was asked the question, lips pursed and brow furrowed, before venturing: "I think I would answer that by telling you I don't think we're losing."
"The challenge ... is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be," Schoomaker said. "That's why I'll tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this."
Here's a link to the CBO Iraq report
It’s Bad, But What Can the U.S. Do About It? The public discourse in this country about the current conflagration in the Middle East is strangely constrained by the inability of thinkers and talkers to think and act outside a box containing assumptions about the inability of the United States to do anything effective about the situation. This in contrast to our decades-long role of mediators in the conflicts in that region, sometimes successfully so and sometimes not. Israel goes on a roaring rampage of “reta |