Blog and Tan

Boortz thinks Bush critics Criticize out of Hatred

2006-08-15T21:48:00.000-04:00

Neal Boortz--third on Keith Olbermann's 'worst person' list recently for calling adult minimum wage workers "pathetic" and "worthless"--thinks that George Bush's opponents disagree with him and fight his policies out of a personal hatred. He said so this morning, in the 3 minutes of his radio show I could tolerate--suggesting that Democrats hate Bush so much, they cannot bring themselves to support his War on Terror.

Notwithstanding that support for the "War on Terror" is not uniform across either party, the issue here is that people (rational ones that I communicate with, anyway) disagree that bombing the Middle East back to the stone age is the way to fight terror--and because Bush has yet to recognize the folly of his ways given three and a half years of poor performance in Iraq, it becomes apparent that Bush has a learning disability at best.

It's a form of reality denial--you don't have to actually defend Bush's policies if you write off any criticism as a manifestation of hatred. Let's have an honest debate, people.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: terror, Olbermann, Boortz, minimum wage, bush, Democrat, Iraq

Is Israel off limits?

2006-08-13T09:44:00.000-04:00

I used to think speech was free in this country. I'm beginning to question that. Since when is it actually acceptable in this country for people to control what may be discussed in university classrooms? Especially at a time when our policies toward ALL Middle-Eastern countries deserve more analysis, and not less?

I've written about disproportionate support for Israel in the past, so apparently I'm already out of line. Here's an exemplary ad from David Horowitz' far-right Front Page mag:

First, here's the Hannity-ese "Undermining," as if the neutral observations people make about history are an attempt to subvert.
This ad clearly takes "America's Support for Israel" as a given, as if it can and should be no other way.

And what kind of nonsense do you find on the linked page?

"Daily Kos, blah blah blah Joe Lieberman, posted an item headed, 'Imagine a world without Israel.' The subhead read, 'Or is that not allowed?' This kind of hate-Israel sentiment..."-- Why is that title or subhead automatically assumed to be "hate" for Israel? Israel was created only 60 years ago, wedged into Palestine by the US and the UK. Given that, I don't find it hard to imagine a world without Israel since it used to be that way less than a century ago! Typical right-wing distortion: Observations do not equal attacks. The fact that I can remember the point in history when Israel did not exist does not imply that I hate Israel or that I hate Jews.
The cover of The Washington Post's magazine last Sunday was headlined, "Is the Israel Lobby Too Powerful?" The idea that Bush-Cheney-Rice and Rumsfeld are manipulated by a bunch of second and third tier Jews in the Administration... -- Let's not kid ourselves here. The AIPAC is widely known to be quite influential, and given some of W's comments when addressing them, it would be rather insulting to consider them "a bunch of second and third tier Jews." After all, as observed in the linked article, "Every two years, AIPAC offers each new member of Congress a trip to Israel for a week to 10 days." What is being bought with THAT trip?
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is dedicated to combating these lies and defending America and Israel, the two pillars of Judaeo-Christian values and freedom in the world today.-- This statement illustrates why the Christian Right's influence on the Republican Party is so dangerous to America. That we should defend ourselves needs no clarification; that we should have an interest in Israel because of its Democracy isn't too controversial. But support for their "Judeo-Christian values"--coming from a country that professes freedom of religion--sounds conspicuously like a clash of worldviews with Islam, which the "war on terror" is not. First, it's not a war; second, we're fighting extremists who are willing to stop at nothing to take revenge for Israel's creation and support, not an entire worldview. This--the lack of clarity about our mission--is why the malleable, vague and somewhat double-entendre terminology used by the Administration (and in some cases, holding special meaning to Christians versus the population at large) is so dangerous.

Sadly, one must go outside the mainstream media for a clear discussion of the Lobby's influence on our policy, and of the true meaning of vague cliches such as "enemies of freedom." Jean Birchmont insightfully observes:

Americans are constantly told that they have to defend themselves against
people who "hate them", but without understanding why they are hated.

A high-profile article was published by noted author James Bamford recently in Rolling Stone, which considered in depth the interest neo-conservatives had in invading Iraq--interest that became influential in the "Office of Special Plans"--and the interest they still have in pushing us toward conflict with Iran. Given the bevvy of sources reporting their behind-the-scenes activities, it's time we take a clear look at the Lobby without the mindless rhetoric of the far right.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, oil, Hezbollah, terrorist, Bush, Gaza, AIPAC

Professed FisCon/SocLib analyzes Price-Sinton

2006-08-12T11:17:00.000-04:00

Interesting analysis of Price-Sinton by a self-professed Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal:

Experience: From what I can tell on Sinton�??s site, he seems to have no experience in public office whatsoever....Advantage: Tom Price.

Stones: Price made it a point to avoid confronting [primary challenger] Konop on the issues at every turn... Sinton, on the other hand...lists his home phone number in the header on his website proclaiming that �??I want to be a congressman as close as your phone.�??...Advantage: Steve Sinton.

Every Day Peopleness: Steve Sinton is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is so unbelievably cool I don�??t even know where to begin. Price does not send his kids to public schools, which seems wildly hypocritical given that he talks a big game about No Child Left Behind...Advantage: Steve Sinton.

Not exactly my list of criteria for evaluating candidates, but an interesting analysis nonetheless. This fails to make a point I've emphasized before, that Price is inexplicably a medical doctor who has voted three times AGAINST stem-cell research, and that his voting record is that of a Bush rubber-stamp. But in the end, I think the issue will be whether the local voters are able to get to know Sinton, because those that do seem to recognize he's a much sharper "stone" than Price.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Tom Price, Steve Sinton, Gingrich, Bush, conservative

Let's Move On to Phase 2

2006-08-12T08:55:00.000-04:00

A calm and collected post on dKos refers to an insightful article by James Fallows from the current Atlantic Monthly, which summarizes interviews with numerous security experts who conclude that as we'e actually succeeded in destroying the centralized Al Qaeda--although not totally eradicated it because we abandoned Afghanistan in our quest to invade Iraq--it's time to think rationally about how to proceed from here. Is the "War on Terror," especially regarding Iraq, *really* making us safer, or is that creating more hatred of America than anything else?

The article makes some timely and important points. Yesterday, it was argued in the Times that those responsible for defending our country lack the imagination necessary to prevent unknown threats--it's as if they can only imagine attackers repeating previously used strategies. Similarly, Fallows suggests in a follow-up blog post--contrary to popular logic--that it's precisely because we believe that the types of terrorist attacks illustrated by the London air plot will continue to occur that we should put an end to the "war" part of the fight against terror.

In a related blog post, Fallows summarizes his three main points from the Atlantic article:

First: �??Al-Qaeda Central,�?? the organization that planned and carried out the devastation on 9/11, has been severely disrupted by U.S. and allied activities....Western agencies had never successfully penetrated al-Qaeda before 9/11. Now, it appears, they have. The British apparently had the current plotters under surveillance for a sustained period....

Second: the many �??copycat�?? and �??self-starter�?? groups that have been �??inspired�?? by al-Qaeda and that have sprung up in England, Spain, Indonesia, and elsewhere will continue to pose the threat of attacks. The threat is likely to be more acute in Europe than in the United States....

Third: the greatest threat posed by these groups is not the damage they can do directly, but rather the self-defeating, irrational, or excessive responses they can goad a target country into making. Osama bin Laden has boasted that the attack of 9/11 cost at most $500,000 to launch and provoked more than $500 billion in military and security spending by the United States; a million-to-one �??payoff.�??....

The news of the last few days confirms rather than undercuts this argument.....Remember: it was police work, surveillance, and patient cultivation of sources that broke the airline bombing ring �?? not speeches about a state of war.

The scope of the issue is considered more broadly as well. Fallows observes in an interview also on Atlantic that the "open-ended emergency approach to spending, civil liberties, and executive power" that have characterised the post-9/11 years. Ironically, a front-page article in today's Washington Post points out that this President is far more able and willing to travel cross-country without press than any predecessor in the last 50 years--which provides the opportunity for more off-the-record speeches to supporters (his "base") at high-priced events. Food for thought, certainly.

The original article is subscriber-restricted, but the blog post and interview are available in full for non-subscribers.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, war on terror, cheney, Lieberman, Bush, Al Qaeda, Fallows

Good and Scared Yet?

2006-08-10T21:56:00.000-04:00

This one might be legit, and it certainly demands caution: A plot--tipped off to British police in the wake of the 7/7/05 London attacks--to blow up 8 or 10 planes mid-air on the way from London to the States. It's also, as is becoming standard procedure, peculiarly timed between some negative news for the administration and conveniently timed to take attention away from something else that might raise eyebrows.

The negative news? Lieberman's departure. I stated yesterday that his departure owes as much to his lack of action in correcting the Democrats' failure to unite around (and to cohesively voice) an alternative--any alternative--to the current no-holds-barred "stay the course" mentality of the Republican leadership, as it does to the "netroots" and their "hard left" posturing (as the right prefers to spin it). Lieberman's loss comes at the same time as a recent poll showing 60% of Americans disagree with the war on Iraq; that cannot logically be considered a "far left" position. The country isn't THAT far right, that we're unable to logically assess the President's poor performance.

And the potential eyebrow-raiser? It just so happens that this afternoon, it was noted that the 17 or so individual suits regarding the Bush domestic spying scandal were consolidated into one. Anyone think of any reason you'd want to do this--perhaps, to make it easier to "make it go away"? Or, do you think it's more helpful to keep eyes away from the resignation of counter-terrorism officials? Clearly, I'm going to be keeping my eyes more alert next time I fly--but in doing this, and in limiting the items we can bring on board, Al Qaeda can only be laughing at how easy it is to frighten Americans and to make them give up their precious "freedoms" for which they allegedly hate us.

Democrats today stood up and made another good point--this plot illustrates that Iraq has been a monumental distraction from Al Qaeda. In that respect, Americans have not forgotten--in fact, lately we've become even more biased--so much so that 39% of us believe American Muslims should have some sort of "Special ID" and be screened more thoroughly than others. Better screening is fine if it's across the board; if it's done through racial profiling, we're going to continue to alienate Muslims and provide even more reason for more of them to hate America. But instead of giving this strategy more thought, our President prefers to try to take advantage of this news for political gain--by arguing his opponents aren't strong enough on terror. After all, one operative was quoted as saying "Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big."

God forbid that we stop and think perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. Better to keep everyone scared and voting Republican. So far that has worked--and what's more, get this: we're so clearly scared shitless that, despite the near-constant barrage of reminders from the Republican Party--30% of us have already forgotten in which year 9/11 took place!

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, war on terror, cheney, Lieberman, Bush, Al Qaeda

Lunacy Does Not Help

2006-08-08T22:22:00.001-04:00

It's tough to be a Democrat these days, even a moderate one. First off, thanks to the intolerance and rabid posturing of the far right windbags like Hannity and Limbaugh, those even just "somewhat" to the left of center are painted inaccurately as far from the mainstream--and many people buy it. And it's not any less difficult with high profile nutcases like Cynthia McKinney running around.

I say "nutcase" not because of her opinions on 9/11--in fact, I respect the fact that she's willing to make bold statements to bring some of the unanswered questions into the conversation. I say it because of her lack of decorum and class, particularly evidenced by her behavior entering court on that infamous day. Word has it that today, one of her staff members may have hit an 11Alive photographer. The sooner this woman is no longer associated with the Democratic Party, the better.

The more telling case is that of Joe Lieberman. Why has the moderate Democrat been shunned within his party to some extent? I think it's partially because of his unusually strong support for Israel and for the war in Iraq, but I think equal credit must go to the Democratic braintrust who has taken so long to close ranks around a unified strategy. The recent collective House-Senate call for withdrawl to begin this year is a first step, but I'm hesitant to say that they'll stay behind it. Neither party should be--or is, no matter what Ann Coulter tells you--advocating immediate withdrawl. But the Democrats have until this agreement failed to come up with an alternative.

The alternative need not be a point-by-point list of dates and actions--the Republicans would love that, as they could jump all over it and say it's not accounting for conditions on the ground. I like what they've done--they've said let's "begin" withdrawl sometime this year, as if to tell Iraq to get its act together because we're not staying there forever. Part of their rampant instability is the fact that it looks like we might just be there forever. Second, it allows for adjustment for conditions on the ground, yet it states a clear alternative to the "stay the course" mindlessness--it says "we actually plan to get out of the morass that the current administration has gotten us into." Most people agree Iraq was a mistake--it's time the Democrats stood up and took a position on it. Too bad it came too late for Lieberman.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, war on terror, cheney, Lieberman, Mckinney, Senate, House

American Alienation

2006-08-07T07:58:00.000-04:00

The U.S. and (ironically) France are behind a recent U.N. cease fire proposal that, unfortunately, Hezbollah and Lebanon aren't too keen on. They argue that the U.S. is too one-sided in its actions lately, clearly favoring Israel and not providing enough protection for Lebanon in their proposal. This follows the pattern we've seen established over the last few weeks, in which Israel attacks Lebanon fiercely while America stands still and silently accepts their behavior.

Israeli actions are not the responsibility of the U.S., but it's very clear to the rest of the world where America's loyalties lie. In stark contrast to the neutral arbiter that America tried to be under prior Presidents, the current administration sees the Middle Eastern conflict as part of the "War on Terror" and is, arguably, creating quite a few new enemies by its refusal to talk some sense into Israel--as Bush himself infamously suggested Syria do with Hezbollah.

It is telling that reports suggest W's father is uncomfortable with the current policy towards Israel. This dichotomy within the Bush family echoes the one taking place within the country at large, and brings to mind a similar one within the opposition Party: the fight between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Primary. Some suggest that if Lamont wins this race, it could be a signal of the rising influence of the anti-war population. Last week, Democrats in the Senate and House agreed on a call for troop withdrawl from Iraq to begin this year.

This is a critical time for Iraq. Though many in the Administration appear loathe to admit it, the situation in Baghdad is approaching--if not already--civil war. America needs to act carefully in this critical time.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, oil, Hezbollah, terrorist, Bush, Gaza, Lieberman

9/11 Conspiracy Fodder

2006-08-03T07:08:00.000-04:00

Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around the notion that America's fighters remained on the ground for too long; had they been deployed quicker, it's argued, they'd have been able to intercept the attackers--at least, the two after the second tower. Many of the assumptions behind this notion were largely put to rest with the release of tapes from the NORAD Control Room covering the morning of 9/11, in a Vanity Fair article written by a producer of the film Flight 93.

This doesn't answer all the questions, but it does answer quite a few. For example, this amply puts to rest the idea of a stand-down order being in effect. Although the tapes illustrate confusion about the hijacked planes, fighters were scrambled in response. There were exercises planned that morning, but the first attack took place before they were scheduled to start--and although the very first questions asked attempt to determine "real world or exercise," that part of the confusion only seems to last a brief time. Why those were planned that morning and whether that was just coincidence is beyond the scope of the tapes, although the author's article suggests otherwise.

Once the second plane hits, the exercises are clearly called off. Part of the real problem lied in there only being 14 fighters available that morning across the entire country, and with communication failures between the FAA and NORAD which delayed NORAD's awareness of some of the hijackings by up to half an hour.

Some reassuring, as well as some disturbing, observations are made:

Fighters were requested by the Boston air traffic control during the call notifying NORAD for the first time of the hijacking. Although the plane's exact location was unavailable because of antiquated equipment as well as the airliner's transponders being disabled, fighters were scrambled toward the planes' general location about 7 minutes after the hijack is reported, but only 5 minutes before the plane hit the first tower. The problems with antiquated equipment and disabled transponders continued throughout the morning.
Significant and damaging confusion ensued as American Airlines allegedly--as was standard procedure among airlines--clammed up and was unwilling to confirrm whether flight 11 had actually crashed into the WTC. This led to fighters being sent out to look for flight 11 after it had already crashed, as unclear communications led some to believe it was still in the air. As the day progressed, there were nearly a dozen phantom hijackings that were processed to one degree or another at NORAD.
No clearance to shoot at passenger jets was given, although after the last plane had crashed, commanders were given the authority to make that decision if necessary. Therefore, the potential for shooting down flight 93 does not appear to have existed. Tactics had been discussed, however--NORAD had tentatively discussed that a missle fired at the nose of an oncoming jet would have the greatest chance of success in downing a plane.
At the time of the 2nd tower being hit, the fighters are just south of Long Island. The FAA keeps them there, rather than bringing them into Manhattan in the event of another strike.
At 9:21 a third hijack headed toward Washington is reported, but the panic that ensues was not reported to the 9/11 Commission. The commission was told that NORAD learned of flight 93 at 9:16AM, when it wasn't notified in reality until 51 minutes later! At 9:24 there were fighters scrambled--but chasing a ghost, the already-crashed flight 11, rather than 77 or 93. It is this fact, totally ignored by those reporting to the Commission, that leads to questions about erroneous information or outright deception. (Further, planes were heading out to sea from Langley rather than into Washington, as per their training to counter attacks from the sea.)
American 77 is reported missing to NORAD at 9:34, 10 minutes later than the Commission was told, and about 40 minutes after contact was lost by air traffic control. It is already in Washington and this is reported to NORAD as being 6 miles from the White House a minute later, at which point fighters are directed there.
The accounts of NORAD personnel watching events unfold live on CNN are particularly moving.
At one point, fighters are scrambled to Washington to intercept a fighter that's already in White House airspace, due to a civilian controller's lack of awareness of the military scrambles.

The inaccurate testimony to the Commission led to consideration of criminal charges, as while the response was not as strong as it could have been, it appeared that the testimony was intended to serve another purpose--potentially, the 2004 election cycle. As one commissioner observed,

"How good would it have looked for the government in general if we still couldn't have stopped the fourth plane an hour and 35 minutes [into the attack]?" Azzarello asked. "How good would it have looked if there was a total breakdown in communication and nothing worked right?"

If there was a conspiracy, it appears clear that the folks at NORAD were not in on it. Some aspects are not addressed--such as the controlled demolition of the Towers allegation, suggestions that Bush actually watched the first plane hit, and several Israeli connections--but this should at least put some new perspective on the official timeline.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, oil, Hezbollah, terrorist, Bush, Gaza, Axis of Evil, 9/11, NORAD, Vanity Fair

Fundamentalism, America's Hidden Cancer

2006-07-31T08:32:00.000-04:00

Karen Armstrong is a noted author, of A History of God and of A Battle For God, which addresses fundamentalism across the three mono-theistic strains of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. She writes today about the Bush Administration's espousal of fundamentalist Christianity and the effect that is having upon current events in the Middle East and elsewhere.

She brings up some interesting points:

Is there a connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science, glaring social injustice and a war in the Middle East?...

American fundamentalists are convinced that the second coming of Christ is at hand; they have developed an end-time scenario of genocidal battles based on a literal reading of Revelation that is absolutely central to their theology. Christ cannot return, however, unless... the Jews are in possession of the Holy Land. Before the End, the faithful will be "raptured" or snatched up into the air in order to avoid the Tribulation. ... This...was in part a reaction to the "social gospel" of the more liberal Christians, who believed that human beings were naturally evolving towards perfection and could build the New Jerusalem here on earth by fighting social injustice.

It is with this point that she alludes to, but doesn't directly address, the central role that the state of Israel plays in the eschatology of end-times. Israel, of cousre, was (arguably) re-founded in 1948; many viewed that as a sign that the End is near. Continued conflict in that area, which happens to manifest the Jews' return to the Holy Land, maintains the importance of this area to end-times believers. Ever wonder why America takes such a deep interest in this particular territorial dispute?

It is this sect--through the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, etc--that has a stronger influence on the Bush Administration than it's had on many previous leaders of the free world. She suggests that this may explain the reluctance of the administration to take the lead on environmental damage: "Indeed, some fundamentalists see environmental damage as a positive development, because it will hasten the apocalypse." It could also partially explain the decision to break tradition by not supporting a cease fire between Israel and Lebanon--that might also hasten the End. If the End is coming, why be too concerned about protecting America's political system?

Instead, Armstrong outlines a different view on these Biblical interpretations:

"This nihilistic religiosity is based on a perversion of the texts. The first chapter of Genesis was never intended as a literal account of the origins of life; it is a myth, a timeless story about the sanctity of the world and everything in it. Revelation was not a detailed programme for the End time; it is written in an apocalyptic genre that has quite a different dynamic. When they described the Jews' return to their homeland, the Hebrew prophets were predicting the end of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC - not the second coming of Christ." The prophets did preach a stern message of social justice, however, and like all the major world faiths, Christianity sees charity and loving-kindness as the cardinal virtues. Fundamentalism nearly always distorts the tradition it is trying to defend.

Bush and conservatives have steadfastly preached against the United Nations and European Union, partially--if obscurely--because these organizations, serving as an international Judicial Branch, are tools the Antichrist could use to usurp national soverignty, which is seen as a sign of the end times:

"The stage is being set today for fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Under the present course, it may take another 20 to 50 years for world central government to evolve enough to supersede national priorities. During conditions of war and troubles like we see developing, world government that supersedes national sovereignty probably will happen in 10 to 30 years."

Most mainstream traditions are aware of end times prophesy in Revelation, but do not stress its immediacy. They stress living a life honoring God and honoring Jesus (if Christian), but not actively anticipating--or encouraging, as one could consider our perspective toward Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbollah--the end times. For the most part, these people are doers of good in the world.

The DaVinci Code recently touched upon "Alternative" forms of Christianity such as Gnosticism, which stressed among other things that our purpose in life is to become awakened to the truth that we are all, at a primitive level and perhaps even only one particle of ourselves, God. This implies a shared value with Buddhism and with other Eastern spirituality: community. Some choose to believe that the words of the Bible are not subject to interpretation--and that if God says killing must take place to fulfill his calling, so be it. Gnostics, who would laugh at such outrageous interpretations of "End times," would be more inclined to consider everyone brethren at some level, and to avoid violence. Perhaps that is why they are no longer with us.

Gnostics also taught, profoundly, that the Kingdom of God was to be established on Earth, not "After the Tribulation." By making the world a better place, through social justice and peace, they sought to awaken everyone to their common spiritual essence--whichever name one chose to put upon it. For this, and for a complex cosmology that perhaps was conceived in an altered state, they were considered "heretics."

Sadly, the most dangerous to all of us--the fundamentalists--won out. America needs to recognize that fundamentalism isn't just a problem in Islam--it is a problem on both sides of this conflict. "Radical Islam" isn't the enemy--the enemy is fundamentalism itself.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Islam, Armstrong, fundamentalist, Muslim, West, liberal, Palestine, Israel, Judaism, Tribulation, Armageddon, Revelation, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, UN, EU, Gnostic, Davinci Code

Troops I do NOT support

2006-07-30T19:19:00.000-04:00

This is one of the more disturbing stories I've read in quite a while. An American soldier, later charged in one of the civilian-murder incidents, speaking to a reporter before the incident he is alleged to be involved in:

"I came over here because I wanted to kill people...Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant. I mean, you kill somebody and it's like 'All right, let's go get some pizza.'"

Before I go any further, let me make clear that in no way do I consider this guy to be typical of our forces. However, I suspect that there are more than just this one. Warfare--particularly seemingly-endless warfare, when the troops question the mission we're on because it's so vague and uncertain--can desensitize people to killing. But this is way overboard.

The sad part is that these exceptions are wearing the uniform of the United States armed forces, and in a sense representing each of us to the Arab world. Why do we think the Arab world is so distrusting of us? That said, I'm expecting some people to ask whether we should care, or to state that we should not care. I consider that unproductive, if not counter-productive. To win the war of worldview, America needs to be modeling the ideals we expect of the rest of the world--fairness, justice, etc. Americans need to speak out and make it clear that we will not tolerate this kind of mental deviant in our military, just to "make our numbers."

This is one troop I do NOT support.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, war on terror

Timing is Everything

2006-07-30T10:47:00.000-04:00

Timing is everything. In 2002 and 2004, when the "War on Terror" was still a rallying cry and when people had yet to realize how much the truth had been manipulated to support the far right agenda, candidates would have given up their first-born for a chance to put the phrase "I'm a Republican" on their campaign ads in a larger font. In 2006, after a number of the boundary-stretching (if legal) programs the Bush administration has sponsored "to protect us" have been revealed, the tides have turned.

Candidates are afraid to admit they are Republicans.

In an ironic parallel, this weekend saw Mel Gibson--movie star, producer, and most recently admired for his record-breaking evangelical film Passion of the Christ--arrested for DUI and, to make matters so much worse, reportedly launching an anti-Semitic tirade featuring obscenities and threats to the officer:

"F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

Although allegedly Gibson has apologized for his tirade, most people know they may say things while drunk that they don't necessarily entirely agree with, but that are base instincts and believed at a gut level. It's going to be tough for Gibson to live this one down, and clearly it may impact any future films of a religious nature. Gibson's words are certainly difficult to reconcile with Jesus, who of course WAS a Jew.

If one is moving his career in a religious direction, it's probably a bad idea to launch into a public rant full of faith-based hatred. I'm just sayin'.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: timing, Gibson, Passion, evangelical, war on terror, Republican, Jew

The significance of Signing Statements

2006-07-24T21:03:00.000-04:00

The use of signing statements by President Bush, and its effects on the separation of powers, are starting to come into focus now that experts are taking a long hard look at them--spurred on by Arlen Specter, who penned an editorial for the Post today.. Surprisingly, the experts' conclusions are the same as most amateurs':

...an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

It's worth remembering here that Bush has vetoed only ONE bill during his entire Presidency--that being the Stem Cell bill he vetoed just last week. 750 bills he's signed in the past have been affected by the signing statements--which, to be fair, have existed for many years, but have never been used to the depth or breadth that Bush is using them now.

Greco followed up his comments above by saying "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked." Coming from the President of the American Bar Association, this is very scary for our American democracy--and we should ALL be paying attention.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: signing statements, specter, bush, american bar association, aba, veto, separation of powers

We're the Deciders

2006-07-24T15:42:00.000-04:00

Dick Cheney thinks that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East underscores why we should vote to keep Republicans in office. I�??m beginning to believe that the ongoing conflict is taking place precisely *because* Republicans are in office, and that as long as Republicans are in power, we will be fighting the war on terror.

Terrorism will occur no matter which party has control. Our political system does not offer us a choice in the matter, but it does offer us a choice in how we should respond. For 5 years since 9/11, only the second time (after OKC) terrorism occurred on U.S. soil, Republicans have been conducting an aggressive unilateralist campaign, often out of the public eye and straddling the fence of legality and ethics. They claim this is to be a �??long war�??; it will only be a �??long war�?? because they wish it to be for political reasons.

As our attention shifts to Israel and Lebanon, with an undistracted eye we can perceive that the situation in Baghdad has gotten demonstrably worse--officials are admitting that Iraq may well be split into two or three countries on a sectarian basis. Iraq was a mix of unfriendly ethnic groups since its founding by Britain and the USA; it was naive of us to believe that bombing them into democracy to free them from the admittedly evil Saddam Hussein would somehow unite them into a pleasant, peaceful, democratic state. To answer a common question, only the Iraqis who are lucky enough to escape the current violence are better off without Saddam.

Given that the Israeli campaign taking place right now is going according to a plan hatched at least a year ago, it makes one wonder why it was chosen to occur now�??except that distracting Americans from the disaster in Iraq, and making them fearful once again of Syria and Iran, could be beneficial in November.

Democrats are supportive of defending our nation, but not wars of choice. In the more moderate Democratic view, we can choose to begin phasing down our commitment to Iraq and reallocate our resources to programs such as port security, the air marshall program, and cargo screening to combat terrorism�??and feel justifiably more secure in the homeland--or we can choose the Republican status quo of periodic �??Terror alert�?? panics and bombing Middle Eastern countries, motivating more terrorists.

The choice is ours. We�??re the deciders.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, war on terror, cheney

Life in NOLA

2006-07-23T11:11:00.000-04:00

I came across an interesting article by a local New Orlenian, with some anecdotes about life almost a year after Katrina:

We are jittery, looking from the sky to the front page and back. The sky darkens, there's thunder every afternoon but not a drop of rain, while the front page confirms our most lunatic imaginings: "National Guard hits the ground running," "5 Teenagers shot dead in central-city," "Tow trucks begin hauling flooded cars off streets," "'We're not going to take it anymore,' vows Nagin," "Officials unveil pet evacuation plan," "Historic convent burns in three-alarm fire," and so on.

Those of us who are left don't talk about the election; we don't talk about immigration. We have very little interest in either North Korea or Iran and are more likely to discuss the end of the world, the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, the "Great Drying Up" (delineated in Michel Houellebecq's wonderful new futuristic novel, "The Possibility of an Island"), the melting of polar ice caps, the prophecy of the white buffalo, and speculation about El Ni o -- fingers crossed -- driving storms into the Atlantic this year. "Hang on a little longer," we seem to urge each other. "If you stay, I'll stay."

In the interest of the general audience, it's pretty fair to say--based on my own visit back in May, and what continues to be published in the media--that life is anything but "back to normal" in New Orleans. While much of the country has been vigorously debating ongoing political issues such as illegal immigration and the Middle East, those in New Orleans have much simpler things to think about--safety in their immediate neighborhood, rebuilding of infrastructure--as well as more spiritual things, like the end of the world and man's relationship to the environment. Doctors were recently arrested for allegedly euthanizing patients during Katrina, reminding residents of the unimaginibly difficult decisions--and possible errors in judgment--faced by healthcare workers in a desperate situation that must have felt like Armageddon.

Much to consider when wondering why things aren't back to normal.

---------------------

Technorati Tags: New Orleans, NOLA, Katrina, hurricane, Biloxi, Gulfport, FEMA, Corps

What did you Expect?

2006-07-22T23:49:00.000-04:00

At least 70% of the time, the folks at Kos are too extreme for me--and I'm too moderate for them, based on the poor response I've gotten to posts I've occasionally put there--but I ran across a well written front-page article today that makes a point I've often stressed in my own writing: Those who inherently dislike something aren't likely to do it very well.

Applying this to current events, there are two ways to look at the struggling Bush administration: (1) It's implementing good policy, but failing to do so effectively; or (2) the policies themselves are flawed. I tend to vote with the latter--that is to say the problems Bush & Co. are experiencing are directly related to the policies themselves, and their underlying belief system.

SusanG asks some insightful questions in her post:

Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished? Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?
Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?...Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...

Wikipedia features a page listing 90 individual "controversies" surrounding the Bush administration that are elaborated upon in that online encyclopedia. This number itself is arbitrary and meaningless, however it's no difficult task to rattle off 4 or 5 major issues for which the supposed "liberal media" has gone after the President without even lifting a finger. These guys have been under attack from day one, starting with the secretive Cheney energy task force--and I've argued that if it weren't for the excessive secrecy, and the tendency to ignore laws via the signing statement, there wouldn't be such attention paid to many of its actions.

Given that scrutiny began from day one--no doubt partially in reaction to the personal slandering the previous President was subjected to during his administration--it's rather amusing to hear people argue Bush's opponents are attacking the "War on Terror" for political advantage, or as Sean Hannity might say, to "undermine" the President. In fact, I argue that the characterization of attacks on the President as "undermining" is a conspiracy theory itself of sorts--it is a convenient way to avoid discussing the issues in a substantial way, allowing one to simply argue that the President's opponents are arguing merely for the sake of argument. People like Hannity seem to forget that to characterize EVERY opponent as trying to "undermine" is like crying wolf--it takes the force from the term when it's applied to the few who truly deserve it.

But, I digress. The Republican Party is one of "Small Government," and in principle this is where the Party's problems often begin. It is my personal opinion that we should strive for "Efficient Government," rather than government of any specific size. An agency which cannot outperform the private sector should be eliminated; an agency that can outperform, should be supported. Using that guideline, the optimum should be discoverable--whether small or large.

By striving for a specific size, and by basing decisions upon the premise that private industry is better, we see tainted results--perhaps subsconsciously as a self-fulfilling prophesy. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, FEMA was headed by an unqualified Bush appointee, Michael Brown, rather than the effective and respected James Lee Witt--and the agency's poor performance was a direct result. If one believes that it's not up to the government to respond to a disaster, respond they will not. No argument here that the local and state officials should have been more prepared, mind you; but at the same time, no letting Brownie off the hook.

In the sense of being custodian for a country--and already being aware that a massive hurricane was the 2nd biggest disaster FEMA was expected to confront--emergency planners should have been aware of the extreme poverty in inner-city New Orleans. They also should have been aware that the unacceptably poor education system there made people less likely to be aware of the true risk they shoulder living in a bowl below sea level, even if their families have been there for generations.

In the wake of 9/11, the administration has narrowed the scope of what is considered the responsibility of government to mainly national security and--begrudgingly--tax collection. Much of the hostility in the Middle East toward America comes from America's large footprint over there, and America's intent to only allow regimes supportive to its economy to exist--but rather than acknowledging the soverignty of those nations and the desires of their peoples, we instead increase the degree to which we pull the strings in the region and somehow expect this to work out in our favor and increase our sense of security.

There clearly is a threat to this country from radical Islam--no denying that, IMO--but our government's foregone choice of an aggressive foreign policy to counter it has done more harm than good. It doesn't help to put our heads in the sand, unilaterally support Israel no matter what, and expect to be seen by the world as "fair and balanced." We've shown an overinflated distaste for illegal immigrants--not to suggest immigrants shouldn't go through a legitimate process, but that we show a lack of understanding of the forces influencing behavior: It's one thing to say immigrants break the law by coming here, but another to crack down on the employers providing that motivation.

That aside, there have been many other examples of the disaster that results from overconfidence and from the "it's not our job" mentality, too many for me to cover here. We need a political philosophy that recognizes our common existence and recognizes that there are some investments we make as a people--healthcare, also education--that aren't simply dollars and cents. We need to recognize that in some cases, unregulated capitalists make poor choices for their own benefit rather than for that of the consumer--and for that reason, a degree of regulation of the "free market" is a necessary evil.

Finally, we need to recognize that "drowning government in the bathtub" and being rid of it all results in anarchy--remember Enron? Rather than emphasizing just how minimalistic it can become--and keeping in the back of our mind that a bloated government doesn't do us any good either--we should be concerned with balancing cost and benefit: efficiency.

---------------------------

Technorati Tags: democrat, progressive, principles, values, liberal, conservative, small government

Why Georgia-6 should Vote for Sinton

2006-07-21T20:09:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted to Radical Georgia Moderate.

The 6th district is inexplicably represented by a medical doctor, Tom Price, who not only voted against investing money in stem cell research in 2005, but did so again in 2006--and refused to vote to overturn the recent Bush veto, as if to put an exclamation mark on his "no." Further, he's voting against the district's interest by voting to extend the Bush tax cuts, in the current frantic-spending environment being propelled by Republicans--thereby embodying the Republican version of "cut and run," which is to cut taxes and run away from the resulting debt.

This is the district formerly represtented by Newt Gingrich, so it'll be a tough sell. But the Democrats have an intriguing candidate for this seat which Price won unopposed in the last election--and Steve Sinton has a grasp of the issues and a conservative, yet progressive, position to provide an appealing alternative to the status quo. He's been making quite an impression. I like the way he puts his stem cell position:

The stakes couldn�??t be higher. Recently, President Bush--against the will of the majority of Americans--vetoed a bill supporting embryonic stem cell research. Our health is being held hostage.

Instead of finding cures to cancer, Parkinson�??s, Alzheimer's and other diseases that afflict many of us and our loved ones, a stroke of a pen �?? W�??s first veto �?? made him The Decider. We don�??t get the best medical breakthrough of the century. What�??s worse is that my opponent, a medical doctor, REFUSED to vote to override President Bush�??s veto.

Isn't it time we send a message to Washington, not a rubber stamp?

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Tom Price, Steve Sinton, Gingrich, Bush, conservative

Personal Photos of Israel-Lebanon War

2006-07-16T20:31:00.000-04:00

Images of the battles taking place between Israel and Lebanon, including shots in Gaza and in Beirut, are being captured and shared with the world in a "Web 2.0" way--using Flickr!

Some Flickr members are uploading wire service photos to Flickr and tagging them, but those can be filtered out in a search. Others are sharing more interesting personal photos of violence, demonstrations, and even maps of explosions in their own neighborhoods. Some of the pictures are of explosions and some are graphic pictures of the injured. To an ever greater degree, people are using the new tools of "Web 2.0" to instantly enhance and bypass wire services to share personal photographs taken in the heart of the conflict.

On YouTube, the popular Web 2.0 video sharing site, so far most of the photos tagged "Israel" and "Lebanon" are snagged news reports from media outlets. Flickr is allowing for instantaneous digital snapshots to be taken by everyday people and shared with the world. Some are opinionated, some are purely documentary. Here are a few interesting groups I've found:

Israel, war since 7/1/06 (wire services filtered out)
Israel taken after 7/11/06
Israel, War taken after 7/11/06 ("anti" filtered out to remove anti-war protests)

I'm sure you can think of many on your own. If I spot any other sites with innovative views on the escalating conflict, I'll update this article..

Peace.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, Hezbollah, Gaza, Flickr, Web 2.0

Israel and the War on Terror

2006-07-16T10:59:00.000-04:00

It's wise to consider what's happening in the Middle East right now--the escalation of violence between the Arabs and Israelis--as it relates to, if not in the context of, the American "war on terror." It's cause for concern that America is once again taking a one-sided position in this conflict, putting all the blame on Hezbollah and none on the Israelis, while other world leaders like Vladamir Putin observe that while Hezbollah has provoked Israel, the Israeli response has been disproportionately large.

To what degree are American interests aligned with Israeli interests? A difficult and lengthy question, for sure. Is it that Israel is our island of democracy in the Middle East, a platform from which to maintain our sphere of influence in the region a la PNAC? Is it that a Zionist conspiracy of Jews and Christians controls our foreign policy? Or is it that Dominionists believe if we can exacerbate a war in the Middle East, the Rapture will arrive? As Glenn Greenwald observes, pundits on the right are linking this flare-up of the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict with the "War on Terror" because of its support by radical Islam, and are already suggesting that the U.S. become more involved.

It is with some curioisity that within 24 to 48 hours after the start of hostilities, we began hearing from Israel that Iranian soldiers were helping Hezbollah launch missles and that Syria may also be involved. There is suspicion that Israel is attempting to link those two countries in an attempt to provide a pretext for U.S. involvement in a wider conflict:

The escalating Israeli assault on Lebanon clearly represents a conscious bid to provoke a general war in the Middle East. The captured Israeli soldiers are only the pretext for the present massive military operations....Israelis accuse Hezbollah of wanting to transfer the two captured Israeli soldiers to Syria or Iran...an attempt to build a case for an Israeli sneak attack on Syria and/or Iran.

How might the Israelis and their Bush-Cheney allies escalate to a Middle East regional war? A linear scenario is that, after further bombardment of Israel by rockets allegedly made in Iran and allegedly delivered with the connivance of Syria, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) lashes out at Damascus and Teheran. Syrian and Iranian retaliatory measures would then be seized upon by the Bush-Cheney regime as a pretext for US entry into the war. Here the US would be openly dragged into war as the tail of the Israeli dog....

One possible provocation scenario to bring the US into the war is that a helicopter carrying US citizens being evacuated out of Lebanon is hit by a missile and destroyed, killing all on board. The missile might be fired by the Israelis or by their allies among the fascist Lebanese Phalangists. The Israelis would announce that the helicopter had been destroyed by Hezbollah, opening the way for a hysterical campaign by Fox News and the rest of the neocon mass brainwashing apparatus to secure an early US attack on Syria and Iran.

I can only hope this is as overly suspicious as I believe it is. Further involvement of the U.S. in the Arab-Israeli conflict--especially in a one-sided manner--will only increase Arab hatred of U.S. policy and actions, which will increase rather than decrease terrorism incidents.

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, oil, Hezbollah, terrorist, Bush, Gaza, Axis of Evil

Expansion of Presidential Power and Polarization

2006-07-16T08:58:00.000-04:00

For a long time, it has been the perception of this administration that the power of the Presidency was weakened in the 1970s with Vietnam and Watergate, and it has been an open secret that Dick Cheney is one of the forces behind its restoration. Stated another way, the checks and balances put in place after the excesses of the 1970s--FISA, for example--are perceived by some in this administration as restrictive handicaps.

A New York Times editorial today suggests that it is this very objective, and the methods chosen to achieve it, that--along with, in my opinion, the emergence of highly opinionated blogs that act as echo chambers--has led to the widely recognized polarization of the electorate and inherent suspicion of administration activities that exists today.

In early 2005, Bob Woodward wrote:

Vice President Cheney said in an interview that the proper power of the presidency has finally been restored after being diminished in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, and that President Bush contributed to the process by not allowing his narrow victory in the 2000 election to inhibit him during his first term....

The vice president has been at the forefront of an effort by the Bush White House to promote an expansive view of presidential power by frequently invoking constitutional principle in refusing to hand over documents to Congress or allowing administration officials to testify before congressional committees.

Even by 2003, his power in the office of Vice President was widely admitted among conservatives:

"His power is unparalleled in the history of the republic, frankly, for that position," said John Hulsman, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank.

John Dean observed earlier this year:

"In the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate," Cheney recently told the Wall Street Journal, "there was a concerted effort to place limits and restrictions on presidential authority." There were "a series of decisions," he explained, "that were aimed at the time at trying to avoid a repeat of things like Vietnam or ... Watergate."

"I thought they were misguided then," he continued, and "given the world that we live in [today] that the president needs to have unimpaired executive authority." Cheney said the only restraint on the president should be "the Constitution." He did not say, however, as he has on other occasions, that it is the president who says what the Constitution means, as far as his own duties and responsibilities.

Today's editorial suggests that the chosen response to 9/11 was intended not only to fight terrorism, but also to support the objective of increased Presidential power--and that this has added partisanship and suspicion to an effort which otherwise might have been unified and clear. The irony is that this President campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider" but has become so much of a a "divider, not a uniter" that, in early 2005, the country was split 49%/49% (2% no opinion) on whether he is a divider or a uniter! The Times asserts:

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints...While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch...

The president�??s constant efforts to assert his power to act without consent or consultation has warped the war on terror. The unity and sense of national purpose that followed 9/11 is gone, replaced by suspicion and divisiveness that never needed to emerge. The president had no need to go it alone �?? everyone wanted to go with him. Both parties in Congress were eager to show they were tough on terrorism. But the obsession with presidential prerogatives created fights where no fights needed to occur and made huge messes out of programs that could have functioned more efficiently within the rules.

One need only look at the strategic choices made by George Bush and Dick Cheney to determine why our country is more polarized than it's been, perhaps, since the 1970s.

A quick walk-through: Bush makes a decision unilaterally and, as an example, secretly. A whistle-blower sees the abuse of power and reports to the press, who publishes the story. Americans become enraged about the abuse of power. Opponents believe the administration wouldn't act secretly if it were truly acting in the public interest; supporters believe the administration works in the public interest, and can't figure out why opponents would be suspicious--after all, the information shouldn't be public to begin with. Then the cycle begins again...

----------------------------

Technorati Tags: conservative, limited government, constitution, executive, power, bush, cheney, vietnam, watergate, polarization, heritage foundation, uniter, divider

Hell Breaks Loose

2006-07-15T11:08:00.000-04:00

In the context of an already volatile situation in the Middle East which continues to take more and more American and Iraqi lives, a dramatic escalation in tensions between Israel and her enemies drove oil prices to a record high and pushed the stock market down this week. Israel's attacks on Lebanon were the most powerful in "at least a decade"--involving bombing the terrorist group Hezbollah's headquarters, but also Beirut's airport, bridges and other infrastructure--this just three days after two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah and rockets were fired at Israel.

This escalation has drawn wide condemnation, with one notable exception: the United States.

"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking. And therefore I call upon Syria to exert influence over Hezbollah," Bush said about the flare-up that could overshadow this weekend's meeting of world powers.

Many in the United States stress the support given to Hezbollah by Syria and Iran, countries that have long been in America's crosshairs. The violence has led over 200,000 Israelis to take refuge in bomb shelters the last two nights. Given America's history of unwavering support for Israel, and its overzealous desire to bring justice and democracy to the "Axis of Evil," these are very unsettling developments.

Syria, to put things in perspective, is pledging to support Hezbollah against Israeli attacks. In Jerusalem, local pundits are putting things in no uncertain terms--and stressing their view that this is not part of Israel's struggle for independence, but rather Israeli defense against efforts to destroy her:

Two days of dizzying escalation, and there can be no illusions: Israel is at war....
There are those who have branded this latest conflict a continuation of Israel's War of Independence, and there is no little truth in the assertion. On both of the fronts on which Israel has been drawn into heavy fighting, its enemies can make no legitimate claim to be pursuing a territorial dispute: as of last summer, Israel relinquished its hold on the Gaza Strip; in Lebanon, it pulled back to the UN-certified international border six years ago.
Except that, in both cases, the Jewish state's assailants are indeed pursuing a territorial ambition - to unseat Israel from its own sovereign lands.

Wes Clark expresses some level-headed concern about the situation on his Securing America PAC:

There are many forces working to dampen the conflict and return it to the usual state of low-level hostility, bombings and the occasional rocket attack. But what these events illustrate is the melt-down of the Bush Administration's approach to US foreign policy: an invasion we didnt have to make, namecalling an axis of evil, thereby cutting off diplomatic opportunities, and a reluctance to engage in the kinds of hands-on leadership that other US leaders have successfully undertaken. This Administration actually profits from raising fears among Americas, and after watching this for five and a half years, i believe that there is much to be afraid of if the Administration persists in its approach....

Right now the fighting is more of a distraction than anything else....it takes US leadership away from the issues inside Iraq, undercuts our ability to muster international assistance for the Iraqis and generates additional anger at the American presence in Iraq from the Arab "street." But if the fighting escalates, it could invite more powerful Iranian interference in Iraq and even cause US commanders to look seriously at whether the US would have to intervene in Syria.....I'd be very surprised if Syria and Iran were NOT behind the Hisballah actions. They generally control them, and this is all part of a synchronized push to enlarge Iran's influernce in the region, taking advantage of America's failing effort in Iraq, and Israel's moment of weakness.

UPDATE: Scary times indeed. Especially if the report of a 72-hour ultimatum is accurate--or if another report that 100 Iranian soldiers helped fire a missle at an Israeli ship is accurate. Just this afternoon, it appears that central Beirut has been targeted for the first time, and that Lebanon itself is under an Israeli blockade. Fears are growing of an escalation into a regional conflict--a regional war. Stay tuned.

UPDATE 2: How much are Zionists involved in this? That is to say--where a centrist might suggest that escalation of this conflict could involve the U.S. as it is the world's only superpower, some on the far left argue that is the objective of some of what we're seeing. At the very least, they're suggesting the Bush response--if not the fighting itself--is intended to drag America into a war in the Middle East. Food for thought, especially as the U.S. government's position thus far is a bit less rational than that of Russia; Putin at least had the clarity of thought to suggest that while the actions against Israel were un-called for, their reaction should be appropriate to the violation...

-----------

Technorati Tags: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Middle East, oil, Hezbollah, terrorist, Bush, Gaza, Axis of Evil, Wes Clark

Wes Clark on dKos

2006-07-15T10:28:00.000-04:00

Wes Clark posts a thoughtful thread on Daily Kos discussing current events, including the escalating conflict in the Middle East and the 2006 election cycle. I am encouraged to see a centrist Democrat with such command of the issues and command of language making an impression among the rabid Kos crowd--and cogently discussing many issues concerning ordinary Americans.

He sums up the controversy over a recent Democratic ad featuring flag-draped coffins--which has already been pulled from the air in response to criticism--quite succinctly:

It was the Republican's bad policies, and Bush's misguided leadership that created the circumstances in which our soldiers and Marines are dying. These pictures are not disrespectful - at least, not of the men and women who sacrificed. They simply remind the viewers of the cost of Bush's mistaken policies. And hopefully, they help voters understand that the Administration which bungled all this should be held accountable!

What issues should Democrats be discussing in their campaigns? Republicans are doing everything in their power to talk about flag burning and gay marriage, divisive "values" issues that differentiate based upon viewpoint. Clark has a different approach.

Democrats... have to address the issues that will bring in the middle! There's no doubt what our Party stands for, but the idea is to bridge the gaps that divide people, and to focus on the most important issues facing the whole country. Foreign policy and national security (including global warming), the economy, jobs, health care, education, the encvironment, trade, would be among the top issues, plus other matters of local interest. We're Democrats, we believe that every American should be treated fairly and equally regardless of any "differentiating" aspects. And of course we believe in families, privacy and freedoms.

Many--including some here in Georgia--are concerned about voting machines and the lack of a paper trail. At the same time, a surprising number on the right consider these concerns unfounded. Given the amount of unbiased evidence that already exists showing vulnerabilities in voting machines, and the polarized nature of the eletorate, I think it's unreasonable to conduct elections without a paper audit trail that can be used to perform a recount in contested races. Clark feels the same way:

There MUST be a paper trail. We have to demand it through personal intervention, call-ins to radio, writing to the newspapers, button-holing political leaders. Raise the heat, make it a priority, and we can get it done.

Clark is in a unique position to appeal to those across the asile on the right, as a frequent expert guest on Fox News. He is Southern, and shows respect--and shared values--with the religious:

Don't we owe it to ourselves to be all that we can be as a people of faith? To reach out and offer hope and opportunity to the least among us? To preach peace and prosperity and to live equality and justice?

----------------------

Technorati Tags: war, iraq, terror, bush, wes clark, Kos, coffin, flag, Democrat, gay marriage, voting machines, faith, religion

Ralph Greed Humps his way Into the Muck

2006-07-13T21:41:00.000-04:00

This has to be one of the stranger allegations in the Reed and Abramoff saga--TPMuckraker reports on a plan to sell life insurance to older Indians with the death benefits payable to A&R, which was morphed into one to sell to elderly church members. Just makes you wonder--huh??

This comes from a larger writeup in the new GQ about the "cherubic" Reed. Just from a skimming of the article, this quote I spotted sums up Reed's position in the upcoming election--at least in a rational world:

�??The problem now,�?? says Matt Towery, the pollster, �??is that he�??s got to prove to everyone that he wasn�??t quite bright enough to know [the Abramoff stuff] was wrong but that he�??s bright enough to govern their state as lieutenant governor.�??

On the contrary, at least until this week, Reed's chances have appeared surprisingly good. Knowing that Republicans don't like government very much, and lately don't seem to do it all that well, whether or not Reed is "bright enough" may be irrelevant to whether people will vote for him. He is, after all, a conservative man of faith--as we're told. Maybe he can fly by the seat of his pants and do well anyway--or more likely, if elected, he'll climb back down into the ethically-questionable behavior that's been his trademark.

Very recent polls are showing Casey Cagle taking the lead, for which I'm personally grateful. Perhaps the lawsuit recently filed against him played a part. Whether or not the Republican candidate eventually wins, Georgia should not allow itself to be the stepping stone for this guy's White House aspirations. Instead, they should send him back to his $2.2 million home, and allow him to go "humping in corporate accounts" again rather than "humping" the public sector and the citizens of Georgia.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: Georgia, Ralph Reed, Abramoff, Christian Coalition, Bush, K-Street, Cagle, Muckraker

Plame Sues Rove and Cheney

2006-07-13T21:09:00.000-04:00

Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson--the couple made famous during the CIA leak investigation which apparently is wrapping up without any charges against Bob Novak, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove--filed suit today against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby claiming a conspiracy to ruin her career, among other things. Given this administration's tendency to claim exemption from any type of oversight, one blogger is already suggesting we should expect a call for the case to be dismissed based upon the potential for the discovery process to reveal too much information that's classified due to "national security."

My suspicion is that with the recent Novak article in which he says he's basically been cleared by Fitzgerald, as well as the failure of anything to come of the Truthout story regarding the alleged sealed indictment of Rove, the plaintiffs have determined that justice may NOT prevail in this case and that they must seek justice on their own--that, or they recognized that the 3rd anniversary is coming up and decided to file before the statute of limitations runs out. Sad, given just how apparent the administration's campaign to sully the name of anyone speaking out against their flimsy case for war really was, that there wasn't enough evidence to indict.

Another possibility is brought up by Wayne Madsen. His suggestion points at one of the assumptions that's underlied the confidence critics have had that an indictment would be forthcoming--the non-partisanship and precise, deliberate work ethic of Patrick Fitzgerald. Many have written that because he has indicted Republicans in the past as well as Democrats, he'd be likely to be an honest, fair prosecutor. Madsen suggests that's not the case:

On Friday, May 12, Fitzgerald reportedly had a sealed indictment of Rove for the CIA leak. That set in motion the most egregious White House interference in a criminal case since Watergate...If Fitzgerald were told by Addington and Gonzales that Bush intended to pardon Libby, the prosecutor's case against Rove would have been dead on arrival. The indictment would remained sealed. Was the pardon of Libby what Fitzgerald discussed with Judge Hogan on the morning of June 12 just before he informed Luskin that he had no plans to indict Rove?...

Fitzgerald...is giving the Bush administration a number of escape routes in the CIA leak case -- postponing the Libby trial until after the elections and after the expected Bush pardon of Libby at the end of December; running out the clock on the three-year statute of limitations on a potential civil lawsuit by Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson, starting from the dates of the original wrongful actions by the Bush White House -- in July 2003, although there are indications that the "work up" on Wilson and his wife may have commenced as early as March 2003.

Much to think about as this thing progresses.

---------------------

Technorati Tags: Rove, Cheney, Leopold, Truthout, indictment, CIA, plame, wilson, Libby, Madsen, Fitzgerald

Novak on Plame

2006-07-12T07:28:00.000-04:00

Whether or not Rove acted illegaly, new information from Bob Novak confirms that Karl Rove was active in the "smear" of Joe Wilson--given that he was a confirming source for Novak about Plame's identity. Whether Fitzgerald has decided Rove did this without realizing her role was covert, or the information was implicitly "declassified"--we can rationally conclude that both Cheney and Rove were active in the campaign to discredit Wilson because he threatened the rationale for war in Iraq.

Is this kind of vindictive behavior what we wish to encourage in our leadership? Is this "compassionate conservatism"?

A sad day for America.

---------------------

Technorati Tags: Rove, Cheney, Leopold, Truthout, indictment, CIA, plame, wilson

Tragedy in India

2006-07-12T06:57:00.000-04:00

714 injured and 183 dead in Bombay (per the BBC), just hours after another attack killed 8 tourists in the disputed territory of Kashmir. One analysis lists militant Hindu groups as a known threat, and of course it's so early that we can't even be sure the body count is complete much less know who's responsible.

India and Pakistan have long been at each other's throats, and Pakistani militants appear to have used some of the same techniques seen elsewhere to inspire terror by Al Qaeda.

What does this mean for the "War on terror"? The West has been guilty of overreacting, but this shows that in some sense, we cannot be too careful. Some are already looking to link this directly to Al Qaeda and thus directly to the clash of civilizations. It's guaranteed to lend support to the nuclear deal between America and India, not yet approved by the G8.

India has recently been testing nuclear missles, much like North Korea has but with much less international fanfare. This adds a bit more complexity to the issue of American support for Indian nuclear power and nuclear armament contrasting with its opposition to the same for Iran. Obviously America will argue that India needs to be able to defend itself against radical elements in Pakistan, and one can only hope this doesn't further engender the hysteria that's got some in the West in a strangle hold.

The effects will become more clear with time, but for now--we weep for the victims of such cowardly acts.

----------------------

Technorati Tags: war, iraq, terror, bush, al qaeda,india, pakistan, iran, bombay, hindu, kashmir, g8, north korea