This man is not qualified in foreign policy
Topic: Foreign Affairs

Talking Points Memo reporting tonight about McCain doing an interview for a Spanish (from Spain) radio station.

McCain for some reason was unable to narrow his answer down to a discussion of Spain itself and it's President Zapatero.

I am fluent in Spanish and listened to the broadcast via the link. TPM is not exaggerating or making a mountain out of a molehill. McCain is confused in that interview.

It appears that McCain got lost in the questions about Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Raul Castro in Spain none on whom are on his favored nation list.

The next question from the interviewer was about President Zapatero, and she did preface the question by referring to her own country and her own President by name.

McCain apparently did not recognize Zapatero's name or know who he is and seemed to think it was a question about some other Latin American leader hostile to the U.S.

The interviewer tried two more times, explaining to McCain that she was asking about Spain and out and out told him who President Zapatero is before her third attempt.

To no avail. McCain all three times went on about friends and enemies of America, friends would be welcome in his White House, but enemies not welcome.

He did not appear to recognize Zapatero's name nor understand when the interviewer tried to help him out. Tags: and could not effectively speak to a non-English-speaking crowd anywhere outside the USA.

Tags: McCain, Spain, Latin America, foreign policy, unqualified

Powered by Qumana

They wouldn't do that to help McCain ... would they?
Topic: Foreign Affairs

The beauty of conspiracy theories like this one is that on a case-by-case basis they may even be correct. In this particular case, that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Now a small town old rural fart like me had problems from the git go with the whole Georgia/Russia story. Especially when Bush was talking like Kennedy-of-October-62 when America of 2008 is acutely aware of a weakened military.

I've looked it up, googled the heck out of things and there's something rotten in Georgia and at McBush HQ.

Don't know what it is but I don't trust them.

Watching America: US Hawks as Warmongers

TAZ,Germany

By Robert Misik

Translated By Ron Argentati

13 September 2008

[Excerpt]

Germany - TAZ - Original Article (German)

Did the Bush administration hawks push Georgia's President into an armed confrontation with Russia? Up until now it's only been a theory but a few indications point in that direction.

The world is full of conspiracy theories, one more outlandish than the other. A certain kind of informal "medium" accompanies the conspiracy theory. It's usually presented as a sort of secret truth that's being suppressed by official sources. In the past it often took the form of photocopied or mimeographed flyers.

The latest conspiracy theory has been making the rounds for a couple of weeks and has already attracted a few prominent supporters. Russian President Vladimir Putin says he suspects someone in the United States of having provoked the war in Georgia in order to "give one of the American presidential candidates a campaign advantage."

Could the Georgian war be an intricate scheme to help present John McCain as a battle-hardened commander-in-chief in waiting? Sounds reckless, but the theory is gaining momentum because the Internet is now an alternative and simultaneously a mainstream medium.

The beauty of conspiracy theories like this one is that on a case-by-case basis they may even be correct. In this particular case, that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Here are the facts: Georgia's President Michael Saakashvili, despite his protests that he is an innocent victim, made a surprise attack against the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia where Russian troops were already stationed.

Certainly, Russia had used imperialistic pressure and provoked Georgia. But ever since the 1992 ceasefire agreement and the stationing of peacekeepers in the disputed province, Russia has been an official observer by mandate from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSZE).

An attack against these troops such as was ordered by Saakashvili was and is, regardless of the context, prohibited by international law. That starting point begs the question of what would posses the leader of a small, militarily hopeless country to attack the military forces of a heavily armed super power?

Two answers are possible: He is either an idiot or he feels confident of help from another super power.

Saakashvili studied at Columbia University and has maintained good contacts in the United States. Among his closest allies in Washington are neo-conservative foreign policy people, close associates of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who now play major roles in John McCain's presidential campaign.

One of Cheney's most experienced advisors, Joseph R. Wood, had visited Georgia shortly before the Georgian army attacked.

Even the German newsmagazine "der Spiegel" suspected that Cheney had "meddled in Georgia as a favor to the Republican candidate for President."

One of the shadiest figures in the drama is Washington lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy expert and member of John McCain's closest advisory team. Previously, he and his lobbying firm officially represented Georgia and had lobbied the State Department and Senators - including his future boss, John McCain - 49 times on behalf of his friend Saakashvili to promote Georgia's acceptance into NATO.

Scheunemann received nearly one million dollars for his efforts. He stopped working on behalf of Georgia when he became an official member of McCain's election team, but the last installment of the million was given to him just a few weeks ago.

Tags: McCain, Campaign, Georgia, Russia, Bush

Powered by Qumana

To Cheney & McCain: Regarding Putin? Prove it !!
Now Playing: Washingtontonian Mike Whitney and ICH
Topic: Foreign Affairs

 

 Putin Walks into a Trap

By Mike Whitney

13/08/08 "Information Clearing House" --- - The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let's be clear, it wasn't. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post:

"For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground....What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas....Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia...Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." ("A Path to Peace in the Caucasus", Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)

The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?

Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations. Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington's involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called "Rose Revolution", and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this "think tank" generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.

Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.

According to Earl of Stirling on the Global Research web site:

"The war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force. The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagen (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan."

Stirling adds: "A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border....American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces... Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia...This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects." ("Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran", Earl of Stirling, Global Research)

In June, former foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, presented the basic storyline that would be used against Russia two full months before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The article appeared on the Kavkazcenter web site. Brzezinski said the United States witnessed "cases of possible threats by Russia, directed at Georgia with the intention of taking control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline".

Brzezinski: "Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies..If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited". http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/06/13/9798.shtml


Nonsense. Neither Putin nor newly-elected president Dmitry Medvedev have any such intention. It is absurd to think that Russia, having extracted itself from two pointless wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and after years of grinding poverty and social unrest following the fall of the Soviet state, would choose to wage an energy war with the nuclear-armed US military. That would be complete madness. Brzezinski's speculation is part of broader narrative that's been crafted for the western media to provide a rationale for upcoming aggression against Russia. Brzezinski is not only the architect of the mujahadin-led campaign against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but also, the author of "The Grand Chessboard--American Primacy and it's Geostrategic Imperatives", the operating theory behind the war on terror which involves massive US intervention in Central Asia to control vital resources, fragment Russia, and surround manufacturing giant, China.

"The Grand Chessboard" it is the 21st century's version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.....The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics."

This is the heart-and-soul of the war on terror. The real braintrust behind "neverending conflict" was actually focussed on Central Asia. It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war.

On Sunday, Brzezinski accused Russia of imperial ambitions comparing Putin to "Stalin and Hitler" in an interview with Nathan Gardels.

Gardels: What is the world to make of Russia's invasion of Georgia?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system.(aka: New World Order) Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin's "justification" for dismembering Georgia -- because of the Russians in South Ossetia -- to Hitler's tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to "free" the Sudeten Deutsch. Even more ominous is the analogy of what Putin is doing vis-a-vis Georgia to what Stalin did vis-a-vis Finland: subverting by use of force the sovereignty of a small democratic neighbor. In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin's control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine." ("Brzezinski: Russia's invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin's attack on Finland"; Huffington Post)

Brzezinski takes great pride in being a disciplined and rational spokesman for US imperial projects. It is unlike him to use such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps, the present situation is more tenuous than we know. Could it be that the financial system is closer to meltdown-phase than anyone realizes?

It should be clear by Brzezinski's comments that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was not another incoherent exercise in neocon chest-thumping, but part of a larger strategy to drag Russia into an endless conflict that will sap its resources, decrease its prestige on the global stage, weaken its grip on regional power, strengthen frayed alliances between Europe and America, and divert attention from a larger campaign in the Gulf. It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning. Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the "Imperialist A-Team"; these are not the bungling "Keystone Cops" neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning. These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They're not fools. They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents "Change We Can Believe In".

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday's Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner's "even-handed" approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

According to Holbrooke, "The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili."

Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

Holbrooke: "And I want to stress, I'm not a warmonger, and I don't want a new Cold War any more than Dimitri does....The Russians wish to re-establish a historic area of hegemony that includes Ukraine. And it is no accident that the other former Soviet republics are watching this and extraordinarily upset, as Putin progresses with an attempt to re-create a kind of a hegemonic space."

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke's distortions, half-truths and lies in one article but, what is important is to recognize that a false narrative is being constructed to demonize Putin and to justify future hostilities against Russia. Holbrooke's bogus assertions are identical to Brzezinski's, and yet, these same lies are already appearing in the mainstream media. The propaganda "bullet points" have already been determined; "Putin is a menace","Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire", "Putin is an autocrat". (Unlike our "freedom loving" allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt!?!) In truth, Putin is simply enjoying Russia's newly acquired energy-wealth and would like to be left alone. But it is impossible to be left alone when the US spends 24 hours a day pestering people. The world deserves a break from an extremely irritating USA.

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with "ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?" What is Putin's crime?

Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list" along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.


Here's what Putin said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

Putin's claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to---what Brzezinski calls---the "international system", which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush's plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.

 

The war on terrorism is not that kind of conflict and does not represent that kind of danger to America.
Now Playing: The American Choice is for Americans to assert themselves before the next election sets dumb precedents for future presidents
Topic: Foreign Affairs

intolerable to the American political class,
Now Playing: Stan Goff and HuffingtonPost.com
Topic: Foreign Affairs

Stan Goff/HuffingtonPost.com

Excerpt 

 

A memo from CIA officer Michael Middleton Steere, addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington DC, has been intercepted by Venezuelan counter-intelligence; and it shows that the US plans to attempt another coup d'etat against the democratically elected government of Venezuela on the eve of a historic constitutional referendum that will democratize political power to the grassroots of the majority more thoroughly than anything we have seen in this hemisphere... ever.

This outcome by a major oil producing nation that has confronted the US government is intolerable to the American political class, not merely the Bush administration. It is part of a continental drift of Latin America away from US domination; and it has world historic significance.

Widespread, rapid distribution via alternative media has the potential to expose and disrupt this CIA plot. You can do something right now. Get the word out.

Read more here, and stay abreast of developments. A Google News search of "Michael Middleton Steere" will help keep you updated.

 

When a Fool Thinks His Audience is Dumber than He
Topic: Foreign Affairs

" ...the United States will never excuse your oppressors and, We will always stand for your freedom. " - G. W. Bush, Prague, June, 2006

Standing for your freedom.
- By America's Brush Cutter

 So promised the poorest president from the worst political party every to win an American election.

The Washington Post declared in its Sunday edition that globally when the American President opens his mouth now, he has the same credibility as the guy on the corner wearing clapboard signs and ranting about the end of the world.

The "How ya doin?" President now demonstrates that sharing beer talk in a Texas tavern with a swaggering and limited posturer isn't now nor was it ever the lifetime thrill it was made out to be.

I might hire someone I meet in the tavern to cut my brush or ask him to help drive my pickup to the lumber yard for a load of bricks. But I sure as hell wouldn't let him drive my pickup or trust him to do work alone and unsupervised.

It ISabout oil my fellow Americans ... and about Oil Vultures
Now Playing: If you don't know why this story is meaningful, you're not well enough informed
Topic: Foreign Affairs

Petraeus, is Baghdad Burning?

International Herald Tribune 

Iraq's VP opposes draft oil bill, claims it gives too many concessions to foreign firms

The Associated Press

Published: May 20, 2007

 

SOUTHERN SHUNEH, Jordan: Iraq's vice president said Sunday he opposes a draft law that is key to the future of his country's lucrative oil sector, saying it gives too many concessions to foreign oil companies.

"We disagree with the production sharing agreement," Tariq al-Hashemi told reporters on the sideline of an international conference hosted by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum.

"We want foreign oil companies, and we have to lure them into Iraq to learn from their expertise and acquire their technology, but we shouldn't give them big privileges," al-Hashemi said.

Al-Hashemi added he hoped oil corporations would nonetheless invest in Iraq despite ongoing security concerns.

He said that his Iraqi Accordance Front, parliament's largest Sunni Arab bloc with 44 seats, was seeking to "amend" the draft oil legislation because the "clock is ticking and it's only a matter of one or two months before the law is enacted." 

The Iraqi government is locked in debate over the draft oil law, which allows for sharing the country's vast oil wealth — believed to be the world's third biggest. Oil firms are eagerly awaiting the legislation, which sets a framework for licensing and access to Iraqi reserves.

jjh

---

 

See the related writings below 

---

---

Democrats and the Iraqi Oil Law

Stan Goff Huffington Post.com blog 

"No blood for oil!" was a rallying cry against the Bush administration's war against Iraq. Now it can be more properly applied to the Democrat-controlled Congress that is drenching its hands in blood for precisely the same thing. This detail is obscured by public pronouncements that treat Iraq's so-called "Hyrdocarbon Law" as if it were an article of religious faith instead of a bald-faced attempt by the US government (Republicans and Democrats alike) to secure unfettered access to Iraq's fossil energy by Big Oil.

The passage of this law by the Potemkin government of Iraq is consistently listed as one of those so-called milestones that has to be passed before even Democrats will consider taking real, as opposed to symbolic, action to begin the redeployment of an overstretched US ground force out of Iraq.

No one who is still attached to the myth of US military invincibility, or of the modern American version of White Man's Burden wants to hear this; but the US has lost the war in Iraq. The Iraqi government is a cruel sham that governs nothing (they can't leave the Green Zone without attack helicopter escorts). And the serivce being provided by Democrats to Big Oil in this insistence on passing an Imperial Edict through a phony Parliament will be rewarded now with a tactical military defeat in Iraq. There, I said it. We will see Saigon in '75 in Iraq. The guerrillas have already demonstrated that they can bomb the Parliamentary cafeteria inside the Green Zone. Game over. It's just a matter of time. And Congress stands by while the bodies pile up on behalf of their campaign contributors.

So here is my own personal last call to the Dems. Vote one penny to continue this war, and I will stay home in November 2008. With few exceptions, you are no less mass murderers now than the Bush administration. Those who are exceptions should resign from that wretched cesspool of opportunism and found an anti-war party. The party to which you show loyalty is a tool of the ruling class in a dangerous period of dying empire. It exists to absorb resistance to imperial tyranny, not oppose it.

Someone has to say this. No blood for oil!

Anyone who refuses to call this out -- and to point out what this Oil Law really is -- is complicit.

 And the lengthy but worth-the-read  Goff article  I blogged at our Washington State Chapter site of Military Families Speak Out.

 

Whose Side is the DLC on?
Now Playing: Arthur
Topic: Foreign Affairs

First posted at Daily Kos 10/02/2005

---

An email from the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was forwarded to me yesterday. The following excerpts reveal why those in this country who are smart but remain political spectators need to turn off Survivor, Lost, Nascar, Monday Night Football and step onto the playing field.

 

 

DLC: Idea of the Week: What To Do Now In Iraq While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain committed to success in Iraq.

 

From Democrats who think they have their fingers on the pulse of everyday working America? The Republicans have yet to define what that success looks like - and much of what they've instigated still smells of a permanent presence in Iraq. If the DLC refuses to tell Americans what that "success" looks like, it sure looks like they are in bed with the Republicans.

A failed state in Iraq would destabilize the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and interests.

Come again? Are you DLC'ers telling Democrats, progressives and independents that if we don't fight them over there we'll be fighting them here? And you supposed politically astute geniuses are flat out stating that "our jihadist enemies" are not primarily trying to extricate a nation from the consequences of America's self-interest at the expense of the national security credibility and interests of Iraqis themselves?

But the right course now is neither to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing, nor to continue Bush's failed policies. We urge progressives to place maximum pressure on the administration to reverse its mistakes and pursue a new strategy linked to clear benchmarks for success in Iraq and in the broader war on terror.

 

That is neither the talk of an opposition party nor the supposed wisdom of progressive thinking. No, it's pure unadulterated neocon ideology - the sort of thing we expect to here from the Republican National Committee and the Weekly Standard. But for God's sake, not someone pretending to be the heart and voice of Democratic wisdom. You jokers are not speaking for or with the best interests of the people of this country at heart.

 

Here are three ways the U.S. can do exactly that: First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops), and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

 

Tell me, how is it that we can justifiably recruit our own young flesh and blood and within less than a year train them "adequately", ship them to Iraq right smack dab into harm's way and task them with the primary responsibility of defending the country - yet we have failed to justifiably accomplish the same objective with Iraqis themselves - who have to be more invested in the sacrifice on behalf of their own nation. And why haven't we accomplished this with the more-motived Iraqis also in less than a year? This logic no longer holds water. You DLC'ers are singing a neocon song as we have been aware for some time now.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists. We still have considerable leverage among Shi'a and Kurdish leaders; we should use it to push for confidence -- building measures like the integration of communal militias into the Iraqi army and police forces; a blanket amnesty for former Baathists not implicated in atrocities; and for intensified talks with Sunnis on supplemental protocols to the proposed constitution that would ensure a viable central government and minority rights.

 

We have lost the ability and justification to accomplish this in any meaningful way. Without your neocon assumptions, this also does not hold water. This situation is Colin's Powell's "If you break it, you own it" philosophy. Except that the real owners have seen that you cannot fix it to the ideal you propagandized before walking into the establishment with shock and awe thinking of flowers in your paths. It is screwed up so badly, they just want and need you to leave.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government. It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.

 

Now you're talking! ... and that more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government needs to have ceded to it all authority and credibility necessary to create trust inside Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Neocon's have made of America the mean drunk whose behavior has been so poor that the drunk needs to walk away and stop trying to fix it by making it worse.

 

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement. These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.

 

We should come clean with our own populace as to what those sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt are - how they became sizable and why they have value. We should come clean with the American public as to what our true investment risk and expected outcome is in these relationships. Our government should come clean about the relationship to oil, torture and permanent bases is in connection with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the rest of the Middle East.

 

We should formally push for indictment of chief terrorist Zarquawi for crimes against humanity in Iraq, drawing worldwide attention to the vicious anti-Shi'a ethnic cleansing campaign that characterizes the insurgency. All these steps are politically feasible, but there's no evidence the administration is taking them.

 

We should do whatever it takes to acknowledge and then take all necessary measures to address the global indictment of our country's indictment for crimes against humanity in Iraq, drawing worldwide attention to our vicious anti-Iraqi nationalist cleansing campaign that characterizes our foolish neocon attempt to impose an American control. These steps are politically feasible but there's no evidence that neither the administration nor the DLC is interested in taking them.

In calling for this new strategy, we acknowledge that we are asking brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a crucial goal under the direction of an administration that has failed so often to pursue that goal competently or honestly.

We share the anger of most progressives towards Bush's blunders, even as we urge them not to let that anger obscure the very real national stake we all have in taking every step possible to leave Iraq in a condition where it will not become a failed state and a terrorist base for global operations.

As usual, Tony Blair best articulated those stakes, for our people and his, just this week:

"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq. It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East. Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind."

That's a reality that all of us, whether or not we supported the original invasion of Iraq, need to keep in mind, holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now.

 

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Quoting Tony Blair reveals more about whose agenda the DLC supports. The DLC is voicing the ultimate arrogantly ignorant assumption that we can ask brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a goal it (the DLC) has failed to describe as different from the administration's neocon stupidity.

The DLC does not share the same anger as progressives towards Bush's blunders so long as they offer only a better way to break more things and cause more damage worldwide.

Deny it as they may, the DLC is assuming that their anger is the true and truly justifiable anger based on their own reasoning - which does not take into consideration the very real national stake we all have in a peaceful future. Iraq as a candidate for a terrorist base for global operations is not something that has been proven or validated.

Iraq as a failed state of forced American design needs to go through the failed state transition - with the help of a supportive international community before we can understand how any country seeking its own independence is doing so purely out of an intent to become a terrorist base for global operations.

Republicans and the DLC reflect an arrogant assumption that American wisdom, primarily because America entered the 21st century as THE sole superpower, is the best wisdom for global harmony. It's an assumption based on sustaining those who have the power, Republican or Democrat, who remain part of a minority working to remain permanently in the driver's seat.

Rejection of the DLC is imperative if progressives and liberals are going to unite and take back the country via election of Democratic politicians. If anything, all citizens should see clearly that groups such as the DLC want a status quo that - precisely as the Republican-controlled government, stays on the wrong course.

The old gunfighter from Texas. I'm John Wayne and I'll save you pilgrims.
Topic: Foreign Affairs
We NEVER elected - even in 2000 - a President who would treat human life in such a casually calculated manner. After September 11th, the little big man stepped forward, talking like John Wayne.

But what we got was Liberty Valance.

We don't need no Liberty Valance telling us with smirks that his job is to protect the American people.

Military families living among us - a few we know and most we do not;  among them are those who thank God their soldier in Iraq remains safe and alive. They will do so tragically perhaps not knowing that their loved one has already become a casualty.

Iraq, Iran and the most terrified society on the planet
Topic: Foreign Affairs
BTW, I finally agreed to watch it. Should have months ago. I recommend V for Vendetta as a kind of feel good validation movie. Check out the guys in the bar watching TV after having handed over their trust to liars and regretting it much too late. "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down": Does the terrorist threat exist in the US?: By Luciana Bohne Online Journal Contributing Writer Sep 11, 2006, 00:34 [Excerpt]

It seems to me from traveling abroad and from contacts all over the world that the people of the United States are some of the most terrified in the world. Americans seem to be afraid of everything: germs, weather, bureaucracy, police, media, religious damnation, sex, science, credit collection agencies, airplane toilets, immigrants, liberals, foreigners, gays, self-determined women -- their own mothers even, I would venture to say. It is a mystery how they function at all, beset by so many largely irrational fears! Meanwhile, their own government wages relentless state terror -- which includes a parallel domestic attack on US citizens' economic survival and social services -- all over the world. 'Shock and awe' by the bloody buckets! If anybody should be terrified it is the world's people. But the people of the terrorized world suffer economic warfare, bombs, detentions, torture, and collective punishment, and still manage to stand up to the bully, either through non-collaborationist belligerence (Iraq), popular defiance (Palestine), or guerrilla resistance (Lebanon, Afghanistan). Not to mention Mexico and Latin America, where our government historically supported undemocratic or fascist regimes, which for decades terrorized whole populations but failed to cower them! Why are the people of the [US] West so scared and the rest not? Possibly, the arguments in a recent article in Foreign Affairs suggests, because the object of the fear is deliberately manufactured as omnipotent, intangible, and elusive. The mother of all US fears is terrorism, and terrorism, US people are told, is everywhere and may strike at any moment."

The poisoned logic of the original poisoners
Topic: Foreign Affairs

Knowing a secret and keeping it secret are high marks of integrity - even if you get no credit because you've kept the secret so well, nobody knows you're keeping a secret.

But ... how the hell can you be admired for something nobody knows about you?

Sometimes it takes too much patience to practice wisdom in secret and wait for God to reward you openly as the Christian Bible promises the faithful.

How can you make political hay and take political advantage out of something nobody knows about you?

Can you deter everyone else from getting in on the secret if nobody knows you know the secret?

That's the problem with knowing secrets, whether in the high school lunchroom or global stage. You don't command popularity by keeping the secret secret.

For 50+ years now the United States has attempted to wisely assert it's possession of nuclear power responsibly - presumably with an eye to insuring that never again would mushroom clouds appear.

But then we all know about mushrooms ... The foolish attempt to keep the rest of the world in the dark and only toss shit at them creates .... you guessed it, more mushrooms ... and in a dark place made darker by resentment, distrust and outright rage. Truthdig.com - America and Iran: Three Nuclear Ironies by Tad Daley

---

 

---

The argument has been put forth that if the nations of the world were governed primarily by mothers it might be easier for heads of state to gather around a quilting table and discuss differences. This without ever rising to their feet in haughty arrogance at a mere slight from another global head of state and commencing to the sabre closet to get a few rattlers.

---

---

What, it's cheaper to use nukes than to commit cash and technology? It's cheaper to use nukes than to voluntarily pull back American corporate claws embedded in the hearts of non-nuclear-possessing countries? Is the inconvenient truth the American coroporate belief that nuclear superiority offers the most effective means to force permanent economic superiority where what's good for international business entities is the highest common good for humanity?

---

 

---

In this regard, the old gunfighters who think that international peace and prosperity are directly linked to monopoly of the biggest nuking stick as the only useful weapon of persuasion, need to be turned out to pasture.

 

The occupiers of Iraq do not occupy in our name nor in our behalf but in the name of greed and power. When they contemplate the equivalent of global fragging of other countries, they reveal themselves severely limited and lacking serious and legitimate concern for a harmony of nations. Walk softly and carry a big stick ain't the same as stalk the less-thans irresponsibly and recklessly waving the nuclear Excelsior so the world will know what a real hard-on looks like.