|
GUN 4 HIRE
VAN VIEWS:
|
BUSH WATCH Dem Delegate Count (pledged, non-binding, and super-delegates): Obama, 1,883; Clinton, 1,710 --NYT. Obama 1,885; Clinton 1,717 --AP. May 14, 2008 (Needed: 2,025) (update) Asia Diary: Adventures in India (8 parts), new page with pic US Downfall Started in the 70's: U.S. Consumer Economy Destroying the Country, Asia Sentinel Top World Stories: Friday, May 16, 2008: U.S.: Biden says Bush's despicable swiftboating remarks to Knesset are 'bullshit', ReillyUS: Bush hails Israelis as 'chosen people' but ignores Palestinians on their 'catastrophe day', Macintyre U.S.: For Bush no slander is too vile if it might keep Obama out of the White House, Doyle U.S.: Barack Obama blasts President Bush terror talk jibe, Times U.S.: All the President's Nazis (real and imagined), Alexandrovna U.S.: A moment of silence lest we forget: Bush: God told me to invade Iraq, Cornwell U.S.: 'We're winning' soldier coverboy killed in Baghdad , National Review U.S.: House blocks Iraq war money, sets pullout plan, funds "GI Bill" Reuters U.S.: Bush, Cheney assets stay stable as economy slowed, 660 News U.S.: Torture: a bully’s creed, Dissident Voice U.S.: California overturns gay marriage ban, Breitbart U.S.: US enacts law to protect polar bears but only from hunting, Independent U.S.: Foreclosures are soaring as America's property slump deepens, Times EUROPE: EU Seeks to Subdue Competitive China, IPS ME: Bush's ham-fisted appeasement slur in Israel angers Democrats, MacAskill & Goldenberg ASIA: Beichuan, China: a vision of hell, Coonan ASIA: Quake Deaths Estimated Over 50,000 in Sichuan Alone, China Daily ASIA: China quake toll 'to top 50,000', BBC ASIA: China earthquake in videos, BBC ASIA: Burma Junta Kicks Out Aid Foreign Workers, Times Online Asia: Out of catastrophe comes the whiff of unrest, Klein Asia: Afghan death squads 'acting on foreign (American) orders', Starkey ASIA: Bangladeshi Immigrants Stoke Terror in India, AsiaSentinel.com ASIA: Sri Lanka: Domestic Workers Promised New Deal in Kuwait, IPS Africa: 'We have to kill Tutsis wherever they are': a new generation of killers, McGreal AFRICA: Stephen Hawking Meets Mandela in Johannesburg, Mail&Guardian AFRICA: Lagos Pipeline Blast 'Kills 100', BBC News WORLD: World species dying out like flies says World Wildlife Fund, Reuters
Today's 100+ More Stories: Bush Watch News and Opinion Bush Watch Special: California Joins Mass., Becomes Same-Sex Marriage State
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban, AP/NYT Bush Watch Special: Israel: Is it too late to put ethical striving above “normalization”?
Jonathan Steele: Bush Watch Special: Education Left Behind
Ted Rall: Bush Watch Special: Stormy Weather
A Climate Change Industrial Policy Top Ten Op-Eds
Guy Reel: Bush Watch Op-Eds Barack's In Trouble: Hillary Has Been The Clear Winner Since March, Andy OstroyDead at 82: Robert Rauschenberg, Titan of American Art, Slideshow Should U.S. Invade? Has Burma Struck Oil? Is It Bankrolling A Nuclear Device With Its Profits?, Politex Indications: Obama Could Lose November Election Due to Racism, Class Differences, Krugman Supremely Conservative: Mac Wants An Even More Conservative Supreme Court, NYT Ed Economic Policy: Hillary's Pragmatism, Barak's Visions, and Mac's Finger, NYT (D. Leonhardt) Crimes Against Humanity: Israel Is Suppressing a Secret It Must Face, Johann Hari More Bush Lies: All the President’s Liars, Mark Morford Mac Attack: Here's The Dirt McCain Will Use Against Obama, Evelyn Pringle Media Dreams: The Media Distracts Us While The Corporations Fleece Us, Politex; Samples Dem Disaster: McCain Ignores Economy, Backs Bush War With Lies; Dems Ignore Mac, Rich Recession or Depression? Bush Attacking Regulation Is Vote For A Depression, Politex, NYT, Krugman Obama Bombs: Insane McCain will win it all — and handily too, William Smith Bush Who? BW Spelled It Out Since '98, mail bag Another Bush-type Liar: Phony Obama Proving To Be Just Another Politician, Krugman and Brooks Dictator '08: Isn't It Time Obama and Hill Took Aim at Nation's Problems?, NYT Ed Business: Bush Takes $138 Out Of Your Paycheck Each Month to Pay For His Iraq War, Stiglitz Mail Bag: What's Wrong With Obama?, various First Ladyitis: Gee, Thanks, Mrs. Obama, William Smith, etc. Obamanation? Can Status Quo Obama Change To Match His Rhetoric? (excerpts), Dave Lindorff Diet Coke vs. Diet Pepsi: Obama and Hillary: Do-Nothing Insiders Far From Progressive, Joel S. Hirschhorn
|
||
|
Site News
Needed: unpaid our books about us contact us News
today's news Stop Bush ![]() click for video
record
indictment ![]()
Timeline ![]() click for video Info
bush bio
click for photos/ed Opinion
brasch
fisher
mickey z Senate 'Scripts
Arts
politexts ![]() click image for essays Special
words
family timeline
bush trivia |
US Downfall Started in the 70's: U.S. Consumer Economy Destroying the Country, Asia Sentinel In the mid 1970s, a transformation began in which the driving force of the US economy shifted from producers to consumers. Today, measured by gross domestic product, consumption accounts for some 72 percent of the US. It is no wonder then, that as economics is so synonymous with spending, that the stimulus package recently passed by the US Congress, is skewed heavily (90 percent) in favor of the consumer (where the votes are) at the expense of producers. But after a generation of consuming more than it has produced, the US has dissipated vast amounts of its wealth. Unwilling to allow the citizenry to confront the reduced living standards that such dissipation requires, successive US governments have instead produced consumer booms in technology and real estate. Inflated through a combination of deficit spending, borrowing and massive depreciation of the US dollar, the bubbles created by these policies have left future generations of Americans saddled with vast debts and an anemic currency. But while the US has lost much of its wealth, the rest of the world, particularly Asia, has gained. Since the late 1980s, a wave of economic enterprise has swept across the world. Under the leadership of the Reagan-Thatcher-Gorbachev triumvirate, communism melted, opening the world to free trade, and brought some 2 billion new consumers to the market. It also brought some 2 billion hard-working, low cost producers into direct competition with the developed west. Today, Western consumers not only buy their clothes, toys and sneakers from BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, and China] factory workers, but they are also likely to use service workers in those countries to manage help-desk call centers, prepare tax returns and read X-rays. As a result, growth rates in BRIC countries has skyrocketed and corporate profits and stock prices followed suit, far outstripping the average performance of US stock markets. The benefits of the great, new world consumer super boom have flowed mainly, as should be expected, to producer nations. As an example, the S&P 500 Average Index rose by some 14 percent gross in 2006 (Incredibly, some 80 percent of mutual fund managers failed to equal even this return). Further, when deductions were made for management fees, transaction costs, 3 percent inflation and the depreciation of the US. dollar, many American investors actually experienced a ‘real’ net loss in that year. By contrast, the BRIC stock markets offered far superior yields in appreciating currencies with Brazil up 33 percent, India 47 percent, Russia 71 percent and China 131 percent. One major impact of the increased manufacturing power of the BRIC nations, and even smaller countries like Vietnam, is a greatly increased thirst for raw materials. As formerly impoverished populations gain wealth, demand for higher-quality food impinges upon the established demand of the ‘mature’ markets. These two factors have greatly benefitted nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand that provide raw materials, energy and food.... The true dimensions of the changes heralded by the end of the Cold War are only now becoming clear. The world looks headed for a gigantic economic boom. Massive economic prizes will go to the producing economies. Economies that produce less than they consume can expect some economic and political shocks. Barack's In Trouble: Hillary Has Been The Clear Winner Since March, Andy Ostroy ...When pundits and the Obama supporters use the math to bolster his position, you don't hear much about the pre-March/post-March math. But take a look at these stats: since March 1st, Clinton has won 400 delegates to Obama's 392, and 5,857,517 popular votes to Obama's 5,511,513. Pretty interesting, huh? Kind of changes the whole math myth, doesn't it? Truly puts everything in perspective, especially as argued by the Clinton campaign. Should the super-delegates, as the Obamacans would like, ignore what the numbers behind the numbers indicate? It's important to note that, with the exception of his big win in North Carolina last week, Obama's campaign has been stagnant since he racked up an impressive string of victories in February. Since then, as the above data clearly indicates, the momentum has been all Clinton's. She's won the big key blue swing states, won both the delegate count and the popular vote, and held her own with impressive gains in polls against both Obama and McCain. She's clearly come into her own voice and connected with a critical part of the party's base, and has without question run a better campaign for the past three months. It's been she, not he, who's looked, acted and sounded like a winner. It's been Clinton, not Obama, who's impressed many on both sides of the aisle with her tenacity, resilience and ability to fight. What about Obama's impressive early wins in states like Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota...where he not only won some key swing states, but also won the white vote? Well, the key word there is early. January and February--three and four months ago--is an eternity in politics. A lot has happened since then. Obama's campaign right now is in a virtual tie with Clinton as a result of his early and decisive victories. But they occurred before the Rev. Wright implosion. Before Bittergate, and the ensuing charges of elitism. It was before the country truly got to know Obama; who he is, and what he stands for. Is it a reasonable question to ask that, if there were do-overs in those states today, would he still win, and win as big? The results of some of the more recent primaries suggests not. And let's be sure about Iowa: Obama did not win core rural white, older voters as many claim. He won, as he typically has, with a younger, more educated, affluent constituency. The typical caucus voter.... Clinton won [West Virginia] by capturing an overwhelming majority of white, rural and working-class voters...the party's bread and butter....No Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virgina since 1916....Tuesday's results, when combined with those of other key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Indiana, should scare the bajesus out of any sane Democrat. The simple truth is, without the white working class vote, Obama cannot and will not win the general election against the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain...So what do the next few weeks look like? Odds are, Clinton will have another resounding victory in Kentucky next week, while Obama is favored in Oregon. But, could Oregon provide an upset for Hillary? What happens if the events of the past three months give that state's voters pause, pushing them into Clinton's corner? Wouldn't that be a sure-fire sign that Obama's in deep trouble? And then there's Puerto Rico, with it's millions of voters and 55 delgates. Hillary is predicted to win handily here. That leaves Montana and South Dakota, which at this point could go either way. Come June 3rd, when the last primary is over, the delegate count and the popular vote tally could be quite different than today, and Clinton's momentum could be that much greater. Dead at 82: Robert Rauschenberg, Titan of American Art, Slideshow A painter, photographer, printmaker, choreographer, onstage performer, set designer and, in later years, even a composer, Mr. Rauschenberg defied the traditional idea that an artist stick to one medium or style. He pushed, prodded and sometimes reconceived all the mediums in which he worked. Building on the legacies of Marcel Duchamp, Kurt Schwitters, Joseph Cornell and others, he thereby helped to obscure the lines between painting and sculpture, painting and photography, photography and printmaking, sculpture and photography, sculpture and dance, sculpture and technology, technology and performance art — not to mention between art and life. Mr. Rauschenberg was also instrumental in pushing American art onward from Abstract Expressionism, the dominant movement when he emerged during the early 1950s. He became a transformative link between artists like Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning and those who came next, artists identified with Pop, Conceptualism, Happenings, Process Art and other new kinds of art in which he played a signal role. No American artist, Jasper Johns once said, invented more than Mr. Rauschenberg. Mr. Johns, John Cage, Merce Cunningham and Mr. Rauschenberg, without sharing exactly the same point of view, collectively defined this new era of experimentation in American culture. Apropos of Mr. Rauschenberg, Cage once said, “Beauty is now underfoot wherever we take the trouble to look.” --NYT
Should U.S. Invade? Has Burma Struck Oil, and Is It Bankrolling A Nuclear Device With the Profits?, Politex The answers to the above questions are perhaps, no, and no, but maybe the rumors should be started to stimulate a U.S. invasion to get rid of the heartless killers who run that country. After all, the last decade has demonstrated that the U.S. has a history of getting oil by invading the country that has it, and jawboning countries going nuclear with threats of an invasion. In such cases, an excuse is needed, like getting rid of a dictator or a political leader who is a nut case: dictator Sadam in the case of Iraq, nut case Ahmadinejad in Iran. This is termed going to war in the "national interest," which really is about U.S. corporations making even more money. The U.S. puts its supposed concern for human rights into action when our "national interest" is being threatened. Period. History also indicates that the U.S. goes into military action to protect a dictator, as was the recent case with Pakistan's Musharraf, only when our "national interest" is being threatened. Musharraf is our dictator, so that's ok. True, it may take more than eight months to get the public and our military machine in gear to fight another war, but there isn't that much difference between the Bush/Cheney war machine and the Obama/Clinton war machine, so this proposal still works into the next U.S. dictatorship. Remember folks, Bush destroyed the Magna Charter, and neither Obama nor Clinton are running on getting it back into our system of government. At any rate, in January of 1990, the NYT's Steve Sesser suggested that we invade Burma for the same reasons we presently suggest. If this had been done, hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of the repressive killers who run Burma would have been prevented. --Jerry Politex Can anyone really argue that we should grant any government - no matter how brutal or how unpopular - the right to terrorize or kill its citizens for as long as it can cling to power? Would it have been morally wrong for France, or the U.S., or the Soviet Union, to intervene in Pol Pot's Cambodia and thereby to have saved at least one million Cambodian lives? I have been thinking about this issue since I visited Burma last April to research an article on that nation. The Government of Burma - the country now is called Myanmar -takes a back seat to none in the extent and severity of its repression. The dictator, Gen. Ne Win, overthrew a democratic Government in 1962, and his tyrannical rule has brought his country to ruin. By the summer of 1988, the Burmese people could take no more. Led by students and monks, they rose in revolt. In what now seems almost a blueprint for what happened nine months later in China, that revolt was crushed by the Burmese Army. Since then, hundreds of students have been murdered and thousands thrown into prison - so many that last July the Government cleared the jails of common criminals to make room for political dissidents. The U.S. Embassy in Yangon, formerly Rangoon, reported that ''torture, beatings and mistreatment'' of these dissidents are ''commonplace.'' Some dissidents have been used as human minesweepers, chained together and marched ahead of the Burmese troops, who have been fighting ethnic minorities in border areas. Of the Government's two leading political opponents, one, former Defense Minister Tin U, was just sentenced to three years at hard labor. The other, Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burma's independence leader, is under house arrest. In reporting on the 1988 revolt, I came to understand that the smallest gesture of U.S. military support -perhaps nothing more than a couple of battleships off the Burmese coast and a few warplanes over its skies -could have won the day for the Burmese people. Even today, with the army deeply split, merely the threat of American intervention might alone be enough to bring down the dictatorship. In such clear-cut cases, would military intervention on human rights grounds be morally justified? If it is, a second question must be posed: How could the principle of big-power intervention on behalf of human rights be established without a future American or Soviet government perverting it to prop up, as in the past, repressive dictatorships? Could some effective international control mechanism be worked out - a Helsinki Accord with teeth? I don't claim to know the answers. But the questions are certainly worth asking. Indications: Obama Could Lose November Election Due to Racism, Class Differences, Krugman Much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans. But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished. Discussions of how and why Mr. Obama’s support narrowed over time have a Rashomon-like quality: different observers see very different truths. But at this point it doesn’t matter whose fault it was. What does matter is that Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold. It’s possible that this will happen automatically — that bad feelings from the nomination fight will fade away of their own accord. In recent decades, Democrats have had little trouble unifying after hard-fought primary campaigns. But this time the division seems to go deeper than ordinary political rivalry. The closest parallel I can think of is the bitter intraparty struggles of the 1920s, which pitted urban, often Catholic Democrats against Protestant farmers. So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions? More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal. Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance. After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop. Supremely Conservative: Mac Wants An Even More Conservative Supreme Court, NYT Ed On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his judicial philosophy. He is determined to move a far too conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary even further and more actively to the right. Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need. Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school integration, protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers, and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote. Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of America.” (He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea that values evolve over time.) There was a moment when we were briefly cheered. Mr. McCain declared that “all the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties.” We hoped that would be the start of a serious critique of how President Bush has violated cherished civil liberties: endorsing torture, ordering unlawful domestic spying and depriving detainees of the most basic right of habeas corpus. [Such a critique was not given.] Economic Policy: Hillary's Pragmatism, Barak's Visions, and Mac's Finger, NYT (D. Leonhardt) For all the similarities between the two Democrats, there is also a core thematic difference between them. Mrs. Clinton tends to favor narrowly focused programs, like the gas-tax holiday, that speak to specific voter concerns....Mr. Obama, on the other hand, leans toward broader programs meant to help nearly all middle- and low-income families.... The dueling instincts do not explain all the differences between the two Democrats. They also disagree about a health-insurance mandate (Mrs. Clinton favors one) and the capital-gains tax (Mr. Obama has indicated he would raise it more than Mrs. Clinton would). Mr. Obama is open to increasing the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax; Mrs. Clinton has been critical of that idea. But their contrasting approaches do extend to a range of issues, including the current economic slowdown, the mortgage crisis and retirement savings.... The contrast between their approaches also highlights what many economists consider to be the biggest weakness of each candidate’s plan. As the economy has slowed, Mrs. Clinton has released a series of proposals — to stimulate growth, stem home foreclosures and, most recently, reduce energy costs — that have helped burnish her image as the candidate most in touch with the specific concerns of working families. Yet policy experts say these proposals have generally made for better politics than economics. But Mr. Obama gets lower marks from budget experts for fiscal discipline. His package of tax cuts and new spending would cost roughly $300 billion a year, while Mrs. Clinton’s would cost less than $250 billion. Economists said they were skeptical he could pay for his program without increasing the deficit.... Both campaigns defend their proposals. Mr. Obama’s advisers say he would pay for his plans by, among other things, raising the capital-gains tax more than Mrs. Clinton would and doing more to crack down on corporate-tax evasion. His broad cut in the payroll tax is an aggressive response to middle-class income stagnation, they say, and, because most senior citizens do not pay payroll taxes, they need additional help....Clinton advisers say that her remedies to the economic slowdown have been more focused than Mr. Obama’s and that, early on, she correctly identified the housing market as needing specific help. Her economic plans would provide short-term relief to families in the months and years before her longer-term plans — on energy conservation, for instance — would have an effect, the aides say.... The Clinton and Obama approaches still have many more similarities than differences. Whether through focused tax breaks or sweeping ones, both candidates would reduce taxes on middle-class households and raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. Both Democratic candidates have also promised to regulate corporate America more closely than President Bush has and to spend more than $100 billion a year on an overhaul of the health-care system.... Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, by contrast, would make permanent nearly all of the Bush tax cuts, including those on high earners. McCain advisers say allowing taxes on high earners to return to their pre-Bush levels would damage the economy when it is already vulnerable. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have also been more forthcoming than Mr. McCain about how they would pay for their plans. Mr. McCain has proposed almost $300 billion a year in new tax cuts, on top of President Bush’s cuts, but has offered little detail about how he would pay for them. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the McCain campaign’s top economic adviser, has said Mr. McCain would later offer more details and that the tax cuts would spur economic growth, reducing their cost. On many budget matters, Mrs. Clinton’s instincts seem similar to her husband’s. Both favor carefully crafted tax credits that can help people who most need it, that come with relatively modest price tags and that seem likely to survive a divided Congress. Mr. Obama sometimes talks of his vision of an “iPod government,” with simple programs that people can understand. He also talks of persuading voters and members of Congress, including Republicans, to support his plans. Crimes Against Humanity: Israel Is Suppressing a Secret It Must Face, Johann Hari ...Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison....In order to punish the population of Gaza for voting “the wrong way”, the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing “a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions”. So how did it come to this? How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago with a promise to be “a light unto the nations” end up flinging its filth at a cowering Palestinian population? The beginnings of an answer lie in the secret Israel has known, and suppressed, all these years. Even now, can we describe what happened 60 years ago honestly and unhysterically? The Jews who arrived in Palestine throughout the twentieth century did not come because they were cruel people who wanted to snuffle out Arabs to persecute. No: they came because they were running for their lives from a genocidal European anti-Semitism that was soon to slaughter six million of their sisters and their sons. They convinced themselves that Palestine was “a land without people for a people without land”. I desperately wish this dream had been true. You can see traces of what might have been in Tel Aviv, a city that really was built on empty sand dunes. But most of Palestine was not empty. It was already inhabited by people who loved the land, and saw it as theirs. They were completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews. When it became clear these Palestinians would not welcome becoming a minority in somebody else’s country, darker plans were drawn up. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” So, for when the moment arrived, he helped draw up Plan Dalit. It was — as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it — “a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; and laying siege to and bombarding population centres”. In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded, this began to be implemented: some 800,000 people were ethnically cleansed, and Israel was built on the ruins. The people who ask angrily why the Palestinians keep longing for their old land should imagine an English version of this story. How would we react if the 30m stateless, persecuted Kurds in the world sent armies and settlers into this country to seize everything in England below Leeds, and swiftly established a free Kurdistan from which we were expelled? Wouldn’t we long forever for our children to return to Cornwall and Devon and London? Would it take us only 40 years to compromise and offer to settle for just 22 per cent of what we had? If we are not going to be endlessly banging our heads against history, the Middle East needs to excavate 1948, and seek a solution. Any peace deal — even one where Israel dismantled the wall and agreed to return to the 1967 borders — tends to crumple on this issue. The Israelis say: if we let all three million come back, we will be outnumbered by Palestinians even within the 1967 borders, so Israel would be voted out of existence. But the Palestinians reply: if we don’t have an acknowledgement of the Naqba (catastrophe), and our right under international law to the land our grandfathers fled, how can we move on? It seemed like an intractable problem — until, two years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted the first study of the Palestinian Diaspora’s desires. They found that only 10 per cent — around 300,000 people — want to return to Israel proper. Israel can accept that many (and compensate the rest) without even enduring much pain. But there has always been a strain of Israeli society that preferred violently setting its own borders, on its own terms, to talk and compromise. This weekend, the elected Hamas government offered a six-month truce that could have led to talks. The Israeli government responded within hours by blowing up a senior Hamas leader and killing a 14-year-old girl. More Bush Lies: All the President’s Liars, Mark Morford
Did it work? Were you duped? Were you calmly and methodically and rather nefariously led to believe that maybe, just maybe, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the rest, right along with tales of soldier suicides and torture and staggering civilian body counts and the utterly disastrous Bush military policy weren’t really all that bad after all? Did you watch any CNN or Fox News or MSNBC, lo, these past five or six years, listen to the pundits and ponder the wise, informed comments of all the military experts the networks brought on to discuss Iraq policy, then conclude that maybe this war, this appalling invasion might actually be positive, that maybe the surge is working and torture ain’t all that bad and the democracy is taking root and America is proud and perky and victorious once again? Did you believe any of it? Because oh my God, they sure as hell worked us over like a rabid dog works a hunk of gristle. Who are “they,” exactly? Why, they’re the newly discovered and rather unexpected fraternity of expert BS artists, a highly specialized group known to gullible Americans as stoic, stern-faced retired generals, colonels, majors, military advisers, former Pentagon officials, the ones you’ve heard and seen on TV news for years, but who are known to the Bush administration as a delightfully dishonest gaggle of preferred liars, lackeys, shills, puppets and mouthpieces for Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld and Dubya himself. The truth is as sad as it is revolting: You have been lied to, again and again, perhaps even more than you imagined, in a rather unexpected way, perhaps like no other time in American history, in a more carefully orchestrated and widespread effort than any presidential administration has managed to attempt in the past. Here is the New York Times, still managing to do what it does best despite the era of dying newspapers and disrespected journalism, running a simply astonishing piece on all the dishonest “military consultants” who’ve appeared for the past half decade on every major network — and yes, Fox adores these liars best of all — to discuss Iraq, surges, U.S. military strategy, the works. Here is the Times revealing, after two years of battling the Defense Department to release the 8,000 pages of incriminating documents by way of instigating lawsuits and leveraging the Freedom of Information Act — and barely even then — that this entire dour fraternity of deceitful military cretins has been in service of BushCo since Sept. 11 — and still is, to this very day. To clarify: Whenever you’ve seen one of those dour-faced retired generals discussing details of U.S. war strategy on MSNBC, chances are staggeringly good he was/is in the pocket of Rummy or Cheney. Whenever a wise old colonel has appeared on Fox or CNN or CBS News to say the surge is working or troop morale is strong or that all those suicide bombings aren’t really so bad, chances are overwhelmingly good that he is lying outright and you’re hearing exactly what Donald Rumsfeld wanted him to say. Isn’t that refreshing? The Times story is simply astounding. Up and down the line, from major to general to colonel to every sort of expert they have, it’s the same story. Over and over again, presented “tens of thousands of times” and totaling countless hundreds of TV and radio hours, it’s been a near constant stream of calculated deception and misrepresentation and bogus pro-Iraq spin. Neutrality? Fair analysis of the war? Criticism of Bush? Not a chance. You may ask: Why would they do such a thing? What’s in it for the generals and the colonels to lie outright to the American populace and the embarrassingly blind news networks, to whore their credentials and trash their distinguished reputations in favor of defending a lost war and useless president? That’s easy: Access. Access to the White House, to the corridors of power and influence; access to the perks and the pals and snifters of brandy, the backroom handshakes, the business deals, the hugely lucrative military contracts, the sweet, sweet piles of cash and privilege and power awaiting them if they just toe the line and keep their real opinions to themselves. Also worth mentioning: Many are military men down to the bone. Failed war and inept commander in chief or no, they will defend any U.S. military operation, simply because it’s a U.S. military operation. It’s just automatic. Reminds me, in a depressing sort of way, of that gaggle of Big Tobacco CEOs who banded together not long ago in a hilarious attempt to convince the nation — and the courts — that cigarettes aren’t all that bad and there’s little evidence smoking causes cancer or impotence or death, and in fact small children really love secondhand smoke and so do puppies and flowers and Jesus, and if you want to have fun sometime, walk into a hospital nursery and fire up a fresh Marlboro and blow that yummy smoke straight into the faces of the newborns. Watch them squirm with delight! Except wait, no, it’s not like that at all. One major difference: Big Tobacco execs are professional liars, de facto and a priori and understood. It’s what they do. Not even the most ardent smoking advocate would trust one those jackals as far as he could throw him into a vat of chemotherapy drugs. Different, at least in theory, with these high-grade military men. They have a potent aura of trustworthiness, fairness, decency. They are f-ing generals, for chrissakes, and hence we like to think of them as straight-talking, no-BS working men whose word is solid and whose authority unquestionable and therefore no wimp-assed monkey-faced president or scabrous Defense secretary could make them say something they didn’t actually believe. Wrong. Oh, how horribly wrong. So I ask again, did it work? Was America duped? Well, yes and no. There’s little doubt that this insidious, sustained PR attack — and make no mistake, it was/is an attack on the American people; such calculated “psychological operations” aimed at U.S. citizens are actually very illegal, though it’s enormously difficult to prove so in court — swayed millions of Americans, gave fuel to the preemptive attack argument, inflamed (and still inflames) the warmongering right, scammed the media, fanned the pro-war fires for years before the public recoil finally kicked in. But oh, kick in it did. This is the fascinating thing. Even all those high-ranking military experts lying like well-decorated dogs in one of the most impressive, appalling PR campaigns in American history could not keep Bush from collapsing, could not prevent Americans from learning the real facts of the failed war and toxic presidency — eventually. And maybe this is a good thing. Because now, given the scope of the Bush administration’s lies — the true scale of which we may never fully know — the recoil is even more forceful than it ever might’ve been, the anti-neocon, anti-Bush revolt is potent and heartening and enormously helpful to the Democratic cause, perhaps far more than if Bush and his cronies had told the truth in the first place. Then again, if they had been the slightest bit honest, if Bush had even a hint of integrity, we’d never have launched this staggeringly botched, futile war in the first place, and maybe we wouldn’t be where we are now, with the American experiment under Bush far less of an experiment and far more of a cyanide tablet. Thoughts for the author? E-mail him. Mark Morford’s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. © The San Francisco Chronicle Mac Attack: Here's The Dirt McCain Will Use Against Obama, Evelyn Pringle "The most trusted leaders of the Democratic party, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting Barack Obama. With use of the internet, a fifth grader could connect the dots to show a picture of a guy who was picked up in college and carried up the political latter by a corrupt gang of influence peddlers. John McCain is just drooling waiting for Obama to become the nominee so that he can come out with the trail of dirt that the Democratic party is too afraid to reveal this late in the game. If nominated, Obama will not survive a month when faced with the Republican attack machine. If he becomes the nominee, the web of corruption leading to Obama's rise to power that this investigative journalist was able to untangle in less than three weeks, will be front page news right up until election day, handing the Republicans their only chance in hell of winning the White House. Instead of the leaders of the Democratic party doing their homework, a small group of investigative reporters in Chicago will be credited with exposing the corrupt backbone of Obama's political career and the mainstream media need only follow their lead if the Democrats hold him out to be a viable candidate. (more) Media Dreams: The Media Distracts Us While The Corporations Fleece Us, Politex; Samples *** Dem Self-Destruction: McCain Ignores Economy, Backs Bush War With Lies, Distortions; Dems Ignore McCain, Frank Rich For Republicans, the prospect of marathon Democratic trench warfare is an Easter miracle. Saddled with the legacy of both Iraq and a cratering economy, the G.O.P. can only rejoice at its opponents’ talent for self-destruction. The Republicans can also count on the help of a political press that, whatever its supposed tilt toward Mr. Obama, remains most benevolent toward John McCain. This was strikingly apparent last week, when Mr. McCain’s calamitous behavior was relegated to sideshow status by many, if not most, news media. At a time of serious peril for America, the G.O.P.’s presumptive presidential nominee revealed himself to be alarmingly out of touch on both of the most pressing issues roiling the country. Never mind that Bear Stearns was disposed of in a fire sale, the dollar was collapsing, job losses hit a five-year low, and the price of oil hit an all-time high. Mr. McCain, arriving in Iraq, went AWOL on capitalism’s meltdown, delegating his economic adviser to release an anodyne two-sentence statement of confidence in Ben Bernanke. This is consistent with Mr. McCain’s laissez-faire approach to economic matters. In January he proposed tasking any problems to “a committee headed by Alan Greenspan, whether he’s alive or dead.” This witty salvo must be very comforting to the large share of Americans — the largest since the Great Depression — who now owe more on their homes than they’re worth. In Iraq, Mr. McCain did not repeat his April 2007 mistake of touring a “safe” market while protected by a small army. (CNN tried to revisit that market last week, but the idea was vetoed as too risky by the network’s security advisers.) Instead he made a bigger mistake. As if to emulate Dick Cheney, who arrived in Baghdad a day behind him, he embraced the vice president’s habit of manufacturing false links in the war on terror: Mr. McCain told reporters that Iran is training Al Qaeda operatives and sending them into Iraq. His Sancho Panza, Joe Lieberman, whispered in his ear that a correction was in order. But this wasn’t a one-time slip, like Gerald Ford’s debate gaffe about Poland in 1976. Mr. McCain has said this repeatedly. Troubling as it is that he conflates Shiite Iran with Sunni terrorists, it’s even more bizarre that he doesn’t acknowledge the identity of Iran’s actual ally in Iraq — the American-sponsored Shiite government led by Nuri al-Maliki. Only two weeks before the Iraqi prime minister welcomed Mr. McCain to Baghdad, he played host to a bubbly state visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whatever Mrs. Clinton’s or Mr. Obama’s inconsistencies about how to wind down the war, they are both models of coherence next to Mr. McCain. He keeps saying the surge is a “success,” but he can’t explain why that success keeps us trapped in Iraq indefinitely. He never says precisely what constitutes that “victory” he keeps seeing around the corner. His repeated declaration that he will only bring home the troops “with honor” is a Vietnam acid flashback recycled as a non sequitur. Our troops have already piled up more than enough honor in their five years of service under horrific circumstances. Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda proliferates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a survey by Foreign Policy magazine of 3,400 active and retired American officers finds that 88 percent believe that the Iraq war has “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.” But as violence flares up again in Iraq and the American economy skids, the issues consuming the Democrats are Mr. Wright and Geraldine Ferraro, race and gender, unsanctioned primaries and unaccountable superdelegates. Unless Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton find a way to come together for the good of their country as well as their party, no speech by either of them may prevent Mr. McCain from making his second unlikely resurrection in a single political year. Recession or Depression? Bush Attacking Regulation Is Vote For A Depression, Politex, NYT, Krugman Paul Krugman argues, correctly, we think, that after the Great Depression the government put regulatory strictures in place to prevent it ever happening again. Since then, our private economic system has had the government remove as many regulations as possible, with immediate profit as the motive. You can guess how corporations have been able to get government representatives to do so. Thus, with so many regulations gone, we have set ourselves up for another depression. Bush, of course, being the tool of such corporations, is against regulation, although he has admitted through his cabinet representatives that some cleaning up should be done. Hence, it's not an exaggeration to say that Bush's actions have helped get us where we are today, and his present behavior is a vote to keep us there, even though it could very well lead to a depression. With an MBA from Harvard, he should know better. What you should know is that while CEOs get fatter, you don't get the benefits of deregulation when economic corporations figure out a new way to make a buck, but your money is used to bail out these corporations when they threaten to pull down our entire economic system as a result of deregulation. --Jerry Politex The following is from a NYT story posted today, and a recent op-ed piece by Krugman: Invoking its authority as the nation’s lender of last resort, the Fed offered a $30 billion credit line to JPMorgan Chase to help it take over Bear Stearns, which was about to go bankrupt. Even more significant, the central bank announced that it would lend hundreds of billions of dollars to big investment banks through its “discount window” — an emergency loan program that had been reserved strictly for commercial banks. The Fed’s involvement highlighted what many experts see as the growing disparity in regulation between Wall Street firms and commercial banks. Commercial banks submit to greater regulation, partly in exchange for the privilege of being able to borrow from the Fed’s discount window. But starting last week, Wall Street firms were getting the same protection without subjecting themselves to additional scrutiny. Some administration officials said they had little choice but to regulate Wall Street firms more closely.... Among Democrats and Republicans alike, there is a growing consensus that the existing regulatory structure, involving more than half a dozen federal agencies as well state offices, were not equipped to prevent a host of questionable practices that aggravated the housing and mortgage meltdowns. The practices included abusive loans by independent mortgage brokers; risky and opaque transactions by financial institutions; credit-rating decisions that turned out to be wildly optimistic; and the underwriting of loans by mortgage brokers that were often based on fraudulent or inaccurate information. Just as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks highlighted deep cracks between the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the credit and housing crises are forcing policy makers to scrutinize cracks between oversight agencies that aggressive mortgage brokers and deal makers were able to exploit.... Treasury officials say they are convinced that today’s regulatory system is fragmented and out of date. The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., has talked about the need to re-examine capital requirements for financial institutions. But both President Bush and Mr. Paulson, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, remain philosophically opposed to restrictions and requirements that might hamper economic activity. --NYT, 3/22/08
Bank runs can be contagious. If depositors at one bank lose their money, depositors at other banks are likely to get nervous, too, setting off a chain reaction. And there can be wider economic effects: as the surviving banks try to raise cash by calling in loans, there can be a vicious circle in which bank runs cause a credit crunch, which leads to more business failures, which leads to more financial troubles at banks, and so on. That, in brief, is what happened in 1930-1931, making the Great Depression the disaster it was. So Congress tried to make sure it would never happen again by creating a system of regulations and guarantees that provided a safety net for the financial system. And we all lived happily for a while — but not for ever after. Wall Street chafed at regulations that limited risk, but also limited potential profits. And little by little it wriggled free — partly by persuading politicians to relax the rules, but mainly by creating a “shadow banking system” that relied on complex financial arrangements to bypass regulations designed to ensure that banking was safe.... The financial crisis currently under way is basically an updated version of the wave of bank runs that swept the nation three generations ago. People aren’t pulling cash out of banks to put it in their mattresses — but they’re doing the modern equivalent, pulling their money out of the shadow banking system and putting it into Treasury bills. And the result, now as then, is a vicious circle of financial contraction. Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed are doing all they can to end that vicious circle. We can only hope that they succeed. Otherwise, the next few years will be very unpleasant — not another Great Depression, hopefully, but surely the worst slump we’ve seen in decades. Even if Mr. Bernanke pulls it off, however, this is no way to run an economy. It’s time to relearn the lessons of the 1930s, and get the financial system back under control. --Paul Krugman, 03/21/08 Obama Bombs: Insane McCain will win it all — and handily too, William Smith Today, on the fifth anniversary of Operation Stupid, while pumping squirts of that barely affordable distillate from one tank to another (all the while wondering about the sizable charges incurred in that infinitesimal transfer, too) and just wanting it to be enough to at least shut off the reserve light on my gauge for the duration of the short drive home, I figured out the Election results. Insane McCain will win it all — and handily too. Because, without a fair, agreed upon division of those Dean-disenfranchised votes, Hillary hasn’t a prayer. The Democratic Party can’t possibly allow that sort of ameliorative proffer. No way. After all, Florida and Michigan have broken their “rules.” They must pay. This from a party, my arcane party, that only needs something like 5,000 votes in a caucus (which probably seemed a really great electoral system for certain Indians tribes—in the year 1650!) to declare a winner from an entire state of millions. So then, to be “just,” it’s Barack by some goofy sleight-of-hand acclamation at the Convention. Soon after, so much libelous un-sourced innuendo is bruited just as the 527s begin the 24-hour Reverend Wright-Rezko cable bombardments that some of the buildings in Detroit will have to burn. A riot or two breaks out. Flags fly, the Navy Coot stands and says something vaguely Reaganesque and “patriotic,” and jumping Jehoshaphat, he quells the violence (without, of course, adequately crediting all of those discolored “pastors” and oddly dressed pacifists working behind the scenes). Otherwise, Mr. Bush will have to force the issue, as we know he can, with some of the Blackwater brigades that are still working at home for the Carlyle Group and what's left of nearby National Guard troops. Either way, it’s going to work out fine for the Repugnants: McCain is Golden. Bush Who? BW Spelled It Out Since '98, mail bag Since 1998 Bush Watch has been writing about what a loser George W. Bush is. Now, NYT readers of Maureen Dowd's "Soft Shoe in Hard Times," which lays it on the line about the horrible Mr. Bush (linked above) have their say. --Jerry Politex *** Democracy's greatest flaw: it relies on the collective intelligence and actions of the people. If a large percentage of the population is ignorant, egocentric, ethnocentric, and has a "Santa Claus" view about life, then we all reap the consequences (e.g., the election of a deeply flaw president). --Sven *** Anyone who by now has not noticed and accepted the president's incompetence is, well, disturbed. Mr. Bush has presided over an economic disaster: the transformation of a record surplus (thanks, Bill) to a skyrocketing deficit. Americans can do little more than hold on, wait for a "market correction." --DJF *** As for Bush's cheerfulness, he has a plan. I don't know what it is, but I'm betting it has something to do with Cheney's "peacemaking' (hah!) trip to the Middle East. Chances are good that he is arranging an 'incident' with Iran, perhaps through Israel, which will give the administration a chance to start yet another war by bombing Iran. Bush probably thinks this will bring Americans to heel once again, the way 911 did, as planned. That's why he got rid of Fallon, who was objecting to an attack on Iran. But it won't work. We are all sick of this man and his cowardly war-mongering, attacking little countries and slaughtering their people. I doubt the American people will stand for any more. --Susan *** There is only one plausible explanation for Bush's clown behavior in the face of an economic collapse his adventure in Iraq in combination with tax cuts to the wealthy has caused... The dry drunk we had to put up with for several years is now drinking again. I wish drug and alcohol tests were required of our elected officials. --Greg *** I think in many ways George W. Bush sees himself as having succeeding in accomplishing much of what he set out to do - dismantle as much of the Federal Government as he possibly could - which he did by appointing some of the most incompetent persons possible into each and every agency - from the Dept. of Justice to the EPA to the wasteland that is the Homeland Defense to FEMA and of course ruined the National Guard of every state with the debacle that is Iraq as he has forced them to squander both lives and and equipment through endless tours in Iraq. He also mistakenly believes that he's proved he's more macho than daddy cause he went to war with Saddam - come on George W. its not like you went mano a mano with Saddam - you as usual let others do your fighting for ya! For the issues that people attack him on he is positive that his legacy will be secured be it 100 years from now or when Redemption finally does arrive as he remains securely delusional in his extreme Calvinist ideology that God meant for him to rule and God will save him - for he's one of the "have" and that too is God's plan for George W. Bush. Well, either that or maybe they upped his meds! --Katy *** It's genetic. During the first Bush recession, his dad zipped around Kennebunkport in a cigarette boat telling us there was no recession. After Katrina, his mom said New Orleans' displaced poor were happier and more comfortable sleeping on cots in the Astrodome than living in their own homes. He can deny evolution all he wants. The Bushes are proof positive that dominant characteristics, in their case lunacy and self absorbtion, will always prevail. --L. Bachmann *** I don't understand why we continue to be bemused at this sad-sack president. He so clearly is a very, very, very stupid human. It's not his wealth, arrogance, bad companions which make him unable to change in the smallest way. It is the cotton candy between his ears. It's almost a waste of words to write seriously about him. He may be in a good mood these days because his single-digit IQ may have registered that it's almost over. --Lisa Coleman *** Bush is either as he seems, without a clue, or this all fits his "left behind" ideology of causing the "rapture." If rove had not successfully helped snooker enough Americans into supporting republicons in congress we could have impeached this criminal long ago. Instead republicons refused to even take a casual look at his malfeasance, and now the slim majority of Democrats is hamstrung by obstructionist tactics and a WH that has no regard for any law, including the constitution. --Brandon *** G W's 'leadership' is almost irrelevant now. We're already in deep trouble, thanks to his shenanigans. he can't do anything to help us at this point. He's led our boat into the middle of the river, and he's paddling back to shore, leaving us out among the cold swift current while the boat is sinking; he's shouting "courage" while we're searching for our life jackets. Thanks, GW. --as *** Hey, retirement from that nasty job waits in the wings. Even running the country badly for almost eight years would wear out an entire confederacy of dunces. Come to think of it, it may have. ...our leader of what used to be called the free world doesn't hesitate to promise us a rose garden down the road, engineered ~ no doubt ~ by the same coterie that has brought us this far in the new century. --gatekeeper2 Another Bush Liar: Phony Obama Proving To Be Just Another Politician, Krugman and Brooks public optimism about Iraq is rising: 53 percent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals. So anger about the war isn’t likely to be decisive in the election. The state of the economy, on the other hand, could well give Democrats a huge advantage — especially, to be blunt about it, with white working-class voters who supported President Bush in 2004.... According to exit polls, Mr. Obama narrowly edged out Mrs. Clinton among Ohio voters who consider Iraq the most important issue — but these voters cast only 19 percent of the ballots in the Democratic primary. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton led by 12 points among the much larger group of voters citing the economy as the most important issue — and by 16 points among those who cited health care. Mrs. Clinton’s winning margin was twice as large among those who were worried about their own financial situation as among those who weren’t. Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care — which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security — there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger. More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique — his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure — has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he’s interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things. Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them — but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country’s problems. And Mr. Obama’s attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere — an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual. --Paul Krugman
Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington. Obama has built his entire campaign on this theory....This message has made him the front-runner. It has brought millions of new voters into politics. It has given him grounds to fend off attacks. In debate after debate, he has accused Hillary Clinton and others of practicing the old kind of politics.... There are a few ways to interpret the losses in Texas and Ohio. One is demographic. He didn’t carry the groups he often has trouble with — white women, Latinos, the less educated. The other is tactical. Clinton attacked him, and the attacks worked. The consultants, needless to say, gravitate toward the tactical interpretation. And once again the cry has gone up for Obama to get tough. This advice gets wrapped in metaphors. Obama has to start “throwing punches” or “taking the gloves off.” Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things. This time, Obama, whose competitive juices are flowing, has apparently accepted the advice. The Obama campaign is now making a big issue of Hillary Clinton’s tax returns and dropping hints about donations to President Clinton’s library and her secret White House papers. It’s willing to launch an ethics assault. “If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate,” the Obama strategist David Axelrod told reporters the other day. These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules.... As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president. In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him. Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona. If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway. --David Brooks Dictator '08: Isn't It Time Obama and Hill Took Aim at Nation's Problems?, NYT Ed After eight damaging and divisive years there is certainly a lot that needs to be debated starting with President Bush's disastrous war, his tax cuts for the rich, regulatory incompetence and neglect, and unrelenting assaults on civil rights, civil liberties and the balance of powers in government. In other words, something quite different than the schoolyard shoving contest we've witnessed over the last few weeks between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and their increasingly out-of-control "surrogates".... The quality of this contest has not reflected the candidates' formidable skills and intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization's challenges.... Even if their differences on Iraq are negligible, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should still debate the issue, explaining how they plan to bring American troops home and contain the chaos. Iraq has receded for now, but it will be an important issue this fall in the competition against Mr. McCain, who offers not the slightest change from President Bush's tragically failed policies. Instead of talking seriously about reforming health care, each side has run attack ads distorting the other's proposals. There has been some discussion about taxes, the home-mortgage crisis and the slowing economy — but mostly when the candidates are asked about these issues during debates. Talk on the stump seems stuck where it has been for months. Mrs. Clinton's distinctly more negative campaign has left her open to bad memories of her husband's administration. Mr. Obama's notions of transformational change are as airy and unformed as they were when he first began using them on the stump in 2007.... We'd like to hear fewer character attacks and a lot more discussion of the nation's many problems after nearly eight years of failed Republican rule. That is the Democrats' comparative advantage, they should start to use it now.
Business: Bush Takes $138 Out Of Your Paycheck Each Month to Pay For His Iraq War, Stiglitz $16bn The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending $138 The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war $19.3bn The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq $25bn The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war $3 trillion A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again $5bn Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq $1 trillion The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war 3% The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa ·The Three Trillion Dollar War, by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, is published by Allen Lane, price £20.
Mail Bag: What's Wrong With Obama?, various Note: Last week we ran a piece from COMMON DREAMS written by David Lindorff (see below). Here are selected resonses by that website's readers of that article. --Politex Response: [Obama] puts forward an attractive face that speaks attractive words with a familiar rythym similiar to MLK Jr. But he does nothing at all to shatter any illusions his supporters might have that they believe that Obama believes in exactly what they believe in. That’s what I see from the Obama supporters on the net. They say all these wonderful things that they believe that Obama believes in. Of course they do. The problem is that there’s little to no evidence that Obama actually believes any of these or will actually do anything to put these beliefs into action. When I look a little deeper, I see an Obama that’s getting campaign money from the usual suspects that fund a pro-war, pro-corporate Democratic Party. And I see the usual sorts of advisors that surround a pro-war, pro-corporate Dem party candidate. On top of that I get a few little hints from things Obama occaisionally lets slip out. Like his rather routine attacks on those who tried to stand up to oppose corporate rule in the sixties, and who tried to fight against war and racism and sexism, etc. He seems to constantly cite the sixties as a time of divisiveness that’s the root of today’s problems. I see it as the last time the people of this country actually mounted an effective opposition and had some success. --CCMarc Response: The worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don’t happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that’s what he’s doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he’s saying. You know, the statement I like that I’ve heard from young people: there’s no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You’re going to change the health care system? Not really. You’re going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He’s supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He’s on the education committee. He’s supported by the NEA. Where’s change? I don’t see any change. But he doesn’t say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it’s like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that’s what he’s doing. It’s terrible, because what you read into it isn’t what’s going to happen. --Mike Gravel Response: As everyone knows, the system needs change. Do you honestly think Obama is going to take on corporations and the military-industrial-media-complex? Sure, Obama is invigorating many people in this country, which in itself is good, but it will again, come up short because people need to take on the system, and they will not do it. People are too comfortable watching “American Idol” rather than giving serious thought and intellectual inquiry to politics, especially understanding how corporations control the political system and figuring out a way how to change that. I do not mean to be a pessimist, but I see little or no change in the system. Sure there will be new window dressing, but no change in substance. The second Obama takes on the corporations or military-industrial-complex, he will fold like a cheap suit. --Claudius Response: Whether Obama is going to “cash in” on a November win and abandon his base, or not, remains to be seen. But given the number of missing votes in ‘07, lack of a real hard-hitting plan for single-payer, his support of nuclear, courting of AIPAC/Liebermann, and a few other indicators — I’d say that Obama has been groomed not by the Wellstonian ethic of ethical fortitude and dignity, but as a transition promise-maker for the X/Y Gen. The old lies that worked wonders with the Boomers don’t resonate as well with the X/Y Gen. Turning people against their own class interests needs to be re-packaged. --Paul Bramscher Response: Lindorf makes a very peculiar case for Obama: "Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don’t really know much about the man)..." "Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment- with a record as a safe backer of the status quo." "...whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support." So… Let’s take a shot in the dark with Barack Obama, and maybe everything will be just wonderful! --Jacob Freeze Response: Barack Obama-agent of hope and change? No, more like the agent of the status quo, designed to carry out the wishes of the military-industrial complex and the corporate interests. Apparently, ctrenta neglected to mention that Obama is in the pocket of the vested interests, as he is second only to Hillary Clinton in accepting money from big corporations and Wall Street. One would be remiss to not mention that this alleged anti-war candidate has never once refused to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq, thus making him just as culpable as any pro-war candidate or politician in Washington in having this occupation continue, despite Obama’s claims to the contrary. --Erroll Response: Oh dear! Dave tells us that “His candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support” that is somehow meaningfully progressive despite the fact that nobody knows “his personal politics.” My, what a wonderful world, Jimmy Stewart. What could be more American than a political movement that has no political philosophy or ideology or even a single meaningful core belief. Smoke and mirrors doesn’t do justice to this wonderful phenomenon. Sadly, we have no politics left (or right); the plutocracy is enthroned and we are left to passionately support someone with the political insight and courage of Piglet. Siiiigh! Response: Sorry, I’m not buying it. The role of the Democratic Party leadership is to insure that any popular movement for real change will be safely run into the ditch. We now have the choice of two party hacks. But don’t worry, Charlie Brown, THIS time I promise not to pull the ball away. --polam First Ladyitis: Gee, Thanks, Mrs. Obama, William Smith, etc. Feigning the gross insult of heresy the way most mullahs do when the Prophet is visualized, the affrighted pooh-bahs of our right-wing oligarchy are actually thrilled today. For, with the utterance of one short awkward expression, Michelle Obama has done more than Mike Huckabee or John McCain ever considered possible to mortise the fractious fundaments supporting the illiberal pillars wobbling around the mausoleums of Lincoln and Reagan. With stony, foursquare fervor, beer baroness Cindy McCain was quick to counter Mrs. Obama's injudicious remark ("...for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."). Meanwhile, "Angry American" country singer Toby “Wishbone” Keith began to ladle steaming bowls of that award-winning USDA beef stew he had whipped up and canned in his prairie chuck-wagon right after the towers fell. And as usual, but different and all day long, the candidate Obama's normally beaming face was occluded by the thrusting shadows of cameras and microphones asking Mr. Obama why his wife hates America. --William Smith, for Bush Watch Here is Mrs. Obama's entire self-serving statement. --Politex "What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud." Taylor Marsh, a liberal blogger and Clinton supporter, is quite annoyed with Mrs. Obama’s “me-me-me mantra.” --Ariel Alexovich "The narcissistic, self-centered, arrogant insult delivered by Michelle Obama, representing a man who hopes to talk his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is a slap at the American spirit that runs throughout this country, regardless of political party, race, gender, creed, religion, you name it, and the word “change” alone can’t alter the course on which we are disastrously careening without a plan....Michelle Obama will never speak for me. Not until I know the definition of “change” that’s being offered amidst a record that doesn’t come close to measuring up to all the endless talk." Jim Geraghty, who writes on the conservative National Review’s blog The Campaign that Mrs. Obama’s remark was “strikingly ungracious.” --Ariel Alexovich "America hasn’t been good to her? What, opportunities to go to Princeton, Harvard Law, working for top-shelf law firms and hospitals, sitting on the board of directors for a major Wal-Mart supplier — that’s not enough?" Obamanation? Can Status Quo Obama Change To Match His Rhetoric? (excerpts), Dave Lindorff I don't want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America’s bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy--absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.... Indeed, I want to suggest here that Obama may at this point have the proverbial tiger by the tail, in that his clarion calls for “hope” and for “change” may be stirring up hopes and expectations for those very things in a way that will not easily be denied should he succeed. (In this he does resemble Jack Kennedy, whose own politics tended to be conservative and Establishment, but whose rhetoric helped stir a generation to political idealism, and may have contributed to the era of ’60s activism.) I would also suggest that while Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment- with a record as a safe backer of the status quo- if he succeeds in winning the nomination, and especially if he goes on and wins the White House, it will be because he has aroused a huge pool of voters in this country who had until now been cynically staying away from politics. It will be because he has transcended the racial divide that has stymied real political change for so long. And the forces that are propelling him toward the nomination, and toward the White House, are forces that will not easily be denied if they succeed. That is to say, a President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don’t really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like barnacles to a rotting pier. For this to happen, Obama will first have to reach out beyond his current base of support, to rank-and-rile workers‹both unionized and non-union–to Latinos and other minority groups, and to older Americans. He’ll have to reach out, that is, to the groups that have thus far still been backing Hillary Clinton and the party Establishment.... None of this means that a President Obama woul |