The blog post below is from Marcy Wheeler's terrific website which I think more and more people will be following as the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder continue to trash the Constitution in the tradition of Bush-Cheney. A precedent that will apparently continue indefinitely unless some outside force -- the Supreme Court??? -- finds a way to stop them.
On a personal/technical note, there are some aspects to Marcy Wheeler's website which I haven't yet had the patience (or ability) to track down. For one thing, its name: I know it as Emptywheel and as Firedoglake. Also, in the blog on Eric Holder/hate crimes below I thought I was reading the prose of Marcy Wheeler but then I look up and see the byline -- bmaz. Who is bmaz?
Anyway, I can't help repeating the first line of bmaz's item.
Eric Holder can't seem to do squat for transparency, privacy, accountability or a plethora of other ills carried over from the Bush/Cheney Administration, but he is concerned that we need more hate crime laws:
So much for change for the better in the Obama administration. Holder's demagoguery on hate crimes reminds me of the misdirection of the Bush-Cheney years when they successfully masked the lack of any kind of positive domestic agenda by pushing for the privatization of Social Security even though they well knew it would go down in flames. I recall how in his final press conference Bush snarkily cited the Social Security privatization plan as one of his "mistakes."
So Holder is proving that he's the same empty suit that he was in the Clinton years. Obama sure knows how to choose 'em.
The interesting question is whether the Obama administration
a. stands for nothing?
b. the Rightwing pushback against standing for principle is too great for Obama to bear?
Either way, whether it's cowardice or lack of conviction or some combination, we get crushed by the Zionists and the militarists.
Ronald
Eric Holder Demagogues Hate Crimes
By: bmaz Tuesday June 16, 2009
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/eric-holder-demagogues-hate-crimes/#more-4313
Eric Holder can't seem to do squat for transparency, privacy, accountability or a plethora of other ills carried over from the Bush/Cheney Administration, but he is concerned that we need more hate crime laws:
"Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed brazen acts of violence, committed in places that many would have considered unthinkable," Holder told the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
He cited separate attacks over a two-week period that killed a young soldier, an abortion provider and a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
...
In order to stop that violence, he said, Congress should past an updated version of hate crimes legislation, in order to more effectively prosecute those who commit violent attacks based on gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
Yeah, that bunk ought to really stop Tiller's killer, the Arkansas recruiting center shooter and thevon Brunns of the world from committing murders when that piddly old first degree murder capital offense with the death penalty couldn't. Okay, I want to be completely honest, the District of Columbia does not have the death penalty, but it certainly has life in prison available for the offense of premeditated murder. Both Kansas and Arkansas, the locations of the other two heinous crimes, do indeed have the death penalty for such offenses. What exactly does Eric Holder think the "hate crimes" he is demagoguing about are going to do for deterrence that the death penalty or life in prison won't?
I have a problem with "hate crime" laws. We already have laws for assault and battery, murder, intimidation etc. The same conduct, and level of conduct, should not have different laws and heightened penalties because it is targeted to a minority or other protected group. Why is the assault of a black worth more than an assault on on a white? Why is an assault on a gay man any more heinous than an assault on a straight? Why is one group of human beings entitled to more protection under the law than another? Yet, that is exactly what hate crime legislation does. This really flies in the face of the quintessential Constitutional and founding concepts of equal protection, fundamental fairness and all men being created equal.
The Supreme Court disagrees, but that is my take. And no matter what your view, I would argue that Eric Holder and the United States Department of Justice have far more important tasks to attend to right now, and they have been failing miserably on most.
[snip]
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/eric-holder-demagogues-hate-crimes/#more-4313
Friday, June 19, 2009
A military dictatorship in Iran?
What should we make of two American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellows who argue in a prominent New York Times Op ed that Iran's theocratic regime has given way to a military dictatorship? ("Iran's Hidden Revolution," by Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh, 6.17.09)
For one thing, such a theory advances the right wing/Zionist agenda of continuing the demonization of Iran so as to ensure that both Israel and the US have at least the appearance of a credible enemy -- to add to non-state actors like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, both creations and puppets of US/Pakistani/Indian intelligence services.
While the AEI theory of a military dictatorship in Teheran would account for much of the data, the question is whether it’s possible or important to distinguish between a theocratic government backed by the military -- or a military regime with theocrats as front men.
As for Iran’s rigged elections, back in 2005 it was publicly announced that candidate Mehdi Karroubi, a moderate, came in ahead of Ahmadinejad in the first round of elections, but was mysteriously eliminated from the runoff so that Ahmadinejad could face Rafsanjani. Furthermore Pletka and Alfonseh write that Western intelligence believes that in 2005 Ayatollah Khamenei approved the rigging of the required numbers of votes so that Ahmadinejad would prevail over Rafsanjani.
If that’s true, the fraud was conducted in such a way in 2005 that there would be little or no domestic or international commotion. One of the current mysteries is why Iranian election officials didn’t announce plausible numbers for an Ahmadinejad victory. Were they bunglers or simply sufficiently arrogant to proclaim the end of the vestige of democracy in Iran?
Another question is why some on the Left argue that Ahmadinejad won this election fair and square. According to official figures he got seven million MORE votes this time than in 2005. Hmmmm. (Update: I just noticed that James Petras and popular Canadian blogger Xymphora can be added to this list which includes Paul Craig Roberts, the Leveretts -- and others?)
I gather that some on the Left would like to establish Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy so as to give the militarists less of an excuse to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
McCain sounds like he can’t wait.
Update: 6.19.09
The above post was written in the day or two before the speech of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, defending the election of M. Ahmadinejad and calling for an end to demonstrations. The protests have now entered a new and in all likelihood even bloodier phase. See the books of Azar Nafisi for some of the gruesome details that we can expect. (Reading Lolita in Teheran and Things I’ve Been Silent About) Either the protests will continue and rivers of blood will flow or the protests will slowly or not so slowly come to an end and somewhat less blood will flow – for the moment. The only brake on the murderers will be their understanding that the whole world is watching. We can only hope that this will continue to make a difference.
For one thing, such a theory advances the right wing/Zionist agenda of continuing the demonization of Iran so as to ensure that both Israel and the US have at least the appearance of a credible enemy -- to add to non-state actors like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, both creations and puppets of US/Pakistani/Indian intelligence services.
While the AEI theory of a military dictatorship in Teheran would account for much of the data, the question is whether it’s possible or important to distinguish between a theocratic government backed by the military -- or a military regime with theocrats as front men.
As for Iran’s rigged elections, back in 2005 it was publicly announced that candidate Mehdi Karroubi, a moderate, came in ahead of Ahmadinejad in the first round of elections, but was mysteriously eliminated from the runoff so that Ahmadinejad could face Rafsanjani. Furthermore Pletka and Alfonseh write that Western intelligence believes that in 2005 Ayatollah Khamenei approved the rigging of the required numbers of votes so that Ahmadinejad would prevail over Rafsanjani.
If that’s true, the fraud was conducted in such a way in 2005 that there would be little or no domestic or international commotion. One of the current mysteries is why Iranian election officials didn’t announce plausible numbers for an Ahmadinejad victory. Were they bunglers or simply sufficiently arrogant to proclaim the end of the vestige of democracy in Iran?
Another question is why some on the Left argue that Ahmadinejad won this election fair and square. According to official figures he got seven million MORE votes this time than in 2005. Hmmmm. (Update: I just noticed that James Petras and popular Canadian blogger Xymphora can be added to this list which includes Paul Craig Roberts, the Leveretts -- and others?)
I gather that some on the Left would like to establish Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy so as to give the militarists less of an excuse to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
McCain sounds like he can’t wait.
Update: 6.19.09
The above post was written in the day or two before the speech of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, defending the election of M. Ahmadinejad and calling for an end to demonstrations. The protests have now entered a new and in all likelihood even bloodier phase. See the books of Azar Nafisi for some of the gruesome details that we can expect. (Reading Lolita in Teheran and Things I’ve Been Silent About) Either the protests will continue and rivers of blood will flow or the protests will slowly or not so slowly come to an end and somewhat less blood will flow – for the moment. The only brake on the murderers will be their understanding that the whole world is watching. We can only hope that this will continue to make a difference.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
New York Times: Obama favors bankers vs homeowners
Whose side is Obama, on?. His constituents or the big banks who have been the recipients of Bush and Cheney’s and his administration’s largesse?
Rhetorical question, right?
Yes, but the novelty is that the outline (at least) of Obama’s betrayal is recorded in the NYT, in a front page story on how the banking lobby removed the “centerpiece” of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, namely giving judges the power to lower the amount owed on a home loan. (See excerpts from the Times story below.)
Never mind that keeping families in their homes is an important key to stabilizing neighborhoods and perhaps also to the nation’s economic recovery.
You’d think such a provision would be a priority for this government. But the sad story is that the banks and Secretary Geithner didn’t like it and so the Obama administration didn’t push for it, leaving a vacuum that the banks and the Republicans were all too happy to fill. In the void left by Geithner/Obama, the banks had little trouble rounding up a gaggle of Senate Democrats to seal the deal.
Selections from: The New York Times
June 5, 2009
(Ailing, )Banks Still Field Strong Lobby at Capitol
By STEPHEN LABATON
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/business/economy/05bankrupt.html?_r=1&sq=ailing%20banks%20still%20field%20strong%20lobby%20at%20capitol&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print
Throughout it all, the banks took advantage of the Obama administration’s seeming ambivalence. Despite its occasional populist rhetoric, the White House was conspicuously absent from weeks of pivotal negotiations this spring.
“This would have been a much different deal if Obama had pressed it,” said Camden R. Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America and one of the chief lobbyists opposing the bankruptcy change. “The fact that Obama effectively sat it out helped us a great deal.
”Surprising Ease
In the end, the banks’ startling success in defeating the provision, which was pushed hardest by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, caught even their lobbyists by surprise. Not only did they defeat the cramdown provision, but the banks walked away with billions in new bailout money.
Housing advocacy groups argued that it was unfair that bankruptcy judges have had the authority since 1978 to modify mortgages on vacation homes, farms and even luxury yachts, but not on primary residences. They also argued that a string of federal programs to help reduce foreclosures had been ineffective because of resistance by lenders and investors who own pools of loans, all of whom stand to lose money when a mortgage is modified.
Those arguments won the day in the House, which adopted the legislation on March 5 by a 234-191 vote.
In the Senate, where Republicans were looking for a chance to recoup after narrowly failing to block Mr. Obama’s huge stimulus package, the banks argued that the proposal interfered with their contractual rights.
But the real threat was to their profits. The proposal would have shifted negotiating power to the millions of troubled homeowners who could use the threat of bankruptcy to wrest lower monthly payments from lenders. The banks claimed that that would force them to raise rates.
That claim is in dispute. For one thing, the legislation would not have applied to new mortgages….
While Mr. Obama reaffirmed his support for the proposal shortly after becoming president, administration officials barely participated in the negotiations, a factor that lobbyists said significantly strengthened their hand. Lawmakers who have discussed the issue with the administration said that the president’s senior aides had concluded that a searing fight with the industry was simply not worth the cost.
Moreover, Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, did not seem to share Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for the bankruptcy change.
Mr. Geithner was lobbied by the industry early. Two days after he was sworn in, he invited Mr. Fine from the community bankers to his office for a private meeting. The association, with influential members in every Congressional district, is one of Washington’s most powerful trade groups.
A senior adviser to Mr. Geithner said the administration supported the cramdown proposal, but it preferred that distressed homeowners seek to modify their loans through the Treasury’s new $75 billion program, which rewarded banks if they modified home loans, rather than through bankruptcy court.
Mr. Durbin acknowledges that it was a mistake not to call on the administration for help.
“If I would have known how it would unfold, I would have called on the White House earlier to get involved,” he said….
There was no counterweight to that legislative muscle. Bankrupt homeowners do not have a political action committee or lobbyists.
Mr. Fine reports that the political action committees run by his association alone have built a war chest of nearly $2 million, a 40 percent jump over the last year, even though members have had to cut other expenses in the recession.
“The banks get it,” Mr. Fine said. “They understand you need a strong political action committee to get access to the fund-raisers. That’s where the lawmakers are.”
Rhetorical question, right?
Yes, but the novelty is that the outline (at least) of Obama’s betrayal is recorded in the NYT, in a front page story on how the banking lobby removed the “centerpiece” of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, namely giving judges the power to lower the amount owed on a home loan. (See excerpts from the Times story below.)
Never mind that keeping families in their homes is an important key to stabilizing neighborhoods and perhaps also to the nation’s economic recovery.
You’d think such a provision would be a priority for this government. But the sad story is that the banks and Secretary Geithner didn’t like it and so the Obama administration didn’t push for it, leaving a vacuum that the banks and the Republicans were all too happy to fill. In the void left by Geithner/Obama, the banks had little trouble rounding up a gaggle of Senate Democrats to seal the deal.
Selections from: The New York Times
June 5, 2009
(Ailing, )Banks Still Field Strong Lobby at Capitol
By STEPHEN LABATON
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/business/economy/05bankrupt.html?_r=1&sq=ailing%20banks%20still%20field%20strong%20lobby%20at%20capitol&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print
Throughout it all, the banks took advantage of the Obama administration’s seeming ambivalence. Despite its occasional populist rhetoric, the White House was conspicuously absent from weeks of pivotal negotiations this spring.
“This would have been a much different deal if Obama had pressed it,” said Camden R. Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America and one of the chief lobbyists opposing the bankruptcy change. “The fact that Obama effectively sat it out helped us a great deal.
”Surprising Ease
In the end, the banks’ startling success in defeating the provision, which was pushed hardest by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, caught even their lobbyists by surprise. Not only did they defeat the cramdown provision, but the banks walked away with billions in new bailout money.
Housing advocacy groups argued that it was unfair that bankruptcy judges have had the authority since 1978 to modify mortgages on vacation homes, farms and even luxury yachts, but not on primary residences. They also argued that a string of federal programs to help reduce foreclosures had been ineffective because of resistance by lenders and investors who own pools of loans, all of whom stand to lose money when a mortgage is modified.
Those arguments won the day in the House, which adopted the legislation on March 5 by a 234-191 vote.
In the Senate, where Republicans were looking for a chance to recoup after narrowly failing to block Mr. Obama’s huge stimulus package, the banks argued that the proposal interfered with their contractual rights.
But the real threat was to their profits. The proposal would have shifted negotiating power to the millions of troubled homeowners who could use the threat of bankruptcy to wrest lower monthly payments from lenders. The banks claimed that that would force them to raise rates.
That claim is in dispute. For one thing, the legislation would not have applied to new mortgages….
While Mr. Obama reaffirmed his support for the proposal shortly after becoming president, administration officials barely participated in the negotiations, a factor that lobbyists said significantly strengthened their hand. Lawmakers who have discussed the issue with the administration said that the president’s senior aides had concluded that a searing fight with the industry was simply not worth the cost.
Moreover, Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, did not seem to share Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for the bankruptcy change.
Mr. Geithner was lobbied by the industry early. Two days after he was sworn in, he invited Mr. Fine from the community bankers to his office for a private meeting. The association, with influential members in every Congressional district, is one of Washington’s most powerful trade groups.
A senior adviser to Mr. Geithner said the administration supported the cramdown proposal, but it preferred that distressed homeowners seek to modify their loans through the Treasury’s new $75 billion program, which rewarded banks if they modified home loans, rather than through bankruptcy court.
Mr. Durbin acknowledges that it was a mistake not to call on the administration for help.
“If I would have known how it would unfold, I would have called on the White House earlier to get involved,” he said….
There was no counterweight to that legislative muscle. Bankrupt homeowners do not have a political action committee or lobbyists.
Mr. Fine reports that the political action committees run by his association alone have built a war chest of nearly $2 million, a 40 percent jump over the last year, even though members have had to cut other expenses in the recession.
“The banks get it,” Mr. Fine said. “They understand you need a strong political action committee to get access to the fund-raisers. That’s where the lawmakers are.”
Thursday, April 30, 2009
George Washington's Blog: 911 Confessions and Guilty Parties KSM confesses to crimes he didn't commit
NOTE:
The following blog entry advocates the No Planes Theory (NPT) on 9/11 – a subset of the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job. For a more mainstream perspective regarding the absence of proof of the guilt of some of the alleged terrorists, see George Washington’s Blog below. (For more information on the NPT, see the links below.) --RB
***
A recent George Washington's Blog (GWB) entry noticed that the only evidence against reputed high value "terrorists" Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the notorious KSM, are allegations by the Bush-Cheney administration.
GWB emphasizes that he’s not arguing that Abu Zubaida and KSM were NOT guilty; he's only saying that no reliable evidence has been presented on the subject.
Unlike, GWB I can confidently say that the aforementioned detainees are not guilty of having any part in the terror events of 9/11 since 9/11 was an inside job, a concoction of the Bush-Cheney White House.
Moreover, there were no, repeat NO Arabs or Muslims involved. There were no hijackings, no hijackers and no plane crashes into buildings or anywhere else on 9/11/01.
No planes explains why there were no jet interceptors airborne until after the attack on the Pentagon –most likely a missile attack. There were no interceptions by jets because there were no hijacked planes to be intercepted.
No planes and no Muslim or other hijackers also explains why the CIA, NSA, FBI and other security agencies have made a point of hiring as few Arab speakers as possible since Arab speakers, if they saw the relevant traffic, could expose who the real terrorists were. The NPT is also consistent with the lack of verifiable plane wreckage or passenger jet body parts from the “crash” sites.
911 as an inside job also explains why the Bush-Cheney White House employed torture. Waterboarding was one way to get false confessions. It’s good to see that some are beginning to raise questions about the guilt of those who were tortured even while the Left consensus appears to agree with the Right that there must be at least a few “bad guys” at Guantanamo.
It has been pointed out that the torture inflicted on detainees makes the normal judicial process difficult or impossible. We can guess that making fair trials impossible was in part the purpose of the torture.
Now that the issue has fallen into the lap of the Obama administration, the White House seems to feel that it is required to set up some extra-judicial, extra- constitutional arrangement for the Bush-Cheney detainees. The latest rumor is that they will be sent to prisons in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere. Obama seems to be bowing to political pressures that take for granted their guilt.
The pity of it goes beyond the detainees and points to the dagger at the heart of the system of justice that supports civil life in the U.S. and in many countries. One could hope that those in favor of justice and due process would consider examining the evidence regarding what really happened on 9/11. Not least because many of those who continue to defend the torturers appear to have no qualms about citing 3,000 dead on 9/11 as the basis for their continued trashing of the rule of law.
Yes, we can hope. But hopes too often founder on the rocks of reality. In his masterful book on Hitler and Stalin (Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1991, pp. 476-477) Alan Bullock briefly explores the question of how it was possible for the great majority of Soviet citizens (and many of Stalin's victims) to believe that Stalin, “the Great Helmsman,” was the target of conspiracies against his government, and not the great conspirator himself.
Part of Bullock’s answer is that Stalin’s propaganda campaign was so successful that to believe in Stalin’s guilt would have been to “turn the world upside down in the most alarming way and undermine all sense of security…To think [that Stalin was guilty of unspeakable crimes] would have been to feel the solid ground giving way beneath one’s feet.”
Such considerations tangentially or not remind us that the subtler system of restrictions on permissible political discourse in the West are competitive with Soviet style repression.
Ronald
***
April 23, 2009
George Washington's blog wrote:
Self-Confessed 9/11 "Mastermind" Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn't Commit
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/self-confessed-911-mastermind-also.html
As the Washington Post writes of Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaida:
President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Okay, maybe they got that one wrong.
But certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he was the mastermind of 9/11 proves his guilt, right?
Well, as the Telegraph notes today:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times in one month, and “confessed” to murdering the journalist Daniel Pearl, which he did not. There could hardly be more compelling evidence that such techniques are neither swift, nor efficient, nor reliable
If one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's major confessions (Pearl murder) was false, why should we believe his confession about 9/11?
After all, tough-as-nails Navy Seals usually become hysterical when waterboarded once in training sessions. After 183 waterboarding sessions in a month, I wouldn't be surprised if KSM also confessed to murdering Lincoln and Kennedy.
Note: I am not saying that KSM did or didn't have anything to do with 9/11 (I have no idea). I am saying that nothing that the government said about 9/11 should be accepted without independent verification, and that torture does not constitute independent verification. Indeed, given that the government used techniques which were developed especially for producing false confessions, the assumption must be that any confessions were, in fact, false.
-- George Washington's Blog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/self-confessed-911-mastermind-also.html
***
Links to information regarding No Planes on 9/11
Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51;
Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
An essay by Ronald Bleier summarizing the Holmgren and Reynolds findings (with a section on the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers) can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html
The following blog entry advocates the No Planes Theory (NPT) on 9/11 – a subset of the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job. For a more mainstream perspective regarding the absence of proof of the guilt of some of the alleged terrorists, see George Washington’s Blog below. (For more information on the NPT, see the links below.) --RB
***
A recent George Washington's Blog (GWB) entry noticed that the only evidence against reputed high value "terrorists" Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the notorious KSM, are allegations by the Bush-Cheney administration.
GWB emphasizes that he’s not arguing that Abu Zubaida and KSM were NOT guilty; he's only saying that no reliable evidence has been presented on the subject.
Unlike, GWB I can confidently say that the aforementioned detainees are not guilty of having any part in the terror events of 9/11 since 9/11 was an inside job, a concoction of the Bush-Cheney White House.
Moreover, there were no, repeat NO Arabs or Muslims involved. There were no hijackings, no hijackers and no plane crashes into buildings or anywhere else on 9/11/01.
No planes explains why there were no jet interceptors airborne until after the attack on the Pentagon –most likely a missile attack. There were no interceptions by jets because there were no hijacked planes to be intercepted.
No planes and no Muslim or other hijackers also explains why the CIA, NSA, FBI and other security agencies have made a point of hiring as few Arab speakers as possible since Arab speakers, if they saw the relevant traffic, could expose who the real terrorists were. The NPT is also consistent with the lack of verifiable plane wreckage or passenger jet body parts from the “crash” sites.
911 as an inside job also explains why the Bush-Cheney White House employed torture. Waterboarding was one way to get false confessions. It’s good to see that some are beginning to raise questions about the guilt of those who were tortured even while the Left consensus appears to agree with the Right that there must be at least a few “bad guys” at Guantanamo.
It has been pointed out that the torture inflicted on detainees makes the normal judicial process difficult or impossible. We can guess that making fair trials impossible was in part the purpose of the torture.
Now that the issue has fallen into the lap of the Obama administration, the White House seems to feel that it is required to set up some extra-judicial, extra- constitutional arrangement for the Bush-Cheney detainees. The latest rumor is that they will be sent to prisons in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere. Obama seems to be bowing to political pressures that take for granted their guilt.
The pity of it goes beyond the detainees and points to the dagger at the heart of the system of justice that supports civil life in the U.S. and in many countries. One could hope that those in favor of justice and due process would consider examining the evidence regarding what really happened on 9/11. Not least because many of those who continue to defend the torturers appear to have no qualms about citing 3,000 dead on 9/11 as the basis for their continued trashing of the rule of law.
Yes, we can hope. But hopes too often founder on the rocks of reality. In his masterful book on Hitler and Stalin (Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1991, pp. 476-477) Alan Bullock briefly explores the question of how it was possible for the great majority of Soviet citizens (and many of Stalin's victims) to believe that Stalin, “the Great Helmsman,” was the target of conspiracies against his government, and not the great conspirator himself.
Part of Bullock’s answer is that Stalin’s propaganda campaign was so successful that to believe in Stalin’s guilt would have been to “turn the world upside down in the most alarming way and undermine all sense of security…To think [that Stalin was guilty of unspeakable crimes] would have been to feel the solid ground giving way beneath one’s feet.”
Such considerations tangentially or not remind us that the subtler system of restrictions on permissible political discourse in the West are competitive with Soviet style repression.
Ronald
***
April 23, 2009
George Washington's blog wrote:
Self-Confessed 9/11 "Mastermind" Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn't Commit
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/self-confessed-911-mastermind-also.html
As the Washington Post writes of Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaida:
President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Okay, maybe they got that one wrong.
But certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he was the mastermind of 9/11 proves his guilt, right?
Well, as the Telegraph notes today:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times in one month, and “confessed” to murdering the journalist Daniel Pearl, which he did not. There could hardly be more compelling evidence that such techniques are neither swift, nor efficient, nor reliable
If one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's major confessions (Pearl murder) was false, why should we believe his confession about 9/11?
After all, tough-as-nails Navy Seals usually become hysterical when waterboarded once in training sessions. After 183 waterboarding sessions in a month, I wouldn't be surprised if KSM also confessed to murdering Lincoln and Kennedy.
Note: I am not saying that KSM did or didn't have anything to do with 9/11 (I have no idea). I am saying that nothing that the government said about 9/11 should be accepted without independent verification, and that torture does not constitute independent verification. Indeed, given that the government used techniques which were developed especially for producing false confessions, the assumption must be that any confessions were, in fact, false.
-- George Washington's Blog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/self-confessed-911-mastermind-also.html
***
Links to information regarding No Planes on 9/11
Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51;
Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
An essay by Ronald Bleier summarizing the Holmgren and Reynolds findings (with a section on the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers) can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html
Friday, April 03, 2009
New York Times & Sarkozy: Obama says no to financial reform
Financial System Reform?? + update 4.3.09
French President Sarkozy’s earlier high profile threat to wreck the London G20 financial summit if his demands for tougher financial regulations were not met suggested that he well understood the signals coming from the Obama administration that they were not inclined to promote real reform. Much of the same unease was clear in the NYT editorial which detailed the evasions in Treasury Secretary Geithner’s well hyped but discouraging proposals.
The NYT editorial (3.29.09) “Questions for Reform” pointed out that Geithner’s call for large hedge funds and private equity firms to register with the Security and Exchange commission is a good start, but that under his proposal, the SEC would not really have the full authority necessary to address important concerns. Instead it would be reduced to merely reporting issues up a “convoluted chain of regulatory command.”
Secondly, Geithner’s call for oversight of unregulated derivatives includes a loophole “disguised as a new rule.” Despite the clear demand by the public and the international community for effective hedge fund and derivative regulation Geithner’s proposals suggest that the Obama administration has caved in to the worst offenders who seem to wish to maintain the current discredited system.
There’s more. The Times goes on to criticize what Geithner left unsaid. They fault him for not challenging the concept of firms too big to fail. Instead they find that the Geithner plan unaccountably “assumes that such firms will be a feature of the financial landscape going forward.”
The Times also notes the absence of a call for a thorough investigation of all the moving parts of the current system, without which the proper fix may be elusive and Geithner’s proposals merely a “charade.”
If the Obama administration is not going to take this once in a generation opportunity to promote effective reform on this clear and crucial issue, how can we expect them to protect our interests on much more tangled and controversial issues.
Whatever we might think of the right of center Sarkozy, it seems he has a better line on what is currently necessary than does the Obama administration.
***
Update 4.3.09
It was embarrassing to read the front page story of the NYT for 4.2.09, “Obama Faces Calls for Rules on Finances.” Instead of enjoying our attractive and well spoken new leader cutting a dashing figure on the world stage, we find the Times forced to confirm that Obama was standing naked for all to see.
Obama’s position seems to be that Europe and the rest of the world – mainly China – should stimulate their economies so they can bail out Obama while he not merely bails out the reprehensibles (some of his major contributors), but, by giving real reform the back of his hand – as we might expect from Cheney – he works to ensure that their time in the sun will continue as long as Obama can create the trillions to do it with.
***
Further reading.
There’s so much on the economic misdirection from Obama and his economic sidekicks, Geithner and Summers, that it's difficult to keep up -- not to mention, as Paul Krugman, writes, despair making.
One of many notable and important broadsides comes from the Times op ed page, by Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stigliz, “Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism," 4.1.09.
See also the very good Counterpunch.org website which seems to have article after article detailing the mess. For example:
Mike Whitney, Zombie Economics: Judgment Day for Geithner,” (3.23.09); “Geithner’s Hog Wallow” 3.27-29, 2009)
Dave Lindorff, “Toxic Bailouts” (3.23.09)
Dean Baker, “Billions More for Failed Banks” (3.25.09)
***
French President Sarkozy’s earlier high profile threat to wreck the London G20 financial summit if his demands for tougher financial regulations were not met suggested that he well understood the signals coming from the Obama administration that they were not inclined to promote real reform. Much of the same unease was clear in the NYT editorial which detailed the evasions in Treasury Secretary Geithner’s well hyped but discouraging proposals.
The NYT editorial (3.29.09) “Questions for Reform” pointed out that Geithner’s call for large hedge funds and private equity firms to register with the Security and Exchange commission is a good start, but that under his proposal, the SEC would not really have the full authority necessary to address important concerns. Instead it would be reduced to merely reporting issues up a “convoluted chain of regulatory command.”
Secondly, Geithner’s call for oversight of unregulated derivatives includes a loophole “disguised as a new rule.” Despite the clear demand by the public and the international community for effective hedge fund and derivative regulation Geithner’s proposals suggest that the Obama administration has caved in to the worst offenders who seem to wish to maintain the current discredited system.
There’s more. The Times goes on to criticize what Geithner left unsaid. They fault him for not challenging the concept of firms too big to fail. Instead they find that the Geithner plan unaccountably “assumes that such firms will be a feature of the financial landscape going forward.”
The Times also notes the absence of a call for a thorough investigation of all the moving parts of the current system, without which the proper fix may be elusive and Geithner’s proposals merely a “charade.”
If the Obama administration is not going to take this once in a generation opportunity to promote effective reform on this clear and crucial issue, how can we expect them to protect our interests on much more tangled and controversial issues.
Whatever we might think of the right of center Sarkozy, it seems he has a better line on what is currently necessary than does the Obama administration.
***
Update 4.3.09
It was embarrassing to read the front page story of the NYT for 4.2.09, “Obama Faces Calls for Rules on Finances.” Instead of enjoying our attractive and well spoken new leader cutting a dashing figure on the world stage, we find the Times forced to confirm that Obama was standing naked for all to see.
Obama’s position seems to be that Europe and the rest of the world – mainly China – should stimulate their economies so they can bail out Obama while he not merely bails out the reprehensibles (some of his major contributors), but, by giving real reform the back of his hand – as we might expect from Cheney – he works to ensure that their time in the sun will continue as long as Obama can create the trillions to do it with.
***
Further reading.
There’s so much on the economic misdirection from Obama and his economic sidekicks, Geithner and Summers, that it's difficult to keep up -- not to mention, as Paul Krugman, writes, despair making.
One of many notable and important broadsides comes from the Times op ed page, by Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stigliz, “Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism," 4.1.09.
See also the very good Counterpunch.org website which seems to have article after article detailing the mess. For example:
Mike Whitney, Zombie Economics: Judgment Day for Geithner,” (3.23.09); “Geithner’s Hog Wallow” 3.27-29, 2009)
Dave Lindorff, “Toxic Bailouts” (3.23.09)
Dean Baker, “Billions More for Failed Banks” (3.25.09)
***
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Why the US/NATO is in Afghanistan: A Query inspires an unconventional if not an outlandish response
JJ wonders why we're in Afghanistan
The material below is from MoonofAlabama.org. It's very interesting analysis, but it leaves me more confused than ever about the fundamental question: What is the American interest in Afghanistan? I had thought it was to pacify the country for the proposed Unocal pipeline. But I see no rational connection between war and getting that result. On the contrary, I'd expect war to ensure the unattainability of such a goal, by getting the Afghans more antagonized and sabotage-minded with each passing day.
Are we really there, then, in search of one man, Osama bin Laden? Or to suppress the Taliban or al Qaeda? I suspect bin Laden is long since dead, and I'd think war would be the perfect recruiting tool for such entities. Are we there to outflank Iran? That hardly fits with what follows. To outflank Pakistan and its nukes? That doesn't seem to make sense either, especially given the history of our involvement.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what we're trying to do.
In the meantime, as I say, what follows is interesting stuff. Note the figures for the comparative costs of maintaining an army in Afghanistan and maintaining one in Iraq
***
Ronald responds to JJ:
Thanks for asking. I’m afraid my views are unconventional but – like others – I find that the evidence I choose to look at is not inconsistent with my theories.
Yes, quite the right question. What is the American interest in Afghanistan?.
First thing of course is that the Obama administration is following the Bush administration’s policy.
What was that policy? Just as it was in Iraq, to further their permanent war agenda and to cause as much pain and suffering and turmoil and tension and oppression as possible.
I submit that in Iraq it’s very easy to point to indictable evidence: namely the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the firing of virtually all the able bureaucrats –de-bathification.
Have you seen the documentary No End in Sight? (actually I’m blanking on the title. That might be a lucky guess.)
Either those two policies were mistakes or purposeful actions intended to ensure that there would be a pretext – an insurgency and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to keep the war going indefinitely. Take your choice. Alternately you can ask yourself if Cheney is the type to make such mistakes.
Needless to say there’s a mountain more evidence. High on the list are policies to ensure that there would be no reconstruction of the country. Talk about evidence not inconsistent: Have you seen Ragiv Chandrasekaran’s book on the Green Zone?
The same with Afghanistan. Their purpose is to destroy the country. The interesting irony there is that Taliban rule is what they wanted (there and here and everywhere) and they were unhappy to overthrow it. But as we have seen, it was done in such a way as to ensure the return of the Taliban after a few years. Karzai sort of gave the game away in a December ’08 interview to the Washington Post: He asked: How can a little group of ragtag fanatics be causing so much trouble. He was pointing to U.S. aid to the Taliban by means of the Pakistani ISI. Yup, we’re paying billions so that they can kill U.S. soldiers and thousands upon thousands of Afghanis.
We might have hoped that the Obama administration would change policy. I used to joke after Nov 4 and before Jan 20 that we had hope. It’s not such a joke anymore. It’s not the Obama administration. It’s the Rahm Emanuel –Obama administration with the latter the figurehead.
You can see why my views aren’t popular. Most people figure that there’s got to be something ---$$$$ -- in it for the policymakers. But to me it’s a question of evidence. Your astute questions are more evidence.
Ronald
The material below is from MoonofAlabama.org. It's very interesting analysis, but it leaves me more confused than ever about the fundamental question: What is the American interest in Afghanistan? I had thought it was to pacify the country for the proposed Unocal pipeline. But I see no rational connection between war and getting that result. On the contrary, I'd expect war to ensure the unattainability of such a goal, by getting the Afghans more antagonized and sabotage-minded with each passing day.
Are we really there, then, in search of one man, Osama bin Laden? Or to suppress the Taliban or al Qaeda? I suspect bin Laden is long since dead, and I'd think war would be the perfect recruiting tool for such entities. Are we there to outflank Iran? That hardly fits with what follows. To outflank Pakistan and its nukes? That doesn't seem to make sense either, especially given the history of our involvement.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what we're trying to do.
In the meantime, as I say, what follows is interesting stuff. Note the figures for the comparative costs of maintaining an army in Afghanistan and maintaining one in Iraq
***
Ronald responds to JJ:
Thanks for asking. I’m afraid my views are unconventional but – like others – I find that the evidence I choose to look at is not inconsistent with my theories.
Yes, quite the right question. What is the American interest in Afghanistan?.
First thing of course is that the Obama administration is following the Bush administration’s policy.
What was that policy? Just as it was in Iraq, to further their permanent war agenda and to cause as much pain and suffering and turmoil and tension and oppression as possible.
I submit that in Iraq it’s very easy to point to indictable evidence: namely the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the firing of virtually all the able bureaucrats –de-bathification.
Have you seen the documentary No End in Sight? (actually I’m blanking on the title. That might be a lucky guess.)
Either those two policies were mistakes or purposeful actions intended to ensure that there would be a pretext – an insurgency and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to keep the war going indefinitely. Take your choice. Alternately you can ask yourself if Cheney is the type to make such mistakes.
Needless to say there’s a mountain more evidence. High on the list are policies to ensure that there would be no reconstruction of the country. Talk about evidence not inconsistent: Have you seen Ragiv Chandrasekaran’s book on the Green Zone?
The same with Afghanistan. Their purpose is to destroy the country. The interesting irony there is that Taliban rule is what they wanted (there and here and everywhere) and they were unhappy to overthrow it. But as we have seen, it was done in such a way as to ensure the return of the Taliban after a few years. Karzai sort of gave the game away in a December ’08 interview to the Washington Post: He asked: How can a little group of ragtag fanatics be causing so much trouble. He was pointing to U.S. aid to the Taliban by means of the Pakistani ISI. Yup, we’re paying billions so that they can kill U.S. soldiers and thousands upon thousands of Afghanis.
We might have hoped that the Obama administration would change policy. I used to joke after Nov 4 and before Jan 20 that we had hope. It’s not such a joke anymore. It’s not the Obama administration. It’s the Rahm Emanuel –Obama administration with the latter the figurehead.
You can see why my views aren’t popular. Most people figure that there’s got to be something ---$$$$ -- in it for the policymakers. But to me it’s a question of evidence. Your astute questions are more evidence.
Ronald
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
William Black (Huffington Post) Geithner (Obama) Continues Bush's corruption
With Bush it was malevolence, with Obama it's apparently stupidity and ignorance. Stupidity for believing that Geithner had some answers even though he contributed to the Bush plan that many could see would only help the most corrupt elements. And ignorance in thinking that listening to such discredited veterans as Lawrence Summers would do any good. It's not too early to see that Obama is way off base and has chosen in too many cases, for reasons which are not entirely clear, people who will contribute to failure in too many critical policies. We hoped for change and we got someone in training wheels. We're wondering now if Hillary could have done any worse. --RB
***
William K. Black
Associate Professor, University of Missouri; Senior regulator during S&L debacle
February 10, 2009 |
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-audacity-of-dopes_b_165637.htmlThe Audacity of Dopes
We are being played for chumps. The Bush and Obama plans could only have been designed by failed bankers -- for their principal beneficiaries are failed bankers. We already know enough to confirm that the Bush administration made us the "fool" in the market by massively overpaying for assets. The Obama administration is about to compound that scandal with a "guarantee" program. The bankers that caused the crisis designed both programs. The senior officers at big bank aren't very good lenders, but they are expert in maximizing their compensation.
Worse, Mr. Geithner, the senior public official who, with former Treasury Secretary Paulson, designed the failed Bush plan is the architect of the disastrous Obama plan. Indeed, as theNew York Times has just revealed, it should be called the Geithner plan. He overcame intense opposition within the Obama administration and designed a plan that is even worse than the failed Bush program. Geithner's gifts to the bankers that caused the crisis include: a unnecessary taxpayer bailout of "risk capital," a massive coverup of their banks' insolvency, gutting the proposed limits on executive compensation, and devising a "guarantee" mechanism designed to hide the expenses of the unprincipled bailouts from the American public. Remember, executive compensation is not "merely" a fairness issue. Executive compensation and the compensation systems used for appraisers, accountants, and rating agencies were designed, and served, to create the perverse incentives and ethical rot that caused the ongoing financial crises by producing a "Gresham's dynamic" in which fraudulent and abusive lending and accounting practices drove good practices out of the marketplace.
Here's the amazing part -- the bankers are so arrogant that they bragged to a sympathetic CNBC commentator they are playing us:
"
There are proven ways to resolve the crisis that are far cheaper and more effective because they don't subsidize bankers and "risk capital." We know how to resolve failed banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) can place even the largest banks in "pass through" receiverships on Friday at the close of business and reopen them as "New Federal" bank Monday morning with minimal disruption to customers and creditors and retain "going concern" value. This is how the Reagan administration resolved failed S&Ls during the debacle.
The FDIC appoints a senior manager to ensure that "New Federal" is run prudently. There is plenty of unemployed banking talent available. Hundreds of good bankers lost their jobs during the financial bubble because they refused to make bad loans. Research has shown that its sister agency, FSLIC, appointed receivership managers that greatly reduced losses during the S&L debacle. Leaving the managers in charge of failed banks that they led into insolvency is suicidal. The new senior leader is picked based on expertise in prudent lending and integrity. If we want failed banks to return promptly to making prudent loans and help lead an economic recovery an S&L style "New Federal" is the best possible device. The existing managers have terrible incentives -- to cover up existing losses and to make bad or even fraudulent loans that produce the greatest (fictional) accounting income and to "live large" through bonuses and perks. (The Obama compensation limits are political cover. The bankers have designed the "guarantee" plan to ensure that the compensation limits will be illusory.)
The FDIC managers have the correct incentives to finally produce an honest evaluation of which assets are toxic and how much they are worth. This transparency is essential if we are to end this crisis. Under the Bush and Obama plans we retain the existing managers that have overwhelming incentives to cover up the losses. The bankers have designed the guarantee plan to encourage banks to continue to cover up their toxic assets and not recognize their losses. These cover-ups make a financial crisis last longer and increase the taxpayers' costs.
The FDIC managers preserve the going concern value by making prudent loans and get the "New Federal" in shape to be acquired. By providing reliable information about the toxic assets the managers reduce acquisition risks, which expands the number of bidders and reduces the financial assistance required to aid the acquisition.
"New Federal" receiverships dramatically reduce cash needs. Most costs are deferred until the New Federals are sold.
Pass through receiverships save the taxpayers money and prevent perverse managerial incentives because they do not subsidize "risk capital" when banks are insolvent. Common and preferred stock and subordinated debt in banks are "risk capital." Their holders are supposed to receive nothing if a bank becomes insolvent, but the Bush and Obama plans reward them. There is no need to do this. Subsidizing risk capital and maintaining the failed managers at insolvent banks creates the worst possible incentives. It will cause future crises. It will delay the recovery from the ongoing crises. It robs the U.S. taxpayers and primarily benefits the wealthy -- many of them non-U.S. citizens. The contract they made was that they would get nothing if the bank failed. It has failed, and they are often complicit in those failures. The bankers have convinced the Bush and Obama administrations that the taxpayers should be looted to bail out risk capital. We should stop listening to the folks that caused the crisis and have interests hostile to our interests. Let's stop them from using us as chumps.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-audacity-of-dopes_b_165637.html
William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law, University of Missouri - Kansas City. He held senior regulatory positions during the S&L debacle and is the author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One" (2005)
***
William K. Black
Associate Professor, University of Missouri; Senior regulator during S&L debacle
February 10, 2009 |
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-audacity-of-dopes_b_165637.htmlThe Audacity of Dopes
We are being played for chumps. The Bush and Obama plans could only have been designed by failed bankers -- for their principal beneficiaries are failed bankers. We already know enough to confirm that the Bush administration made us the "fool" in the market by massively overpaying for assets. The Obama administration is about to compound that scandal with a "guarantee" program. The bankers that caused the crisis designed both programs. The senior officers at big bank aren't very good lenders, but they are expert in maximizing their compensation.
Worse, Mr. Geithner, the senior public official who, with former Treasury Secretary Paulson, designed the failed Bush plan is the architect of the disastrous Obama plan. Indeed, as theNew York Times has just revealed, it should be called the Geithner plan. He overcame intense opposition within the Obama administration and designed a plan that is even worse than the failed Bush program. Geithner's gifts to the bankers that caused the crisis include: a unnecessary taxpayer bailout of "risk capital," a massive coverup of their banks' insolvency, gutting the proposed limits on executive compensation, and devising a "guarantee" mechanism designed to hide the expenses of the unprincipled bailouts from the American public. Remember, executive compensation is not "merely" a fairness issue. Executive compensation and the compensation systems used for appraisers, accountants, and rating agencies were designed, and served, to create the perverse incentives and ethical rot that caused the ongoing financial crises by producing a "Gresham's dynamic" in which fraudulent and abusive lending and accounting practices drove good practices out of the marketplace.
Here's the amazing part -- the bankers are so arrogant that they bragged to a sympathetic CNBC commentator they are playing us:
"
What a delicious irony this is--last week, just as President Obama was publicly bashing the stupidity of the banks ... his economic team [was] privately begging for input from Wall Street. The administration was conducting around-the-clock discussions and interviews with senior Wall Street executives, including many from the same firms he was theoretically appalled with, about how to fix the lingering financial crisis. "
There are proven ways to resolve the crisis that are far cheaper and more effective because they don't subsidize bankers and "risk capital." We know how to resolve failed banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) can place even the largest banks in "pass through" receiverships on Friday at the close of business and reopen them as "New Federal" bank Monday morning with minimal disruption to customers and creditors and retain "going concern" value. This is how the Reagan administration resolved failed S&Ls during the debacle.
The FDIC appoints a senior manager to ensure that "New Federal" is run prudently. There is plenty of unemployed banking talent available. Hundreds of good bankers lost their jobs during the financial bubble because they refused to make bad loans. Research has shown that its sister agency, FSLIC, appointed receivership managers that greatly reduced losses during the S&L debacle. Leaving the managers in charge of failed banks that they led into insolvency is suicidal. The new senior leader is picked based on expertise in prudent lending and integrity. If we want failed banks to return promptly to making prudent loans and help lead an economic recovery an S&L style "New Federal" is the best possible device. The existing managers have terrible incentives -- to cover up existing losses and to make bad or even fraudulent loans that produce the greatest (fictional) accounting income and to "live large" through bonuses and perks. (The Obama compensation limits are political cover. The bankers have designed the "guarantee" plan to ensure that the compensation limits will be illusory.)
The FDIC managers have the correct incentives to finally produce an honest evaluation of which assets are toxic and how much they are worth. This transparency is essential if we are to end this crisis. Under the Bush and Obama plans we retain the existing managers that have overwhelming incentives to cover up the losses. The bankers have designed the guarantee plan to encourage banks to continue to cover up their toxic assets and not recognize their losses. These cover-ups make a financial crisis last longer and increase the taxpayers' costs.
The FDIC managers preserve the going concern value by making prudent loans and get the "New Federal" in shape to be acquired. By providing reliable information about the toxic assets the managers reduce acquisition risks, which expands the number of bidders and reduces the financial assistance required to aid the acquisition.
"New Federal" receiverships dramatically reduce cash needs. Most costs are deferred until the New Federals are sold.
Pass through receiverships save the taxpayers money and prevent perverse managerial incentives because they do not subsidize "risk capital" when banks are insolvent. Common and preferred stock and subordinated debt in banks are "risk capital." Their holders are supposed to receive nothing if a bank becomes insolvent, but the Bush and Obama plans reward them. There is no need to do this. Subsidizing risk capital and maintaining the failed managers at insolvent banks creates the worst possible incentives. It will cause future crises. It will delay the recovery from the ongoing crises. It robs the U.S. taxpayers and primarily benefits the wealthy -- many of them non-U.S. citizens. The contract they made was that they would get nothing if the bank failed. It has failed, and they are often complicit in those failures. The bankers have convinced the Bush and Obama administrations that the taxpayers should be looted to bail out risk capital. We should stop listening to the folks that caused the crisis and have interests hostile to our interests. Let's stop them from using us as chumps.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-audacity-of-dopes_b_165637.html
William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law, University of Missouri - Kansas City. He held senior regulatory positions during the S&L debacle and is the author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One" (2005)
Monday, February 02, 2009
AMEU: Joel Kovel on Israel's Immunity despite savagry
Here's AMEU's flyer for the latest issue of their publication, The Link. Every issue is outstanding and all their back issues are available on their website.
This article, by the brilliant Joel Kovel, the author of Overcoming Zionism, will resonate with many. I'll excerpt two sections, the first which gives the most realistic definition of the Lobby that I've seen.
The second is an important description of soft Zionists. It's a good reminder that there are some who see themselves as anti-Zionists, and/or are opposed to Israel's brutality, wanton destruction and lawlessness, but who, nevertheless, are opposed to efforts to transform the Jewish state into a state for all its people. They find ways of denying the reality of the power of the Lobby, often by smearing opponents as anti-Semites. It's as if they don't understand that Zionism, on the road to becoming perhaps the most destructive ISM in history, means a Jewish state. How can you be an anti –Zionist and support a Jewish state? How can you oppose Israeli oppression and support a Jewish state? The structure of Israel as a Jewish state requires its savagery.
I have one minor or not so minor quibble with Kovel. He writes that U.S. support for Israel would collapse if not for the power of the Lobby (as per his definition). I believe it’s more complicated. Part of the power of the Lobby is that it resonates not merely with activists, but with a large majority of the population, the grassroots who, for a variety of reasons, believe that the Jews are good and the Arabs and Muslims are bad. It’s a Lobby-grassroots dynamic that’s mutually sustaining. The Lobby is telling many people what they want to hear.
Ronald
A DEFINITION of the LOBBY
from Joel Kovel's "Overcoming Immunity"
***
KOVEL on SOFT ZIONISM
from Joel Kovel's "Overcoming Immunity"
Kovel continues with a discussion of President Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine -- Peace Not Apartheid.
read more:
http://ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=284&aid=605
***
Overcoming Impunity, by Joel Kovel
AMEU's Latest Issue of The Link
January 1, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contents of This E-mail:
-- Overcoming Impunity
-- Lessons Learned
-- Link Author Joel Kovel
-- Rabbi Elmer Berger
-- The USS Liberty Website
This is the first of five scheduled year 2009 "alerts" to inform you of a new issue of The Link.
Overcoming Impunity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Writing in Haaretz on Dec. 29 about Israel's all- out war on Gaza, Israeli historian Tom Segev observed that:
Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey."
Israel learned long ago that whatever gratuitous violence and collective punishments it might unleash on Palestinians using weapons and cash from American taxpayers, the U.S. Government would remain silent at best, or, as in the current case of Gaza, perform as cheerleaders. Israel, as Dr. Joel Kovel, points out in the current Link operates without restraint under an umbrella of impunity provided by the world's sole superpower.
Lessons Learned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In listing incidents which informed Israel that the U.S. would always be its Great Enabler, Kovel begins with Israel's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty in international waters off the coast of Gaza. Thirty-four seamen were killed and 137 wounded. President Lyndon B. Johnson called off a rescue mission and survivors were ordered to say nothing about the incident. To this day it is the only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel that Congress refuses to investigate.
Impunity was drawn upon once again by Israel just four days ago when its Navy vessels set upon the mercy ship Dignity 90 miles off Gaza in international waters, firing live ammunition around it without warning, ramming it three times, and forcing it to abort the mission of delivering three tons of medical supplies and surgeons to besieged Gazans.
Link Author Joel Kovel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joel Kovel, a retired medical doctor, is Professor of Social Studies at Bard College in Annandale, N.Y. He describes himself as a "citizen of the United States and a Jew descended from Russian-Ukrainian immigrants," and explains how he came to write about Zionism and Israel:
Although I spent a great portion of my adult life in movements against racism, war, U.S. imperialism, the corruptions of media and mass culture . . . , I remained relatively quiet about Israel itself until the year 2000. This was not for lack of aversion to Israeli policies, nor did I fear the accusation of anti-semitism, the identification of which with criticism of Israel I had always regarded as tedious, albeit pernicious, nonsense. My reticence stemmed, rather, from certain family conflicts. When the individuals concerned in these--chiefly my mother--passed away, my political development in this sphere resumed and, as if to make up for lost time, gathered speed.
Rabbi Elmer Berger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As each new Link is placed on our website, a companion issue is selected from our archive. To complement Dr. Kovel's discussion on Zionism--his book "Overcoming Zionism" is available from AMEU--we have chosen a Link written by Rabbi Elmer Berger, who for 50 years headed up American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism.
During that half century, Rabbi Berger refused to travel to Israel, saying he would do so only when Israel acknowledged its theft of Palestinian lands, allowed refugees who wanted to return to do so, and paid reparations to others for the land and property they had lost. Rabbi Berger died in 1996, never having set foot in Israel.
As a new feature of every Link issue we interview the webmaster of a site we believe deserves attention. Our interview for this issue is with James Ennes, Jr., who discusses the USS Liberty website. Ennes was on the bridge of the Liberty when it was attacked by Israel.
The USS Liberty Website
Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: info@ameu.org
voice: 212-870-2053
web: http://www.ameu.org
This article, by the brilliant Joel Kovel, the author of Overcoming Zionism, will resonate with many. I'll excerpt two sections, the first which gives the most realistic definition of the Lobby that I've seen.
The second is an important description of soft Zionists. It's a good reminder that there are some who see themselves as anti-Zionists, and/or are opposed to Israel's brutality, wanton destruction and lawlessness, but who, nevertheless, are opposed to efforts to transform the Jewish state into a state for all its people. They find ways of denying the reality of the power of the Lobby, often by smearing opponents as anti-Semites. It's as if they don't understand that Zionism, on the road to becoming perhaps the most destructive ISM in history, means a Jewish state. How can you be an anti –Zionist and support a Jewish state? How can you oppose Israeli oppression and support a Jewish state? The structure of Israel as a Jewish state requires its savagery.
I have one minor or not so minor quibble with Kovel. He writes that U.S. support for Israel would collapse if not for the power of the Lobby (as per his definition). I believe it’s more complicated. Part of the power of the Lobby is that it resonates not merely with activists, but with a large majority of the population, the grassroots who, for a variety of reasons, believe that the Jews are good and the Arabs and Muslims are bad. It’s a Lobby-grassroots dynamic that’s mutually sustaining. The Lobby is telling many people what they want to hear.
Ronald
A DEFINITION of the LOBBY
from Joel Kovel's "Overcoming Immunity"
The suppression mechanism is usually ascribed to an influencing agent, or lobby, either called the “Israel Lobby” or, equivalently, the “Zionist Lobby,” with its apex in AIPAC. Needless to say, a massive and richly funded institutional system of lobbies are a vital part of the process; indeed, one might call them the factories in which the manufacture of the final product is carried out. But the suppression of criticism is not made from whole cloth; there are also components and raw materials to be taken into account. So it is with the lobbies, the raw material for which entails a common belief system that circulates among elites and stems from deeply held assumptions that go back to the origins of our society.
The lobbies as such are therefore powerful enforcers of a much more broadly based system. This develops within what is called civil society, the interconnected set of institutions that comprises the connective tissue of a nation, and includes churches and synagogues, schools, libraries, publishers, and a wide range of community organizations. Among this great mass certain Zionist organs of repression have crystallized in recent years—Campus Watch, CAMERA, the David Project, and so forth—and, in alliance with traditional Zionist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Zionist Organization of America, have acted as focal points of repression. I am sure that they communicate with each other, with AIPAC, and with other major Jewish organizations, as well.
But while there are definitely lobbies among these networks, the overall network is no lobby. It would be better to call it, as sociologist James Petras has, a “Zionist Power Configuration,” or perhaps we could say, a “Zionist Apparatus.” What we call it is not especially important; what matters is that we understand that the loose and decentralized character of the network floats atop an attitudinal sea that supports the basic notions of Zionism, and functions to structure the Israeli cause in the collective mind.
Though a great many repressive acts are initiated by one node of the network or another, a great many others are executed without any particular organizational focus. These fade off, as is the case with most discriminatory campaigns, into gestures and slights, shunnings and glances that never register on the meter as newsworthy. Thus numberless decisions are made by publishers to automatically reject books critical of Israel, at times without even an acknowledgement of receiving the manuscript; or literary agents will decline to represent the work; or if the book finally does get published library committees will decide not to purchase it, or editors of journals will more or less automatically decide not to review it.
***
KOVEL on SOFT ZIONISM
from Joel Kovel's "Overcoming Immunity"
The soft Zionist cannot so easily override the moral contradictions that dog the Jewish state. He is therefore obliged to admit criticism. But he cannot allow criticism to reach the stage of calling Zionism itself into question. Therefore soft Zionism calls for “responsible” criticism and remains divided in its soul. This leads to a veritable frenzy of subterfuges, rationalizations and legal pettifogging. The soft Zionist, generally speaking, does not exult in Israel’s power nor allow himself to dream of Jewish restoration. He will console himself, rather, with “realism” and call attention to the complexities and imperfections of this world. He will advance the (quite specious) notion that everyone is entitled to a national state; or ponder the great sufferings of the Jews and their entitlement, therefore, to a country of their own; or congratulate the Jewish state for allowing the Palestinians who live in Israel proper to vote, all the while chiding its improprieties. More generally, he will consider Israel to be a “normal” state; and when its massive impunity and lawlessness is pointed out—for example, that the country has flouted scores of U.N. resolutions, or that it lacks a constitution—he will rejoin that after all, England lacks a constitution, too, or that nobody is perfect, or that the Arabs are much worse. The technique of the soft Zionist, then, is to employ lines of reasoning that enable Palestinians and Jews to be compared on equal ground—for example, how much each side has suffered, or as perpetrators of equivalent violence. Thus the soft Zionist dwells on narratives—individualized lines of reasoning that foster the equivalence of both sides in a complex and imperfect world—rather than on basic structures of justice whose asymmetry reflects the actual history of Zionist conquest.
Soft Zionists are more numerous than hard Zionists and are often successful in academia, the law, and politics. Being conflicted, they can go one way or the other, and thus on occasion will aid the cause of justice. An important example has arisen in context of the debacle of the neocon-driven 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has provoked a reaction from representatives of the so-called “realist” school of foreign policy. In the process, Israel itself has come under open criticism for the first time from within the elites, and this in turn provoked a harsh reaction from hard Zionists....
***
Kovel continues with a discussion of President Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine -- Peace Not Apartheid.
read more:
http://ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=284&aid=605
***
Overcoming Impunity, by Joel Kovel
AMEU's Latest Issue of The Link
January 1, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contents of This E-mail:
-- Overcoming Impunity
-- Lessons Learned
-- Link Author Joel Kovel
-- Rabbi Elmer Berger
-- The USS Liberty Website
This is the first of five scheduled year 2009 "alerts" to inform you of a new issue of The Link.
Overcoming Impunity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Writing in Haaretz on Dec. 29 about Israel's all- out war on Gaza, Israeli historian Tom Segev observed that:
Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey."
Israel learned long ago that whatever gratuitous violence and collective punishments it might unleash on Palestinians using weapons and cash from American taxpayers, the U.S. Government would remain silent at best, or, as in the current case of Gaza, perform as cheerleaders. Israel, as Dr. Joel Kovel, points out in the current Link operates without restraint under an umbrella of impunity provided by the world's sole superpower.
Lessons Learned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In listing incidents which informed Israel that the U.S. would always be its Great Enabler, Kovel begins with Israel's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty in international waters off the coast of Gaza. Thirty-four seamen were killed and 137 wounded. President Lyndon B. Johnson called off a rescue mission and survivors were ordered to say nothing about the incident. To this day it is the only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel that Congress refuses to investigate.
Impunity was drawn upon once again by Israel just four days ago when its Navy vessels set upon the mercy ship Dignity 90 miles off Gaza in international waters, firing live ammunition around it without warning, ramming it three times, and forcing it to abort the mission of delivering three tons of medical supplies and surgeons to besieged Gazans.
Link Author Joel Kovel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joel Kovel, a retired medical doctor, is Professor of Social Studies at Bard College in Annandale, N.Y. He describes himself as a "citizen of the United States and a Jew descended from Russian-Ukrainian immigrants," and explains how he came to write about Zionism and Israel:
Although I spent a great portion of my adult life in movements against racism, war, U.S. imperialism, the corruptions of media and mass culture . . . , I remained relatively quiet about Israel itself until the year 2000. This was not for lack of aversion to Israeli policies, nor did I fear the accusation of anti-semitism, the identification of which with criticism of Israel I had always regarded as tedious, albeit pernicious, nonsense. My reticence stemmed, rather, from certain family conflicts. When the individuals concerned in these--chiefly my mother--passed away, my political development in this sphere resumed and, as if to make up for lost time, gathered speed.
Rabbi Elmer Berger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As each new Link is placed on our website, a companion issue is selected from our archive. To complement Dr. Kovel's discussion on Zionism--his book "Overcoming Zionism" is available from AMEU--we have chosen a Link written by Rabbi Elmer Berger, who for 50 years headed up American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism.
During that half century, Rabbi Berger refused to travel to Israel, saying he would do so only when Israel acknowledged its theft of Palestinian lands, allowed refugees who wanted to return to do so, and paid reparations to others for the land and property they had lost. Rabbi Berger died in 1996, never having set foot in Israel.
As a new feature of every Link issue we interview the webmaster of a site we believe deserves attention. Our interview for this issue is with James Ennes, Jr., who discusses the USS Liberty website. Ennes was on the bridge of the Liberty when it was attacked by Israel.
The USS Liberty Website
Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: info@ameu.org
voice: 212-870-2053
web: http://www.ameu.org
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Greg Palast: Obama's a DEMOCRAT
Greg Palast is right to point to the great change that Obama is using his political capital to enforce. Not to be a wet blanket, but if Obama didn't need any Republican votes on the stimulus bill, why did he have to put so much of it into tax cuts? Or was that somehow a good thing? The $500 credit vs. social security payments was surely good. I'm almost sorry now I retired -- how I used to resent not getting credit for those deductions. But for job creation Obama might have -- maybe he did-- give a similar deduction to employers. But what do I know?
Meanwhile we can try to enjoy the gains so far -- if Obama can get his bill passed. And we can resume worrying about Israel-Palestine/ Afghanistan/ Iraq/Pakistan the week after that.
Ronald
***
Obama is a two-faced liar. Aw-RIGHT!
by Greg Palast
January 29, 2009
Republicans are right. President Barack Obama treated them like dirt,
didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package, loaded it with a
bunch of programs that will last for years and will never leave the budget, is
giving away money disguised as "tax refunds," and is sneaking in huge changes in
policy, from schools to health care, using the pretext of an economic emergency.
Way to go, Mr. O! Mr. Down-and-Dirty Chicago pol. Street-fightin' man.
Covering over his break-your-face power play with a "we're all post-partisan
friends" BS.
And it's about time.
Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids
to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made
me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a
Republican.
Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for
schools (TRIPLING
federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the
unemployed,
making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by
creating a
$500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.
It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The
Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!
About the only concession Obama threw to the right-wing trogs was to
remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter,
to pay for their own protection. S'OK with me.
And here's the proof that Bam is The Man: Not one single Republican
congressman
voted for the bill. And that means that Obama didn't compromise, the way
Clinton
and Carter would have, to win the love of these condom-less jerks.
And we didn't need'm. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative
columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican
leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say,
it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting
his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then
slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's
"post-partisanship."
Heh heh heh.
Love it. Now we know why Obama picked that vindictive little viper Rahm
Emanuel as staff chief: everyone visiting the Oval office will be greeted by the
Windy City hit man who would hack up your grandma if you mess with the
Godfather-in-Chief.
I don't know about you, but THIS is the change I've been waiting for.
Will it last? We'll see if Obama caves in to more tax cuts to investment
bankers. We'll see if he stops the sub-prime scum-bags from foreclosing on
frightened families. We'll see if he stands up to the whining, gormless generals who
don't know how to get our troops out of Iraq. (In SHIPS, you doofusses!)
Look, don't get your hopes up. But it may turn out the new President's ... a Democrat!
******
Greg Palast's investigative reports for BBC and Rolling Stone can be seen
at www.GregPalast.com.
Palast is the author of New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy
Money Can
Buy and Armed Madhouse.
Ken's comment:
Who cares about any of this when O-BOMB-A is busy killing Palestinians and Afghans?
Peace,
Ken
Meanwhile we can try to enjoy the gains so far -- if Obama can get his bill passed. And we can resume worrying about Israel-Palestine/ Afghanistan/ Iraq/Pakistan the week after that.
Ronald
***
Obama is a two-faced liar. Aw-RIGHT!
by Greg Palast
January 29, 2009
Republicans are right. President Barack Obama treated them like dirt,
didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package, loaded it with a
bunch of programs that will last for years and will never leave the budget, is
giving away money disguised as "tax refunds," and is sneaking in huge changes in
policy, from schools to health care, using the pretext of an economic emergency.
Way to go, Mr. O! Mr. Down-and-Dirty Chicago pol. Street-fightin' man.
Covering over his break-your-face power play with a "we're all post-partisan
friends" BS.
And it's about time.
Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids
to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made
me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a
Republican.
Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for
schools (TRIPLING
federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the
unemployed,
making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by
creating a
$500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.
It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The
Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!
About the only concession Obama threw to the right-wing trogs was to
remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter,
to pay for their own protection. S'OK with me.
And here's the proof that Bam is The Man: Not one single Republican
congressman
voted for the bill. And that means that Obama didn't compromise, the way
Clinton
and Carter would have, to win the love of these condom-less jerks.
And we didn't need'm. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative
columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican
leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say,
it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting
his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then
slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's
"post-partisanship."
Heh heh heh.
Love it. Now we know why Obama picked that vindictive little viper Rahm
Emanuel as staff chief: everyone visiting the Oval office will be greeted by the
Windy City hit man who would hack up your grandma if you mess with the
Godfather-in-Chief.
I don't know about you, but THIS is the change I've been waiting for.
Will it last? We'll see if Obama caves in to more tax cuts to investment
bankers. We'll see if he stops the sub-prime scum-bags from foreclosing on
frightened families. We'll see if he stands up to the whining, gormless generals who
don't know how to get our troops out of Iraq. (In SHIPS, you doofusses!)
Look, don't get your hopes up. But it may turn out the new President's ... a Democrat!
******
Greg Palast's investigative reports for BBC and Rolling Stone can be seen
at www.GregPalast.com.
Palast is the author of New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy
Money Can
Buy and Armed Madhouse.
Ken's comment:
Who cares about any of this when O-BOMB-A is busy killing Palestinians and Afghans?
Peace,
Ken
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Bush spurns pardons -- Left Outmaneuvered Again
Left Outmaneuvered Again – Bush rejects pardons
Yes, they were clever, very clever. President George W. Bush’s decision not to utilize his pardon power on behalf of top administration officials (or just about anybody else) has confounded the expectations of many observers.
In hindsight, we have to admit it was a brilliant move, their best gambit under the circumstances. It repeats their winning strategy of admitting, after their criminality was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, that they engaged in widespread warrantless wiretapping.
Similarly, we can now see that by not issuing pardons, they have chosen their best option. They have dared Obama and Congress to try and hold them accountable. Had they issued wide ranging pardons in the manner many expected, they could have counted on a massive outcry and pressure on the Obama administration and on Congress to follow up appropriately.
They understood that the more Obama and Congress resisted such pressure, the more traction the issue would have. Last minute pardons by Bush would have amounted to a significant stain on his legacy, as for example the Marc Rich pardon has tarnished the Clinton legacy. Bush’s decision not to issue pardons does as much as was in his power to defuse the issue of his extraordinary crimes. It also allows Obama and Congress to quietly sidestep the issue if they so choose.
Whether there will be any measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney crimes may depend on whatever pressure the Left can mount on the Obama administration and the decisions of incoming Attorney General Eric Holder. The indications are that Bush’s decision has already paid dividends with the announcement (1.27.09) that veteran Senator Arlen Specter, the decisive voice behind the Republican attempt to impose conditions on Eric Holder has come out in favor of the nomination after a private conversation with him. (See “Sen. Specter Backs Holder--But What Did Holder Promise?” by David Swanson, of the afterdowningstreet.org website.) Swanson reports speculation suggesting that Holder may have agreed not to investigate Bush’s torture policies.
Addendum:
A surprising development is Dick Cheney’s post inauguration public statement expressing outrage that Bush didn’t pardon top vice presidential aide, Scooter Libby. If Cheney’s statement was sincere, it could suggest a depth to the schism between Bush and Cheney that many hadn’t suspected. We might have guessed that Cheney would have been able to enforce his will on the subject.
We can wonder if the Bush people had their own sufficiently deep understanding of the extent of the pathology of their indispensable colleague and they wished to preserve some distance from the darkness.
Footnote to Addendum
The above addendum raises a question that I had thought was settled in my own mind: namely the question of the extent to which there was any difference in agenda between Bush and Cheney, and the extent to which George W. Bush was a willing and knowledgeable participant in the policies and crimes of his administration.
There was no doubt in my mind (and I find evidence to suggest) that the two men shared exactly the same agenda of pathological destruction. I never thought that Bush was merely an empty shirt or puppet, and I continue to believe that Bush knew and approved virtually all the policies that Cheney promoted and enforced.
***
Yes, they were clever, very clever. President George W. Bush’s decision not to utilize his pardon power on behalf of top administration officials (or just about anybody else) has confounded the expectations of many observers.
In hindsight, we have to admit it was a brilliant move, their best gambit under the circumstances. It repeats their winning strategy of admitting, after their criminality was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, that they engaged in widespread warrantless wiretapping.
Similarly, we can now see that by not issuing pardons, they have chosen their best option. They have dared Obama and Congress to try and hold them accountable. Had they issued wide ranging pardons in the manner many expected, they could have counted on a massive outcry and pressure on the Obama administration and on Congress to follow up appropriately.
They understood that the more Obama and Congress resisted such pressure, the more traction the issue would have. Last minute pardons by Bush would have amounted to a significant stain on his legacy, as for example the Marc Rich pardon has tarnished the Clinton legacy. Bush’s decision not to issue pardons does as much as was in his power to defuse the issue of his extraordinary crimes. It also allows Obama and Congress to quietly sidestep the issue if they so choose.
Whether there will be any measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney crimes may depend on whatever pressure the Left can mount on the Obama administration and the decisions of incoming Attorney General Eric Holder. The indications are that Bush’s decision has already paid dividends with the announcement (1.27.09) that veteran Senator Arlen Specter, the decisive voice behind the Republican attempt to impose conditions on Eric Holder has come out in favor of the nomination after a private conversation with him. (See “Sen. Specter Backs Holder--But What Did Holder Promise?” by David Swanson, of the afterdowningstreet.org website.) Swanson reports speculation suggesting that Holder may have agreed not to investigate Bush’s torture policies.
Addendum:
A surprising development is Dick Cheney’s post inauguration public statement expressing outrage that Bush didn’t pardon top vice presidential aide, Scooter Libby. If Cheney’s statement was sincere, it could suggest a depth to the schism between Bush and Cheney that many hadn’t suspected. We might have guessed that Cheney would have been able to enforce his will on the subject.
We can wonder if the Bush people had their own sufficiently deep understanding of the extent of the pathology of their indispensable colleague and they wished to preserve some distance from the darkness.
Footnote to Addendum
The above addendum raises a question that I had thought was settled in my own mind: namely the question of the extent to which there was any difference in agenda between Bush and Cheney, and the extent to which George W. Bush was a willing and knowledgeable participant in the policies and crimes of his administration.
There was no doubt in my mind (and I find evidence to suggest) that the two men shared exactly the same agenda of pathological destruction. I never thought that Bush was merely an empty shirt or puppet, and I continue to believe that Bush knew and approved virtually all the policies that Cheney promoted and enforced.
***
Monday, January 26, 2009
Gaza Pogrom: Israel Required Palestinians Rockets to Inflict Pogrom + Sniegoski on the power of the Lobby
This image from Israeli sources of a Quassam rocket which apparently landed in Israel from the Gaza strip seems to have Hebrew markings. One question is how did it get such markings?
[:Note: I was later reminded by an alert reader that the Hebrew markings are most likely messages sent in Hebrew to their Jewish cousins. Thanks for the correction.}
http://api.ning.com/files/6yTQ2G99aOTbFK*SAM96tleUKVQoEYkzVDKGppMnQkwLWkuwx4BGWcjJXIG4Aj8uswEv21EFEMcCq81jX116h1BwqnYKX7py/qassam19.jpg
Are they of Israeli origin and if so how did they get to Gaza? If indeed the rockets were made with Israeli parts and "smuggled" to Gaza by means of the Rafah tunnels, that might be one more piece of evidence that this whole "crisis" was manufactured, just as was the 33 day Lebanon War of 2006 with the active participation of the Bush administration and Elliot Abrams, their point man on the Middle East. .
Many have noted that it was Israel who broke the cease fire on Nov 4, 2008 by killing six Hamas activists -- not to mention cutting off vital food and fuel shipments and everything else. Israeli pressure on the Palestinians was dramatically ratcheted up after the January 2006 Parliamentary elections which Hamas won. The elections themselves were insisted upon by the Bush administration, knowing that Hamas would win. (Remarkably this point was made in the US election campaign.) And once again, as in the Lebanon war, it is the US is playing a leading role preventing a cease fire. It is also clear to many that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians just as they are targeting the civil infrastructure so as to make life as difficult as possible for 1.5 million Gazans. Their long range plan is to eliminate non Jews entirely. Could any message be clearer? We don't want you here!!
I was surprised to find in the Forward, a report from a right-wing think tank, the Jerusalem based Shalem Center (not to be confused with the Leftist Philadelphia based Shalom Center) quoting senior fellow Martin Kramer acknowledging that “Israel could have ceased Hamas rocket fire by opening crossings.” Although the Forward article confusingly continues with Kramer saying that “from a political point of view, it is not about rockets but about crossings,” it’s remarkable to find a right wing or any wing Israeli or pro Zionist voice acknowledging that the rockets (and Israeli casualties) have been driven by Israeli policy. (See "What Happens to Gaza When the Fighting Stops?" http://www.forward.com/articles/14907/ )
We can see the current attack on Gaza as yet another post-November parting gift from the Bush-Cheney administration to the incoming Obama team and to the world. (The deep and ongoing CIA/ISI connection suggests that it's not unlikely that the recent terror attack in Mumbai was their first such gift.) In both cases, their actions betray, as have all their policies for the last eight years, their nihilist agenda of permanent war and limitless destruction for its own sake.
As for the wall-to- wall pro Israeli line in the media and in Congress in the face of unspeakable atrocities against a captive, helpless gentile people by Israel and the West who claim Never Again as on abiding mantra, most readers understand that the power of the Lobby, when it comes to defending the most vicious Israeli ruthlessness goes beyond even their grassroots supporters.
Nevertheless it’s worthwhile reviewing a few timely paragraphs from author and analyst Stephen Sniegoski on “Congress’ Gaza Resolution Illustrates Power of the Israel Lobby”
--Ronald
http://bleiersblog.blogspot.com/
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/
http://desip.igc.org/
Unsubscribe by replying to this message.
Sniegoski writes:
According to the critics, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their “The Israel Lobby,” much exaggerated the power of the lobby. The critics claimed that congressional support for Israel simply reflected the views of the American people. Congress’ recent resolution on Gaza, however, would seem to belie this criticism and underscore the immense power of the Israel Lobby. Congress almost unanimously endorsed the Israeli mass killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip, which, of course, involves the use of American weapons. By voice vote, the Senate gave unanimous support for the resolution. The House of Representatives voted 390 for the resolution with only 5 against [Kucinich, Moore (WI), Paul, Rahall, Waters]
The view of the American public, however, was significantly different. As the following article points out, the American people “do not support this senseless slaughter in anything near overwhelming numbers.” [Quoting from a Rasmussen Poll]
“Americans, while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip. Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there...”
[Source: Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 31, 2008]
The author continues: “If 41% of Americans didn't support the onset of military action, surely fewer than that support the disproportionate murder of over 700 people. Yet, 89.6% of our representatives just voted to express our government's support for this crime. Less than one percent of the House voted 'no'.”
The author wonders, rather pretends to wonder, “How did we get to this point where there is such a massive distortion and disconnect between what the public thinks and how their representatives vote? That's a matter for speculation.”
Let’s engage in a little “speculation.” Despite a media which has slanted coverage of Gaza about as much as possible in favor of Israel (totally different from what the rest of the world is getting), the American public is roughly divided on the issue of the correctness of the Israeli attack. That Congress provides almost unanimous support for Israel (even when such support is contrary of American national interest since it increases world hatred of the US) would seem to indicate the power of the Israel Lobby.
Very few of those Americans who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza base their political support and voting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and even those few who do lack the wherewithal to make much of a political impact. In contrast, the Israel Lobby can exert considerable power (money, media) against those members of Congress who oppose it. Since members of Congress, in the main, tend to be lacking in sincere conviction and political courage, they are not willing to take the chance of opposing the Israel Lobby. Of course, the same is true in the media—bucking the lobby is simply not career enhancing. The vast majority of people simply prefer career success in the media or politics as opposed to becoming a martyr—especially a martyr who might be smeared as a devil by the pro-Israel saturated media. Average Americans don’t sacrifice much by taking a position opposed to Israel—certainly, in most cases, their jobs do not depend on their views of Israeli policy. --S.S.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/1/9/145856/9720
The Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution
by BooMan
Fri Jan 9th, 2009
On the scale of offensive one-sidedness in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ironically named Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution is probably about a 'five'. The actual text of the resolution has a couple of disputable facts, but its real fault lies in its arbitrary selection of facts. Yet, critiquing the factual basis for the resolution is outside the scope of this essay. It was carefully crafted to assure maximum support. And it just received maximum support in the House, where it passed by a vote of 390-5 with 22 Democrats voting 'present' and 16 representatives not voting.
The five representatives that voted against the resolution are Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Maxine Waters (D-CA). I believe 21 of the 22 Democratic members that voted 'present' are members of the Progressive Caucus.
The important thing is that 390 members of the House voted for a resolution that states (in part):
Read more:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/1/9/145856/9720
[:Note: I was later reminded by an alert reader that the Hebrew markings are most likely messages sent in Hebrew to their Jewish cousins. Thanks for the correction.}
http://api.ning.com/files/6yTQ2G99aOTbFK*SAM96tleUKVQoEYkzVDKGppMnQkwLWkuwx4BGWcjJXIG4Aj8uswEv21EFEMcCq81jX116h1BwqnYKX7py/qassam19.jpg
Are they of Israeli origin and if so how did they get to Gaza? If indeed the rockets were made with Israeli parts and "smuggled" to Gaza by means of the Rafah tunnels, that might be one more piece of evidence that this whole "crisis" was manufactured, just as was the 33 day Lebanon War of 2006 with the active participation of the Bush administration and Elliot Abrams, their point man on the Middle East. .
Many have noted that it was Israel who broke the cease fire on Nov 4, 2008 by killing six Hamas activists -- not to mention cutting off vital food and fuel shipments and everything else. Israeli pressure on the Palestinians was dramatically ratcheted up after the January 2006 Parliamentary elections which Hamas won. The elections themselves were insisted upon by the Bush administration, knowing that Hamas would win. (Remarkably this point was made in the US election campaign.) And once again, as in the Lebanon war, it is the US is playing a leading role preventing a cease fire. It is also clear to many that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians just as they are targeting the civil infrastructure so as to make life as difficult as possible for 1.5 million Gazans. Their long range plan is to eliminate non Jews entirely. Could any message be clearer? We don't want you here!!
I was surprised to find in the Forward, a report from a right-wing think tank, the Jerusalem based Shalem Center (not to be confused with the Leftist Philadelphia based Shalom Center) quoting senior fellow Martin Kramer acknowledging that “Israel could have ceased Hamas rocket fire by opening crossings.” Although the Forward article confusingly continues with Kramer saying that “from a political point of view, it is not about rockets but about crossings,” it’s remarkable to find a right wing or any wing Israeli or pro Zionist voice acknowledging that the rockets (and Israeli casualties) have been driven by Israeli policy. (See "What Happens to Gaza When the Fighting Stops?" http://www.forward.com/articles/14907/ )
We can see the current attack on Gaza as yet another post-November parting gift from the Bush-Cheney administration to the incoming Obama team and to the world. (The deep and ongoing CIA/ISI connection suggests that it's not unlikely that the recent terror attack in Mumbai was their first such gift.) In both cases, their actions betray, as have all their policies for the last eight years, their nihilist agenda of permanent war and limitless destruction for its own sake.
As for the wall-to- wall pro Israeli line in the media and in Congress in the face of unspeakable atrocities against a captive, helpless gentile people by Israel and the West who claim Never Again as on abiding mantra, most readers understand that the power of the Lobby, when it comes to defending the most vicious Israeli ruthlessness goes beyond even their grassroots supporters.
Nevertheless it’s worthwhile reviewing a few timely paragraphs from author and analyst Stephen Sniegoski on “Congress’ Gaza Resolution Illustrates Power of the Israel Lobby”
--Ronald
http://bleiersblog.blogspot.com/
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/
http://desip.igc.org/
Unsubscribe by replying to this message.
Sniegoski writes:
According to the critics, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their “The Israel Lobby,” much exaggerated the power of the lobby. The critics claimed that congressional support for Israel simply reflected the views of the American people. Congress’ recent resolution on Gaza, however, would seem to belie this criticism and underscore the immense power of the Israel Lobby. Congress almost unanimously endorsed the Israeli mass killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip, which, of course, involves the use of American weapons. By voice vote, the Senate gave unanimous support for the resolution. The House of Representatives voted 390 for the resolution with only 5 against [Kucinich, Moore (WI), Paul, Rahall, Waters]
The view of the American public, however, was significantly different. As the following article points out, the American people “do not support this senseless slaughter in anything near overwhelming numbers.” [Quoting from a Rasmussen Poll]
“Americans, while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip. Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there...”
[Source: Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 31, 2008]
The author continues: “If 41% of Americans didn't support the onset of military action, surely fewer than that support the disproportionate murder of over 700 people. Yet, 89.6% of our representatives just voted to express our government's support for this crime. Less than one percent of the House voted 'no'.”
The author wonders, rather pretends to wonder, “How did we get to this point where there is such a massive distortion and disconnect between what the public thinks and how their representatives vote? That's a matter for speculation.”
Let’s engage in a little “speculation.” Despite a media which has slanted coverage of Gaza about as much as possible in favor of Israel (totally different from what the rest of the world is getting), the American public is roughly divided on the issue of the correctness of the Israeli attack. That Congress provides almost unanimous support for Israel (even when such support is contrary of American national interest since it increases world hatred of the US) would seem to indicate the power of the Israel Lobby.
Very few of those Americans who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza base their political support and voting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and even those few who do lack the wherewithal to make much of a political impact. In contrast, the Israel Lobby can exert considerable power (money, media) against those members of Congress who oppose it. Since members of Congress, in the main, tend to be lacking in sincere conviction and political courage, they are not willing to take the chance of opposing the Israel Lobby. Of course, the same is true in the media—bucking the lobby is simply not career enhancing. The vast majority of people simply prefer career success in the media or politics as opposed to becoming a martyr—especially a martyr who might be smeared as a devil by the pro-Israel saturated media. Average Americans don’t sacrifice much by taking a position opposed to Israel—certainly, in most cases, their jobs do not depend on their views of Israeli policy. --S.S.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/1/9/145856/9720
The Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution
by BooMan
Fri Jan 9th, 2009
On the scale of offensive one-sidedness in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ironically named Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution is probably about a 'five'. The actual text of the resolution has a couple of disputable facts, but its real fault lies in its arbitrary selection of facts. Yet, critiquing the factual basis for the resolution is outside the scope of this essay. It was carefully crafted to assure maximum support. And it just received maximum support in the House, where it passed by a vote of 390-5 with 22 Democrats voting 'present' and 16 representatives not voting.
The five representatives that voted against the resolution are Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Maxine Waters (D-CA). I believe 21 of the 22 Democratic members that voted 'present' are members of the Progressive Caucus.
The important thing is that 390 members of the House voted for a resolution that states (in part):
Read more:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/1/9/145856/9720
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Gleen Greenberg on Liberals supporting Gaza Massacre
I've been a fan of Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald for more than a year and in the past I've criticized him because, like so many others he seemed to be avoiding the question of the power of the Lobby to ensure that Democrats get behind Bush's "War on Terror" because it was directed at Arabs and Muslims.
So it's been a welcome relief to find that he's taken such a strong line against the ongoing horror in Gaza and the more than 40 year Israeli occupation. If anyone but Jews were massacring a defenseless population the good liberals that Greenwald cites in the first paragraph below would be very clear about who was the aggressor and who was the victim.
***
Here are three paragraphs from Glenn Greenwald's Sunday Jan. 4, 2009, offering:
Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
So it's been a welcome relief to find that he's taken such a strong line against the ongoing horror in Gaza and the more than 40 year Israeli occupation. If anyone but Jews were massacring a defenseless population the good liberals that Greenwald cites in the first paragraph below would be very clear about who was the aggressor and who was the victim.
***
Here are three paragraphs from Glenn Greenwald's Sunday Jan. 4, 2009, offering:
Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I can't express how many emails I've received in the last week from people identifying themselves as "liberals" (and, overwhelmingly, American Jews); telling me that they agree with my views in almost all areas other than Israel; and then self-righteously insisting that I imagine what it's like to live in Southern Israel with incoming rocket fire from Hamas, as though that will change my views on the Israel/Gaza war. Obviously, it's not difficult to imagine the understandable rage that Israelis feel when learning of another attack on Israeli civilians, in exactly the way that American rage over the 9/11 attacks was understandable. But just as that American anger didn't justify anything and everything that followed, the fact that there are indefensible attacks on Israeli civilians doesn't render the (far more lethal) attacks on Gaza either wise or just -- as numerous Jewish residents of Sderot themselves are courageously arguing in opposing the Israeli attack.
More to the point: for those who insist that others put themselves in the position of a resident of Sderot -- as though that will, by itself, prove the justifiability of the Israeli attack -- the idea literally never occurs to them that they ought to imagine what it's like to live under foreign occupation for 4 decades (and, despite the 2005 "withdrawal from Gaza," Israel continues to occupy and expand its settlements on Palestinian land and to control and severely restrict many key aspects of Gazan life). No thought is given to what it is like, what emotions it generates, what horrible acts start to appear justifiable, when you have a hostile foreign army control your borders and airspace and internal affairs for 40 years, one which builds walls around you, imposes the most intensely humiliating conditions on your daily life, blockades your land so that you're barred from exiting and prevented from accessing basic nutrition and medical needs for your children to the point where a substantial portion of the underage population suffers from stunted growth.
So extreme is their emotional identification with one side (Israel) that it literally never occurs to them to give any thought to any of that, to imagine what it's like to live in those circumstances. Nor does this thought occur to them:
* * * * *
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Nir Rosen (Guardian, UK): The State defines terrorism: It's what the Other does, not what we do
An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?
See below for selections from Nir Rosen's timely article on who is a terrorist.
But first:
It’s a lesson in human nature and a reminder of human history to see how night is turned into day and how the massacre of a captive people is justified in the West. (The world that Bush and Cheney have succeeded in bringing closer and closer to the level of their beloved Taliban over the last 8 years.)
In a personal note, my family narrowly escaped Hitler’s inferno and my brush with extinction perhaps contributed to the difficulty I had understanding how an educated people could engage in such a degree of self deception when their government embarked on massive crimes against the Other.
Over time I learned that tribal loyalty trumps everything, especially reality. Nevertheless, I might have hoped never to see a whole people treated like … I was going to say the way Hitler and his most vicious and barbaric colleagues in all of history treated their enemies, but even Hitler preferred to do so out of sight of the world’s notice. Well, one concession the Israelis have made to our sensibilities is that they have attempted to keep the media out of Gaza. Ok, score one for the Israelis.
The power of Zionism, the ideology of a purely Jewish state has risen, with the malicious assistance of Bush and Cheney, to unparallelled brutality and remorselessness. As one analyst has described it: “Organized Jewry is a quasi-sovereign power in this country, a menace to all of us.” The current assault on Gaza and the shameless response of its wall to wall supporters suggest that we may be seeing the monster of Zionism come out of its slouch in the darkness, emboldened now to confront us unabashedly with dripping jaw, seeking to destroy everything, including itself.
Meanwhile here are a few illuminating paragraphs from Nir Rosen’s latest article for the Guardian.
from Nir Rosen: “ Gaza: the logic of colonial power”
The Guardian. uk.co. 29 December 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print
Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print
See below for selections from Nir Rosen's timely article on who is a terrorist.
But first:
It’s a lesson in human nature and a reminder of human history to see how night is turned into day and how the massacre of a captive people is justified in the West. (The world that Bush and Cheney have succeeded in bringing closer and closer to the level of their beloved Taliban over the last 8 years.)
In a personal note, my family narrowly escaped Hitler’s inferno and my brush with extinction perhaps contributed to the difficulty I had understanding how an educated people could engage in such a degree of self deception when their government embarked on massive crimes against the Other.
Over time I learned that tribal loyalty trumps everything, especially reality. Nevertheless, I might have hoped never to see a whole people treated like … I was going to say the way Hitler and his most vicious and barbaric colleagues in all of history treated their enemies, but even Hitler preferred to do so out of sight of the world’s notice. Well, one concession the Israelis have made to our sensibilities is that they have attempted to keep the media out of Gaza. Ok, score one for the Israelis.
The power of Zionism, the ideology of a purely Jewish state has risen, with the malicious assistance of Bush and Cheney, to unparallelled brutality and remorselessness. As one analyst has described it: “Organized Jewry is a quasi-sovereign power in this country, a menace to all of us.” The current assault on Gaza and the shameless response of its wall to wall supporters suggest that we may be seeing the monster of Zionism come out of its slouch in the darkness, emboldened now to confront us unabashedly with dripping jaw, seeking to destroy everything, including itself.
Meanwhile here are a few illuminating paragraphs from Nir Rosen’s latest article for the Guardian.
from Nir Rosen: “ Gaza: the logic of colonial power”
The Guardian. uk.co. 29 December 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorizing them was the purpose….
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors.
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can….
…Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid in his face. "The terrorist was arrested by security forces," the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?
***
Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Gaza Fishbowl (like killing fish in a bowl): Bush's Agenda of Destruction
On the third day of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, Juan Cole, writing in his Informed Comment blog (12.29.08) can’t understand Israel’s “end game here.” He doesn’t see any tactical or strategic value to the terror Israel is unleashing.
Perhaps if U.S. involvement in the current massacre were considered, the answer to Prof Cole’s question would become clearer. In the 33 day 2006 Israeli War on Lebanon, many saw the hand of the U.S. in the planning of the war and its refusal to call for a quick end to the bombardment aimed largely at civilians. Indeed there were credible reports then that the U.S. was pressuring Israel to extend the war to Syria. But such a plan was too crazy and self destructive even for the Israelis.
In the current crisis, the perpetrators seem to have handled the public relations aspect more shrewdly, and U.S. involvement is rarely mentioned. Or perhaps it’s simply a matter of time before it will be generally understood that it’s Elliot Abrams, Bush and Cheney who are driving the current horror.
And once again, since Israeli isn’t benefiting, the question is who is?
Obviously it’s not for oil.
Is it for Empire? Imperialism? The military industrial complex? Crony capitalism? The die hards will say so, but such theories don’t seem to fit the current circumstances.
The Lobby? Well they’re unvarying in their support of whatever Israel does, but it’s not clear that it's to satisfy them that F-16s are bombing children and laying waste to the infrastructure of Gaza such as it was, making it as hard as possible for civil life to continue.
By chance, the last phrase is our best answer.
Making civil life impossible. A history of the last eight years. Has all the devastation been the result of mistakes? miscalculations?
It's been noted that the current offensive will make things even more difficult for the incoming administration. Should we see the ongoing horror as another post election parting gift from the Bush team? First Mumbai, now Gaza. Is there time to squeeze in more state terror before Jan 20, or is the killing and destruction in Gaza going to have to serve us till then?
by destroying what was left of the Gaza middle class, surely they a throwing people into the arms of Hamas….Of course, there are only 1.5 million Gazans, and they increasingly are being forced to live in Haiti-like conditions, so in the short term the Israelis can do whatever they want to them. But I can't see this ending well for the Israelis in the long term.
Perhaps if U.S. involvement in the current massacre were considered, the answer to Prof Cole’s question would become clearer. In the 33 day 2006 Israeli War on Lebanon, many saw the hand of the U.S. in the planning of the war and its refusal to call for a quick end to the bombardment aimed largely at civilians. Indeed there were credible reports then that the U.S. was pressuring Israel to extend the war to Syria. But such a plan was too crazy and self destructive even for the Israelis.
In the current crisis, the perpetrators seem to have handled the public relations aspect more shrewdly, and U.S. involvement is rarely mentioned. Or perhaps it’s simply a matter of time before it will be generally understood that it’s Elliot Abrams, Bush and Cheney who are driving the current horror.
And once again, since Israeli isn’t benefiting, the question is who is?
Obviously it’s not for oil.
Is it for Empire? Imperialism? The military industrial complex? Crony capitalism? The die hards will say so, but such theories don’t seem to fit the current circumstances.
The Lobby? Well they’re unvarying in their support of whatever Israel does, but it’s not clear that it's to satisfy them that F-16s are bombing children and laying waste to the infrastructure of Gaza such as it was, making it as hard as possible for civil life to continue.
By chance, the last phrase is our best answer.
Making civil life impossible. A history of the last eight years. Has all the devastation been the result of mistakes? miscalculations?
It's been noted that the current offensive will make things even more difficult for the incoming administration. Should we see the ongoing horror as another post election parting gift from the Bush team? First Mumbai, now Gaza. Is there time to squeeze in more state terror before Jan 20, or is the killing and destruction in Gaza going to have to serve us till then?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Pogrom in Gaza: Who is this helping, + Update
One point to make about the current U.S./Israeli pogrom in Gaza is that it’s a parting gift from Elliot Abrams and Bush and Cheney who doubtless gave the green light to the planning of the current massacre on November 5th.
The origins of the current hostilities go back to the Parliamentary election victory of Hamas in January 2006 engineered by the U.S. (with Elliot Abrams in charge) with the cynical understanding that a Hamas victory would allow them to ratchet up the oppression against a “terrorist” government.
It’s probably clear to many that the current aggression is “helping Israel” only if help means to commit some combination of genocide and expulsion first in Gaza and down the road in the West Bank.
The intended effect is not only to make it more and more impossible to live in Gaza and in Palestine but it’s to make it similarly impossible for the incoming Obama administration to walk back down the ladder of the always ratcheted up oppression to the status quo ante, to where there is some sort of modus vivendi between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Who is this helping?
Update:
Laura Rozen's website, warandpiece.com noted this article from the Washington Post today.12.28.08
WP: "Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza Strip Imperil Obama's Peace Chances. Likely Escalation Complicates Already-Delicate Diplomacy."
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 28, 2008; Page A20
The origins of the current hostilities go back to the Parliamentary election victory of Hamas in January 2006 engineered by the U.S. (with Elliot Abrams in charge) with the cynical understanding that a Hamas victory would allow them to ratchet up the oppression against a “terrorist” government.
It’s probably clear to many that the current aggression is “helping Israel” only if help means to commit some combination of genocide and expulsion first in Gaza and down the road in the West Bank.
The intended effect is not only to make it more and more impossible to live in Gaza and in Palestine but it’s to make it similarly impossible for the incoming Obama administration to walk back down the ladder of the always ratcheted up oppression to the status quo ante, to where there is some sort of modus vivendi between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Who is this helping?
Update:
Laura Rozen's website, warandpiece.com noted this article from the Washington Post today.12.28.08
WP: "Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza Strip Imperil Obama's Peace Chances. Likely Escalation Complicates Already-Delicate Diplomacy."
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 28, 2008; Page A20
"By now Israel should have realized that [this kind of attack] rarely has any decisive effect," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "At best you get another faltering cease-fire, and then the whole thing begins again. Both sides have been escalating to nowhere." ...
"Now I think what the Obama administration faces is at least two years or more before they can really think of having any serious movement" on the peace process, Cordesman said. "Every time this kind of violence breaks out, it becomes harder to move forward. It just creates more of a climate of hostility and anger."
Friday, December 26, 2008
Sara Roy: Manufacturing Genocide in Gaza + false flags, Afghanistan, more + Rick Warren via Left I on the News
Sara Roy’s important article should not be missed for its clear summary of the humanitarian crisis that U.S/Israeli policy is imposing on a million and a half or more people in Gaza. Here’s the first paragraph.
If Gaza Falls . . .; by Sara Roy
I
Read more:
Published December 23, 2008 by London Review of Books
*
As Roy suggests in her first sentence, the mechanism driving the Hamas rocket attacks is clear. To insure that rockets keep coming from Hamas, Israel provokes them by murdering Palestinian activists and civilians. And if one Israeli attack isn’t sufficient, the Israeli attacks just keep coming. When the Hamas rockets finally fall the Israelis have an excuse to close the borders. (I noticed on Link TV that one such rocket displayed by an Israeli official had Hebrew markings.)
Roy’s article also suggests an answer to how the Palestinians obtain at least some of their rockets -- by means of the tunnels to Egypt, the last and unofficial lifeline the Israelis allow and which the Israelis could cut off at any time.
Israel can’t abide Hamas because Hamas has still retained its nationalism, and won’t bow to many of Israel’s demands. That’s why Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PNA, gets an easier ride: because like Arafat before him, he’s a collaborationist. As they did for decades with Arafat, Israel permits or encourages his corruption in return for following their orders.
In a quibble, we could take issue with Roy’s suggestion that Israel’s purpose is to foist Gaza on Egypt. Hardly. Although a Gaza free of Palestinians which they could take over for themselves may be slightly over the horizon, the Israeli leadership requires the continued immiseration of Gaza and the continuation of the rocket attacks for domestic political reasons. While the rockets fall, Palestinian rockets continue to unify and strengthen the Israeli Jewish community behind the dominant and ever increasingly right wing leadership. The rocket attacks push aside domestic demands for reform. All the air is sucked out of any other positive agenda.
If Israel wanted an end to the Hamas rockets, all they’d have to do is suspend their attacks on Palestine. An agreement could be worked out in less than 24 hours. So we have a clear example of manufactured “terrorism.”
The same manufactured terror is largely true with regard to the Bush-Cheney “war on terror” especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. For the most part, all the high profile terror attacks starting from the Clinton years, and the fall of the Soviet Union when such attacks had to be manufactured as a substitute to sustain Cold War ideology and U.S. military and intelligence budgets, were the product of Western and Israeli intelligence services. The terror events of 9/11 sit at the pinnacle of such false flag attacks.
The point is there’s no threat to Israel or to the West outside of those they create in order to sustain their military pathology.
One thing that will change with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis when Obama takes over is that Elliot Abrams, the most vicious of the vicious will no longer be in charge of U.S. Middle East policy. But the pressures on Obama will be intense not to take steps to relieve the current genocidal level of starvation and immiseration in Gaza. Any attempt at amelioration by an Obama administration will likely be attacked by the usual Lobby suspects, doubtless with Dershowitz in the lead as giving in to Hamas terror.
Thinking of the Rick Warren debacle (see just below for blogger Left I’s economical screed on the subject), with about 25 days left before inauguration, is it too early to conclude that Obama is constitutionally unable to show any moral courage or leadership? But to realize how scary it’s going to be after Jan 20 all you have to do is say one word: Afghanistan. Everybody knows: current Obama plans for Afghanistan = a failed Obama presidency.
Afghanistan is going to be a failure in part because Obama and his team don’t want to know and are shielding themselves from the knowledge that the U.S. is funding the Taliban to kill NATO soldiers, civilians, Indian engineers, road-builders, schoolteachers, schoolgirls and more through the Pakistani ISI. It’s one of those anomalies that we know and simultaneously don’t know. For example, in a November 25, 2008 interview for NPR's popular Fresh Air program, Terry Gross asked Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid point blank: Isn’t the U.S. funding the Pakistani ISI? It was interesting to hear Rashid try to squirm out of that one.
It can’t be squirmed out of. The U.S. controls not only the major operations of the ISI like the funding and the care and upkeep of the Taliban, and chooses ISI leaders, and directs much of Pakistani policy, but the U.S. also undoubtedly controls also their false flag operations like the Mumbai terror attacks (see Michel Chossudovsky, "India's 9/11. Who was Behind the Mumbai Attacks? Washington is Fostering Political Divisions between India and Pakistan" 2008-11-29, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11217 )
We know and we don’t want to know. And as we have learned over the decades this is just as true of the Left, as it is the Right.
Why should we expect any better from Obama?
PS. In a bibliographical note, the phrase “Manufactured Terrorism” is the title of a breakthrough article by Gerard Holmgren explaining what really happened on 9/11/01. (See “Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006).
Holmgren’s title apparently echoes Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s important Manufactured Consent (1988).
Ronald
***
Blogger Left I on the News on the Rick Warren affair wrote:
12.17 08
Will Rick Warren wake up the liberals?
If Gaza Falls . . .; by Sara Roy
I
srael's siege of Gaza began on 5 November, the day after an Israeli attack inside the strip, no doubt designed finally to undermine the truce between Israel and Hamas established last June. Although both sides had violated the agreement before, this incursion was on a different scale. Hamas responded by firing rockets into Israel and the violence has not abated since then. Israel's siege has two fundamental goals. One is to ensure that the Palestinians there are seen merely as a humanitarian problem, beggars who have no political identity and therefore can have no political claims. The second is to foist Gaza onto Egypt. That is why the Israelis tolerate the hundreds of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt around which an informal but increasingly regulated commercial sector has begun to form. The overwhelming majority of Gazans are impoverished and officially 49.1 per cent are unemployed. In fact the prospect of steady employment is rapidly disappearing for the majority of the population.
Read more:
Published December 23, 2008 by London Review of Books
*
As Roy suggests in her first sentence, the mechanism driving the Hamas rocket attacks is clear. To insure that rockets keep coming from Hamas, Israel provokes them by murdering Palestinian activists and civilians. And if one Israeli attack isn’t sufficient, the Israeli attacks just keep coming. When the Hamas rockets finally fall the Israelis have an excuse to close the borders. (I noticed on Link TV that one such rocket displayed by an Israeli official had Hebrew markings.)
Roy’s article also suggests an answer to how the Palestinians obtain at least some of their rockets -- by means of the tunnels to Egypt, the last and unofficial lifeline the Israelis allow and which the Israelis could cut off at any time.
Israel can’t abide Hamas because Hamas has still retained its nationalism, and won’t bow to many of Israel’s demands. That’s why Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PNA, gets an easier ride: because like Arafat before him, he’s a collaborationist. As they did for decades with Arafat, Israel permits or encourages his corruption in return for following their orders.
In a quibble, we could take issue with Roy’s suggestion that Israel’s purpose is to foist Gaza on Egypt. Hardly. Although a Gaza free of Palestinians which they could take over for themselves may be slightly over the horizon, the Israeli leadership requires the continued immiseration of Gaza and the continuation of the rocket attacks for domestic political reasons. While the rockets fall, Palestinian rockets continue to unify and strengthen the Israeli Jewish community behind the dominant and ever increasingly right wing leadership. The rocket attacks push aside domestic demands for reform. All the air is sucked out of any other positive agenda.
If Israel wanted an end to the Hamas rockets, all they’d have to do is suspend their attacks on Palestine. An agreement could be worked out in less than 24 hours. So we have a clear example of manufactured “terrorism.”
The same manufactured terror is largely true with regard to the Bush-Cheney “war on terror” especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. For the most part, all the high profile terror attacks starting from the Clinton years, and the fall of the Soviet Union when such attacks had to be manufactured as a substitute to sustain Cold War ideology and U.S. military and intelligence budgets, were the product of Western and Israeli intelligence services. The terror events of 9/11 sit at the pinnacle of such false flag attacks.
The point is there’s no threat to Israel or to the West outside of those they create in order to sustain their military pathology.
One thing that will change with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis when Obama takes over is that Elliot Abrams, the most vicious of the vicious will no longer be in charge of U.S. Middle East policy. But the pressures on Obama will be intense not to take steps to relieve the current genocidal level of starvation and immiseration in Gaza. Any attempt at amelioration by an Obama administration will likely be attacked by the usual Lobby suspects, doubtless with Dershowitz in the lead as giving in to Hamas terror.
Thinking of the Rick Warren debacle (see just below for blogger Left I’s economical screed on the subject), with about 25 days left before inauguration, is it too early to conclude that Obama is constitutionally unable to show any moral courage or leadership? But to realize how scary it’s going to be after Jan 20 all you have to do is say one word: Afghanistan. Everybody knows: current Obama plans for Afghanistan = a failed Obama presidency.
Afghanistan is going to be a failure in part because Obama and his team don’t want to know and are shielding themselves from the knowledge that the U.S. is funding the Taliban to kill NATO soldiers, civilians, Indian engineers, road-builders, schoolteachers, schoolgirls and more through the Pakistani ISI. It’s one of those anomalies that we know and simultaneously don’t know. For example, in a November 25, 2008 interview for NPR's popular Fresh Air program, Terry Gross asked Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid point blank: Isn’t the U.S. funding the Pakistani ISI? It was interesting to hear Rashid try to squirm out of that one.
It can’t be squirmed out of. The U.S. controls not only the major operations of the ISI like the funding and the care and upkeep of the Taliban, and chooses ISI leaders, and directs much of Pakistani policy, but the U.S. also undoubtedly controls also their false flag operations like the Mumbai terror attacks (see Michel Chossudovsky, "India's 9/11. Who was Behind the Mumbai Attacks? Washington is Fostering Political Divisions between India and Pakistan" 2008-11-29, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11217 )
We know and we don’t want to know. And as we have learned over the decades this is just as true of the Left, as it is the Right.
Why should we expect any better from Obama?
PS. In a bibliographical note, the phrase “Manufactured Terrorism” is the title of a breakthrough article by Gerard Holmgren explaining what really happened on 9/11/01. (See “Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006).
Holmgren’s title apparently echoes Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s important Manufactured Consent (1988).
Ronald
***
Blogger Left I on the News on the Rick Warren affair wrote:
12.17 08
Will Rick Warren wake up the liberals?
With every appointment of a war-loving Hillary Clinton/Robert Gates/James Jones or a nuclear power-loving Steven Chu or a Monsanto-loving Tom Vilsack and on and on, liberals keep telling themselves that it's ok, it's just that old "Team of Rivals" thing, and that Barack Obama the supposed antiwar liberal is really the one calling the shots and the others will just be implementing his vision.
And what will they say to the announcement that anti-abortion homophobe Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration? True, it is just "symbolism." One large symbolic slap in the face of every supporter of women's rights and LGBT rights who supported Obama in this election.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bush, a shoe (or two) in? Al-Zaidi beaten and tortured?
Dec 16, 2008
Urgent, just reported: Al-Zaidi in U.S. run Camp Cropper prison
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/12/16/urgent-just-reported-al-zaidi-in-us-run-camp-cropper-prison/
Iraqi TV al-Sharqiya just reported on the news that AL-Zaidi is transferred to Camp Cropper prison [the Airport prison, managed by the American forces].
The TV Channel announced that Al-Zaidi is in a difficult condition, with broken ribs and signs of tortures on his thighs. Also he cannot move his right arm.
Here's Democracy Now's report. According to them Al Zaidi is under Iraqi control, not the USG.
12.16.08
Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Journalist Remains Imprisoned
The International Federation of Journalists has called on the Iraqi government to release the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush at a news conference on Sunday. Muntadar al-Zaidi has been held without charge for over twenty-four hours and has been reportedly beaten in jail. His brother said al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury. Earlier today, al-Zaidi was handed over to the Iraqi military command in Baghdad. Al-Zaidi has become a folk hero in many parts of the Arab world. Demonstrations have been held across the region calling for his release. In Iraq, thousands of protesters rallied in Baghdad and Najaf.
***
Some of us have noticed that even opponents of the Bush administration have deplored Al Zaidi's actions as inappropriate. Is it because they don't want to believe in the exceptional criminality of Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and John Yu? One thing we felt about Al Zaidi is that he understood that Bush's intention was and remains to destroy his country and many other countries, and his own country. That's the kind of man he is.
***
I don't watch much mainstream TV, and even less with the sound on. However, from the little that I noticed on CNN, I didn't detect much outrage from the right. I suspect that such a moderate response from those quarters is not typical.
***
After the incident and before I learned of the physical punishment Muntadhar Al Zaidi is undergoing, I wondered what it would be like if it were possible to ask President Bush some of the following questions. In such a world, where such questions were possible, Al Zaidi might not have had to lose his shoes, or have his arms broken.
Question: Did you have any contact or discussion with the Iraqi authorities as to the punishment to be meted out to journalist Muntadhar Al Zaidii who threw his two shoes at you?
Would such a discussion be appropriate on your part?
This question reminds us of the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Question: President Bush: Did you and/or the Vice President's office order the timing of the execution of Saddam Hussein?
Do you regret the timing of the execution before a full history of the crimes of Saddam Hussein could be brought to light?
One final question, Mr. President.
Go right ahead.
Do you believe that those heads of state responsible for crimes greater, much greater, than Saddam Hussein's should be tried and appropriately punished?
Urgent, just reported: Al-Zaidi in U.S. run Camp Cropper prison
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/12/16/urgent-just-reported-al-zaidi-in-us-run-camp-cropper-prison/
Iraqi TV al-Sharqiya just reported on the news that AL-Zaidi is transferred to Camp Cropper prison [the Airport prison, managed by the American forces].
The TV Channel announced that Al-Zaidi is in a difficult condition, with broken ribs and signs of tortures on his thighs. Also he cannot move his right arm.
Here's Democracy Now's report. According to them Al Zaidi is under Iraqi control, not the USG.
12.16.08
Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Journalist Remains Imprisoned
The International Federation of Journalists has called on the Iraqi government to release the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush at a news conference on Sunday. Muntadar al-Zaidi has been held without charge for over twenty-four hours and has been reportedly beaten in jail. His brother said al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury. Earlier today, al-Zaidi was handed over to the Iraqi military command in Baghdad. Al-Zaidi has become a folk hero in many parts of the Arab world. Demonstrations have been held across the region calling for his release. In Iraq, thousands of protesters rallied in Baghdad and Najaf.
***
Some of us have noticed that even opponents of the Bush administration have deplored Al Zaidi's actions as inappropriate. Is it because they don't want to believe in the exceptional criminality of Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and John Yu? One thing we felt about Al Zaidi is that he understood that Bush's intention was and remains to destroy his country and many other countries, and his own country. That's the kind of man he is.
***
I don't watch much mainstream TV, and even less with the sound on. However, from the little that I noticed on CNN, I didn't detect much outrage from the right. I suspect that such a moderate response from those quarters is not typical.
***
After the incident and before I learned of the physical punishment Muntadhar Al Zaidi is undergoing, I wondered what it would be like if it were possible to ask President Bush some of the following questions. In such a world, where such questions were possible, Al Zaidi might not have had to lose his shoes, or have his arms broken.
Question: Did you have any contact or discussion with the Iraqi authorities as to the punishment to be meted out to journalist Muntadhar Al Zaidii who threw his two shoes at you?
Would such a discussion be appropriate on your part?
This question reminds us of the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Question: President Bush: Did you and/or the Vice President's office order the timing of the execution of Saddam Hussein?
Do you regret the timing of the execution before a full history of the crimes of Saddam Hussein could be brought to light?
One final question, Mr. President.
Go right ahead.
Do you believe that those heads of state responsible for crimes greater, much greater, than Saddam Hussein's should be tried and appropriately punished?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
NYT: Situation in Somalia Seems About to Get Worse
December 7, 2008, By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Ronald Bleier writes:
You won't have to read too deeply between the lines to see Cheney's hand in the current and future chaos that is the fate of the suffering 9 million people of Somalia. Here's a quote which bespeaks the success of the Cheney agenda:
When the Islamists ruled Somalia for about 6 months in 2006 there was relative peace.
Gettleman emphasizes that the current situation is the responsibility of the U.S.
Yes, miscalculation is the word that is allowed. As the article details, the current situation is leading to rise of the most vicious and fundamentalist forces in the country. Earlier in the article Gettlemen mentions a 13 year girl who was stoned to death by these characters. Does the rise of such ruthless fundamentalism remind us of Afghanistan? Where else? The US in the last 8 years? Is it miscalculation or calculation?
Ronald
Read more: NYT, December 7, 2008
Situation in Somalia Seems About to Get Worse
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/world/africa/07somalia.html?_r=1&sq=Jeffrey%20Gettlemen&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=print
December 7, 2008, By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Ronald Bleier writes:
You won't have to read too deeply between the lines to see Cheney's hand in the current and future chaos that is the fate of the suffering 9 million people of Somalia. Here's a quote which bespeaks the success of the Cheney agenda:
“Somalia has now reached a very dangerous phase,” [Rasid Ali, a Somalia analyst the International Crisis Group] said. “The whole region is in for more chaos, I’m afraid.”
When the Islamists ruled Somalia for about 6 months in 2006 there was relative peace.
But today’s Islamists are a harder, more brutal group than the ones who were ousted by an Ethiopian invasion, backed by the United States, in late 2006. The old guard included many moderates, but those who tried to work with the transitional government mostly failed, leaving them weak and marginalized, and removing a mitigating influence on the die-hard insurgents.
Gettleman emphasizes that the current situation is the responsibility of the U.S.
A collapse of the government and the human disaster that would almost surely follow would be strike three for American efforts in Somalia.... In 2005 and 2006, the C.I.A. paid some of Somalia’s most reviled warlords to fight the Islamists. That backfired. In the winter of 2006, the United States took a third approach, encouraging Ethiopia to invade and backing them with American airstrikes and intelligence. “The Bush administration made a major miscalculation,” said Dan Connell, who teaches African politics at Simmons College in Boston.
Yes, miscalculation is the word that is allowed. As the article details, the current situation is leading to rise of the most vicious and fundamentalist forces in the country. Earlier in the article Gettlemen mentions a 13 year girl who was stoned to death by these characters. Does the rise of such ruthless fundamentalism remind us of Afghanistan? Where else? The US in the last 8 years? Is it miscalculation or calculation?
Ronald
Read more: NYT, December 7, 2008
Situation in Somalia Seems About to Get Worse
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/world/africa/07somalia.html?_r=1&sq=Jeffrey%20Gettlemen&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=print
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Is the US Behind the Somali Pirates?
Is the U.S. behind the Somali pirates?
Dr Kadem al Mussawi from Lebanon suggested a “conspiracy theory” on Lebanon TV, broadcast on the Mosaic News of the Middle East program on Link TV 12.3.08 regarding possible US and NATO support of the Somali pirates.
Dr Mussawi noted that the U.S. has a large naval presence in the area and gave the example that the Cole was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden when it was bombed in 2000. He wondered why the strong U.S. naval forces in the area haven't been able to control the Somali pirates. He argued that the US, acting perhaps in concert with NATO and other forces could stop the piracy if they wanted to.
Dr Mussawi pointed out that the Somali pirate activity was completely halted by the Islamic Courts government that was in power for several months in 2006 before they were overthrown by the U.S. acting in concert with Ethiopia.
Dr Mussawi gave several high profile examples of recent piracy including a Ukrainian ship carrying arms, a Saudi Ship carrying oil and an Iranian ship carrying wheat and wondered whether there could be a political element involved. Dr Mussawi wondered if the U.S. was implementing a siege of selected countries by means of recruiting the Somali pirates.
Ronald
Dr Kadem al Mussawi from Lebanon suggested a “conspiracy theory” on Lebanon TV, broadcast on the Mosaic News of the Middle East program on Link TV 12.3.08 regarding possible US and NATO support of the Somali pirates.
Dr Mussawi noted that the U.S. has a large naval presence in the area and gave the example that the Cole was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden when it was bombed in 2000. He wondered why the strong U.S. naval forces in the area haven't been able to control the Somali pirates. He argued that the US, acting perhaps in concert with NATO and other forces could stop the piracy if they wanted to.
Dr Mussawi pointed out that the Somali pirate activity was completely halted by the Islamic Courts government that was in power for several months in 2006 before they were overthrown by the U.S. acting in concert with Ethiopia.
Dr Mussawi gave several high profile examples of recent piracy including a Ukrainian ship carrying arms, a Saudi Ship carrying oil and an Iranian ship carrying wheat and wondered whether there could be a political element involved. Dr Mussawi wondered if the U.S. was implementing a siege of selected countries by means of recruiting the Somali pirates.
Ronald
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Naomi Klein on Bush's Bailout Criminality
Naomi Klein comes closest to anyone I've so far seen in pointing to the criminal nature of the Paulsen, Bush-Cheney handling of the economic collapse. Writing for The Nation, she calls it borderline criminal. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/klein "In Praise of a Rocky Transition."
One question for discussion: Is there anything in the details of Bush administration economic crisis management thus far that's inconsistent with their determination to bring the economy to its knees?
The only thing puzzling about what they are doing is their motivation: Why would they want to destroy the US economy and the international economy?
Perhaps a similar question will provide the context or even answer the first question:
Is there any policy they have undertaken in the last eight years that's inconsistent with the intention to cause as much pain, havoc, suffering and tragedy as they have thus far been able to manage?
Iraq?
Katrina?
The environment?
Palestine?
Afghanistan?
Pakistan?
Encircling Russia with NATO? (A big thanks here to the Clinton people as well.)
Sticking just to the economy: What are the implications of their evident intentions for the next two months?
How will the markets react in the next 60 days to their refusal to do anything positive and to their wasting -- how much is it now? -- $4 trillion?! What is the economy going to look like on January 20, 2009?
(It's even too painful to wonder to what extent the political, military, economic situation will continue to deteriorate in many more countries, with perhaps the greatest amount of suffering from their ongoing attacks in the Middle East and South Asia.)
Ronald
For Alternet's/Amy Goodman's version of the Naomi Klein/Democracy Now interview in connection with her Nation article, see:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107458/
One question for discussion: Is there anything in the details of Bush administration economic crisis management thus far that's inconsistent with their determination to bring the economy to its knees?
The only thing puzzling about what they are doing is their motivation: Why would they want to destroy the US economy and the international economy?
Perhaps a similar question will provide the context or even answer the first question:
Is there any policy they have undertaken in the last eight years that's inconsistent with the intention to cause as much pain, havoc, suffering and tragedy as they have thus far been able to manage?
Iraq?
Katrina?
The environment?
Palestine?
Afghanistan?
Pakistan?
Encircling Russia with NATO? (A big thanks here to the Clinton people as well.)
Sticking just to the economy: What are the implications of their evident intentions for the next two months?
How will the markets react in the next 60 days to their refusal to do anything positive and to their wasting -- how much is it now? -- $4 trillion?! What is the economy going to look like on January 20, 2009?
(It's even too painful to wonder to what extent the political, military, economic situation will continue to deteriorate in many more countries, with perhaps the greatest amount of suffering from their ongoing attacks in the Middle East and South Asia.)
Ronald
For Alternet's/Amy Goodman's version of the Naomi Klein/Democracy Now interview in connection with her Nation article, see:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107458/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
