BUSH & "REASONABLE" IRAN OFFER: SPRINGING THE TRAP

Bush is at it again, pushing the idea that the proposal to Iran (in which they'd have to suspend uranium enrichment if they agree to certain conditions) is "reasonable.":

VIENNA (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday Iran's plan to reply by late August to a big power offer of incentives to halt nuclear work was "an awful
long time for a reasonable answer".

"It should not take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable deal," Bush told a news conference after talks with European Union leaders in Vienna.

"It shouldn't take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable deal. I said weeks, not months. I believe that's what the other partners (say too)," he added, referring to Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.

So the trap has been set and is in the process of being sprung. Here's how it's working--1) make offer that we know will be refused, 2) while other party is considering offer, repeatedly refer to offer as "reasonable", and 3) when offer is ultimately refused altogether (or with caveats), use refusal of offer you knew to be unreasonable to begin with as a way to show how supposedly "unreasonable" the other party is/was all along.

The Offer

But what do we even know about this "reasonable" offer? Not much, and of course, that's intentional--if the parts of the offer that we know Iran will refuse were public, the trap would never work. We only know the parts that seem "reasonable," as this Reuters article points out:

The proposal, which has not been made public, would provide Iran with a new facility to stockpile nuclear fuel, deletes a reference in an earlier draft to guaranteeing Iran's "territorial integrity" and proposes an unofficial regional security forum, diplomats said.

It also offers Iran a light-water nuclear power reactor for which Europeans or Russians are expected to be the main technology suppliers, while the United States provides legal clearances for American-made components and agrees not to invoke U.S. laws sanctioning foreign firms for doing business in Iran.

Other provisions includes permission for Iran to purchase U.S. and European civilian airplanes and spare parts and to buy U.S. agricultural technology.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivered the offer to Tehran Tuesday.

McCormack refused to say specifically if Solana laid out penalties as
well as the benefits of the deal in his meetings.

Note that the proposal "has not been made public" and that the guy who told this reporter about the guy who delivered the offer to Iran "refused to say specifically" what the exact details of the offer are.

That's so that when Iran ultimately refuses the offer in whole or in part, the neocons/theocons can hit the airwaves, talking incessantly about how the refusal proves how "unreasonable" Iran is and how we have to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, even though our own National Intelligence Estimate from last year says that Iran is at least 10 years away from one.

Why I'm Trying To Follow This Closely

And that's why I'm trying to document this--so that when all the aforementioned things happen, you and I will not be caught unawares. The war pundits will say "Iran refused our very reasonable offer" as proof that we have to invade to stop their "mad" schemes. And you and I will be able to call bullshit on that and say "how do you know the offer was reasonable--it was never made public in full, only a few details were carefully and selectively leaked to cast the offer in the best light in the minds of the American public."

And not only that, we now know that Bush refused to enter into talks with Iran in 2003 when the Iranians were making overtures to have that happen. In fact, at that time, Iran was willing to negotiate everything--nuclear power, the works:

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an
unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of
the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the
Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a
genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration
officials said.

Note that now that Iran has announced that they've finally enriched uranium, that's when Bush wants to enter talks and make a bad faith offer. And that's why Iran will refuse the current offer--they've already been able to enrich uranium on their own and don't want to sacrifice their sovereignty in order to have another country do it for them, whereas they might have been willing to agree to that before this year.

Sounds Familiar

This all sounds frighteningly familar--remember when Bush had three separate opportunities to get Zarqawi, but refused them all--they knew they'd need a way to suggest a nonexistent connection between al Qaida and Saddam, and they knew they'd need some bad guys to demonize once the war got going. In the same way, all of this that is now happening with Iran could have been avoided if only Bush had gone to the table with Iraq 3 years ago.

But Bush doesn't want negotiations--that doesn't make you a "war president." Bush wants war, war, and more war, because it gives him a chance to drain the U.S. treasury, cut domestic spending, make him and his party look tough, and given he and his party an excuse to crack down on democracy at home.

And one last thing, as far as "reasonable" being used before, check out this golden oldie of Bush's, when he claimed that Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

That's the whole trap and Republican "war president" strategy in a nutshell: make a "reasonable" request we know will be refused, then use that refusal (or in Saddam's case, just pretend he refused) as an excuse to start a war. Which is an excuse to roll back the New Deal and everything we hold dear in this country.

Good night.

IRAN & "REASONABLE" OFFERS

Mein Gott! I can't believe that Bush is doing exactly what I predicted. I guess this is phase two of the Operation Iran Liberation project. Here's what I said on June 7:

"However, the Iranians are not going to accept the deal and Bush and Rice and everyone involved knows they aren’t going to accept it. The whole point of this–the con job I referred to earlier–is that when the Iranians inevitably do refuse the deal, that will be the next anti-Iran talking point. We’re reasonable and they aren’t. The security council offered them this sweet deal and they refused it. So we have to bomb and/or invade."

Here's what Bush said today:

"I've a message for the Iranian regime: America and our partners are united. We have presented a reasonable offer. Iran's leaders should see our proposal for what it is -- an historic opportunity to set their country on a better course. If Iran's leaders want peace and prosperity and a more hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer, abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, and come into compliance with their international obligations."

We know that Iran's supreme leader has already said that Iran will not "back down" from obtaining nuclear technology:

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Thursday that Iran would never back down on its nuclear program and dismissed the threat of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not succumb to these pressures," state television quoted Khamenei as saying.

Speaking to Iranian nuclear experts in Tehran, Khamenei said the development of nuclear technology was more important than oil extraction _ the source of about 80 percent of Iran's foreign exchange.

"Let me tell you, the importance of achieving and using nuclear energy is higher than oil exploration for our country," Khamenei said."

Of course, Iranian President Ahmadenijad has said that the U.S. offer is encouraging, but that's because he's "good cop" to Khamenei's "bad cop." And Khamenei is the one who will ultimately make the decision about the West's offer.

If I Were Iran

If I were Iran, I would not accept this offer. If you were Iran, you would not accept this offer. So why should anyone expect Iran to take this offer?

As far as I can tell, the details of the offer are still secret, though leaks (surely selective and official to put the offer in the best light in the Western press) have told us that the U.S. is offering "some nuclear technology." That's because this offer is a trap to turn world opinion against Iran so that the U.S. can make a case for invasion.

Don't be surprised when the Iranians refuse the deal and are demonized by both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and support--or lack thereof--for an Iranian invasion becomes an issue in the November midterm elections. Which are already decided in favor of Republicans, by the way, but they've got to demonize the Democrats and the antiwar position even more so that when they do steal the midterms with the electronic machines, they'll have even more cover to deregulate, de-democratize, and privatize the U.S.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's already been happening with the supposed "free and democratic Iraq." That's how the president described that country in his address that I linked to above. If Iraq is "free and democratic" and that's supposedly the whole reason we went there, why haven't we left yet?

Perhaps because they want to use Iraq as a base to topple that country's next-door neighbor? That would be my guess...

ROVE, OCCUPATION..."This War Is Real"...

So no Rove indictment...at least not yet...that's unfortunate because you know, he's bad for America.

So Thom Hartmann was subbing last night on the Majority Report and he pointed out that we should start referring to what's going on in Iraq as an "occupation" rather than a "war." Because by accepting the premise that Iraq is currently a war, what follows in most people's minds is that you have two options: win or lose.

But he pointed out that we won the war--easily and professionally, in a matter of weeks. But the occupation is what's killing the most people--ours and theirs. And there are no emotional code words surrounding an occupation. The options there are: stay or leave. To say "the occupation is over" actually sounds good, as Thom pointed out. So let's work on that--we've already won the war, let's end the occupation.

Some Bullshit from a State Congressperson

A conservative friend of mine forwarded me this article from the Jackson newspaper. It's so incoherent and poorly written that I just had to take it apart and send my analysis to my friend. But now I really don't have the heart to, so I'll put it up here. Here's what I wrote as a summary--before I heard Hartmann's comments (the piece is below):

This diatribe from Rita Martinson is incoherent, muddled drivel. She cites two sources to support her “argument”–Vernon Chong and Mathias Dapfner. Chong’s authorship of “This War Is For Real” is in dispute, and even if he did write it, he is no more of an authority on the subject of the Iraq war than anyone else. Likewise with Dapfner–the fact that he is a German publisher does not automatically confer credibility on him when it comes to war in Iraq. Yet she quotes heavily from these opinion pieces, citing them as though they are experts on American foreign policy.

Imagine if there were a similar letter written against the war in which the writer tried to argue that Iraq is becoming another Vietnam. In this imaginary opinion piece, the writer used an opinion piece by Michael Moore as a jumping off point to explain the writer’s point of view. Then later in the article, the writer cited the work of Garry Trudeau in Doonesbury, using it as an example of what the writer is trying to get across. Imagine that, like Martinson, this writer never once cited a fact from a nonpartisan source. Would conservatives take it seriously? They shouldn’t, and neither should liberals.

When Martinson isn’t citing opinion pieces as fact, she speaks approvingly of dropping nuclear bombs on civilians and of stifling Americans’ freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. She never quite gets around to explaining how the Iraq war is similar in nature to WWII, though she tries mightily to make such a case. I imagine that’s because everyone is aware of the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, and Vietnam became and remains an unpopular war that we lost, while WWII became and remains a popular war that we won.

Martinson’s argument may have some validity, but she does a very poor job of establishing it. She mixes the motives of “Islamists”–in one paragraph, they want to kill all infidels, then, no, they are really fighting a “war on democracy.” Which is it? Her downfall is her failure to cite one piece of data that doesn’t come from the mouth of one of her obviously biased sources. Her piece is propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

Here's the piece with my critique in bold

Apply the determination of WWII to win war on terror
By Rita Martinson
Special to The Clarion-Ledger

The world is at a turning point. Freedom is being challenged worldwide as never before. It is essential that we in America realize what is at stake.


Yes, we in America must realize that our “freedom” is being challenged by the neocons and the theocons who are currently in power.


Looking back at the end of World War II, we see the bold strikes made by our leaders, the American-led invasion of Normandy killing some 253,700 Nazis and Allied Forces troops and atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasake killing over 170,000 Japanese instantly, caused those forces to realize they were overpowered and they surrendered.

Oh brother, here we go again, comparing the Iraq war to WWII. This would be laughable were it not so offensive. Is Mrs. Martinson suggesting that we should drop nuclear bombs on Baquoba and Fallujah? Let us not forget that the Japanese were making overtures for a surrender before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And let us not forget that the 170,000 killed were mostly civilians.

Lately, we are inundated by urges of worldwide press and the timid to retreat from the Iraqi war.

One article, written by retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Vernon Chong, notes the string of 11 major attacks on our country's interests since 1979, when Iran Embassy hostages were taken, throughout the 22 years before Sept. 11, 2001. He numbers some 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide from 1981 to 2001. And all these attacks were made by terrorist Muslims.

First of all, Vernon Chong did not write the piece Martinson is referring to. Second, the “Chong” article does not acknowledge American intervention in Middle Eastern countries (or anywhere else in the world) both before and after 1979. Third, the number of terrorist attacks is not backed up by any source other than the author’s say-so. Fourth, “Chong” never says these attacks were all perpetrated by Muslims, and rightly so, because many terror attacks have been carried out by non-Muslim groups, including by the United States.

We are now at war with these terrorist Muslims, but Chong asks the important questions: Can we lose this war? And: What does losing mean?

We are not at war with terrorist Muslims. Iraq is not and was not a “terror” state–under Saddam, Iraq was a secular country. Also, none of the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi or Afghani.

Reviewing the last question first, losing means that we and other free countries will continue to be attacked, as these radicals want us dead, not quiet. By making the U.S.A. impotent, other nations would be picked off, one by one, and their "appeasement" will be translated into "weakness."

This is incoherent nonsense and avoids the real question–what does “winning” mean? Bush has drawn up a “Strategy for Victory” that is intentionally vague and all but meaningless. He says that when Iraqis “build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions,” the U.S. cleans out “areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists,” the U.S. helps build “capable and effective Iraqi security forces,”
and the U.S. helps “rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy, and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq,” then we can withdraw.

All of those objectives are very subjective, i.e., how prosperous must Iraq be before we can withdraw? Bush doesn’t say. He doesn’t like timetables for leaving, but timetables for staying are fine with him–he implied that the U.S. will be in Iraq until at least 2009, when his successor is sworn in.


As to the first question, losing the war is simple. All we must do is continue to separate and divide our support. Insisting on political correctness in profiling terrorists, holding anti-war demonstrations, constantly criticizing our president and his Cabinet, and giving prisoners of war privileges of defense all help undermine the effort to bring freedom to Iraq. And we will lose.

Here Martinson fulfills her opening statement and proves that freedom is “being challenged” here in America. Without saying it directly, she is advocating the abrogation of American’s rights to free speech and free assembly and is suggesting that we break internationally accepted norms of behavior. In short, her whole philosophy is anti-liberty, anti-constiutional, and anti-American.

When that happens, the Muslim terrorists will have gained their mission: to kill all infidels - all non-Muslims, not just Americans.

This is an unbelievable conclusion–that if America “loses” the Iraq war by exercising our bedrock civil liberties, we will have signed our own death warrants. This is the worst, most offensive kind of fearmongering–i.e., exercise your right to free speech and you’ll kill us all.

An article written by Mathias Dapfner, CEO of the German Publisher Axel Springer AG, places blame on the timidity of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. In it, he names many of their cowardly acts, such as standing by during the Nazi war crimes; helping to legitimize Communism in the USSR, East Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe; and watching Kosovo's crimes of genocide.

Dapfner writes disgustedly of Europeans standing by while Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered over half a million of his own countrymen. He commended Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the only two recent presidents he considers courageous, for standing firm against terrorism for Americans and the rest of the world.

Here Martinson really shows her incoherence and complete misreading of history and complete misunderstanding of reality. And actually, her misunderstanding is really someone else’s, this Dapfner person. The idea that Reagan and Bush “stood firm” against terrorists is laughable–was Reagan standing firm against terrorism when he withdrew from Lebanon after the “terrorist” attacks there? Was Bush standing firm against terrorism when he did not remove Saddam from power in the first Gulf War? Was Reagan standing firm against terror when he aided the contras, or when he played both sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Was he standing firm against terror when he sent Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 to assure Saddam that he was still our boy?

Bush has only the Social Democrat Tony Blair by his side in recognizing the danger in the Islamic war on democracy. Dapfner calls out: "Europe, thy name is Cowardice! God Bless America!"

Now Martinson is letting her confusion really show–here she says the Muslims are fighting against democracy. Just a few paragraphs earlier, she was trying to convince us that Muslims are at war against infidels. Which is it?

And by the way, negotiating and using diplomacy are not “cowardice” or “weakness.” Compromise is not weakness, it is fairness.

Some in this country call the president to task for putting us in the war with Muslim terrorists. There are those who infer Saddam has not been proven to be connected to the terrorist movement, who don't recognize he clearly terrorized his own people, invaded Kuwait, hid WMDs from the time Desert Storm ended. Some say the president has "led us into the wrong war, at the wrong time and with the wrong enemy," and some Americans would like to join hands with the timid Europeans to stay out of harm's way.

These I would call cowards to the third degree. This war is for real, and to quote Gen. Chong, "to get out of difficulty, one must go through it." Hopefully we can do so with the unity and boldness of our country's leaders from another wartime, and with their success.

Again, Martinson really has blinders on when it comes to these issues. Many calling for the end of the war in Iraq are “our country’s leaders from another wartime.” Many are conservatives–true conservatives, not neocons or theocons.

MY FIRST DIEBOLD VOTING EXPERIENCE

First, they moved the location of a lot of polling places. Not sure why that was done. Mine was still close to where I live, but not quite close enough to just walk over.

They had three machines but were only using one. There was someone on the machine before me and they were having trouble finding my name (bless these elderly ladies' hearts--even when they got to the page with my name on it they still couldn't find it and it was the first name on the page).

So I finally signed in and saw the voter access cards lying there on the table. I asked them if I should just take a card or what (I knew that I had to have one from the online demo I had done) and they said, no, the woman over by the machine will activate it for you.

So when it's my turn (and my 2-year-old son is with me), I go to the machine and there's a poll worker there. She puts the voter access card into some little blue encoder device and punches in some numbers. I'm thinking "aha--this is an opportunity for tampering" and then she pulls it out and says "I hope this works."

Actual Voting
She puts the card into the machine and the choices come up--only two offices to vote for in this primary. So I vote for Erik Fleming to take out Trent Lott and then I vote for Gene Taylor. Not because he's who I'd like to have as our representative, but he does have a "D" by his name.

By the way, the poll worker is standing right next to me the whole time this is happening, walking me through it as though I'm 80 years old and have never used a touch screen mechanism.

Anyhoo, I must admit that selecting the candidates was easy and painless--my choices were displayed accurately on the screen. Then I pressed "print ballot".


"Verified" Paper Audit Trail (or whatever the printout is called)
Here's where it was a little dicey to me and seemed like more tampering could take place here. The online demo made the printing seem very careful and legible and verifiable. However, in reality, there was a flap covering my printer readout area.

I asked the poll worker if I could look at the printout and she flipped the flap up. The window on the readout area was not very clear--it was kind of yellowish and like a thin plastic material. You could see through it, but not that well. And, unlike the online demo, everything didn't print out "just so."

The paper on my printout did not seem to advance quite right--I could read the first choice I had made. Well actually, I should say I could barely read it. The first choice was the first line printed and it barely made it into the window and I couldn't read the second line at all.

Overall

Overall, I like the idea of electronic voting machines and their ease of use. However, as we all know, Diebold is a for-profit corporation, and like any corporation, doesn't care so much about doing its job right as it does about maximizing profits.

And apparently they got $20 million from the federal government for these Mississippi machines. That's a pretty good haul from one state. And now they have the money, so what do they care if the machines don't work right, or don't tabulate votes properly, or what have.

And we also all know that Diebold and other electronic voting vendors do not make their software available to our elected public servants for verification of their security and reliability. So that's troubling.

I just have a bad feeling that these electronic machines are how they're going to try to keep a Republican majority this November...

GAMES PART 2 (also written yesterday, not posted till today)

Note that in this story, there are still no more details about what “some nuclear technology” means. And that even though the Iranian spokesman says that this is a positive development, he still points out that there are “ambiguities” in this incentive plan that will require more talks.

So it sounds as if even the Iranians don’t exactly know what’s being offered–which is precisely the point. The press in the U.S. will play it like it’s a perfectly reasonable, explicit offer, and when Iran ultimately turns it down, the U.S. press will then pounce on Iran’s supposed unreasonableness as a casus belli.

AND THE GAMES GO ON WITH IRAN (written yesterday, not posted til today)

Here’s an interesting con job from Herr Bush. We’re now apparently offering Iran nuclear techonology in exchange for Iran’s cessation of uranium enrichment. And if you read the AP story that talks about this, it’s very vague. We’re not told what the deal is really, we’re just told that the U.S. is being reasonable by letting Iran have what we’ve been trying to keep out of their hands.

Here’s how the AP story describes it:

VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium — a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

We’re going to give them “some” nuclear technology. And this is supposedly a “major concession” on our part. It’s meant to show the world how reasonable and generous we are.

However, the Iranians are not going to accept the deal and Bush and Rice and everyone involved knows they aren’t going to accept it. The whole point of this–the con job I referred to earlier–is that when the Iranians inevitably do refuse the deal, that will be the next anti-Iran talking point. We’re reasonable and they aren’t. The security council offered them this sweet deal and they refused it. So we have to bomb and/or invade.

However, we don’t know the details of this deal--or they're leaking out very slowly. And even if we did know the details, why should Iran accept it? Why should any country accept it? It would make the Iranians beholden to us, and that’s exactly what they don’t want. That’s why they’re making steady progress toward their euro-denominated oil bourse–so they aren’t beholden to us.

The U.S. would never accept the same deal but in reverse, i.e., if Iran said we’ll give the United States “some nuclear technology” if the U.S. will stop doing x, y, or z. And well we shouldn’t accept it–it’s a breach of sovereignty. It would make us beholden to Iran. They could always hold that over us.

Again, this is nothing more than a ploy to make Iran look unreasonable, when it’s actually totally reasonable for them not to accept this deal. But Bush and the neocons really want war with Iran to be able to keep the petrodollar system in place. They know what the consequences will be if that system is upended–the iron hand of the corporatocracy will rust and become useless. The tax cuts will be revealed in all their hideousness, the corporate welfare and the free trade fundamentalism will be exposed as the sick joke that they have been all along. They have to keep the petrodollar system in place or the whole economy that benefits the multinationals at the expense of the rest of the world’s people will come crashing down.

CRAZY LETTERS

More crazy letters in the ol' hometown paper again. I've decided to stop trying to refute those letters because that's how you get screwed up. Not because they aren't easily refuted, but because you have to quote their letters for yours to make any sense, which eats up the amount of words you're allowed to use, and it drags you down to their level, blah blah blah. So rather than respond to the crazy letters that appeared this weekend and today which I will share below, I composed this one of my own to send:

In March of this year, President Bush said withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
is "an objective" which "will be decided by future Presidents," implying that
the Iraq war will last into 2009 at least.

That's because Bush and the neocons need the cover provided by the catch-all excuse of "we are at war" to finish their project of undermining the Constitution and the American way of
life.

They've made a lot of progress so far--they've eviscerated our right to privacy by allowing domestic spying. They've effectively nullified our voices in Congress by letting Bush negate sections of bills through signing statements without having to veto anything. They've jeopardized the future of our children through the "birth tax"--i.e., the intentionally massive deficits they've created. They've chipped away at our right to due process of law through
their detention policy, which allows the President to declare anyone--even
American citizens arrested on American soil--an "enemy combatant" and lock them
away without access to counsel or specific charges.

And that's just a small sample of the stuff we know about.

There's only one way to change this dangerous course. We must elect congressional candidates this November who will undo all this, be they Republicans or Democrats (but make no mistake,
Democrats are the preferable choice). We must end this war in Iraq and this
concurrent war on our freedom, which Bush and the neocons cynically and
mistakenly call a "war on terror."

Crazy Letter #1

This is from the same woman who wrote a couple months ago that if the Iraq war is still going on in 2008, Bush should be allowed to have a third term. Here's a link and here's a sample:

Shame on those who open the doors of criticism of our president. He has led us through more tragic disasters than any other president: terrorists attacks, war, hurricane Katrina, earthquakes, tsunami threats to our shores, devastating wildfires.

He is the president for ALL the people of this great country and we should express our support of him before the wolves maul him.

George W. Bush has been a great leader, exhibiting faith, honor, integrity, courage, loyalty and strength of character. Incompetent? Never!! Heartwarmingly human? Yes! Impeachment? God forbid!


He has led us through "more tragic disasters than any other president?" And then list tsunamis as a threat to our shores? The mind boggles as to how to respond to this nonsense! The only thing one can assume is that she has never attended a single American history class nor watched the History Channel even once. Either she's a lunatic or is completely unaware of history before November 2000. She is completely in the minority with this opinion.

I think it must be a comedy routine. There is no way a rational human being could believe the things she is saying.

Crazy Letter #2

This one has an obsession with ketchup and betrays a reading comprehension problem on the part of its author.

Check out the Heinz connection

Mr. Essex's letter to the editor (June 2) urging us all to "vote the war backers out of office" is full of half-truths and utter swill. If war-profiteering is what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "Bush and Company" are the ones profiting, what would Mr. Essex say to the fact that in every dining facility in theater the only brand of condiments to be had comes from the H.J. Heinz Corp.?

This notable company has verifiable connections to one John F. Kerry, and could not possibly be making a profit off the War on Terror, could it?

If Mr. Essex thinks that "voting the war backers out of office" consists of simply voting a straight Democratic ticket, then he is sadly mistaken; many of the most prominent Democrats are making a king's ransom off this war, and no amount of contrived socialist rhetoric will change anything as long as there is money to be made.

On this same subject, it seems that it is only evil for companies connected to prominent Republicans to make money; companies affiliated with prominent Democrats are only engaging in healthy entrepreneurism, I guess...

My suggestion to Mr. Essex would be to spend some time in Iraq or Afghanistan, and see firsthand the good works that are being done by the soldiers, sailors and airmen of the U.S. military, without the snide elitist commentary of CNN and their ilk clouding the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, until you've been there and seen what's happening firsthand, you have nothing worthwhile to say.

The ketchup connection is obvious--and laughable. But you might ask, where's the reading comprehension problem? If you read the letter this writer is responding to, you may notice that it never once uses the phrase "vote war backers out of office." However, the ketchup letter refers to that phrase twice. The problem is that "vote war backers out of office" was the headline chosen to sit atop the original letter--and it was a poor choice of headlines. The original letter was more about not being afraid and not letting the neocons or the Osama bin Laden paralyze us with fear.

IF I HAD MY WAY...

Here's a Memorial Day post of some Kurt Vonnegut stuff (without permission, of course):

From the chapter "When I Felt The Bullet Enter My Heart"

"We are gathered here, friends...to honor...children dead,
all dead, all murdered in war. It is customary on days like this to call such
lost children men...I do not say that children at war do not die like
men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame
they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic
holidays. But they are murdered children all the same."


Here's the part that always got me:

"And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere
respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend
the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and
viciousness of all mankind.

Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns..."

Already

And that passage led me to extrapolate the song "Already" from it:

When I felt the bullet enter my heart
I felt more like casualty than hero
Though that's not how you'll remember me
How will you remember me?

Glory glory hallelujah
Don't let anyone fool you
A beating heart's more glorious than a purple one

If I had my way there'd be no Memorial Day
Or armies to fight in
Or boundaries to fight over
If that sounds naive, then that sounds naive
Consider that there's no blood left in my brain

Then I had this dreadful thought...

I will miss
everything
I will miss
everything
I will miss
everything
everything
I will miss everything

I'm already dead

Fighting For Slavery

And then these lines occurred to me last night and this morning. Didn't have much of a chance to flesh them out, but here they are:

No one ever says you're fighting for slavery
For tyranny, hegemony
That would just be uncool
So they convince you it's for liberty
For freedom, democracy
Who are they trying to fool
What are they trying to pull

One More Memorial Day Thought

And I've mentioned this on the blog before, but it bears repeating. My paternal grandfather was Lt. Col. in the 5th Army and was stationed in Italy during WWII. Long story short, there was a hard winter and he didn't get the winter clothes he had requested, so his men suffered and he felt responsible. He suffered a nervous breakdown and was sent home.

That's the basic story that I've heard. The family didn't talk about it a lot, and I don't think that my grandfather himself ever once mentioned to me the war or his role in it. So that's all I really have to go on, what I've been told a time or two about what happened.

By all accounts, my grandfather was never the same after that. Of course, I wouldn't know the difference since I came along a good 25 years or so later.

And I guess that's why it was always somewhat creepy to me to hear my grandmother say "I love the military." Not that my grandmother was creepy or anything--quite the contrary, she was actually very cool. But she had this inexplicable good feeling for the military, even though war screwed up her husband. I guess it's kind of like the "Laptop Bombardiers" --when you're not the one fighting, you think the fighting is pretty cool.

But my father, who escaped Vietnam only by having had an inherited bone disorder that left his hip less than ideal (but perfectly useful), was not into that at all and didn't want me playing with plastic "army men" or even toy guns. So he helped break the military career path of our family (his father and grandfather were West Pointers), for which I am thankful.

And now, with my own son, I must concur with Truckstop Honeymoon's great tune "No Child Of Mine": "no child of mine/is gonna die for the oil man...I will sacrifice no child of mine/it's too high a price to pay for/nothing but a ribbon to hang upon my door."

LETTER NEVER SENT

So I'm looking at the online editorial page of my hometown newspaper and see a letter from a guy who's upset about the "Da Vinci Code." He spouts the usual mumbo jumbo about how the founding fathers and the Pilgrims and on and on meant for America to be a Christian nation.

Then he uses a quote from Jedediah Morse, who he says is the inventor of the telegraph and Morse code. I immediately thought, "I thought Samuel Morse invented the telegraph." Well, it turns out that it was Samuel, not Jedediah. But in my reading about Samuel (Jedediah was his father), I learn that Sammy Morse ran for mayor of New York on the Nativist ticket and agitated in favor of slavery.

So I'm like, here's this nutcase writing in to the local paper spouting some nonsense about Christian nations and why aren't Christians more upset and he quotes Jed Morse thinking he's quoting Sam Morse and I'm like--this must not stand.

So the guy also used quotes from Benjamin Franklin about prayer and God will safeguard this nation or whatever, and I'm thinking "didn't Franklin like to get it on with hookers" or something. So I look that up, and it turns out that there's some dispute about his consorting with prostitutes, but that it's an indisputable fact that Franklin had an illegitimate son. Oh, and I also came across this letter in which Franklin says he has his doubts about the divinity of Jesus.

So I'm thinking, this guy who's written to the paper probably isn't aware that Morse dug slavery and Franklin fooled around out of wedlock and wasn't sure if Jesus was a god or not. So I wrote a response to his letter and I was pretty happy with it and I emailed it to my wife for her to look at. She wrote back and said it was cool, and I was all set to email it to the newspaper, but then said to myself, "Why start shit with this guy over this?"

Life's too short to sit and straighten out everybody's factual errors and faulty reasoning. So I'm not sending in the letter, I'm just printing both of them here.

Here's the original:

America is losing its moral fiber
By Jack Faust


A consistent, insidious attack upon the moral fiber and foundation of our nation has been in effect for about the last 40 years, and has met barely a whimper of resistance from this nation's Christian population.

With the recent release of "The Da Vinci Code," yet another attack has been launched upon the veracity of the New Testament.

Irrefutable evidence shows that this nation was not only founded upon this faith, but it has also been sustained by it. The United States was a young nation carved out of the wilderness of the North American continent by Christian pilgrims, established in the name of God, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith, according to the Mayflower Compact.

The founding fathers warned that our nation and government could not stand without the support and reliance upon the pillars of Christian morality.

George Washington observed that religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity.

John Adams stated: "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principle upon which freedom can securely stand."

In an 1836 American history book, Noah Webster wrote: "Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is in the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion."

I add finally this prophetic warning from Dr. Jedediah Morse, inventor of the telegraph and the Morse code, who said: "Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican form of government and all the blessings which flow from them must fall with them."

What was once recognized as a vital component of American government and culture is rapidly disappearing with little resistance. The Christian community seems to have relegated itself to some kind of meek subculture rather than becoming salt and light in the midst of moral decay.

I conclude with words from Benjamin Franklin, who observed: "God governs in the affairs of men. We have been assured ... in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

A final word of advice from Franklin: "Work as if you were to live 100 years; pray as if you were to die tomorrow."

May God save and continue to bless America.


Jack Faust, a resident of Seminary, is a Community Columnist for the Hattiesburg American.


Here's my response that I'm not sending...

Jack Faust might want to reconsider which founding fathers and well-known Americans he quotes in defense of the myth that the United States is a Christian nation that should be upset about “The Da Vinci Code.”

For example, he correctly attributes a quote to Jedediah Morse but mistakenly refers to him as the inventor of the telegraph and Morse code. Morse’s son Samuel is actually the man usually credited with the invention of the telegraph. Samuel Morse was also a defender of the un-Christian institution of slavery, writing in his1863 book “An Argument on the Ethical Position of Slavery” that “Christianity has been most successfully propagated among a barbarous race, when they have been enslaved to a Christian race. Slavery to them has been Salvation, and Freedom, ruin.”

Faust also quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying that “without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." However, Franklin also said in 1790 that he had his doubts about the divinity of Jesus, which happens to be one of the themes in “The Da Vinci Code,” the movie Faust finds so appalling.

Surely Faust would not have us enslave members of our population just because Morse defended the idea or question the divinity of Jesus just because Franklin did. Yet the words of these men are what Faust selectively uses as “irrefutable evidence” to try to demonstrate that the United States was “founded upon this faith” of Christianity. If that’s true, then I’m a great-great-great-great grandson of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

IT'S THE IMPERIALISM, STUPID!

Great article from Antiwar.com that says what I've been saying for a while now: Leave other countries alone and then they will leave us alone. It's very simple and here's a sample:

Iran was an incipient democracy in 1953, but Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh — chosen by an elected parliament and hugely popular among Iranians — angered the West by nationalizing his country's oil industry. President Eisenhower sent the CIA to depose him. The coup was successful, but it set the stage for future disaster.

The CIA placed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on the Peacock Throne. His repressive rule led, 25 years later, to the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of bitterly anti-Western mullahs who have spent the decades since working intensely, and sometimes violently, to undermine U.S. interests around the world.

If the Eisenhower administration had refrained from direct intervention against Iran in 1953, this religious regime probably would never have come to power. There would be no nuclear crisis. Iran might instead have become a thriving democracy in the heart of the Muslim Middle East.

Let's face it, our empire is killing us. It's killing thousands of other people too, but the empire is sold to us as something that's good for us. I mean, we already know it's not good for "them"--our subjects, I mean to say. Of course, we pretend we're "stabilizing" regions and "protecting" freedom and bringing "democracy," when really no such thing is happening.

But how is our empire literally killing us, you ask? Well, it seems to me to be a rather circular argument--we have this economic empire in which the dollar is the world's reserve currency but we are always having to fight to protect our currency's status as the coin of the realm. I mean to say, it's circular in that, because we're an empire, the global hegemon, we have to fight to remain an empire.

If we weren't trying to be an empire, which is the antithesis of democracy and the incubator of war, we could be what we were always intended to be: a place where freedom is protected and encouraged, happiness is pursued, and the general welfare is promoted.

American Theocracy

Oh, whatever...here's a couple of relevant quotes from Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy" that got me thinking about all this:

"...the Bush administration knew that the oil-peak crisis probably posed strategic dangers far beyond those publicly acknowledged. The dollar's role as the world's reserve currency was also tied to oil. Besides which, seizing Iraq as a military base-cum-oil reservoir would allow U.S. troops to be pulled out of vulnerable Saudi Arabia, where their presence was breeding discontent and terrorism [p. 69]."

And another, in the section "Defining American Petro-Imperialism":

"...petro-imperialism--the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force--puts up a democratic facade...and seeks to secure, protect, drill, and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs. Still, the way in which the United States has begun to organize its national security and military posture around oil is...unprecedented in scope [p. 78]."

Doesn't that make perfect sense? We will fight to the death and use nuclear weapons in order to maintain our access to a finite energy source, mainly because powerful people profit. And the rest of us do the fighting and the sacrificing of our civil liberties and our livelihoods. It's a wonderful plan for the few, and an atrocity for the many.

Good night.

PENTAGON PROJECTILE VIDEO

Ummm...that's it? If anything, this newly released footage seems to prove that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not Flight 77. True, there is something white and vaguely phallic entering from the right in the two videos, but only the power of suggestion that it's a "plane" would make you think it's a plane. It doesn't look big enough to be a jumbo jet, if you ask me.

Alex Jones at Prison Planet seems to think (hat tip to Techno Slavery and MC Sly-G)that the release of this video is part of a Pentagon psychological operation to set up a strawman for the government to knock down. I think he might be right. So I'll say this about the Pentagon video: there's something there, but a jumbo jet? Doesn't look like one to me.


Or Was It A Plane?

But, now that I think about it, the squad car that appears to drive up the lawn after the impact gives one an idea of the scale involved. The trees on the horizon aren't obscured as much by the car as they are by the "plane"--let's call it a "projectile." But the car is not in the air and the projectile is. So that would account for more obscurity of the horizon trees.

It Doesn't Really Matter

As Alex Jones again points out, whether a plane did hit the Pentagon or not, it doesn't do any damage to the argument that 9/11 was not what the official story makes it out to be. What about the collapse due to fire of 3 concrete and steel buildings into their own footprints on the same day, which has never happened before or since?

As I write this, it seems clearer to me that Jones is right--this is a straw man intended to cause 9/11 Truth seekers to express their vindication about there being no plane at the Pentagon and then show them and the movement to be fools with future "newly released" video from better cameras and more angles.

So long story short, these new videos neither validate the official story nor invalidate the arguments of the 9/11 Truth movement.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE DATABASE

Joe Scarborough was just addressing this on his show, and I can't believe I could actually stand to sit and watch that guy for more than two seconds, but he was making perfect sense.

And the problem with the database is that it's too big. Why in heaven's name would the NSA need to collect data on 200 million Americans? Are we all suspects? The net it casts is too wide--dangerously wide.

Don't forget that this program, and as-yet-unleaked ones just like it, are NOT about stopping terrorism. They are about control of the populace. They are about blackmail--"Senator, we have the records of your phone calls to the Bunny Ranch; do we need to go public with this or are you going to see it our way." This program is about intimidation.

It's a dangerous progression (didn't want to say "slippery slope")

Big Brother is truly upon us. Don't we see? First, it's we have to check your bags coming in and out of transit stations and in and out of sporting events. Then it's you have to take your shoes off (at least) to get on a plane (if you're not on the no-fly list). Then it's you have to sign a list to buy legal drugs. Then it's you have to let your phone records be given to the government. What the hell will they want next?

We have to stop this before what's left of our civil liberties is gone. This cannot be allowed to go on. To borrow the words of Bush 41, "this must not stand."

And we shouldn't be intimidated by rhetoric like the former Bush employee spewed on Scarborough Country, i.e., "we haven't been attacked since 9/11," or "we are at war," or "this is part of the president's inherent authority, so he doesn't have to present it to Congress or anyone else."

That is how totalitarianism creeps in. And in this country, it's through creeping. Totalitarianism ain't a toddler anymore. He's in his late teens at least and he's growing up fast...

SO THE NSA IS "TROLLING" AND "MINING"...

...because Bush said they weren't.

In an AP story that I got off the wire (don't know if there's a link for it), the first sentence says this:

The White House says the domestic spying it carries out is "lawful, necessary,
and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks."

Which is how we know that the domestic spying is illegal, unnecessary, and doesn't protect Americans from terrorist attacks. I found that last part the most laughable--monitoring phone calls by American citizens (supposedly just to create a database of calling habits, not listening to conversations) has nothing to do with preventing terror attacks, because terrorist attacks are caused by antagonizing other countries. Like Iraq, for example. So they can be prevented by not doing such things. Since he took office (and especially since the Iraq invasion), Bush has been creating the perfect conditions for blowback and more terrorist attacks.

He is a madman that no one likes and is a mortal threat to the Constitution.

Have a nice day...make sure to say hello to the NSA when you call your grandmother in Slidell...

IRAN LETTER

Read the Ahmadenijad letter today...it sounded pretty reasonable to me--not the ravings of a madman. Is it an accurate translation? I would guess that it is, because it does make him sound so reasonable.

He explained Iran's grievances against the West and America in particular:

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Now of course, Paula Zahn and Bill O'Reilly and their clones will never mention these facts to their audiences. Nor will "real newsmen"--the Brian Williams of the world. It's as though these things either didn't happen, don't matter, aren't worth talking about, or some combination of all those things.

For some reason, putting Iran's desire for nuclear power and yes, nuclear weapons in the context of their history makes no sense to the popular media--that shit doesn't get ratings, I guess. Meanwhile, they are more than happy to put everything Bush (or anyone else) does in the context of this being a "post-9/11 world." You know, because no history matters except ours and no one should be expected to remember anything about our history except 9/11, because that was just a horrible day.

And Ahmadinejad sounded like he watched "Loose Change" or something:

Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

But my favorite stuff is on page 5 (in the pdf file linked above). My favorite stuff is page 5. Here's a sample:

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”
As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem.

And then he asks a series of rhetorical questions which can all be answered "No" as far as the Bush administration is concerned.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.

Say What You Will...

...about Ahmadinejad's motives for the letter--call it Machiavellian realpolitik or whatever. I'm just saying that all that aside, most of what the letter says is reasonable and rational and is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of our culture and our nation. I know you can't really divorce it from its timing (considering the fact that the Security Council is considering sanctions--but it's also the first state letter from Iran in 27 years) and other political considerations, but I guess I'm thinking what the letter will sound like 15 years from now after the invasion of Iran went horribly awry and we're just coming out of a worldwide depression caused by Iran's manipulation of oil prices and what not. I think that then, as now, the letter sounds perfectly agreeable and deserving of a swiftly courteous and considered reply from our Dear Leader.

What of the oil bourse?

It's hard to find info on the coming Iran oil bourse, but I think it's closer than ever to starting up, and (eventually) threatening dollar hegemony in the process.

Here's some links to info about it:

Oil the reason behind latest tension with Iran
Oil Into Euros?
Iran sets up euro-based oil bourse

And here's finally something from the reputable, reliable Reuters:
Iran sees oil bourse in two months

750 COLBERT LOOSE

I'm a bit late with these comments about Stephen Colbert's historic comic performance on April 29...but I've been sick and trying to get to bed early...

I don't see how anyone who doesn't work either a)for the Bush administration or b)for the media couldn't see the sheer, exhilirating hilarity of Colbert's performance. I say it goes down in history as one of the baddest-ass, ballsiest, most fearless, dead-on, deadly, acidic, satiric, and oh yeah--funniest comic bits in the world.

Forget Carlin and Bruce and Hicks and Kaufman--they're all brilliant and legendary. But this Colbert--magnifico! Right in their faces! Right under their noses! Many a truth spoken in jest!

750 Laws

All hail King George the first...or since he's a Jr...isn't he really the second...but his father wasn't a king...oh well--all hail King Dumbya! But seriously, this story about how Bush's signing statements have led him to bypass laws passed by Congress could not be more frightening. As we all know, Bush has never vetoed a single bill--it turns out that he never felt he had to because he just added signing statements to his signature that direct the rest of the executive branch to ignore the parts of bills that he thought trampled on what his interpretation of his constitutional power is.

And that's the scary part--the dictatorial part--his signing statements are based on what he thinks his constitutional power is. But if you got a even a D in a civics class in junior high, you know that that ain't how it works here in the good ol' U.S. of A. We got checks and balances...or we're supposed to. I mean...ideally, we wouldn't be a one-party government and Congress would...I don't know, hold hearings or...order investigations or something...

LOOSE CHANGE

Got word from Techno Slavery that "Loose Change" and its creator Dylan Avery are going to have a higher profile in the next few months as the movie may be shown in theaters, there may be a show about it on Spike TV or MTV or something.

I did some reading about the movie today, specifically about criticisms of the movie. Like Wikipedia itself says that some people think the fact that Wikipedia is used as a source in the movie is questionable because of the nature of Wikipedia.

I'm not going to argue for or against Wikipedia (I think it's accurate--and I have found that if the accuracy of an article is in question, that is stated in the Wikipedia entry), but I will argue for "Loose Change."

Here are the parts of the movie that really changed my mind about the official 9/11 story (which I never really questioned until I saw the movie):

1. The video footage from the Pentagon: There's no plane, there's nothing--just an explosion. You cannot see a plane hitting the Pentagon in the five frames of footage that were released. We know (and they know we know) more footage exists, why won't they release it?

2. The nature of the WTC buildings coming down (and the fact that they came down at all): I never knew that there were other buildings that were comparable to the WTC buildings that had been hit by planes or burned for hours on end and never fallen down. In fact, neither before nor since 9/11 has any building comparable to the WTC has ever collapsed neatly into itself (or collapsed at all) due to fire. Yet on that one day, 3 buildings came down? And you can see in the videos where what looks like detonation charges are going off before the destruction from the top gets to the lower levels.

And Building 7 is the most damning to me--Larry Silverstein is on camera saying that he decided to "pull," that is to say, "demolish with explosives" Building 7 on 9/11. The type of neat demolition that is clearly displayed with Building 7's collapse is not achieved in one day. Silverstein couldn't have watched what happened all day on September 11th, watched Building 7 burn a little bit, then call in a demolition team that afternoon to set up explosives to bring down the building.
There would've been no way to get a demolition crew out to the WTC on Sept. 11--it was chaos down there.

That necessarily means that the building was mined with explosives for a controlled demolition BEFORE Sept. 11th. Why? Who the hell knows? Maybe in case the planes missed the towers? Maybe because a lot of important records were kept in Building 7 that some powerful people would want burned to a crisp? I don't know, but it's clear that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition that was obviously planned for before 9/11 and since all three buildings fell neatly into their footprints just like in a controlled demolition, it makes scary, yet reasonable sense that the twin towers were also rigged that way.

3. There was no plane in Shanksville, PA. No bodies, no plane wreckage, no nothing. The scene looked almost as if something had been planted there in that field and a story concocted to "explain" it.

I can see how people bought into the official story as I did. That day was overwhelming, and I was watching it on TV from the comfort of my living room (though I had been scheduled to go to CMJ in New York that Thursday). All day long, there was, as you would expect, a barrage of reports on TV covering this aspect or that of the events, and they all basically jumbled together.
But one overall picture emerged, that all the reports began to include, and that is that it was the work of terrorists, and more than likely it was done by Osama bin Laden.

But I had to go to work, like everyone else, and couldn't follow TV reports all day. By the end of the day and into the days that followed, I pretty much accepted the story that al Qaeda did it, and that was that. I didn't hear the reports from the Pentagon and from Shanksville in real time saying that there were no planes and little to no wreckage. I didn't see those until I watched "Loose Change."

Like I say, I accepted the official story--it sounded plausible at the time. Everyone was just so hysterical and nationalistic about it, as I recall. I read some stories about it, but nothing that questioned the official story. I wasn't a news junkie then like I am now. I pretty much thought, "I know what happened, why read a bunch of depressing stories about it?"

So when I saw "Loose Change" and its inclusion of the reports from Sept. 11 of reporters saying there was no plane and no bodies in Shanksville, I was amazed. I was kind of ashamed of myself for not paying closer attention. I had been led to believe that there was clear-cut evidence of a plane crash in a field and all that, when in fact, there never was any such evidence. That's when I realized I'd been a sucker. And it was uncomfortable to realize that, but I figured that there was no time like the present to quit being one.

And that's all I can come up with off the top of my head...I'm still a little under the weather...it's only 9:20 and I can barely keep my eyes open...

HOLY PETROLEUM--HALEY JAMMED PHONES AND RUSH GOT ARRESTED!

These things make being a liberal/progressive/Democrat/leftist all worthwhile...and just Rove's indictment can't be far behind!

Here's the Haley story in a nutshell:

WASHINGTON - A GOP telemarketing firm implicated in two criminal prosecutions involving election dirty tricks got its startup money from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, financial records show...Barbour's investment company arranged a quarter-million-dollar loan to GOP Marketplace in 2000...The loan made Barbour and his Washington business partners part owners of the company, the incorporation papers show.

By 2002, federal court records contend, GOP Marketplace president Allen Raymond and the Alexandria, Va.-based company were carrying out political dirty tricks in New Hampshire and New Jersey.

Raymond, who once worked for Barbour at the Republican National Committee, is serving a three-month prison term after pleading guilty to arranging for hundreds of hang-up calls in New Hampshire in 2002. The calls jammed Democratic phone lines that were offering people assistance in getting to polling stations in a close U.S. Senate race.

And here's the Rush story--not much info yet, but Tom DeLay taught him how to take a mugshot photo:

UNITED 93 Whitewash

And here's where you can join the fun in pointing out the obvious about the propaganda flick "United 93" (Hat tip: Techno Slavery).

BACK IN THE DAY

Doesn't this just take you back...to a better time, a cheaper time, i.e. May 2001?

Traveling by car these days will cost you more this summer-- at least $1.70 a gallon for gas. That's the average price at the pump this month, up 13 percent from just a year ago.

And this reminds us of better times...like back in June 2000 when we weren't at war and we had a popular, articulate, popular, and much less conservative president:

It isn't just the Midwest suffering from a sudden spike in gas prices. Nationwide the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas has jumped from $1.42 on May 1st, to $1.65 reported this week.

I Would Take Blow Jobs Over Bombs

And remember when all we had to be horrified about was the president engaging in oral sex, back in '98? Ah, weren't those the days?

And those days could be ours again if we just "impeach the motherfucker already" right after we turn control of the House and/or Senate to the Democrats.

Operation Incessant Lies

Is this America?

By that I mean, how can this combined with this be America? People pawning possessions to buy gas while oil executives make $150,000 dollars a day?

If that is anyone's defintion of all men being created equal, then the word "equal" has no meaning. If that is "promoting the general welfare," then that phrase is useless.

And by all sane accounts, Bush's insane, unnecessary saber-rattling against Iran is helping jowly executives while stretching the budgets of jowly (and non-jowly) non-executives literally to the breaking point.

War is a racket. Wars like the one we are waging against Iraq and like the one Bush and Co. want to wage against Iran violate not only international law, they violate American law.

This is not what America should be.

And Aravosis is right, watching all those kids sing along to Pink's "Dear Mr. President" is heartening, moving, and hopeful. Especially when they all cheer during the part about being gay (especially if you know that the studio version was recorded with the incomparable Indigo Girls).

Is Ahmadenijad A Nice Guy Or A Demon? I Report, You Decide...

Based on this quote from this story:

AFP adds from Tehran: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his view Friday that only rich countries should pay the "real price" of crude oil and that poorer nations should get it more cheaply.
"We should adopt a formula and schedule to prevent the increase in oil prices from harming the weaker countries who do not have oil," he told reporters on the sidelines of an oil industry exhibition in Tehran.
"They should not be harmed, although industrial countries who have hundreds of billion of dollars should pay the real price of oil," he explained, adding that the Iranian oil and foreign ministries were studying the issue.

To me, that sounds like fair trade. Fair business practices. It's like the StickerGuy's policy for doing stickers for bands: if you're on a major label and are backed by millions of dollars, he charges you a lot more for stickers (that's what his policy used to be, anyway). If you're a self-financed, DIY, independent band, he charges you less. It's progressive pricing. And that's an attitude the corporatists and the right-wing meanies don't dig.

FINANCIAL EXPERT SAYS DIPLOMACY COULD LOWER PRICE OF OIL

So why does Bush keep saber-rattling against Iran, who won't be able to produce a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years? See who's getting hurt by his unnecessary drumbeat? You and me? See who's getting helped by his unnecessary drumbeat? The oil companies, of course

According to a guy quoted in this article, Bush has the power to bring down the price of oil and spare us all:

ABN Amro broker Lee Fader said the trigger for Monday's rally was "heightened
fear about military action" against Iran, which has said it would go ahead with
plans to enrich uranium, defying the United States, Europe and United Nations nuclear experts. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, but the West fears the country is intent on arming itself with nuclear weapons.

"If somehow this got resolved diplomatically," Fader said, "that
would definitely take a few dollars off" the price of crude oil.

But you know that ain't gonna happen...because Bush is a corporation indebted to corporations...

THE BOY WHO CRIED NUKES

There's a lot of great stuff flying through the liberal blogosphere offering talking points to those who are in a position to be sources for journalists or to appear on pundit shows.

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog is doing an outstanding job with this, and Bill Scher had good points over at the Huffington Post.

But I think the title of this blog entry might help us get our point across to the public (and to the MSM, as they need schooling on this as much if not more than "the public") as good as anything. Why? It's eminently familiar, you get the meaning right away, it's derisive without being obnoxious--it's the answer to "flip-flop." It rolls right off the tongue--"Bush is the boy who cried nukes," obviously referring to the fact that we were warned of "mushroom clouds" coming out of aluminum tubes before invading Iraq even though the CIA knew there were no nukes (see "State Of War") and sure enough, there weren't any.

I don't want to make too much of it, but I think it works, i.e.:

PUNDIT SHOW HOST: Some experts say that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

LIBERAL GUEST: We have to realize that Bush is "the boy who cried nukes." Look at his track record on this stuff--we now know for certain that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons but the Bush administration sure worked hard to create the impression that they did. That's what they're doing now with because Bush's popularity is dropping like a rock (no pun intended), and they need something to help them keep control of Congress in November. So people should remember that Bush can't be trusted--he's "the boy who cried nukes."

And so forth.


Who Will Talk About These Points?

As I said, I really appreciate the talking points from Aravosis and Scher, but who is going to use them? Will Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy? Howard Dean is very likely to, I'm guessing. But our problem is that the Democrats don't get their act together on this kind of thing very often. We need our guys and gals on every pundit show every day of the week all saying one simple, catch-all explanatory phrase
like "Bush is the boy who cried nukes--we took his word on Iraq and you see what a mess that's become--why would we do it all over again with Iran? We've got ten years to deal with this according to Bush's own NIE."

An Aside

Truthfully, this entire assumption that we can tell other countries whether or not they can or cannot have nuclear weapons is irksome, us being the only country that's ever used them in war, whether blatantly like in Japan or more stealthily, with depleted uranium.

It's morally repugnant, is all. And hypocritical.


Comment on HuffPo and AmBlog

I wanted to spread this idea, so I posted the following in the comments at HuffPo and AmBlog:

"Bush is the boy who cried nukes"

If every liberal or Democratic pundit would repeat that pithy phrase, or any other pithy, sort of juvenile phrase that gets our point across about why Bush can't be trusted with "intelligence" at this point, I think that'd be useful. And unfortunately probably more effective than earnest recitations of the facts.

Because it takes a pithy, juvenile phrase to reach the public, and also, apparently, the mainstream media--the MSM loves that kind of snarky, junior-high taunting shit, i.e., "flip-flop."

Just a suggestion...

WHAT'S THAT DELICIOUS AROMA?...IS SOMEONE COOKING UP AN IMPEACHMENT? YUM!! Here's the recipe...

Holy shit--have you seen this story? Yet another tale of Bush touting Iraq rationales that he was told were false before they left his mouth! Check it:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Sprinkle in a buttload of that with a smattering of this:

Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews...Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

And then throw in John Conyers' report, along with a heaping, bitter helping of this:

American Military Casualties in Iraq

Since war began (3/19/03): 2359
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 2222
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1892
Since Handover (6/29/04): 1493
Since Election (1/31/05): 923

Total Wounded: 17269 (with estimates from 18000 - 48100, if you count DU, etc.)

And if you like you can spice it up with this:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

And it won't hurt to add a dollop of this:

The lawyer representing the Republican National Committee told a New Hampshire TV station that the White House was investigated in a 2002 plot by Republican operatives to disrupt get out the vote efforts in a Senate race where John Sununu was ultimately elected New Hampshire's Republican senator.

Today, at the New Hampshire civil suit motions hearing on the phone-jamming case, Robert Kelner, the Washington lawyer representing the RNC, noted that the White House has already been investigated for its involvement in the case.

Oh, I can't wait to feed this to the Republicans!!!

GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN PEOPLE

Cheney booed at baseball game...Bush's poll numbers continue to drop...Majority of people think Bush's leaks were unethical...Gingrich provides cover for Democrats, says U.S. should "pull back" from Iraq...

Iran joins the nuclear club, insuring that we can't invade them.

Oh, and the oilman/CEO president continues to make sure that we get gouged at the gas pump...not that being gouged is good news, but it's good that it makes people wake up to how this adminstration is harming everyone.

Been reading "Cruel and Unusual" by Mark Crispin Miller...great book--I checked it out from the library once before but couldn't get into it. But this time, I can hardly put it down. Here's a good sample passage:

"This Age of Information has turned to be an Age of Ignorance, in some ways comparable to the so-called Dark Ages, when the priests alone knew how to read and there was nothing to plug in. We live with an unprecedented wealth of information: countless facts and solid arguments and scrupulous researches, all of it (for many of us) just a click away. And yet..there is, out there, an entire propaganda universe available to anyone who wants to obsess about one thing and from one point of view...Thus the right has made for its constituents a new designer consciousness. Having co-opted the media, the right can fill your head all day, all night, wherever you may go, as long as you're plugged in. You can watch only Fox News Channel and MSNBC, listen only to Sean Hannity et al., read only those newspapers that re-echo what you've seen and heard, hit only those Web sites that others like you also hit...all such products having been approved directly or inspired by the White House and the Republican National Committee, if not sources even farther to the right. (p. 123)"

And wait, here's another really, really good one that kind of echoes the previous one and also reiterates Chomsky's point about how if you want to know the actual truth about a political subject, you practically have to do a research project:

"And so America's minority of rightists walk around completely misinformed and yet cocksure, belligerently echoing the sophistries and fabrications that have made it through the bubble so that they themselves are also nonstop propagandists. Meanwhile, other than those plucky few who try to learn what's really happening out there, everybody else, too busy for such extra daily work, feels timid, uninformed, and therefore half-inclined to heed the ones with strong opinions, booming voices, and a lot of 'facts.' Through such a network has the right deluded millions of Americans just as effectively as any modern oligarchy or medieval faith--just as effectively, in fact, as Bush/Cheney have deceived themselves. (p. 124)"

BUSH LEAKS!! SCOOTER SINGS!!
Plus, collected thoughts from the past few days

Of course Bush approved leaks of classified info to start his dirty war. My only question is why is this just now coming out. If this was in the court papers even before the indictment came down, why is it just now Murray Waas is the new Sy Hersh, he’s more Woodward than Woodward at this point (and by that I mean the Watergate Woodward, not the Plan of Attack Woodward).

Another thing–why do stories since Libby’s indictment refer to him as “Lewis Libby” or “I. Lewis Libby” and leave out all references to “Scooter?” It seems to me that it’s a subtle ploy to confuse casual news consumers–most stories before the indictment made some mention of “Scooter Libby” and now none of them do, so casual news consumers might think that “Lewis Libby” and “Scooter Libby” are two different people. Not that it’s that big a deal, it just occurred to me...

Also, it occurred to me today that I am one of those dreaded “single-issue voters”...and my single issue is: whatever is best for the American people (as opposed to American corporations) within the confines and allowances of the Constitution.

Fascism?

And there’s been a lot of talk about fascism thrown around about Bush and the corporatocracy. Most discussions of whether or not the Bush administration is fascist tend to downplay the possibility, as though being fascist necessitates being totalitarian. This is obviously not necessarily the case–Bush is a fascist, at least according to Mussolini, who wrote that

“Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.”

Instead of that quote, I was originally going to use this one:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power,”

but according to Wikipedia and this article, there is no written evidence that Mussolini ever said that.

But Wikipedia had another good Mussolini quote that explains why Bush and the Republicans are fascists:

"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

So my argument is merely that Bush and the Republican party are indeed fascists, but are not totalitarian. Yet.

Rhetoric Check

Compare the first quote below, from Mussolini, with the last two, first from Vin Weber last night on Hardball, and then from Tom DeLay, on Hardball the night before last.

Mussolini

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

Weber

WEBER: Because I think that the consensus in American politics since about the 1930s on was for bigger government. There was a growing minority of Americans that didn‘t buy that consensus, but they had nobody to vote for it.

And so starting in 1964, you saw the transformation of the Republican Party, first with the Barry Goldwater candidacy and then ultimately with the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980, from kind of a moderate or if you will business party to an ideologically conservative party that offered people an alternative to the growth of the liberal welfare state and everything that went along with it.

And that‘s how the Republicans became that parity or majority status depending on how you look at things.

DeLay

“We’ve spent the last 10 years turning around 40 years of the left’s dominance of Washington, D.C., and the federal government. And they knew as majority leader I was starting to lead us to do the things that conservatives have wanted to do all along. Get rid of the tax code. End abortion as we know it. Hold the judiciary accountable. Fight the war on terror...My constituents deserve better and they deserve a Republican, not a liberal Democrat representing them.”

Notice what is shared by the dictator and the two disgraced Republicans–a revulsion for “the left” or “liberals” or “liberalism.” If these guys are the poster children of the right, why in the world would any sane person reject the left?

And as I read through this post again just after uploading it, it struck me how Mussolini saw the 1800s as a period of oppressive liberalism, while Weber seems to indicate that everything was cool with him until the 1930s. And then DeLay kinda disses Reagan and Nixon in his history lesson, saying that it's only been since 1996 that the right has been trying to undo the last 40 years of "the left's dominance"--which takes us back to 1966. Let's see how "dominant" the left has been, just based on Presidential elections:

1. 1968: Nixon wins
2. 1972: Nixon wins
3. 1976: Carter wins
4. 1980: Reagan wins
5. 1984: Reagan wins
6. 1988: Bush I wins
7. 1992: Clinton wins
8. 1996: Clinton wins
9. 2000: Bush II wins
10. 2004: Bush II wins

So the left "dominated" by losing 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections? Thomas Frank really nailed that one--this is a perfect example of the right's "Plen-T-Plaint", i.e., their persecution/victim/martyr complex. Even though they've had more Presidents in the last 38 years and have had Congress for 12 of those years and one-party rule for going on 6 of those years, they still want to act like the left is "dominant" and that the media are "liberal"? And they get away with this ruse?

OF IMMIGRATION AND IRAN

Wall off the border? Can they be for real? Free countries have no need to be fortified by walls (and this "virtual wall" sounds like a boon for a Bush-crony security company--Stratesec, perhaps?). If they build a damn wall between us and Mexico, that will be concrete (pun intended) proof that we are not free.

Don’t forget, walls have a dual function–they may keep others out, but they can also keep you in.

What we need to do is what Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis said on the Majority Report Monday night, which is what I had been thinking. We need to stop just treating the symptoms (i.e., illegal immigration) and treat the disease itself, which is Mexico’s disastrous economy that makes immigrants need to come here in the first place. But that’s not what the corporatists want. And the corporatists tend to get what they want, which is a steady source of cheap labor–i.e., the illegals, which drives down the price of labor of workers in this country (bigger supply of labor means employers pay less for it).

But if they do build a wall, a friend of mine pointed out that there’s a good bet that there will be illegals helping to build it.

Iran and ran and ran

I can’t find out much about what’s going on with the Iran oil bourse. I thought it was supposed to have opened on March 20. But I haven’t googled it lately. I’ll do that after I get these thoughts down.

Read this piece by Joseph Cirincione about how he now thinks that war with Iran is more or less inevitable whereas he used to think it was unlikely. As I read it, it occurred to me that the Bushies have nothing to lose by attacking Iran. The “Commander-in-Crony” will be gone in 2009 and will not have to deal with any of the repercussions personally.

It’s like the Bush quote I wrote about a few days ago–when asked by Bob Woodward how he thought history would view the Iraq war, his response was that no one can know that with the implication being that it doesn’t really matter to Bush because “we’ll all be dead.” Similarly, one can imagine Bush and Rove’s feeling about Iran, a bigger deficit, or anything else they might be able to wreck before 2009 as being the same–they’ll be out of office and won’t have to deal with it, so what do they care what happens?

Their only concern is keeping, consolidating, and projecting power, regardless if it starts WW III.

Lagniappe

Check out this thread that I replied to about the Iraq war...it's not spectacular or anything, just gives some idea what we're up against...