TERRORISM IS A PROBLEM REPUBLICANS DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE

I don't think my last post adequately explained what I was trying to say, which is this: Republicans don't want to solve problems, they want to exacerbate and/or create problems that they can then complain about and pretend to try to do something about in order to fool the public into supporting them.

Thomas Frank spoke about this very thing in "What's The Matter With Kansas." He pointed out that Republicans are always complaining about the "culture" and abortion and what not. Yet they never outlaw abortion, media continue to get more sleazy, and so forth. And that situation works in their favor--it gives them issues to run on. If there were no abortion and no sleazy movies, the only thing they'd have to run on is making the rich richer, which is always their ultimate goal, and not one
that the majority of Americans would knowingly sign on to.

It's the same way with terrorism--if the Republicans ever did actually put an end to terrorism, it would be great, but then they'd have nothing to frighten the public with. The Republicans need problems (of which terrorism is only one of many) like fire needs oxygen.

Conversely, Ralph Nader made a point similar to this about the success of liberalism in the 20th century in his book "The Good Fight." He pointed out that the more liberalism succeeds, the less people appreciate it and the more they take it for granted. Labor concessions are a good example of this phenomenon--as workers have won more and more rights, people have just come to take a living wage and workplace safety for granted and their perceived need for the liberal ideology fades.

So it makes perfect, yet frightening, sense that Republicans would vow to stay in Iraq at least until Bush leaves office despite the now-undisputed fact that the Iraq war is creating more terrorists. Republicans NEED terrorists. They need them to be able to enact their agenda on all fronts--economic, cultural, social, etc.--their policies of helping the rich and increasing corporate power would never sell on their merits. People have to be frightened into supporting people who would enact such policies. And even then, people would not think of themselves as supporting those kinds of policies, they'd think of themselves as supporting leaders who pledge to ensure safety.

Issues like terrorism are not even seen as problems by Republicans--they are seen as money-making opportunities. That's why you'll never see a Republican Congress enact universal health care, despite being told this week, again, that the American people want that. Why would they ever consent to universal health care when the current system does so much to enrich their supporters--pharmaceutical and insurance companies and so forth?

The Republicans have recently refused--again--to raise the minimum wage. Why would they ever raise the minimum wage when its current level ensures that their corporate supporters can keep their labor costs as low as possible? And that the large population of desperate, cash-strapped people the current minimum wage ensures makes those people overly reliant on credit cards, payday loans and such--the issuers of which are also Republican supporters?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals seek to solve the kind of problems that will basically put them out of business, whereas conservatives want to create and/or exacerbate problems that will keep them in business forever. Or to use an automotive analogy, liberals want to create a vehicle that will never break down so you never have to go to their shop for repairs or buy another one while conservatives want to build a car that will wear out and malfunction in every possible way so that you have no choice but to buy another one or keep bringing it to their mechanics.

So the declassification of the NIE reveals to us once again that Republicans don't fix things, they break them ON PURPOSE so they can maintain or increase their power and wealth. There's really no other reason that they would knowingly mess things up so badly. It breaks down to a simple formula: bad times for you equals high times for Republicans.

MORE TERROR BEING CREATED? OF COURSE...

And that's what Bush and company want. Remember, they always say the opposite of what they mean. They say they are "fighting terror" and "protecting freedom," when in reality, as the newly declassifed NIE shows, they're encouraging terror so they can clamp down on our freedoms.

We are in at least the beginning stages of a police state (or perhaps way past that), reaffirmed just this past weekend when Republicans surrepitiously added language to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that would broadly define who could be declared an enemy combatant. The Center for Constitutional Rights explains it thusly:

"The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq. The bill defines a UEC as "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or anyone who "has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense of the United States." The definition makes no reference to citizenship and therefore could be read to include any number of individuals, including:

* CCR attorneys and other habeas counsel, Federal Public Defenders and military defense counsel for detainees at Guantanamo Bay
* Any person who has given $5 to a charity working with orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to be associated in some fashion with someone who may be a member of the Taliban

The bill also currently includes provisions so sweeping that they strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions by any non-citizen detained by the government anywhere. Because there is no geographic limitation in the bill's language, it would allow the President to detain any non-citizen without their ever having the chance to challenge their detention in court: "No court... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." Examples of people who could be detained indefinitely with no access to a court include:

* A foreign tourist wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt at the Statue of Liberty
* A protester at an immigration rally who has lived in the U.S. since she was six months old and is a lawful, permanent resident"

Yet Lindsey Graham has been widely quoted as saying in this AP story that this new wording will not affect American citizens. Remember, though, that Republicans always say the opposite of what they mean.

Please always remember and never forget that "conservatives" and right-wingers can only ever rule through fear and misanthropy, so the more turmoil they can create in the world, the more power they can try to grab for themselves. And we have and are allowing them to do that. We've got to stop this...

GERMAN JUSTIFICATIONS AND GUANTANAMO GUIDEBOOKS

Watched Bill Maher with Reza Aslan, Sandy Rios, and Bradley Whitford.

Rios, a Fox News Contributor and spokesmen/head of the “Culture Campaign” wanted to play, in her own words, “semantic” games and referred to torture as “coercion.” To justify torture, she cited a story that struck me as completely false or completely misrepresented the moment she finished telling it.

For one thing, I’d never heard it, and for another, it completely justified her argument. And one more thing, there were no telling details in it other than it involved people in Germany. I’ve been trying to Google it and can’t come up with the details of the story she’s talking about.

From everything I’ve heard, there is one overarching, clear message–TORTURE DOESN’T WORK. Please say that to whoever argues that we "have to be tougher" or whatever. Three words--"torture doesn't work."

Still looking for details on Rios story...

Guantanamo Guidebook

Watched about 20 minutes of this British documentary in which a number of volunteers agreed to be “enemy combatants” detained in recreated Guantanamo Bay conditions for 48 hours. The conditions were recreated based on the recollections of released detainees, declassified documents, and former military types. They even had former U.S. military men to play the parts of, well U.S. military men.

And several things struck me as I watched this documentary, aside from the fact that what is being done to these Guantanamo detainees is outrageous, illegal, and immoral.

I want to get these thoughts out rather than construct beautiful prose, so here goes:

1. Either you respect human rights or you don’t. In America, we don’t. We say we do, but we don’t. We say we follow Jesus, but we don’t. We say we provide equal opportunity, but we don’t. Saying something doesn’t make it so.

2. Rumsfeld and company better be damn sure that the people they have in this hellhole are guilty of something. Because Rumsfeld and company are now definitely themselves guilty of inhuman treatement of human beings. But you know, scratch that–that’s playing the game on Rumsfeld’s terms. In enlightened Western tradition, there is no justification for the treatment these detainees are receiving. They should be being given trials and attorney access, not beatings and “stress positions.”

3. Back to the semantic games. Calling something a “stress position” doesn’t change the fact that it’s torture.

4. These people at Guantanamo have been there for years now. Any plot that any of them may have been privy to a few years ago is likely now inoperative. But that’s assuming that all the people (yes, human beings) at Guantanamo are actually connected to anything remotely related to a terror plot (if there really is any such thing). We cannot assume that, because we know from news reports that a lot of the detainees were turned in for a bounty.

5. Human rights are absolute. There is no black and white. Absolute respect for human rights is the moral, healthy position, and disrespect for them is the evil, depraved position.
Bush and his cult of death, i.e., the Republican party have chosen the latter path.

6. It is so utterly important to prove what happened on 9/11. I can’t remember who said it–one of the 9/11 Truth guys–but it is so important to debunk the official story of 9/11 because literally every single thing that Bush (and his enablers) does hinges upon that official story. And that doesn’t just include foreign policy endeavors–domestic, economic, cultural policies and so on all depend on the story that one man in the desert was able to convince 19 guys to fly planes into buildings and kill 3,000 people because they hate America so much.

That’s the most important part of the official story–they did it because they hate us, which means that they hate all things good and right in the world. And that idea has really poisoned the well here in our country. On the Hattiesburg American forum, there was a lot of venom and vitriol directed at Muslims–not at “terrorists,” not at “extremists”–at Muslims. Because Muslims, they say, are dedicated to a fanatical death cult and therefore must be exterminated. That’s what people were saying on this forum (now completely redesigned and ruined)–they considered themselves loyal patriots who sided with the Jews yet didn’t mind suggesting a holocaust for Muslims. They never said it in those words, of course, but neither did Hitler.

Watching the Guantanamo documentary really brought home to me the way in which allowing this type of bullshit to go on really demeans not just our country and our principles, but us, the citizens. It makes us look bad. It makes us look paranoid and fearful. In short, it makes us look WEAK. And we must be weak, if we have to haul people around in hoods, shouting and cursing at them and humiliating them and subjecting them to conditions not even Saddam Hussein has to endure.

If Americans were really strong and courageous and moral, we would insist that these detainees be given fair, speedy, jury trials for the whole world to see. If we really believed in the ideas we say we do–openness, fair trials, human rights, democracy–we wouldn’t mind if a detainee were found to be wrongfully imprisoned or if there were insufficient evidence to convict. We would want to know that. We would say “the system works!” That is our system, after all–we use hard evidence to convict, not suspicion, intolerance, fear, and weakness. At least that’s what we tell the kids. But I guess we don’t really mean it...

"HEAD-IN-THE-SAND" SAM HARRIS

A conservative friend of mine emailed me a link to the Sam Harris ("End Of Faith" author) opinion piece in the LA Times. My friend didn't tell me his thoughts on the matter, but I assume
he agrees with Harris. What follows is my email reply to my friend:

I liked Harris' book right up to the part where he started talking like a neocon.

Here's where I talked about it on my blog.


I think Harris is just plain wrong. He's still spouting the same shit that I mention in the blog entry
in this op-ed piece, to wit:

"In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise."

His "basic moral distinctions" are far from being basic or moral. He trots out Muslim "intentions" again, trying to argue that our killing of civilians is superior to their killing of civilians. My point is that dead people are dead people, no matter what were the original "intentions" of their killers, whether those killers be the U.S., Muslim extremists, Jews, or whoever.

Harris is a brave and intelligent guy, no question about it. He likes to make the argument that atheists like himself can be moral, good people without following any established religious tradition. But his confusion about what is truly moral almost makes me want to go back to church.

Another Problem

Another problem in his reasoning is when he says things like this, from his LA Times opinion piece:

"There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."

He spouts the neocon/warmongering agenda that there are millions of Muslims who want nothing more than to die as martyrs, simply because they are devout Muslims. He couldn't be more wrong, as demonstrated by the important work of Robert Pape, who studied terrorism and discovered that it is not motivated by religion, it is motivated by political grievances againt democratic states.

It's horrific the way that Harris is attempting to dehumanize and demonize millions of people. It sounds a little to close to something that happened in Germany around the middle of last century, if you catch my meaning. We must at all times remember that he is talking about real live human beings--who piss and shit and suck and fuck and eat and sleep and love and hate and have crazy beliefs and everything else we do--in other words, they're just like us. We cannot expect to be treated like human beings if we do not treat other people(s) as human beings.

What We Ought To Do

Given that political grievances are the cause for what we call "terrorism," it then behooves us to reconsider our foreign policies, and ask "how can we avoid causing grief to other people yet not sacrifice entirely our own self-interest?" One way is obviously to start a Manhattan Project focused on using renewable energy sources to free us from our dependence on foreign oil. Another would be to assist the economies of other countries like Mexico. Rather than taking advantage of their dilapidated economy with its low wages, its lax to nonexistent regulation, and its openness to corruption for financial gain, we should help them build something more positive and beneficial to all its people.

And so forth...

And That's The End of The Email

And that's the end of the email, but after having read Harris' piece, I find myself asking, why did that motherfucker even write this? He doesn't offer any solutions as to what to do about "head-in-the-sand liberals." Unless you count vainly trying to convince us that we should be willing to exterminate millions of people. The only point of his piece was to attack "liberals," but he didn't even attack "liberals" very well--he attacked the idea of tolerance and of peace. He attacked the idea of leaving people well enough alone.

For all his supposed "liberal bona fides," his pointless piece sure helped the neocons and the warmongers and the corporatists. Good going, Sam! For all your generic "liberal bona fides," you might as well have been a conservative plant all along--an elaborate, time-released plant, to be sure. Hmmm...

GOP Senate: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link

Here's a link to the report done by Republican chairman Pat Roberts' committee(the conclusions about Iraq and al Qaeda start on p. 108 of 151)

I found it curious that the report kept referring to the "postwar" period. So even though Bush reminded us just a day or two ago that we're still "at war," the Senate acknowledges the truth--that we are now in an occupation, not a war.

We won the war. Yay! Now let's quit the occupation. There is no shame or dishonor in the end of an occupation.

Something to think about as we come to the fifth anniversary of 9/11...

PRE-IRAN WAR PERIOD

I've been away from the blog for a little while due to a couple factors. The wife and I are moving across town this Friday, so we've been packing up and what not. Also, I was getting my political rocks off on the forum of the Hattiesburg American.
But the action there has really died down, and I'd been meaning to get back to blogging here at Left-Handed Leftist.

So the rest of this post is culled from a thread I started on the Hattiesburg American forum here. I really want to try to keep up with this...

Pre-Iran War Period?

08/24/06 at 21:27:53 If, as many seem to think, we are currently experiencing what we will later call "the runup to the Iran War," let's take it upon ourselves now to note what is being said by the intelligence community, by the
administration, by the pundits, by the rest of the world, by the Hattiesburg
American, by the left, by the right, etc.

In other words, let's document the sales pitch for the Iran War as it's being
given. Then we won't have to argue later about who said what, what reasons
were given by whom--we will have been actively talking about it all along.

Then, once we (hopefully don't) go to war with Iran--in one way or another--
we'll compare what they say during and after "major combat operations" in Iran with
what they tried to get us to believe beforehand. Then maybe it'll be easier for us to tell who's full of it and who's actually got some sense.

My First Contribution

So let me make my first contribution...

In August 2005, Iran was judged by the consensus of the intelligence
community to be a decade away from having a nuclear weapon.

A year later--this week--the House intelligence committee releases a report
saying that they don't know enough about Iran--there are "significant gaps
in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about
Iran," in the language of the report.

Even so, the U.S. is right now threatening sanctions against Iran if Iran won't stop
enriching uranium, which they say they are doing for peaceful purposes.

Iran has already pretty much rejected an offer of mostly unknown "incentives" to stop enriching uranium.

Despite the fact that our own government admits we don't know much about Iran, but that we are pretty sure that they're at least a decade away from a nuclear weapon, we are still threatening them with sanctions. Given these facts, it is safe to assume that Iran is not the slightest threat to the United States and that our aggressive stance is not making us any friends.

Unless the real "area of concern," not discussed much by our representatives or the media, is that Iran is opening up their own oil bourse (they're taking their time) which will trade in euros rather than dollars, a scenario that may eventually weaken or supplant the dollar's position as the world reserve currency that makes our current record deficit spending possible.

-------------------------
Here's the part I wanted to keep with and add to day by day:

Wanted to add a couple things to the discussion about what we know about
Iran and our dealings with them and vice versa here in the pre-Iran War
period.

1. "In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue"

Quote: "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.
"

2. "Iran opens nuclear reactor, defying U.N. "
The reactor won't be finished until 2009.

So what do we know so far?

-Iran is a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty; Israel, India, and Pakistan are not.
-CIA gives Iran flawed nuke plans in 2000 (Operation Merlin, "State Of War" by James Risen)
-Iran offered to talk in 2003, we turned them down.
-In 2005, our intel deemed Iran to be 10 years away from a nuke.
-Iran supports Hezbollah; we support Israel.
-Iran says enrichment is for peace, we say it's for war.
-Pentagon says Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents.
-House Intel Committee says we don't know very much about Iran.
-Iran turns down US/EU offer of "incentives" for halting enrichment but says
it still wants negotiations.

Anybody have anything to add/dispute/correct? If not, does any of this sound like a good casus belli for a war/military confrontation with Iran? I would argue in the negative.

---------------
And that was the last post on that thread...nobody was interested after that. At least they haven't been in several days.

And now comes the news that Iran is being given until tomorrow to stop uranium enrichment...which they say they will not do because they aver correctly that it is within their rights to develop nuclear energy for civilian use...

BEING RIGHT RULES. BEING RIGHT-WING DOES NOT.

Here's what I posted on the forum of my local paper on Aug. 10:

It is very likely that news of this latest "foiled terror plot" is just designed to take the oxygen out of the fire that is the Lamont victory and the news that 60% of the country thinks the Iraq occupation is/was a mistake.

I'm almost certain that in a couple of weeks, there will be a small item published about how the Brits got it all wrong regarding this supposed "terror plot"--that it was all just a mix-up. But that won't be splashed across the front pages of every news outlet like this story is.

There's already been an example of that scenario playing out--almost exactly a year ago. After the 7/7 bombings last year, it was big news that the British police shot and killed a suspect in those attacks. It was reported widely that he was running from the police, that he jumped the turnstile at the Tube, and that he was wearing a big bulky coat.

It turned out that none of those things were true. He was simply a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician. But that was not trumpeted nearly as widely as was the news that the Brits had bagged a "terrorist." And the British police didn't admit their mistake until two to three weeks later (at least they did admit it).

And I have a feeling that something similar will come out about this most recent story.

It now looks as if this is coming true...here's a quote from the World Socialist Web
Site that synthesizes the info coming from more mainstream, gullible publications:

"It this case, it transpires that not only were no bombs actually assembled, but none of the British-born Muslims being held had purchased airline tickets, and some did not even possess passports. Despite a massive trawling operation by police involving days of extensive searches at 46 separate locations, no trace has been found of chemicals that were supposedly to be used as explosives."

Scotland Yard has nothing on these guys. Why? Well Wayne Madsen clears that up for us (at this link, scroll down to Aug.11):

"According to knowledgeable sources in the UK and other countries, the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new "terror" scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement; neo-con and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel, and Britain; and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 "Oplan Bojinka" plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the United States. In the latest plot, it is reported that liquid bombs were to be detonated on 10 trans-Atlantic planes outbound from Britain to the United States."

Being right rules. Being right-wing does not.

IS URINE ALLOWED?

Looking at the new carry-on policy over at United Airlines today, a thought occurred to me: is urine allowed on a plane? Is it possible that a "liquid explosive" could be drunk before take-off then collected through urination in-flight (in the rest room, of course)? Are bladders allowed on airplanes now?

Israel Given Go Ahead To Attack Lebanon "Earlier This Summer"

From the New Yorker:

"Earlier this summer, before the Hezbolla kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington separately, "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear." The consultant added, "Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council." After that, "persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board," the consultant said."

That makes me wonder even more about something that occurred to me recently, which is this--were two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by actual Hezbollah people or by friendlies posing as Hezbollah? Because the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers is an awfully slim pretext for the kind of bombing campaign that Israel waged against southern Lebanon.

And then there's the fact that Bush didn't want an immediate cease-fire--he wanted "a lasting peace." That was a very strange position to take given the ferocity of the bombing campaign, which horrified most observers. Probably because they weren't in on it like Bush apparently was. Hmmm...and then there's the expedited shipments of bunker busters and cluster bombs and what not...

Whoops, no...I guess not

But now that I read more, I see that Nasrallah took credit for the kidnappings, so I guess that blows that theory out of the water. But the whole thing about this campaign being planned already and asking for Bush's permission and what not...I have absolutely no evidence or anything for my little baseless theory, but everything about this just seems fishy.

I mean, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but good Lord--stranger things have happened...

WAR OF THE WORDS

Looks like somebody pissed off the warmongers...whoops...

We shouldn't be at war (7-24-06)


B.J. Mathias recently extolled the virtues of war and warriors in these pages ("No payment great enough for those who serve in war," July 17.) Her piece seemed innocent, patriotic and heartwarming enough, recounting her conversation with a homebound Iraq veteran. She chose to focus on the "good side" of the story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, of hospitals and schools built for the newly "freed" Iraqis.

She conveniently left out the stories of our boys killing pregnant Iraqi women on the way to the hospital to give birth. She forgot to mention the torture and detainment of innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib. She failed to recognize the tens of thousands of civilian deaths brought about by our military might. She gave no consideration to the billions of dollars being drained out of our own hospitals and schools and communities to finance these horrors.

Mathias expresses dismay that Americans don't "see beyond political views and bias right to the heart of it all." I agree with her on that point, and the "heart of it all" is that we are killing people for no good reason. Our own sons and daughters are being killed for no good reason.

All this killing, however, is being done for a very bad reason - in order to give the neocons and the theocons here at home an excuse to take away our freedoms because after all, they tell us, "we are at war."

But what they won't say (and don't want us to think about) is that we don't have to be at war and we shouldn't be at war.

Clinton Kirby

Hattiesburg

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

Kirby insulted troops in letter (7-26-06)


I would like to thank Mr. Kirby for getting me off of my can with his letter of July 24th ("We shouldn't be at war). In his analysis of B.J. Mathias' tribute, he conveniently did not comprehend what he read.

Though I am not in support of the "war," I am behind our troops 100 percent. Supporting, admiring and being thankful for our young women and men who are risking all in the service of their country can be done without consideration of politics and religious persuasion.

As an Army veteran, with family members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with lifelong friends who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and with lifelong friends who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, I am deeply insulted by his letter with its characterizations of our fighting men and women.

Mr. Kirby, please don't spit on those who serve while you rest comfortably at home. Either keep your feelings centered on politics, or volunteer your family and friends to join the services to raise it to your moral high ground.

Douglas Wick

Hattiesburg

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

Mathias has her supporters(7-28-06)

Clinton Kirby's letter, "We Shouldn't Be At War," July 24, lambasting B.J. Mathias for "extolling the virtues of war and warriors in these pages," reeks of the obvious terror inflicted upon the writer by the terrorist enemy, a terrorist goal achieved in his case for which they can be proud.

If anyone sees Clinton Kirby, tell him that "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things."

Tell Kirby that "the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

Also, explain to Kirby that "the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Folks sort of like B.J. Mathias , please tell Kirby.

John Stuart Mill, noted philosopher, arrived at this answer in 1865.

Armond "Si" Simmons

Pell City, Ala.

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

We have reason to be at war (7-29-06)


I would like to respond to the letter from Clinton Kirby. ("We shouldn't be at war," July 24) Once again we see a liberal attempting to spin untruth into truth. The truth is that we would all like not to be at war.

Now we have Mr. Kirby who follows along with the far left and their assumption that when you throw manure surely it will stick; unfortunately, most of the time they throw it into a fan because most of it lands on their own face.

Case-in-point, when you can't think of anything else to say, attack the U.S. military. He invented the most vile thing his brain could come up with: U.S. soldiers killing pregnant women on the way to the hospital.

I suppose he wants us to believe that this is what U.S. soldiers do when they are not killing puppies or eating babies.

His statement that we shouldn't be at war and we are wasting billions of dollars is far from thought-provoking and fails to acknowledge the fact that we didn't start this war.

This is World War III (recall 9/11) and until terrorism is dealt with, and ruthless animals like Saddam and his blood-thirsty, sub-human sons are dead and gone, we can either spend the resources fighting on their soil or ours.

The fact is they started this war and they won't stop until we have killed them all. Sounds crazy but these are their rules not ours.

Gray Nichols

Hattiesburg

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

Support troops, bring them home (7-31-06)


Douglas Wick recently accused me of "insulting" our troops. However, I am not the one that is insulting our troops.

Rather, it is the Bush administration that has insulted them by: sending them to kill and die in an immoral, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that was no threat to us; not providing them with proper body armor or vehicle armor; essentially drafting what were initially volunteers through the "stop loss" policy; refusing to withdraw them even though it is now clear to a majority of Americans and the rest of the world that what is happening in Iraq is a complete fiasco.

But all that is really beside the point. The point is that our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq must end. We must stop killing and being killed, and the only way to do that is to leave the Middle East right now. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that Iraq will descend into chaos if we leave - the country is already in a state of chaos because we are there.

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home now so no more of them will die.

And ultimately that is what I am in favor of, and if Wick or anyone reading this can truly convince themselves that somehow that is the equivalent of "spitting" on American soldiers, then may God have mercy on us all.

Clinton Kirby

Hattiesburg

WHO DO YOU THINK SUPPORTS ISRAEL?

Saw the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. on Hardball tonight, where they showed much footage from targeting devices and the resulting explosions in Lebanon. He, like John Bolton, Bush and others like to make a big deal about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah financially and militarily.

Don't you imagine there's an Islamic Chris Matthews on al Jazeera or something being told by a spokesman for Hezbollah that the U.S. is supporting Israel financially and militarily?

Of course there is...and it's not clear to me who wins this argument, but I'm sure of who loses...

OVERTHROW: PHILIPPINES & TREATY OF TRIPOLI

Reading "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii To Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer. It's amazing to see how everything old is new again--namely, we torture prisoners and go to war for business interests but say it's for liberation. According to Kinzer, it's what we did the early 1900s in the Philippines and it's what we're doing now in Iraq.

Here's a passage that proves the old adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same (substitute "Iraq" for "Philippines" and maybe "Washington Times" and "Weekly Standard" for the two newspaper names):

A second theme that echoed through the press was that any atrocities committed in the Philippines had been aberrations. They were 'deplorable,' the St. Paul Pioneer Press conceded, but had "no bearing on fundamental questions of national policy." The New York Tribune said only a few soldiers were guilty and "the penalty must fall not upon the policy, but upon those men."(p. 54)

This is fascinating and tragic in and of itself, but it resonates with me on a whole other level given that I recently found out that my great-grandfather served in the Philippines during that time--circa 1903 or so. I always remember my parents and grandparents telling me that the round, spyglass-looking objects on display were "Moro cannons" and that they were from the Philippines, but they never elaborated any further.

I guess now I know why...

Treaty Of Tripoli

Also heard about this for the first time (or the first time in a long time) from a caller to the Al Franken show (Sam Seder subbing). It's as good an argument as any that the U.S. was never intended to be a "Christian nation," and was passed by the Senate with many of the Founding Fathers serving in the Senate at that time. The relevant quote:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

IRAN: AMBIGUITIES AND ISRAEL

Iran says they're not going to accept or decline the infamous "offer" tomorrow, they only want to clear up the ambiguities in it:

"Tomorrow, we will not give a definite answer. We will only discuss questions and ambiguities regarding the offer," the official said.

Remember, only the details that make this look like a reasonable offer are public. The details that will cause the Iranians to either reject the offer or just avoid answering altogether are still secret.

It's interesting how news stories acknowledge that there are ambiguities in the offer, but they don't seem to ever try to find out what those ambiguities are. The stories only say that Iran was offered a "package of incentives" and leave it at that.

It's a trap designed to make Iran look "unreasonable"...

ISRAEL

The headline from stopfundamentalism.com screams "Iran Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel ." Then the article quotes Ahmadinejad:

"The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime.
The Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem," said
Ahmadinejad at the opening of a two-day regional conference on security in
Iraq..

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Ahmadinejad is saying that the "Zionist regime" is the "problem." Is the "Zionist regime" the same as, or synonymous with, Israel? Of course not--not anymore than the "Bush regime" is the same as or synonymous with the United States.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but it seems to me that Ahmadinejad is correct in this case: the Zionist regime (as distinct from "Israel") is seen as the problem by the Muslim world. That's not inflammatory or irresponsible, it's just a statement of fact.

I hope Operation Demonize Iran fails...

PHONE SPYING REQUESTED 7 MONTHS BEFORE 9/11?

Why, that would be in February, 2001. You know when the president takes the oath of office? January 20th. So that means trying to establish this "call monitoring" program was one of the Bush administration's first orders of business. Bush wouldn't even have been in office for an entire month before he wanted to start undermining civil liberties, without even waiting to have 9/11 as an excuse to do so.

But having said that, it now occurs to me that this revelation actually strengthens the case for 9/11 being an inside job. After all, would any administration do something so dictatorial (i.e., start spying on phone records--or at least try to figure out how to spy on phone records) if it didn't think it had some sort of political cover, like say, a new Pearl Harbor coming down the pike?

That is to say, if you had no idea that a new Pearl Harbor attack was gonna go down, but, like Bush, you had just lost the popular vote and yet still been installed in office by the "activist judges" of the Supreme Court, you might not want to start such a program because discovery of it would be devastating politically.

But on the other hand, maybe you wouldn't worry about political devastation even if you were unelected given that you knew a new Pearl Harbor attack was gonna go down which would give you "political capital" for years and years.

Hmmmm...either way, Bush is destroying America and must be stopped...the war on "terror" is a war on our freedom....

A JOB FOR SUPERMAN...

Saw "Superman Returns" with my wife and son this weekend. I got to thinking, if I were an editorial or political cartoonist, I'd draw Superman saving the Constitution from George Bush. Or I'd draw him saving people from massacres like this.

BAY ST. LOUIS CRAB FESTIVAL

The wife and I have been going to the July 4th Crab Festival in Bay St. Louis, MS for a few years now. We were glad to hear that they were going to have it this year, in spite of the destruction from Katrina.

It was the first time that she or I have gone down to Bay St. Louis since the storm, and we really wanted to see it, having seen a CNN special about the town some months back.

I took a few pics with the cell phone. They aren't great, but they give you some idea of the wasteland that downtown Bay St. Louis still is over ten months after the hurricane. For example, you'll notice a lot of dirt everywhere--that's where the streets and the restaurants and businesses on the bay side of the streets used to be.

Here are the pix:

Spray painted on the boards: "Do Not Enter--Not Safe"
















Fire Dog Saloon still there, but gutted
















Old theater still there--just barely















Giant stump and root system in the road

IRAN: WHO SAW THIS FROM A MILE AWAY?

We saw this from a mile away, that's who...

LONDON, July 1 (IranMania) - Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran will continue its uranium enrichment program despite international calls to halt the sensitive project, Iran's state television reported Saturday.

"The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying from Gambia after explaining Iran's fuel cycle program, which has enriching uranium as its focus, to Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, AFP added.

Here's what we said on June 6/7 about this very topic:

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.

Not that I'm trying to say I'm clairvoyant or anything, quite the contrary. I'm just trying to point out how transparent Bush's plans really are. Hell, if I could figure this out, anyone could. It's called "railroading." And the last stop on this line is bombing and/or invasion.

Iran and Midterms

So by this November, we'll be threatening or possibly already attacking Iran and that will be the divisive issue that the Democrats will be made to look weak on and all the attack ads will feature Democrats morphing into ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Osama--whoever. And the Republicans will talk about how very important it is to not let Iran get a nuclear weapon, even though it's obvious that they would never and could never pose a threat to the United States with any nuclear weapons they managed to cobble together. The main thing is that this dog and pony show is being put on so that the enabling act mentioned below can be joined by other such laws on the books and the neo/theocons can finally dismantle the democracy they hate so much.

Bush Needs Wars

Bush needs wars to do the unpopular, unconstitutional things he wants to do. The Iraq war is terribly unpopular, so Bush wants to try again. He knows that when wars are first begun, all the press are along for the ride and they film everything and talk about a tank crossing the desert in breathless, reverent tones.

That's what Bush wants for the November mid-terms--that first week of war rush. He wants reporters to point out how easily and swiftly the Iranian regime will be toppled and how organized and skillful the army is. And then Bush will want to make another dramatic announcement, maybe from the top of a minaret or something, with an even bigger codpiece on.

And everyone will swoon and vote for Repukes, who will steal the election anyway just in case (hello DRE voting machines almost everywhere). Oh, it'll be a hell of a time.

ENABLING ACT PRECURSOR

Described here by our anti-friends Bill Frist and particularly Lindsey Graham:

"The court said that military commissions would be proper if Congress blessed those commissions -- that the president by himself could not do this, that he had to come to Congress and get the Congress to bless the military tribunal." Graham said.

"I agree with that. I think it would be better off if the Congress and the White House work together to pass a statute that would allow these terrorists to be tried in a military court."

That's the Bush/neo-theocon plan: don't dismantle the Congress or the Supreme Court or anything. Leave them all in place, but make sure they're filled with collaborators that will do what you want. And since the constitutional institutions won't be done away with to the untrained eye, it will sound crazy to most people when people point out how the Supreme Court or the Congress have basically been wiped away. The unwashed will think "No, we still a Court and a Congress--they pass laws and decide cases." It's beginning to happen...

STOP PROLIFERATION, STOP STARTING WARS

Gotta get some links together for this...but for now...

I'd like to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons--who wouldn't? They kill indiscriminately at the time of their deployment and for years afterward. I'd like to see nuclear weapons disappear from the face of the earth.

But realistically, that ain't gonna happen. But just as realistically, the conventional wisdom that says only the countries that currently have nuclear weapons will ever be allowed to have them is an insult a perceived threat to nations that don't currently have them. Obviously, it's a complicated problem.

However, the Bush administration's constant invocation of the principle of non-proliferation is, as Rumsfeld would say, decidedly unhelpful. It is hypocritical on so many levels to pretend to be working to stop proliferation given the following:

1. India/Israel
2. Development of new, "tactical" nuclear weapons
3. Always saying that every option, including the nuclear option, is "on the table"
4. Use of depleted uranium
5. Starting, or threatening to start, major wars/occupations/crippling sanctions in order to stop proliferation

The doctrine of American "exceptionalism" blinds a lot of people--in America--to this hypocrisy. America, the trope goes, will only use its military strength (including nuclear weapons) for benevolent purposes. This idea is even tinged with the suggestion that America is inherently unable to do anything in the world that is not for benevolent purposes, so free and democratic and Christianized are we.

To cite but one example, try telling that stuff to the family of the pregnant Iraqi woman who was killed at an American checkpoint, which ultimately wouldn't have been there had we not been supposedly trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Surely the targets of American threats are all too aware of the hypocrisy involved when Bush and the neocons say they're concerned about dirty bombs, nuclear terrorism, and so forth and only want to be at peace.

That's what is such a sick joke with what's happening in this current run-up to the coming military confrontation with Iran. We claim that the world can't live with a nuclear Iran, that if Iran gets nukes, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia will feel that they, too, will have to get them, and so on.

And here's my larger point in considering all this: what kind of logical sense does it make to start a war if your stated goal is supposedly to prevent a war? In other words, if you really want peace, you don't start a war now to not have a war in the future--because then you have war either way. And in fact, the future war you fear may never actually materialize.

Besides, wasn't the building of the world's largest, most expensive nuclear arsenal sold to us on the premise that it would actually decrease the threat of war? Because we'd be so powerful that no one would dare mess with us because they'd know we'd have power to utterly destroy anyone who tried?

That's another reason why it is so bizarre to see the media referring to the "Iranian threat." Don't you imagine that on Iranian TV, they have iconography that refers to the "American threat?" And wouldn't you agree that the threat Iran faces from America is multitudes greater than the threat America faces from Iran--who doesn't have even one measly nuclear weapon wherease we have thousands upon thousands?

Not only that, we are the only country in the history of the world that has ever actually used nuclear weapons in a war. I thought the idea of all our military spending over the years was to achieve "peace through superior firepower." Well, we definitely have superior firepower--no one in the world doubts that. So where's the fucking peace?

Some might suggest that access to oil and the propping up of the petrodollar are worth all this expense. But I don't see it that way. If the Middle East cuts off our access to oil, so what? We already know that we can run vehicles on corn oil, so what's the problem? I'd wager the "problem" is this: oil companies are obviously very accustomed to making gigantic, record, historical profits, and oil companies don't grow corn, if you see what I'm saying. And on top of all that, of course, former oilmen are running our country.

Why are we allowing this sick, immoral, unholy, deadly game to go on? Why don't we just say, "Keep your oil, we're going to switch to renewable energy"? Obviously because there's no powerful lobby for renewable energy.

Please, let's use peaceful methods to achieve peace with Iran and every other country in the world. Don't start real wars in the present to put a stop to fictitious possible wars in the future. Let's try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that's a good thing. But let's do it with the recognition that we have the most nuclear weapons of anyone in the world and have used them in battle, and maybe make concessions of our own regarding the possession and use of such death tools.

THE BOMBSHELLS BEFORE THE BOMBING

Oh great...now David Albright has written an article saying that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2009. This march to war with Iran is being stepped up every day, it now seems.

Let's review what's been happening (not strictly chronological):

1. Iran is declared part of the "axis of evil" in 2002 SOTU address
2. Bush refuses Iran's offer of negotiations in 2003
3. Ahmadinejad is elected and is said to have been instrumental in the 1979 embassy takeover (this is later dismissed by the CIA)
4. Iran announces opening of euro-denominated oil bourse (which as of this writing is still not operational)
5. NIE says in August 2005 that Iran is at least 10 years away from an atomic weapon
6. Ahmadinejad supposedly calls for the destruction of Israel and supposedly denies the Holocaust (this is later revealed, by Juan Cole to have been due to mistranslations of what Ahmadinejad said)
7. Iran reveals that it has enriched uranium which will be used for peaceful energy production, which is its right both in nature and under the non-proliferation treaty to which it is a signatory, unlike Israel

8. Ahmadinejad sends a letter to Bush to try to jumpstart a dialogue--Bush turns up his nose
9. Khamenei also sends a letter to Bush, which is mostly ignored by the Western press and also offers dialogue l
10. U.S. and EU offer Iran a secret "package of incentives" supposedly to try to get Iran to stop enriching uranium, but most details are purposely kept secret so as to cast the proposal in the best light in the eyes of the Western media
11. Iran says deal is progress, but notes "ambiguities" in details
12. Bush and neotheocons in press and government say Iran should respond sooner than later and that offer is "reasonable"
13. Iran says they'll respond in a couple months
14. Casey, U.S. commander in Iraq, says Iran is helping insurgency
15. Khamenei, the Iranian who will have the final say on the proposal, says Iran does not need negotiations and that uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes is fully within Iran's rights
16. A day later, David Albright says Iran could have a nuclear weapon within 3 years

IRAN & THE TRAP OF REASONABLENESS, CONT.

Khamenei, the head of Iran, said "Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us and we do not need such negotiations." He hit the nail right on the head--there is no benefit for Iran in this mysterious "offer" that is "backed by six world powers" as this same article dutifully points out.

But John "The Mustache" Bolton got his feelings hurt by this statement of Khamenei's.
Bolton said "We think Iran owes us a response right now, basically." Why does Iran "owe" us anything? Bolton would have us believe that because the U.S. and the EU and whoever else dreamt up some bullshit that they themselves would never accept and are now trying to shove this steaming pile down Iran's throat that now Iran owes us something?

Khamenei Is Being Reasonable

Here's what Khamenei went on to say about talking with the U.S. and EU:

"We will not negotiate with anybody on our certain right to reach and use nuclear technology. However, if they recognize this right for us, we are prepared to talk about international controls, supervision and guarantees, and the grounds for such negotiations have been prepared," Khamenei said.

See, all he's saying is that he wants the world to recognize Iran's right to have nuclear technology. Surely the Western countries would not be so hypocritical as to suggest that Iran should do as they say and not as they do. Surely...not...

The Washington Post article again dutifully points out that while Iranians assert that they have the right to nuclear development, Western nations say that is "unacceptable." Here's the quote:

Iranian officials have said Iran will not back down on what they say is Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel, a demand Western nations have said is unacceptable.

Whatever. Again, I'm just trying to document the steps leading up to Operation Petrodollar Prop-Up. Mostly for my own edification, hopefully it does something for you also, dear reader.