Sunday, May 14, 2006

The Real Patriots Are Calling Out the Real Traitors

Today, as he so often does, Frank Rich asks the question that is on the tip of the national tongue, Will the real traitors please stand up?
Today we know who the real traitors were: the officials who squandered American blood and treasure on an ill-considered war and then tried to cover up their lies and mistakes.
Rich says, "The public has turned on the war in Iraq. The administration's die-hard defenders are desperate to deflect blame for the fiasco" on the journalists who have exposed the incompetence of our current leadership. Bush, Cheney, William Bennett, Porter Goss and the administration's mouthpieces Faux News and the Wall Street Journal have all been pillorying 'leakers' and 'irresponsible publications' for aiding and abetting the 'enemy'.

Rich says Americans are increasingly more persuaded by the message than the messengers.
We can see this charade for what it is: a Hail Mary pass by the leaders who bungled a war and want to change the subject to the journalists who caught them in the act. What really angers the White House and its defenders about both the Post and Times scoops are not the legal questions the stories raise about unregulated gulags and unconstitutional domestic snooping, but the unmasking of yet more administration failures in a war effort riddled with ineptitude. It's the recklessness at the top of our government, not the press's exposure of it, that has truly aided the enemy, put American lives at risk and potentially sabotaged national security. That's where the buck stops, and if there's to be a witch hunt for traitors, that's where it should begin.

Journalists and whistle-blowers who relay such government blunders are easily defended against the charge of treason. It's often those who make the accusations we should be most worried about.
This has been said before, and it's the message that richly deserves to be catapulted!

Thursday, May 11, 2006

What's the Price of Gas Matter to a Pair of World Class Liars?

On the Price of Petrol

I don't know to how many Americans it matters, but for what it's worth:

The Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC) tells us that since Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UULUIOI), we have lost per day, on an average, 2.31 service men and women to hostile action in Iraq.

Last month, April, we lost 2.67 fatalies per day due to unfriendly fire. This month, the ICCC tells us we are on track to lose 7.6 of our sons and daughters to the hostility of the Iraq chaos Bush ignited.

So, my brothers and sister, compute [i]that[/i] into the cost of your gasoline when you pull up to the pump to "fill'er up" this weekend.

One Liar to Another Liar

IMHO, by his earlier denying of the holocaust, Ahmadinejad sacrificed a lot of his credibility about asking Bush to come clean about Iraq. (One liar calling another a liar.) However, there's some fresh wiggle room provided in this letter, when Ahmadinejad seemingly is willing to "assume" events pertaining to the holocaust "are true": does that he is asking give Israel carte blanch to do its ethnic cleansing in the West Bank?

Because of my first point above, I'm not bullish on most of the content in Ahmadinejad's meandering letter. What I want to see most is a demand raised my more people that "my government" (the two words the use of which embarrass me the most these days) fooking recognize the Government in Tehran.

Sunday, May 7, 2006

Fear-Mongering and War-Mongering Go Hand-In-Hand

A Short-Term Antidote May Be A General Strike

Bob Burnett asks today,
What Can We Do About Iraq and Iran? He begins by rhetorically repeating a key question I have seen asked on a number pundits, including conservatives'.
It's important to ask why has the resistance to the war in Iraq been ineffective?
Part of the reason, commonly offered, parallels what I have come to call as Pekka's Complaint:
...that even in a war you are not really in it the way the rest of the world's population finds itself during a war.

Enemy for you is somebody on the other side of the world who's existence you weren't even aware before hostilities broke out. Your civilians don't have to run to shelters because of bombing of your cities. You can keep on living exactly the way you did before the war and you don't have to cut back on stuffing your guts with plentiful of food that else where disappears sometimes for years. Outside the military families, there hardly seem to be any sacrifices that are demanded of you. Correct me if I am wrong, but you even got some tax breaks lately. Well, I am not 100% sure but this must be the first time in the recorded history. Wars made easy, wouldn't you agree?
It's hard not to agree; it's universally acknowledged that the burden of this Iraqi war has not been generally born by our population as a whole, i.e. by the institution of higher taxes and military conscription.

But what has been widely and deeply disseminated throughout our national community is fear. As Burnett says,

The answer is fear. Before the invasion, Americans were recovering from collective post-traumatic-stress disorder. We'd had the beejeebers frightened out of us by 9/11. The Bush Administration played on this anxiety. The White House propaganda machine convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein was allied with Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks, and was an imminent threat to attack again. Over time this false impression eroded. Today, Americans are not as fearful as they were in 2003. And, George Bush is no longer the trusted leader he was at the time he beat the drums for war in Iraq.

Indeed, there has been such a shift against the war in Iraq that it seems unlikely that Bush can play the fear card again.
Except for the fact that he appears to be trying to do just that. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime appears to be bent on persuading (in Burnett's words),
a majority of Americans that an attack on Iran is a good idea, particularly if that attack involves the use of nuclear weapons.
An increasingly progressive Democratic party is - we hope and trust - uniting behind candidates which can clearly offer independent voters a clear choice and opportunity to rip the control of Congress from the hands of the war-mongering and corrupting Republicans. All we have to do is make it to this November? Burnett:
The next six months loom as a pivotal period in US history. We'll have an election to determine whether or not the Bush juggernaut rolls on unimpeded.
But what happens if Rove and Cheney decide Bush's best legacy bet is to stampede the electorate again? What if they decide to freak us all out by bombing Iran this October?

Burnett's proposal is to weigh the possibilities for a general strike.


This is not a wild and wide-eyed idea as it might seem. The political consciousness of Americans seems to be awakening. As Burnett points out, anger about gasoline prices has been set in motion for a boycott on Exxon-Mobil. And the whole nation was surprised by the recent instantaneous combustion over immigration reform. The polarizing quality of this issue alarmed many; but what I find intriguing is that it crossed the great divide between Democrats and Republicans. The words "boycott" and "mass demonstration" are not as alien to our fellow citizens as they were a year ago.

Burnett says one more word needs to be introduced, Strike:

In the past few decades, strikes have been relatively rare in the US. They've usually been local actions associated with trade-union wage and benefit issues. Historically, the general strike has been an effective vehicle for protest, "widespread stoppage of workers in an attempt to bring the economic life of a given area to a more or less complete standstill in order to achieve certain desired objectives." There hasn't been a general strike in the US for more than fifty years. However, within the last decade, there have been effective general strikes in other countries. November 1, 2004, there was such a strike in the Ukraine, protesting election fraud, the "Orange Revolution." And there've been numerous examples in France, most recently a general strike protesting a proposed change in the country's youth employment laws.
And consider this carefully:

Several conditions combine to produce an effective general strike: a widespread perception that the government, or an industry, has acted unfairly; a broad-based coalition that includes workers as well as activists; and an action focus.

In France, that focus has typically been the transportation system. In December 2005, there was a three-day transit strike in New York City affecting millions of commuters and thousands of businesses.

What could arouse our so-called conservative American culture?

....if President Bush were to do something outrageous, such as use nuclear weapons against Iran, this could become the spark that ignites a general strike. There would be a widespread perception that the White House had acted irrationally, against the common good. This could produce a broad-based coalition that unites workers, activists, and groups aggrieved by the Administration, such as immigrants. All that would be needed is an action focus.

A logical target for a general strike would be commercial transportation, particularly the boat, rail, and truck lines that handle cargo containers. America is a "just-in-time" society, where many businesses depend upon an uninterrupted steam of deliveries. Even a two-day disruption in the national transportation network would have huge consequences for the economy. Impact that would be noticed not only by the White House and the national media, but also by the commercial power elite. A general strike might goad Wall Street to rein in the White House and produce significant change.

In these perilous times, it's important to send a clear message to the Bush gang: Americans value democracy and are prepared to defend it. Sending this message means getting out of our living rooms and into the streets.

Boys and girls, I sense we are on the cusp of a palpable and propitious volatility in our nation.

Thursday, May 4, 2006

Is California Worse Off than Iraq?

In a word, NO!

Today, I am the unhappy recipient of email which attempted to portray my adopted state of California as being in a predicament comparable to Iraq's. It was emailed to me by a relative of mine who is a two-time, unapologetic Bush voter. So as not to give the email's attachment any more space than it deserves, I'll just cite its source. I invite you to peruse it before reading further.

In the department of "don't get me started", my initial response:

  • First and foremost, California is not occupied by a foreign army. I admit to never having lived under foreign occupation, but I hear from a wide variety of sources who have that it's a real morale crusher.
  • No section of California is subject to daily bombing sorties. None of its cities have been completely demolished, flattened, incinerated or otherwise rendered uninhabitable (however you want to characterize it). There are no Fallujas, Tal Afars, Hits, Rawas Hadithas or Ramadis in my state.
  • California's unemployment rate is not close to Iraq's 60% (a conservative estimate).
  • Kidnapping for ransom is not a major cottage industry in California.
  • Iraq's top professionals -- doctors, lawyers, professors, and business executives -- have been targeted by shadowy political groups for kidnapping, ransom, as well as murder and are running for the borders; California's intelligentsia is staying put.
  • The California infrastructure is not on life support. to mention but one example, electricity in major cities such as Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland is not limited to four hours a day.
  • In California, the price of gasoline is high. But as yet, there are no long lines at the pumps or every-other day rationing. But there are long lines in Baghdad for gasoline. There, rationing prevents sales larger than 8 gallons per person bi-weekly. A large part of the shortage is due to the fact that gasoline is needed to power generators, a problem directly related to a devastated infra-structure.
  • Neither the California Highway Patrol nor local municipal police departments or county sheriffs are under the control of religious zealots bent on ethnic cleansing.
  • 40,000 Californians have not been displaced statewide as a result of ongoing sectarian violence, whereas some 1,000 Iraqis are being displaced daily. Whatever its state of disrepair (under its GOP governator), California is not poised on the precipice of being divided into two or three partitions.
  • Finally, in California, we have accurate and reliable statistics on violent crime. In my state, 90 journalists have not died violent deaths in the last five years. There is no accurate record of the current rate of violent fatalities in Iraq because journalists do not feel safe to 'journey' outside the Green Zone. (That's why Bush supporters constantly complain about no good news coming out of Iraq: they're oblivious to the fact that it's just too dangerous for journalists to go out and find it.) Therefore, there's no telling of the exact extent of the chaos and anarchy currently existent in Iraq.
Like I said, I'm just getting started. Some one tell me what I've left out?

And don't tell me to chill out. Baghdad, after Bush's invasion is worse off than Sarajevo ever was.
Even if this piece in the TAE was meant to be funny, it's not funny.

Steve Colbert? and Cindy Sheehan? Yes & No

Stephen Colbert
I am one who didn't find Steve Colbert funny on the Daily Show or on his own Colbert Show. I rarely watch either, actually. But I salute him for both his artistry and his courage for taking on - in the same room - both the President and his company of sniveling stenographers who pass for journalists in Washington, (if not the entire country). It's a rare moment when both become a captive audience to truth telling; in view of the fact that all of us have been a captive audience to lies and deception for six years, Colbert's performance at Saturday's White House correspondents' dinner in Washington is a moment to be cherished.

Cindy Sheehan
Here's where I part company with Cindy Sheehan:

I have always been against that, also. Afghanistan did not attack America on Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 were not acts of war; they were criminal acts. My government should have gone and tried to prosecute the criminals who were responsible, not two innocent countries that didn't have anything to do with it.
I think they should all pull their troops out... I think troops should be pulled from Afghanistan, and we should, I think, solve the problem diplomatically.

In this position, Cindy is in complete alignment with Bush, who has never wanted, really, to be in Afghanistan because it (1) isn't a target-rich area, (2) isn't a threat to Israel or (3), doesn't have significant oil reserves.

Since November 2002, Bush has depleted American military deployments in Afghanistan to supply his war of vanity in Iraq. Having failed to capture or kill Osama bin Missing, we are now witnessing the Taliban staging its comeback.

Monday, May 1, 2006

Iraqi War Memorial - May Day 2006

2,400 Killed in Action. 8,137 with Life-Altering Wounds
Three Year Anniversary