http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/ Posts for alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:16:41 PST http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/how_long_did_the_right_let_us_love_obama_71300868t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/how_long_did_the_right_let_us_love_obama_71300868t.html infectedmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Smith" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:ublkr2hcj0aeg4fg6jffmmlbdn3hrs5c7m@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:49:16 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How Long DID The Right Let Us Love Obama?
>>>
>>
>> These guys must be convinced Democratic voters are idiots. The "Right"
>> says bad things about their noble Democratic leaders thus destroying
>> them. What a load of crap. I don't know about you, but it was obvious
>> to me, without going must past the headline, the story of Obama's
>> supposed radical Muslim education was horse pucky on it's face. There
>> is much I don't like about the man's politics, but this was simply
>> ridiculous.
>
>The right wing is continuing with the smear tactics that turned the American
>people against it in the last election.
>
>As for myself, I'm hoping they keep it up. That kind of tactic should win
>the dems another 30 seats in the House up to 10 seats in the Senate and the
>presidency in 2008.

So you don't agree with the article?

Bill Smith

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas
habebunt

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

1 Comment

Reply

]]> Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:16:41 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/bush_wants_a_war_with_bigger_tits_42265604t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/bush_wants_a_war_with_bigger_tits_42265604t.html
By Steve Young
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:44am

While Fox New and the far-right Lords of Loud took aim at the important news
at the Senate Hearings - namely Barbara Boxer telling Condaleezza Rice that
either of them might not suffer through the war that someone with a kid over
there would - they completely ignored what Rice suggested that President
Bush really had in mind.

Sending additional troops into Iraq is not intended as a escalation. Rather
she would call it "an augmentation."

Augmentation. Now that made a hell of a lot more sense than sending more
soldiers into a growing quagmire. And it's also something most guys would
buy and women will understand. Not like, but have experiential familiarity
with.

You see, sometimes, when a President hits the big 6-0 he has a life-changing
itch. Past wars he's lived with tend to get boring. Maybe they put on a
little weight. Perhaps they lose a bit of luster as the taut buttocks and
breasts lose their battle with gravity. And while you wake up every morning
next to the same old war (and war-horse), you are besieged by younger and
more erogenous wars splashed across the pages of "Soldier of Fortune" or on
Fox News, outfitted in those tight belly-baring tops and derriere-crack
revealing shorts that the younger wars are wearing today..

Most shallow war-mongers would toss aside their old war like you toss out
thousands of men and women who have died in a wrongheaded President's
pursuit of a disastrous foreign policy. I mean, what lame duck President
wouldn't rather have a trophy war to show to all his rich neocon friends?
But President Bush is far more isn't your run of the mill Republican skirt
chaser. The man is loyal to his war. He doesn't leave a war just because
it's gotten a little crusty around the edges or a few more hairs are showing
on the upper lip. No, this president has refused to leave his longtime Iraqi
war even though she now tends to put out a fetid odor she once held back
during their pre-war courtingship. But since he does have the extra billions
that for some reason don't affect the Federal budget, his thought is, why
not spruce up the old battle and her ax?

That's why this president has chosen augmentation over ending his five-year
relationship with the war in Iraq. With the president's strategy and poll
numbers sagging down to just above its knees, pulling up the old bosom back
up to its earlier and more supple days keeps both the president and his war
nipples erect.

Certainly the President's approach is a more decent and honest approach than
the Democrats who always promise withdrawal. Sure, and the check is in the
mail..

Still, aging wars would be wise to make every effort to keep their
relationship with those who brought them to the dance, because no matter
what the President says, things could change tomorrow. Temptation could
always raise its sensual head and looking into the next yard could entice
even the most seemingly loyal suitor.

Afterall, tell me a war with Iran doesn't have an ass you could eat off of.
_______



About author Steve Young is an award-winning television writer and failed
talk-show host who authored "Great Failures of the Extremely Success"
www.greatfailure.com [1]

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:34 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/new_lies_forward_42265348t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/new_lies_forward_42265348t.html
By Stephen Pizzo
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:42am

Well it's a new year, and you know what that means; time to update the
administration's list of stated reasons for it's war in Iraq -- why we are
there, why we are/must "win," and why the loss of American lives there is a
"price worth paying."

Whew! Just typing the above sentence exhausted me. I'm so tired from
three-plus years of struggling with this administration's full frontal
assault on our collective intelligence. Tired of trying to untangle their
torqued logic, fractured facts and their Orwellian-ization of our language,
our traditions, our laws, our Constitution.

But I must - we all must. Because that beast, now boxed into a canyon of
it's own making, is more dangerous today than ever before. Though evermore
transparent, their lies have become even bolder. And, even with years of
disproved and discarded lies in their wake, far too many Americans - and
even the media, seem prepared to once again give them the benefit of the
doubt - when doubt itself should by now be the order of the day.

So climb into your haz-mat suits and join me one more time as we descend
into the Bush administration's cesspool of excuses, misinformation,
disinformation and downright lies.

2007 Syllabus of Iraq War Spinifcation

LIE #1: "When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis
had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation,"Bush said in a
recent interview. "We thought that these elections would bring Iraqis
together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish
our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of
Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to
retaliate," The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the
political gains Iraqis had made. Al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents
recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's election posed for their cause. And
they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis."

Unmitigated hogwash. Bush's version of events airbrushes over the fact that,
for at least a year and half before the Golden Mosque bombing, Shiite death
squads had been targeting Sunni politicians and clerics for assassination.
Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing
is not the root of the insurgency that now has US troops caught in a
crossfire, but an excuse, a smokescreen to obscure the utter and complete
bankruptcy of this administration's Iraq adventure.

LIE #2: When asked during his 60-Minute's interview last Sunday if he felt
he owed the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war,
Bush responded, "Not at all. "We liberated that country from a tyrant," Bush
said. "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of
gratitude."

Seriously! Let's try the question another way, George. Say I came down to
your Crawford ranch - uninvited -- with the self-appointed mission of
ridding your ranch of rattle snakes. In the process I kill your horses, mow
down your fences, burn down your barn, cut down the power poles to your home
and accidentally killed half your neighbors in the process. Then, while I
did kill some big rattlers, I seemed to have stirred up nests of the little
buggers and now you have more snakes on the plain than ever before. When you
suggest I leave, instead I announce I am bringing in more of exterminators,
promising this time to finish the job. Would you be reassured? Would you be
thankful? Or might you feel that I owe you an apology - not to mention a new
horse?

Lie No. 3: Bush also claimed that, "if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will
leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America."

That excuse reminds me of the tale of the kid who murders both his parents
then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's
orphan. It was Bush's ill-advised invasion and bloody occupation of Iraq
that recruited thousands of fresh anti-American jihadists throughout the
Middle East. By any measure America is today on far more terrorist's hit
lists than it was before 9/11. More of the same, which is what Bush is
proposing, will produce - well, more of the same -- more terrorists, more
danger for America. As they say down in Texas, "If ya keep doin' what you
been doin' you're gonna keep getting' what ya got."

What makes this lie so dangerous is that, in the hands of this
administration, it's self-perpetuating. The more hostility Bush's bow-legged
swagger creates towards America within the Middle East, the more Bush claims
the need to fight it. This is what's called "turning a lemon into
lemonade,", "succeeding through failure." By failing to secure America, this
administration can continue to argue that America is in danger.

Lie No 4: In response to threats by Democrats to take a more active role in
Iraq-war decision making, bush replied: "You cannot run a war by committee,"
the vice president said of congressional input.

On really? You mean like the Dick Cheney's, "Office of Special Plans," did?

Lie No. 5: Bush said: "Members of Congress have a right to express their
views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a
chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better
chance for success."

Ah..... Earth to George, Earth to George, come in George. There is an
alternative... it was called the Iraq Study Group Report [1], and you tossed
it aside without so much as a "howdy do," and proceeded to do just the
opposite of what they suggested. And as for offering a plan that "has a
better chance of success," than yours - that sets the bar pretty low,
considering that your plan has, by all accounts, has no chance of success.

Lie No 6: On the threat that Congress might cut off funding for his troop
"surge,: Bush replied: "I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush
said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're
going forward."

Maybe I slept through civics class, but doesn't the Constitution give the
Executive branch only one-third the power necessary to run the country's
affairs? The other two-thirds [2] is divided between Congress and the
Judicial branches. If Bush really does thwart the will of Congress then he's
broken the law, maybe even committed treason - and exposes himself to
impeachment. Anyway, even it that were not so, just look where that.
"my-way-or-the-highway" attitude has gotten us so far. (Oh, and look where
it got a guy who felt the same way about having things his way -- Saddam.)

Lie No. 7: Bush said that, besides surging more troops into Baghdad, he
would also send more Marines to Anbar province to fight al Qaeda, which has
made the province a home base for it's operations in Iraq. "Our military
forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and protecting
the local population."

Here's pop quiz George:

Question: How many members of al Qaeda were in Iraq before you invaded four
years ago?

Answer: One (1) - al Zaqarwi, and he was in hiding, not from the US, but
from Saddam's secret police.

Question: How many al Qaeda fighters are now in Iraq?

Answer: Estimates run between 5000 and 10,000.

So, the next time you hear George use al Qaeda's presence in Anbar province
as an excuse for more US troops, remind him that that fact is a
self-inflicted wound. And now he's turning that mistake on its head to
justify more of the same. Al Qaeda is there because George was kind enough
to fly US targets in for them to practice on -- and now he's sending more.

Lie No. 8: Bush claimed on 60-minutes that this time, "This time America
will hold the Iraqi government accountable to benchmarks..."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah...
ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha.Ha, ha, ha, ha,
oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Gasp. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha,
ha.. gasp.. gasp... oh man, that's rich. Especially coming from an
administration that hasn't held a single member of its own accountable for
mistakes, blunders, lies.

Oh man..where's a bookie taking odds on that actually happening. I need to
get some dough down on that one.

Lie No. 9: Bush claims the Iraqi "leaders," really do "get it" this time.
"Their leaders understand this, and they are stepping forward to do it. But
they need our help.." Bush claimed.

Do they George? Have you considered this -- that they are just like you,
that they "listen" the same way you "listen" to critics? I think so. I think
they are exactly like you -- they are bad listeners - but good liars. What
the Iraqi "leaders" really understand is that, for the first time in
decades, their country, and it's considerable riches, are up for grabs.
Which is why we have the Shia, Sunni and Kurds whacking away at it like a
giant pinata.

That's all the "leaders" of Iraq understand, George. Oh and they also
understand that you're a sucker for a good line. So when they say they "need
our help," what they really mean is "we need you to hold-em while we
hit-em." What they really mean is, "don't pull out your troops until our
tribe is in a strong enough position to 'deal with' the other two tribes."
Sucker.

Lie No. 10: Failure in Iraq, would empower Iran, which poses a significant
threat to world peace," Bush said in an interview aired on CBS's "60
Minutes."

Too late amigo. Iran has watched your Keystone Cops operations next door in
Iraq. And they watched as you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in
Afghanistan. And they feel empowered by it all. And now the Iranians also
know that, even when you're up against the wall, the best you can do is to
scrape up an additional 21,500 troops. They know you've hollowed out
America's once robust military, that our troops and reservists are exhausted
by repeated deployments, that their gear is piled up in depots awaiting
repair or replacement. If the Iranians were ever intimidated by US saber
rattlings, they're so over it now, thanks entirely to you.

So, the next time you want to lecture someone on the dangers of "empowering
Iran," go stand in front of a mirror and give that lecture. Because you're
clearly the one that needs to hear it.

Oh, and then there's that other boast you made -- warning Tehran that if any
Iranians are caught in Iraq "we will deal with them." Ah yes, another
"bring-em on," taunt. The last time you tried that, they did...and still are
bringing-em on. Sir, do you have a learning disability?

Lie No. 11: Dick Cheney chimed in on Fox News Sunday: "The threat that Iran
represents is growing," Cheney said, in words reminiscent of how he once
built a case against Saddam Hussein. "It's multidimensional, and it is, in
fact, of concern to everybody in the region." Bush's national security
adviser, Stephen Hadley, went further when he said on NBC's "Meet the Press"
that the United States was resisting an Iranian effort "to basically
establish hegemony" throughout the region.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Whether or not Iran becomes the
dominant player in the Middle East is not going to be decided by the US, any
more than Iran could determine if the US will continue being the dominant
player in the western hemisphere. What US meddling can do though is to make
Iran's radicals stronger, not weaker. As for Iran's march towards nuclear
weapons, that's not going to change either. The nuclear genie is out of the
bottle. Hell, even Pakistan, a nation where most of the population still
lives in 14th century squalor, has nukes and missiles to deliver them.

So what does a nuclear-armed Iran really mean? When Iran gets nukes, all it
gets is its own place in the circular firing squad made up of the other
nuclear-armed nations, where there's only a single rule -- "one false move
and everyone gets it." It's a sobering reality. There's nothing quite like
mutually assured destruction to make a fella think twice, and trice, and
more.... before saying "Hey, you! Yeah, I'm talkin' to you. You wanna piece
of this?"

Lie No. 12: In an interview before she left on her latest Mideast trip,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described what she called an "evolving"
administration strategy to confront "destabilizing behavior" by Iran across
the region.

And just what role does Ms. Rice believe the US itself has played in
"destabilizing," the region? What if Iran had, let's say, invaded and
occupied Mexico? Might not the US, Canada and much of Central and South
America consider such an act a tad threatening? Might they not try, in
various ways, to throw monkey wrenches - to "destabilize" -- Iran's efforts
to consolidate its hold on Mexico? Would we expect anything less? So why is
the administration so "shocked" by Iran's meddling right next door in
US-occupied Iraq? Isn't such meddling by Iran like a double "Duh?" Of course
it is. But for this administration it's just another self-inflicted wound
now being repurposed as justification for more of the same.

Lie No. 13: Bush told 60-Minutes that he got no particular satisfaction from
seeing Saddam hang. "I'm not a revengeful person," he said.

Give me a break! We know too much about the Bush family's propensity for
vengeance against those they don't like -- or those they once liked but no
longer like. Bush family vengeance is legendary [3].

Lie No. 14: Bush also claimed on "60-Minutes," "I really am not the kind of
guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy."

Liar. Protecting your legacy is precisely why you want to send more troops
to Iraq -- to insure that the inevitable failure of your policies there does
not occur during your term. That way you can claim it was your successor,
and/or Congress that screwed up a perfectly good plan. In other words, you
care so much about your legacy you are prepared to see more other America
family's kids die to protect it. You might call that "prudent." -- I call it
premeditated murder.

Ah, but this administration doesn't always lie. Occasionally they speak
truth - even if inadvertently.

Truth No. 1: Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday on Fox News how the
Iranians "sit astride the Straits of Hormuz" and its oil-shipping channels,
how they support Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yes, Dick, it always been about oil, hasn't it? All that blather about WMD
and democracy was window dressing. It's always been about oil, Iraq's oil --
Iran's oil, Saudi Oil. That's why the blood of American kids is soaking into
the sands of the Middle East. Sure Hamas and Hezbollah are destructive
termites, but they're not our termites and they are not chewing away at our
house. They chew away at social and financial structures of the Middle East,
and only the folks in those countries can exterminate them. And eventually
they will have to do just that if they ever want to join the rest of us
living in the 21st century.

Furthermore, if, six years ago, this administration had not actively
undermined alternative energy research, had not nixed higher millage
standards for cars and trucks, and had not shot down the greenhouse gas
limits linked to burning oil products... we'd be in a stronger position
today to tell the folks of the Middle East - including Hamas and Hezbollah,
to go pound sand.

Truth No. 2: The president told 60-Minutes that he watch only part of the
Internet-aired video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, which showed some
Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the
gallows. But that he could not watch the final moment, of Saddam plummeting
through the trapdoor to his death.

Interesting. You never saw combat yourself, George, or the gore that
inevitably follows from war. Yet you have sent thousands of American kids
off to war in Iraq to have arms and legs blown off, and say you sleep like
baby every night. But you didn't have the stomach to watch the execution of
the man you went to war to dethrone. You could not watch even that
relatively antiseptic bit of killing. Some warrior President you are. You're
admission of this was a rare exposure of your true self. You, Sir, are a
sissy.

Truth No. 3: In his weekly radio address [4] Saturday, President Bush stated
that, "Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their
people."

Duh.
_______
newsforreal.com



--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

2 Comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:32 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/barack_we_hardly_know_ye_a_question_for_senator_ob_42265092t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/barack_we_hardly_know_ye_a_question_for_senator_ob_42265092t.html
By RJ Eskow
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:31am

It's Candidacy as Celebrity, as reported by our "American Idol" political
press. The resemblance to another Presidential candidate is striking: The
good looks, the swooning crowds, the swooning reporters, and the eloquence
all bring to mind another charismatic Democrat. Unfortunately it's not John
or Bobby Kennedy.

It's Jerry Brown.

When Brown ran in for President he drew the same screaming fans and the same
enthusiastic coverage. He was a late entrant in 1976 but was given more of a
real chance in 1980. Still, but at some point his campaign failed to
coalesce on the ground. Voters weren't able to get a grasp of who this
enigmatic candidate was, or what he stood for.

Is Jerry Brown's experience a cautionary tale for Barack Obama? It's too
early to tell, and of course there are significant differences between these
two intelligent and compelling politicians. But, like Obama, Brown had a
knack for defying left-right differences. He replaced ideology with enigma
and liberalism with language. In the end, it didn't work.

This is a high-risk moment for Barack Obama. He's the most famous new
politician in America, and nobody really knows him. The left is disappointed
with his lack of a clear stance on critical issues, his votes for Condi
Rice's confirmation and a usurious bankruptcy bill, and his use of religion
to separate himself from other Dems (thereby reinforcing the impression that
Democrats are too secular for America). (David Sirota lays out the case
against Obama here [1]and here [2].)

Obama for his part has defended each of these actions. I don't know what to
make of him, other than to respect his intellect and obvious communication
skills. I will say this: his skill at evading the left/right category could
be his triumph - if it doesn't destroy him first.

I think I understand what he's trying to accomplish, but he's so intent on
not being labeled that he risks getting the label he leasts wants: that of
an evasive man, a holographic candidate designed to change in appearance
depending on where the viewer stands. If that label sticks, his candidacy
could prove as ephemeral as ... well, as a holograph.

There's danger in a McLuhanesque candidacy where the medium (or the media)
is the message. At some point, the presence of no information becomes
information - and damaging information at that.

I'd hate to see that happen. Obama has extraordinary gifts as a politician,
and it would be gratifying to see him show similar ability as a leader. He
has the potential. His writing is thoughtful and deep. His recovery from
drug addiction may also be source of insight and growth for him.

People familiar with the recovery process know that it often brings with it
a sense of purpose in life, a desire to be of service. Attaining electoral
office is a purpose, I suppose, but not a higher one. Political office is
not a form of service, however, unless it's deliberately used as a platform
for it.

I think Americans sense a yearning for higher purpose in Obama. I also
suspect they would like to hear more about that purpose, and what he's
willing to risk in order to accomplish it. Americans may yearn for a
Celebrity Candidate and an end to partisan campaigning (which they
nevertheless often reward with votes). But they're also yearning for
purpose, and for leaders who are genuine"profiles in courage."

JFK faced many of the same criticisms Obama faces today, and for some of the
same reasons. But Kennedy made a tactical decision early in his Senate
career to find one cause and stake a strong position on it. He chose
Algerian independence and the right of national self-determination.

It was a canny move. Kennedy was able to claim a generational stake for
social progress that was not threatening to Americans' core issues of
prosperity and anti-Communism. In that sense, Algeria was a symbolic issue
for Kennedy, but it was an effective symbol for communication courage and
change.

Obama hasn't even chosen a symbolic issue, and as a result he leaves a
strong impression of excessive caution, with a suggestion of Hamlet-like
over-deliberation over difficult choices. It might not be a bad idea for the
Senator to find at least one slightly controversial cause, if he wants to
change the impression that he's never able to take a stand.

There was a rash of books about JFK after his death. One took its title from
the old Irish folk song, "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" - a song that,
ironically, lamented the terrible injuries suffered by a war veteran. As
Americans continue to fight and die in Iraq, and suffer from poverty and
lack of healthcare at home, it would be good to hear more specific policy
proposals from him on those subjects.

As far as the primaries are concerned, Obama's fate may rest on the next few
weeks. The left is about to coalesce around John Edwards if no other strong
progressive appears, thereby splitting the "anti-Hillary" vote between the
Party's progressive wing and its "Hillary is unelectable" wing. (And yes,
there's overlap between the two groups.)

Obama's campaign team roster [3] reads like a Who's Who of centrist
Democratic campaigns. Thatraises the possibility that he'll tack far enough
to the right to split the anti-Hillary Democrats and see some critical
support siphon off to Edwards. I'd love to hear the Senator's thoughts about
the campaign, and about the dynamics of the first few primaries.

But if I could only ask Sen. Obama one question it would be this one,
offered with respect and courtesy:

What do you consider your highest purpose in this life, the purpose for
which you would sacrifice everything?

I suspect he has an answer. Before coming to any conclusions about his
candidacy, I'd like to hear it.

The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog [4]

A Night Light [5]
_______



--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:29 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/spocko_glenn_beck_and_abc_42264836t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/spocko_glenn_beck_and_abc_42264836t.html
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:25am

President George W. Bush's popularity has fallen to new lows, Democrats have
been swept into office, and a strong majority of Americans now opposes the
war in Iraq, but ABC has decided the time is right to beef up with more
conservative pundits on staff and to strike out against a liberal online
critic who raised questions about the network's policy of broadcasting hate
radio.

Last week spotlighted ABC and its unfortunate trend toward irresponsibility,
as the broadcasting giant hired Glenn Beck -- a high-profile war cheerleader
[0] known for grade-school level name-calling of Democrats -- to comment on
the day's events for Good Morning America. ABC last week was also dealing
with the messy fallout from its wrongheaded decision to fire off a
cease-and-desist letter to a little-known blogger named Spocko who had been
posting audio clips from KSFO in San Francisco, an ABC-owned talk station
where hosts have advocated violence against, progressives, Muslims, and
Democratic members of Congress.

ABC warned Spocko the audio clips were posted in violation of copyright
laws, although it appears ABC's real concern was driven by the fact Spocko
was informing advertisers about KFSO's unique brand of extremism and that
blue-chip advertisers were fleeing the station in disgust.

By trying to silence a liberal critic through legal intimidation, while at
the same time hiring a pro-war talker as a network commentator, ABC once
again advertised its allegiance. Sadly, the Beck and Spocko developments are
not unique. In recent years ABC has regularly gone out of its way to curry
favor with conservative ideologues while simultaneously disrespecting
Democrats and progressives.

Consider the fact ABC and its parent corporation Disney:

a.. Recently aired the historically inaccurate [0] miniseries Path to
9/11, which was created by a cadre of conservative filmmakers determined to
blame the Clinton administration for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
b.. Employs Mark Halperin as ABC News' political director -- the same
Halperin who last fall in a series of interviews with right-wing media
outlets, endorsed conservative conspiracy [0] theories that mainstream
journalists are "overwhelmingly liberal," "hate the military," are "blind"
to their bias, and should use the closing weeks of the campaign season to
"prove" their worth to conservatives.
c.. Let the network's online daily newsletter, The Note, run by Halperin,
evolve into a sycophantic [0] outlet of Bush/GOP spin.
d.. Refused [0] to distribute Michael Moore's award-winning documentary
Fahrenheit 9/11 because the company didn't want to be associated with a
product so "political," despite the fact some ABC-owned talk radio stations
and ABC-syndicated radio hosts traffic [0], on an hourly basis, in wildly
partisan and often off-the-chart hate rhetoric.
e.. Give chronic, professional fabricator [0] John Stossel a national,
prime-time platform, where his opinions are always aired unopposed.
f.. Hired Rush Limbaugh as a football analyst only to have to remove the
right-wing talker from the air after Limbaugh immediately inserted unwanted
racial overtones [0] into a broadcast.
g.. Used bogus reporting [0] to help relentlessly hype the phony
Whitewater scandal during the Clinton administration.
So much for the liberal [0] media [0].

According to long-held corporate media standards, radicals on the right are
good for business, but radicals on the left are simply ... radical. (Can you
imagine The New York Times-owned radio station [0]

employing fringe, left-wing hosts who fantasized on the air about
assassinating Republicans?) But fair warning, the days have now passed when
corporate news entities like ABC can shrug off critics who call out its
shameful pandering, like hiring a hate merchant to comment on current events
or trying to crush a righteous blogger.

Beck: Hurricane Katrina survivors are "scumbags"

Glenn Beck can thank another corporate media giant, Time Warner, for getting
him his new ABC gig. In January 2006, Time Warner's CNN Headline News signed
Beck to produce a nightly hour-long talk show. Announcing the new hire,
Headline News president Ken Jautz, trying to take the edge off Beck's fringe
past, described the host as "cordial" and "not confrontational." Yet the
previous year, when not fantasizing [0] about killing film maker Michael
Moore ("I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire
somebody to do it"), Beck told his listeners [0] that Hurricane Katrina
survivors trapped in New Orleans were "scumbags," and that he "hate[d]"
"9-11 victims' families." He also labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
the "Antichrist [0],"

accused [0] Al Gore of being like "Hitler," and congratulated [0] a caller
to his program who claimed to have tortured prisoners in U.S. custody by
saying, "I've got to tell you, I appreciate your service. ... Good for you."

Since joining the CNN family ("the most trusted name in news"), Beck has
continued with his often radical, incendiary ways. For instance, he's warned
that if Americans don't wake up to the dangers of the "deadly enemy that is
embedded in" our ranks -- radical Islam -- that the streets of Detroit, New
York, and Chicago may soon erupt in flames as part of a "global religious
civil war [0]." Indeed, Beck has waged something of his own personal jihad,
declaring that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the
plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire
fence at the West." And that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands
the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head"
will face dire consequences.

Beck garnered headlines with his one-hour special about radical Islam,
Exposed: The Extremist Agenda. The program was built around the evident
notion that Muslim extremists in the Middle East hate America. (Beck
interviewed former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who confirmed
Exposed's obvious premise.) To help boost interest in the special, Beck, on
the eve of the Exposed showing, manufactured a controversy by inviting Rep.
Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, to be on the
program. Beck then sandbagged Ellison by asking him, after noting that
Ellison is a Muslim, a war opponent, and a Democrat, to prove that he was
not "working with our enemies."

The global news outlet then rewarded Beck by promising him guest appearances
on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, as well as three upcoming one-hour news specials
for Headline News. This, despite the fact Beck twice emphasized during
Exposed that he is not a journalist. One of Beck's upcoming news specials
will focus on the "myths" of global warming, which Beck insists is a natural
phenomenon and not caused by humans or the pollution they generate. That's
why Beck likened Gore to a Nazi propagandist; Beck did not like An
Inconvenient Truth.

Yes, Beck's cable show has done well in recent months. ("The fastest-growing
talk show in cable news," cheered the New York Post.) But let's put things
in perspective. The reason ratings have gone up is because there was no way
they could go down. When Glenn Beck debuted on Headline News last May almost
nobody watched it. During its first month, Beck attracted just 80,000
viewers in the target demographic of 25-54 year-olds. (That's out of a
possible 120 million Americans, 25-54.) It would have been mathematically
impossible for Beck to lose lots of viewers -- of course his ratings had to
go up.

Nonetheless, he's a huge ratings hit now, right? Not exactly. Beck currently
attracts fewer viewers than Phil Donahue did in the winter of 2003, when
MSNBC executives fired him for having such poor ratings. (How's that for a
double standard? Liberal cable talker Donahue had 440,000 viewers and got
canned, but conservative cable talker Beck attracts approximately 300,000
viewers of all ages and he's promoted.)

No matter, last week ABC, no doubt impressed by the buzz surrounding Beck's
ratings success, announced it was adding the right-wing talker to its
payroll. "Glenn is a leading cultural commentator with a distinct voice,"
announced ABC's Jim Murphy, senior executive producer of Good Morning
America. "At times, he is the perfect guest for many of the talk topics we
cover on morning news programs." (According to this report [0], GMA host
Diane Sawyer personally invited Beck out to lunch and offered him the job as
a GMA commentator, praising him for his "common sense.")

And what better topic for Beck to discuss on GMA than Islam? Not that Good
Morning America ever mentioned Beck's around-the-clock obsession with
Muslims or his McCarthy-like questioning of Ellison when the wake-up program
invited Beck to appear on the air last November to talk about Islam. In
fact, GMA invited Beck back again in December to talk about religious
controversies and once again declined to even mention Beck's previous
smears. I assume that tradition of playing dumb about Beck will continue at
ABC.

Simple question: If ABC execs have no qualms about hiring Beck and are not
embarrassed by associating themselves with his brand of often hateful
info-tainment (where Katrina survivors are "scumbags") and ABC officials are
completely confident morning (i.e. female) viewers won't be turned off by
Beck's right-wing agenda, then the next time Beck makes one of his paid
appearance on GMA why doesn't a host simply ask Beck about wanting to kill
Michael Moore, or why he called one of the most powerful female politicians
in the country the Antichrist, or why the former Democratic presidential
nominee reminds him of Hitler? Why doesn't ABC discuss Beck's "distinct
voice" and his "common sense"?

Instead, mindful of its larger corporate reputation, ABC scrambles to
camouflage the dark side of the political spectrum it has embraced in a
quest for higher ratings.

ABC's KSFO: Obama's a "Halfrican"

It was that need to obscure the truth that led company attorneys to send off
a cease-and-desist letter against Spocko, the self-described "5th-tier"
blogger who had been contacting advertisers and informing them about the
blatant hate talk [0] being broadcast on ABC Radio's signature San Francisco
talk station, KSFO, where hosts recently mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as
a "Halfrican," for having a white mother and a black father. (The hosts
later apologized, but only after being publicly criticized for the racist
remarks.) Additionally, the hosts:

a.. Suggested [0] torturing and killing a Nebraskan criminal.
b.. Asked [0] a caller to prove that he is not Muslim by calling Allah a
"whore."
c.. Advocated [0] the murder of millions of Muslims in Indonesia.
d.. Suggested [0] that someone "dig ... up" late environmentalist Rachel
Carson [0] "and kill her all over again."
e.. Warned [0] Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) that she
had "a bull's-eye painted on her big wide laughing eyes."
Rather than publicly reprimand the radical talkers and explain to them the
standards of broadcasting in this country, not to mention the damage they
were doing the station, ABC Inc., a subsidiary of the Disney-ABC Television
Group [0], decided it was the anonymous blogger who needed to be shown a
lesson with a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter, under the threat of
copyright litigation. (According to [0] the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Spocko was well within his right to post the KSFO clips under the Fair Use
doctrine, which allows copyrighted material to be reproduced when used for
"purposes of commentary, parody, education, or artistic expression.")

Disney's heavy-handed approach scared Spocko's Internet provider into
yanking his website. But within days he was back online [0] with another
provider and this time with the full support of the liberal netroots behind
him.

As Tom Siebert noted [0] on Online Media Daily last week, "The KSFO PR
debacle is the latest black eye for Disney, and another straw on the camel's
back as the company nears the tipping point: being branded in the public's
mind as a tool of the right wing, just as that political brand is falling
out of fashion."

Make no mistake: Last week ABC and Disney proudly sided with right-wing
ideologues. We'll see if the media giant soon regrets that choice.
_______



--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:27 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/death_watch_in_the_persian_gulf_and_washington_42264580t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/death_watch_in_the_persian_gulf_and_washington_42264580t.html
By Dave Lindorff
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:19am

Watching the slow-motion march to war against Iran is a bit like watching a
terminal cancer patient in a hospice. We know how it's going to end. We know
it's going to be tragic and ugly. But we are powerless to stop it.

There is a difference of course.

For the cancer patient, there really is no alternative.

For us, there is an alternative to the catastrophe which President Bush and
his regent, Dick Cheney, are preparing for us all.

We could rise up as a nation and demand that our elected representatives
pass a Boland-type amendment banning any use of the military in Iraq. We
could demand that a resolution be passed revoking the 2002 Authorization for
Use of Military Force against Iraq. We could demand the revocation of the
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force which the president has
improperly cited as giving him extra-Constitutional powers. And we could
demand that Congress tell the president and vice president that if they
attack Iran without explicit congressional authorization they will both be
immediately impeached.

The votes could be there for such an action, as even some Republicans are
clearly opposed to this insanity, but the courage to call the president's
hand and lay down the cards is not.

And so the horrible march to disaster continues.

The cynicism of this administration is beyond belief. We have the supposedly
"straight talking" defense secretary Robert Gates telling Congress that
there is no plan "at the moment" to attack Iran--even as he sends two
aircraft carrier battle groups into the Persian Gulf and stockpiles Patriot
anti-missile batteries in the region (of what use are carriers and
anti-missile rockets in a counter-insurgency in Iraq?). We have the
president authorizing a blatantly illegal and clearly provocative attack on
an Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq, and violating international law by
arresting six people in that raid.

Let's be clear. An attack on Iran, which poses no immediate or imminent
threat to the United States, would be the most heinous of international war
crimes--a "crime against peace" violating the UN Charter and the Nuremburg
Charter. It would also be a strategic disaster that would dwarf even the
president's collassal strategic blunder in invading Iraq.

There are no more troops left to fight in Iran, so all the U.S. could hope
to do would be to bomb that country. But bombing that country would do
nothing to stop Iran from retaliating in myriad ways that could bring the
U.S. to its knees.

Take sappers. Iraq, which has a sophisticated and well-equipped espionage
apparatus, could set out on a campaign of sabatoge, blowing up U.S. chemical
plants, petrochemical refining and storage facilities, and power plants.
Since these are all known to be on the target list of U.S. bombers in Iran,
Iran would be well within its rights retaliating in kind inside U.S.
borders. If the U.S. were to follow its usual criminal practice of also
attacking Iraqi hospitals and other civilian targets, Iraqis could and
likely would follow suit. I wouldn't be surprised, given how long the
administration has been talking about attacking Iran, if its military
strategists hadn't already smuggled bombs into place in shipping containers,
ready to blow if we attack.

Feeling safer?

Iran has other options too, to hurt us. The Shia militias in Iraq, which
have largely ignored U.S. forces unless harassed, are tight with the
Iranians, having received shelter and support from Iran during Hussein's
brutal rule, and sharing, as they do, a common religion. If Iran comes under
attack, it is hard to believe that the Iraqi militias will now turn their
substantial firepower on outnumbered US forces in Iraq.

When you think of it, attacking Iran would be a wonderful way of doing what
the U.S. claims it has been wanting to do for several years now: uniting the
Sunni and Shia forces in Iraq and ending their fratricidal conflict. The
only problem is that they will be joining hands the better to attack U.S.
troops! How clever this administration is!

And then there's the economic costs of an Iran War. Here Iran really has to
do nothing, though it could make things all the worse by using one of its
high-tech anti-ship missiles to sink an American naval vessel or even just a
civilian tanker in the gulf. Even without such an action, an invasion of
Iran would lead to a shutdown of oil coming from the Persian Gulf. That's
one quarter of all the oil supplies in the world. Even if Iran never fires a
missile, the insurance industry will make it financially impossible for any
ship-owner to sail into the gulf.

So forget $80/barrel oil. Crude oil would quickly soar past $100 a barrel,
past $160 a barrel, probably. Some analysts have even talked of $200 a
barrel. No matter-after $100 a barrel, the world economy would grind to a
halt. And the American trade deficit would go through the roof. We're not
talking slowdown here,; we're talking global depression.

All this is clear,.

But it is also clear that the Congress doesn't have the guts and principle
to halt this march to madness.

And so we just continue to watch the patient die.
_______



About author Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation
into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal [1]. His new book of columns
titled "This Can't be Happening! [2]" is published by Common Courage Press.
Lindorff's new book is "The Case for Impeachment [3]," co-authored by
Barbara Olshansky. He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com [4]

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:24 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/chuck_hagel_for_president_42264324t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/chuck_hagel_for_president_42264324t.html
By Robert Scheer
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:06am

- from Truthdig (posted with permission) [1]

Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him
and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the
president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have
my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary
Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can't or won't
take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of
voters who have.

Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of
that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more
important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party
who so clearly didn't.

"The speech given last night [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," Hagel said.
"We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we
cannot win militarily.

"To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the
middle of a civil war is wrong. It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally
wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong," he added.

If Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic darling, has uttered
words of such clarifying dissent on the president's disastrous course, then
I haven't heard them. Instead, too many leading Democratic politicians
continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the
war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection
of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that
just revived their party's fortunes.

Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic
war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of
neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that,
two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a
Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic
and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War.
It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his
Democratic successors who opened the gates of war.

True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary
of the "foreign entanglements" that our first general and president warned
against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the
limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC's
"Meet the Press."

Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an
oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently
as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don't
support President Bush's escalation of the war of being "all about failing."
In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush's
lies that launched this war four years ago.

"The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that
we're fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical
super-powered government in Iran," said the fear-monger. "Allowing Iraq to
collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us,
that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they
would follow us back here."

Never mind the ridiculous image of "super-powered" Iran invading the United
States, or the fact that foreign jihadists--arriving after the overthrow of
anti-fundamentalist strongman Saddam Hussein-- make up only a tiny fraction
of the combatants in Iraq. The question is how the apparently intelligent
Lieberman doesn't understand that the main task of our troops for most of
their stay in Iraq has been, de facto, to expand the power of Shiite
theocrats trained for decades in Iran. Tehran couldn't have baited a better
trap.

In any case, Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman's apocalyptic vision, which
somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of
our involvement, not despite it.

"[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq," Hagel
responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant
Washington. "The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We
continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have
understood, we've never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to
find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers,
including Iran and Syria.

"To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that
grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not
going to fix the problem," he added.

Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president.
_______



About author Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig. rscheer@truthdig.com
[2]

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:22 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/the_handwriting_on_the_wall_says_iran_42264068t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/the_handwriting_on_the_wall_says_iran_42264068t.html
By Gary Leupp
Created Jan 17 2007 - 9:00am

In the Bible story, the Babylonian king Belshazzar is feasting with his
courtiers at a banquet, using the sacred golden goblets plundered from
Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem as wine cups. Suddenly, out of nowhere a hand
appears; it writes a cryptic message on the chamber wall. The king's
counselors are unable to decipher it, so Daniel is called in to interpret
its meaning. (Daniel is a Jew of the exile and a very wise man. Many years
ago he had interpreted the dreams of the king's father Nebuchadnezzar.)

The handwriting on the wall, Daniel tells King Belshazzar, consists of the
Aramaic words mene mene tekel upharsin (literally "numbered, numbered,
weighed, divided"), a message which decoded means: "God has numbered the
days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; you have been weighed on the
scales and found wanting; your kingdom is divided . . . " The last word
upharsin sounds like "Persia" in Aramaic, so Daniel adds that the divided
kingdom of Babylonia will be "given to the Medes and Persians" (New Oxford
Annotated Bible translation). It's among the most famous Bible puns.

Belshazzar's tenure in office was in fact short, according to Babylonian
records; after three years on the throne he was toppled by Cyrus the
Persian. Cyrus captured his capital, Babylon (between the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers south of today's Baghdad) in 530 BCE.

I think of this story when reading the warnings appearing in the US press
addressed to Iraq's puppet prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. This is a man
plainly uncomfortable on his throne, who's openly acknowledged a desire to
step down. He's in a difficult position. Condi Rice warns him darkly that
his government exists "on borrowed time," because America's "patience isn't
unlimited" and "the Iraqi government needs to start to show results." Zalmay
Khalilzad, US ambassador and kingmaker in occupied Iraq has just passed
along to al-Maliki "a very good strong message" from President Bush "that
the patience of the American people is running out."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tells Congress that al-Maliki "has to face
. . . the possibility that he'll lose his job." Most importantly, Bush
announced in his speech last Wednesday that he's "made it clear to the Prime
Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not
open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises,
it will lose the support of the American people." Translation: We enthroned
you, we can depose you. Meanwhile a bipartisan consensus has emerged in
Congress that the Iraqi people haven't responded appropriately to the benign
American invasion, but are rather causing needless pain to the invaders.
They will therefore, if the invaders decide to (or have to) pull out, bear
full responsibility for those invaders' failure to liberate them.

How would you feel, if you were President Nouri al-Maliki getting this
message? The man's being weighed in the imperialists' balance and found
wanting. His country is already divided between the Kurds and the Arab
Shiites and the Sunnis. The Shiites are divided between the
popularly-supported militias (including Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) and
the forces that work closely with the occupiers and rely more heavily on
them. Even the latter are riddled with militia members acting as fifth
column agents and spies. Al-Maliki relies upon al-Sadr for conditional
political support, but the US demands that al-Maliki cooperate in a massive
effort aided by 17,500 new US troops to suppress Baghdad's Shiite militias.
US journalists, in general, express doubt that al-Maliki can or wants to do
that.

So it looks like his days are indeed numbered. And what will happen after
him? The fundamental problem here is not one of personalities but the fact
that 90%% of Iraqis polled want the US out now. (It's already been a year
since that number indicated they wanted the US out within a year's time.)
These include Sunnis in the Triangle who formed Saddam's and the Baath
Party's social base as well as Shiites in Baghdad and the south who are
happy that Saddam's gone. The Shiite parties have stepped into the power
vacuum created by the occupation to organize basic neighborhood activities
such as trash collection and also to provide security through armed
militias. These militias have been involved in conflicts with one another,
"insurgent" activities, attacks on Shiite or Sunni mosques, maintenance of
torture chambers, and all manner of sectarian horrors. The Americans are
demanding that the Iraqi president crack down on these militias, which are
in fact merely one of the evils emerging from the Pandora's Box that the US
president himself decided to open!

Now George W. Bush publicly lectures the man heading what we're supposed to
believe is a sovereign government, informing him in the name of the American
people, no less, that he will lose the support of those people if he doesn't
follow through on promises to cut off ties with Muqtada al-Sadr (one of the
most popular men in the country). Al-Maliki might say, "Okay, do what you
need to do to disarm Muqtada's boys here in Baghdad. I'll agree to whatever
Iraqi backup you need, so you can say that this is a joint US- Iraqi
operation to restore order." But this would permanently damage his
reputation if not his self-esteem and he'd have to leave office after doing
it.

If, as Gates put it, al-Maliki were to "lose his job" in the near future,
his successor would inherit this problem of meeting US demands for militia
control. But most likely, he'll have his own militia behind him. It's been
reported that a new coalition organized by the Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the
leader of the Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iran
(SCIRI) might be posed to replace the current administration. SCIRI has its
own militia, the Badr Brigade, which has quarreled with al-Sadr's forces.
SCIRI, founded in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq War and until recently based in
Teheran, retains strong ties to the Iranian government.

Bush met with al-Hakim, whom he described [1] as "one of the distinguished
leaders of a free Iraq" in the White House last month. This was his second
meeting with the Shiite cleric. "We talked about a lot of important issues,"
Bush told reporters. "We talked about the need to give the government of
Iraq more capability, as quickly as possible, so that the elected government
of Iraq can do that which the Iraqi people want, which is to secure their
country from the extremists and murderers."

Presumably the president realizes al-Hakim's Badr militia link. But maybe he
wishes to wean al-Hakim away from his ties to the Iranian mullahs. Even if
he can do that, the confrontation the US wants to provoke with al-Sadr can
only exacerbate intra-Shiite divisions. These in turn can only invite
intervention by neighboring Shiite Iran on one side or the other. The
Iranian mullahs have always been much closer to al-Hakim's group than to
al-Sadr's. On the other hand al-Sadr has vowed to defend Iran in the event
of a US attack. The Shiite political forces (the Dawa Party as well as
SCIRI) that have agreed to work with the US and lend the occupation some
legitimacy are difficult to detach from Iran. The Kurds also have cultivated
friendly ties with Iran. Iran's star does seem to be rising.

Daniel is regarded by most Christians as a prophet. I'm not a prophet, but
I'm having a vision. I see the Green Wall surrounding the command center of
the US imperial project in Southwest Asia, an empire which in Bush's dreams
will soon extend from Afghanistan to Syria, rivaling Nebuchadnezzar's. In
glowing graffiti letters on that wall I see upharsin, which again means both
division and Persian. (Persia of course changed its name to Iran in 1935.)

* * *

Rabbinical authorities have not placed Daniel on the prophet list but
recognized him as an "upright man." He does not appear in the Qur'an. He was
in any case probably the fictional creation of a Jewish writer living three
and a half centuries after Balshazzar. Daniel is an historical novelette. I
recommend it as a literary work, detailing how upright Jews during the
Babylonian Captivity escaped terrible punishments due to divine
intervention. For example, Shadrach, Meshach and Adenego, Jewish men to whom
Nebuchadnezzar who for some reason "entrusted the affairs of the province of
Babylon" are thrown into a fiery furnace after refusing to prostrate
themselves before a great golden idol. But they emerge, after singing a long
hymn, without any hairs singed or smell of smoke on their bodies, and the
king continues to "shower favors" on them (Chapter 3). And, of course,
there's the Daniel in the Lion's Den story (Chapter 6 and in a different
version Chapter 14). Here Darius the Mede is forced against his will to
enforce a law requiring that no person in the empire worship anyone but he
himself. Daniel is thrown to the lions but survives; the delighted king has
him released but sends his accusers, their wives and their children into the
pit where the lions immediately seize them and crush their bones to pieces.
The book errs on details: Babylonian sources identity Nabonidus, not
Nebuchadnezzar, as Belshazzar's father. One of Nabonidus' wives was a
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. This is creative writing, literature, not
history.

Daniel's "prophecies" (about the Persian Empire, the struggles between the
Seleucids and Ptolemies placed in the prophet's mouth) are mostly
descriptions of events known to the work's main author. But in Chapters 11
and 12 there's some pretty powerful "end times" imagery. "At the time of the
end," an angel tells Daniel, there will be "anguish, such as has never
occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time, your
people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book"
(Daniel 12:1). Many fundamentalist Christians integrate this prophecy into
an apocalyptic scenario based on the New Testament Book of Revelation, which
predicts a terrible war around Jerusalem prior to the Second Coming of Jesus
Christ and the onset of the Rapture. Many who have embraced that notion are
inclined to support Bush Middle East policy and Israel as a matter of
course. They are the bedrock of Bush's political base. This is, therefore,
powerful fiction affecting contemporary politics.

Richard Perle has recently declared that he "underestimated the depravity"
of the Iraqis as he cheer-led the march to war. He couldn't have foreseen
the sectarian religious quarrelling, lacking an understanding of the Muslim
past! The abject ignorance of Islam of US politicians generally, so ably
exposed [2] by the Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein, as exploited by the
neocons helped produce the disastrous de-Baathification policy in Iraq (a
big step away from secularism), the Sunni "insurgency," and indeed the whole
criminal enterprise of occupying Iraq itself. The American public is, in
general, not well-informed about Islam, nor the complexity and divisions
within Muslim societies, by the mainstream media. But those with some
background on the relevant basic history (including the intelligence
professionals who opposed the Iraq invasion) were prophesying disaster even
before March 2003. Even Colin Powell, who buckled under neocon pressure and
backed the attack on Iraq, cautioned Bush about the Pottery Barn rule that
"If you break it, you bought it." You might say he prophesied a broken Iraq.
(By the way, since the potter's wheel was invented in Iraq, Iraq must be one
of the first places where pottery was broken.)
_______



About author Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of
Comparative Religion, at Tufts University and author of numerous works on
Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu [3].

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:20 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/is_big_brother_in_your_energy_future_42263812t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/is_big_brother_in_your_energy_future_42263812t.html
By Tom Engelhardt
Created Jan 17 2007 - 8:57am

For the last two weeks, Tomdispatch has been concentrating on the way
Pentagon strategists have taken possession of our future and are writing
their own dystopian science fiction scenarios [1] about the world we are
soon to enter -- and the weapons systems [2] that are meant to go with it.
Five years ago, Michael Klare, a military and energy expert, wrote a
prophetic book, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict [3]. Its
title caught the embattled nature of our emerging resource future moment
better than any Pentagon fantasy. His most recent book, Blood and Oil: The
Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported
Petroleum [4], was no less on the mark. Now, for Tomdispatch, he continues
to peer ahead in the second of a two-part series on our militarized energy
future.

While the Bush administration and its neocon supporters have long been
offering up a vision of a vast imperial enemy-in-the-making that they call
"Islamo-fascism," Klare, in part 1 [5], discovered quite another, more
realistic and chilling set of possibilities that he dubbed
"Energo-fascism" -- or the militarization of the global struggle over
ever-diminishing supplies of energy. There, he focused on the Pentagon's
changing role in global energy politics. Now, he moves on to energy
blackmail in a great-power world and the Big-Brother-style dangers of making
nuclear power a major future alternative source of energy. Tom

* * *

Petro-Power and the Nuclear Renaissance: Two Faces of an Emerging
Energo-fascism (Part 2)

By Michael T. Klare

Not "Islamo-fascism" but "Energo-fascism" -- the heavily militarized global
struggle over diminishing supplies of energy -- will dominate world affairs
(and darken the lives of ordinary citizens) in the decades to come. This is
so because top government officials globally are increasingly unwilling to
rely on market forces to satisfy national energy needs and are instead
assuming direct responsibility for the procurement, delivery, and allocation
of energy supplies. The leaders of the major powers are ever more prepared
to use force when deemed necessary to overcome any resistance to their
energy priorities. In the case of the United States, this has required the
conversion of our armed forces into a global oil-protection service [6]; two
other significant expressions of emerging Energo-fascism are: the arrival of
Russia as an "energy superpower" and the repressive implications of plans to
rely on nuclear power.

Energy Haves and Have-nots

With global demand for energy constantly rising and supplies contracting (or
at least failing to keep pace), the world is being ever more sharply divided
into two classes of nations: the energy haves and have-nots. The haves are
the nations with sufficient domestic reserves (some combination of oil, gas,
coal, hydro-power, uranium, and alternative sources of energy) to satisfy
their own requirements and be able to export to other countries; the
have-nots lack such reserves and must make up the deficit with expensive
imports or suffer the consequences.

From 1950 to 2000, when energy was plentiful and cheap, the distinction did
not seem so obvious as long as the have-nots possessed other forms of power:
immense wealth (like Japan); nuclear weapons (like Britain and France); or
powerful friends (like the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries). Needless to say,
for poor countries possessing none of these assets, being a have-not state
was a burden even then, contributing mightily to the debt crisis that still
afflicts many of them. Today, these other measures of power have come to
seem less important and the distinction between energy haves and have-nots
correspondingly more significant -- even for wealthy and powerful countries
like the United States and Japan.

Surprisingly, there are very few energy haves in the world today. Most
notable among these privileged few are Australia, Canada, Iran, Kazakhstan,
Kuwait, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq (if it
were ever free of conflict), and a few others. These countries are in an
envious position because they do not have to pay stratospheric prices for
imported oil and natural gas and their ruling elites can demand all sorts of
benefits -- political, economic, diplomatic, and military -- from the
foreign leaders who come calling to procure copious quantities of their
energy products. Indeed, they can engage in the delicious game of playing
one foreign leader against another, as Kazakhstan's President, Nursultan
Nazarbayev [7] -- a regular guest in Washington and Beijing -- has become so
adept at doing.

Pushed even further, this pursuit of favors can lead to a quest for
political domination -- with the sale of vital oil and natural gas supplies
made contingent on the recipient's acquiescing to certain political demands
set forth by the seller. No country has embraced this strategy with greater
vigor or enthusiasm than Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The Rising Energy Superpower

At the end of the Cold War, it appeared as if Russia was a forlorn, wasted
ex-superpower, impoverished in spirit, treasure, and influence. For years,
it was treated with disdain by American officials. Its leaders were forced
to swallow humiliating agreements like the expansion of NATO to Moscow's
former satellites in Eastern Europe and the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. To many in Washington, it must have seemed as if Russia was
little more than a relic of history, a has-been never again slated to play a
significant role in world affairs.

Today, Moscow, not Washington, seems to be enjoying the last laugh. With
control over Eurasia's largest reserves of natural gas and coal as well as
enormous supplies of petroleum and uranium, Russia is the new top dog -- an
energy superpower rather than a military one, but a superpower nonetheless.

First, a look at the big picture. Russia [8] is the absolute king of natural
gas producers. According to BP (the former British Petroleum), it alone
possesses 1.7 quadrillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves [9], or 27%% of
the total world supply. This is even more significant than it might appear
because Europe and the former USSR rely on natural gas for a larger share of
their total energy -- 34%% -- than any other region of the world. (In North
America, where oil is the dominant fuel, natural gas accounts for only 25%%
of the total.) Because Russia is by far the leading supplier of Eurasia's
gas, it enjoys a position of supply dominance unmatched by any energy
provider -- except Saudi Arabia in the petroleum field. Even in that realm,
Russia is the planet's second leading producer, falling just 1.4 million
barrels short of Saudi Arabia's 11.0 million barrels per day at the start of
2006. Russia also possesses the world's second largest reserves of coal
(after the United States) and is a major consumer of nuclear energy, with 31
operational reactors.

Soon after assuming power as president in 1999, Vladimir Putin set out to
convert this superabundance of energy -- the economic equivalent of a
nuclear arsenal -- into the sort of political clout that would restore
Russia's great-power status. By controlling the flow of energy to other
parts of Eurasia from Russia and former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan (whose energy is exported through Russian pipelines), he
reasoned, he could exercise the sort of political influence enjoyed by
Soviet officials during the heyday of the Cold War. To accomplish this,
however, he would have to reverse the wide-ranging privatization of the oil
and gas industry that occurred in the early 1990s after the breakup of the
USSR and bring vital elements of Russia's privately-owned energy industry
back under state control. Since there was no legitimate way to do this under
Russia's post-Communist legal system, Putin and his associates turned to
illegitimate and authoritarian methods to de-privatize these valuable
assets. Here, we see another emerging face of Energo-fascism.

Remarkably, Putin himself had long before spelled out [10] the rationale for
concentrating control over Russia's energy resources in the state's hands.
In a 1999 summary of his Ph.D. dissertation on "Mineral Raw Materials in the
Strategy for Development of the Russian Economy," he asserted that the
Russian state must oversee the utilization of the country's mineral raw
materials -- including oil fields in private hands -- for the good of the
Russian people. "The state has the right to regulate the process of the
acquisition and the use of natural resources, and particularly mineral
resources, independent of on whose property they are located," he wrote. "In
this regard, the state acts in the interests of society as a whole." No
better justification for Energo-fascism can be imagined.

The most famous expression of this outlook has been the so-called
Khodorkovsky Affair. In 2003, Mikhail Khodorkovsky [11], the CEO of Yukos,
then Russia's top oil producer, was arrested on fraud and tax-evasion
charges. He had run afoul of Putin by pursuing all sorts of energy deals
independent of the state, including possible joint ventures with Exxon
Mobil, and by supporting anti-Putin political forces inside Russia -- either
of which would have alone been sufficient to earn him the Kremlin's wrath.

However, it is now apparent that Putin's ultimate goal in engineering the
arrest was to seize control of Yuganskneftegaz, Yukos' prime asset,
accounting for about 11%% of Russia's oil output [12]. With Khodorkovsky and
his top associates in prison awaiting trial, the government auctioned
Yuganskneftegaz to a secretive shell company, which then resold it to
state-owned Rosneft [13] at a below-market price. In one fell swoop, Putin
had managed to dismember Yukos and turn Rosneft into the country's leading
oil producer.

The Russian president has also sought to extend state control over the
distribution and export of oil and gas by blocking any effort by private
firms to build pipelines that would compete with those owned and operated by
Gazprom [14], the state-owned natural gas monopoly, and Transneft [15], the
state oil-pipeline monopoly. The United States and other consuming nations
have long pushed for the construction of privatized oil and gas pipelines in
Russia to increase the outflow of energy to Europe and other foreign markets
as well as to dilute the power of Gazprom and Transneft. The Kremlin has,
however, systematically foreclosed [16] all such efforts.

If the concentration of ownership of energy assets in the state's hands
through legally dubious means is one dimension of emerging Energo-fascism in
Russia, a second is the utilization of this power to intimidate have-not
states on Russia's periphery. The most notable expression of this to date
was the cutoff of natural gas supplies to Ukraine [17] on January 1, 2006.
Ostensibly, Gazprom stopped the flow in a dispute over the pricing of
Russian gas, but most observers believe that the action was also intended as
a rebuke to Ukraine's Western-leaning president, Victor A. Yushchenko [18].
Remember, this was in the dead of winter, and natural gas is the main source
of heat in Ukraine, as in much of Eastern Europe and the former USSR.
Gazprom resumed the flow after a last-minute pricing compromise and
following vociferous complaints from Western European customers who were
suffering their own losses (as the Ukrainians diverted Europe-bound gas for
their own use). This was the moment when it became clear to all that Moscow
was fully prepared to open and close the energy spigot as a tool of foreign
policy.

Since then, Moscow has employed this tactic on several occasions to
intimidate other neighboring states in what it terms its "near abroad" (as
the U.S. used to speak of Latin America as its "backyard"). On July 29,
2006, claiming a leak, Transneft halted oil shipments to the Mazeikiu
refinery in Lithuania after its owners announced its sale to a Polish firm,
not a Russian one. Observers of the move speculate [19] that Russians
officials intended to force a Russian takeover of the refinery.

In November, Gazprom threatened to more than double the price of natural gas
to its former Georgian SSR from $110 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters. The
alternative offered was a cessation of deliveries. Again, political pressure
was believed to be at least part of the motive [20] as Georgia's pro-Western
government has defied Moscow on a wide range of issues. In December, Gazprom
pulled the same sort of trick on Belarus, demanding a major readjustment of
prices from a close (and impoverished) ally that had recently been showing
mild signs of independence.

This, then, is another face of Energo-fascism in Russia: the use of its
energy as an instrument of political influence and coercion over weak
have-not states on its borders. "It is not that energy is the new atomic
weapon," Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group consultancy told the Financial
Times, "but Russia knows that petro-power, aggressively and cleverly
applied, can yield diplomatic influence."

Big Brother and the Nuclear Renaissance

The last face of Energo-fascism to be discussed here is the inevitable rise
in state surveillance and repression attendant on an expected increase in
nuclear power. As oil and natural gas become scarcer, government and
industry leaders will undoubtedly push for a greater reliance on nuclear
power to provide additional energy. This is a program likely to gain greater
momentum from rising concerns over global warming -- largely a result of
carbon-dioxide emissions created during the combustion of oil, gas, and
coal. President Bush has repeatedly spoken [21] of his desire to foster
greater reliance on nuclear power and the administration-backed Energy
Policy Act of 2005 [22] already provides a variety of incentives for
electrical utilities to build new reactors in the United States. Other
countries including France, China, Japan, Russia, and India also plan to up
their reliance on nuclear power, greatly adding to the global spread of
nuclear reactors.

Many problems stand in the way of this so-called renaissance, not least the
mammoth costs involved and the fact that no safe system has yet been devised
for the long-term storage of nuclear wastes. Furthermore, despite many
improvements in the safety of nuclear power plants, worries persist about
the risk of nuclear accidents such as those that occurred at Three Mile
Island [23] in 1979 and Chernobyl [24] in 1986. But this is not the place to
weigh these issues. Let me instead focus on two especially worrisome aspects
of the future growth of the nuclear power industry: the possible
federalization of nuclear reactor placement in the U.S. and the repressive
implications globally of the greater availability of nuclear materials open
to diversion to terrorists, criminals, and "rogue" states.

Currently, America's municipalities, counties, and states still exercise
considerable control over the issuance of permits for the construction of
new nuclear power plants, giving citizens in these jurisdictions
considerable opportunity to resist the placement of a reactor "in their
backyard." For decades, this has been one of the leading obstacles to the
construction of new reactors in the U.S., along with the costly and
time-consuming legal process involved in winning over state legislatures,
county boards, and environmental agencies. If this practice prevails, we are
never likely to see a true "renaissance" of nuclear power here, even if a
few new reactors are built in poor rural areas where citizen resistance is
minimal. The only way to increase reliance on nuclear power, therefore, is
to federalize the permit process by shunting local agencies aside and giving
federal bureaucrats the unfettered power to issue permits for the
construction of new reactors.

Unlikely, you say? Well consider this: The Energy Policy Act of 2005
established a significant precedent for the federalization [25] of such
authority by depriving state and local officials of their power to approve
the placement of natural gas "regasification" plants. These are mammoth
facilities used to reconvert liquified natural gas, transported by ship from
foreign suppliers, into a gas that can then be delivered by pipeline to
customers in the United States. Several localities on the East and West
coasts had fought the construction of such plants in their harbors for fear
that they might explode (not an entirely far-fetched concern) or become
targets for terrorists, but they have now lost their legal power to do so.
So much for local democracy.

Here's my worry: That some future administration will push through an
amendment to the Energy Policy Act giving the federal government the same
sort of placement authority for nuclear reactors that it now has for
regasification plants. The feds then announce plans to build dozens or even
hundreds of new reactors in or near places like Boston, New York, Chicago,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and so on, claiming an urgent need for
additional energy. People protest en masse. Local officials, sympathetic to
the protestors, refuse to arrest them in droves. But now we're speaking of
defiance of federal, not state or municipal, ordinances. Ergo, the National
Guard or the regular Army is called up to quell the protests and protect the
reactor sites -- Energo-fascism in action.

Finally, there's another danger in the spread of nuclear power: that it will
require a systematic increase in state surveillance of everyone even
remotely connected with commercial nuclear energy. After all, every uranium
enrichment facility, nuclear reactor, and waste storage site -- and any of
the linkages between them -- is a potential source of fissionable materials
for terrorists, black-market traffickers, or rogue states like Iran and
North Korea. This means, of course, that all of the personnel employed in
these facilities, and all their contractors and sub-contractors (and all
their families and contacts) will have to be constantly vetted for possible
illicit ties and kept under strict, full-time surveillance. The more
reactors there are, the more facilities and contractors who will have to be
subjected to this sort of oversight -- and the more the security staff
itself will have to be subjected to ever higher levels of surveillance by
state security agencies. It's a formula for Big Brother on a very large
scale.

And then there's the special problem of "breeder reactors." [26] These
plants produce ("breed") more fissionable material than they consume, often
in the form of plutonium, which can, in turn, be burned in power reactors to
generate electricity but can also be used as the fuel for atomic weapons.
Although such reactors are currently banned in the United States, other
countries, including Japan [27], are building them so as to diminish their
reliance on fossil fuels and natural uranium, itself a finite resource. As
the demand for nuclear energy grows, more countries (even, possibly, the
USA) are bound to build breeder reactors. But this will vastly increase the
global supply of bomb-grade plutonium, requiring an even greater increase in
state supervision of the nuclear power industry in all its aspects.

The State's Iron Grip

All the phenomena discussed in this two-part series -- the transformation of
the U.S. military into a global oil-protection service, the growth of the
energy equivalent of a major-power arms race, the emergence of Russia as an
energy superpower, and the need for increased surveillance over the nuclear
power industry -- are expressions of a single, overarching trend: the
tendency of states to extend their control over every aspect of energy
production, procurement, transportation, and allocation. This, in turn, is a
response to the depletion of world energy supplies and a shift in the locus
of energy production from the global north to the global south --
developments that have been under way for some time, but are bound to gain
greater momentum in the years ahead.

Many concerned citizens and organizations -- the Apollo Alliance [28], the
Rocky Mountain Institute [29], and the Worldwatch Institute [30], to name
but a few -- are trying to develop sane, democratic responses to the
problems brought about by energy depletion, instability in energy-producing
areas, and global warming. Most government leaders, however, appear intent
on addressing these problems through increased state controls and a greater
reliance on the use of military force. Unless this tendency is resisted,
Energo-fascism could be our future.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at
Hampshire College and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and
Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum [31] (Owl
Books).

[Note: For the last two weeks, Tomdispatch has focused special attention on
the Pentagon and militarization-related pieces. At the end of this month,
Chalmers Johnson will return to this website with a capstone piece for this
series on militarization and the fate of our republic. Look for it.]

Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare



--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:17 PST http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/have_you_got_what_it_takes_to_torture_42263556t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew/have_you_got_what_it_takes_to_torture_42263556t.html
By Peter Lee
Created Jan 17 2007 - 8:48am

Now that the Iraq adventure is officially a fiasco, the liberal hawks are
crawling out of the woodwork and defend their early support for what is now
irrevocably and safely Bush's cock-up.

Max Sawicky and Kevin Drum are pushing the argument disapprovingly known as
the incompetence dodge: that the Iraq war was a failure of execution and
integrity by the Bush administration, not necessarily a repudiation of the
whole "good war" theory of scientific pre-emption and humanitarian
intervention.

That's deluded and disturbing.

I'm one of those reflexively anti-war types going back to 2002, as
documented by my archive (http://halcyondays.info [1]).

I'm not a peacenik, because I'm too cynical about human weakness to believe
that peace is going to solve the world's problems.

But I am anti-war.

I'm anti-war, not just because I don't like to see civilians, babies, and
cute puppies in a distant land blown to bits.

It's because war empowers the worst elements of our society, here at home.

When Bush rolled out his muscular response to 9/11, I thought, Oh my god,
the same assholes who ran my high school -- the narrow minded jocks and
callous cadet frat boys -- are now running the world.

When we marched into Afghanistan, ostensibly to claim justice for the
victims of 9/11, I thought to myself, Military justice is to justice as
military music is to music. Good luck with that.

No question that the post-9/11 war fever enabled the careers of Bush,
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Feith, Cambone, Boykin, Yoo, Gonzalez,
Libby, Addington, Hadley, and all the other administration dirtbags by
removing the restraints that peace, moderation, and public decency had
placed on their grand schemes and vile impulses.

And war fever gave us Iraq, by legitimizing the notion that our American
democracy intrinsically possessed the moral stature and wisdom to wage war
against a Middle Eastern dictator righteously and justifiably.

Ted Kennedy got it right when he wrote "War should always be our last
resort. Instead, the Bush administration made preventive war an option of
first resort [2]."

War is an expensive, destructive, and extremely risky enterprise. Absent an
immediate threat, there are always cheaper, simpler, and safer ways to serve
America's interests and get its business done.

When a government pushes a war of choice -- willfully prying open Pandora's
Box--as the preferred solution to a problem, there are always ulterior
motives and secret agendas involved.

With Iraq, of course, it's all ulterior motives and secret agendas. There's
no discernible national interest in the whole enterprise.

But the core of my argument is not that war is a risky, uncertain business.
That framing ineluctably leads to the "we'll get it right next time" dodge,
because risks can be managed, uncertainty minimized, and the discount value
of disaster pushed down until the suckers invest in the new product, just
like they taught us in business school.

Wars of choice are profoundly corrupting, because they are dirty wars. Wars
that we promise to conduct humanely and with restraint, but which rely on
death, intimidation, and the threat of unrestrained violence to protect our
soldiers and achieve our objectives.

Wars that have a good chance of slipping from the control of the muscular
idealists clacking away at their keyboards and ending up under the control
of opportunist creeps who exploit them for political power and profit.

Which brings me to the title of this post: have you got what it takes to
torture?

I'm not going to taunt with the Yellow Elephant challenge, would you fight
in the wars you profess to support? With the U.S. currently embroiled in a
war we on the left abhor, the question is too abstract and too easy to
answer in the affirmative.

My question is, would you waterboard for your war of choice? Would you
sexually degrade a teenage boy in order to blackmail him and turn him into
an intelligence asset? Would you render somebody to Egypt to be broken by
the local security forces in order to intimidate a suspicious Islamic
charity?

Forget about Jack Bauer at one end of the spectrum and due process at the
other end.

You'll have to mess up some innocent people who just happened to get in the
way of what your war is trying to achieve.

When you embark on a war of choice you forfeit the moral high ground and the
chance to play the innocent victim; and, with your troops and assets exposed
to attack, you lose the luxury of folding your actions in the reassuring
cloak of laws, ideals, and good-guy moderation.

Think of the muddle in the middle: trampling on people's lives, rights, and
dignity and compromising your personal honor in order to achieve results
that are ambiguous and transitory, all in the service of an incompetent,
amoral bureaucracy headed by a cynical and self-serving executive.

In other words, think of it as the worst job you ever had, except that at
the end of the day there's shit and piss on the floor and blood on your
hands.

Have you got what it takes to torture?

Kevin?

Max?

If you don't, think of the kind of people who actually have got what it
takes.

And realize they are already in the front line of the "War on Terror",
starting with George Bush and going down the whole sorry list.

It's not necessarily the best people who are itching to start wars, fight
them, or profit by them.

That's why "wars of choice" go bad. And that's why they are bad.
_______



About author Peter Lee is the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary
website Halcyon Days [3]. He can be reached at peter@halcyondays.info [4]

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted In: alt.current-events.wtc.bush-knew

no comments

Reply

]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:05:15 PST