Thursday, June 26, 2008

Bush Gets Suuuuurrrved! ... In Europe



BOULTON: I mean, you've talked a lot about freedom. I've heard you talk about freedom -- I think every time I've seen you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.

Ooh snap!

Our bought and paid for corporate media is finally standing up to President Bush and asking him tough questions, even when he’s just giving a softball interview with his wife! Wow! Can you believe it? Well it's about time that—-

Oh, wait a minute, my bad…this interview happened in *London* and the journalist is British.

So basically, the foreign press does a better job holding US politicians responsible than our own.

Pathetic.

Read more from excerpt and peep the link provided for full interview. Those of you in the mainstream media--take notes.

Read More...

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

O.I.L.- Operation Iraqi LIberation




Anyone still in doubt over what this Iraqi colonial misadventure has been about? While there are many factors to consider, from neoconservative ideologues at PNAC to billions to be made by war profiteers, nothing ties all of these things neatly together like oil. That Iraq sits on one of the largest pool of oil in the region (some estimates put it at only second to Saudi Arabia) is why it was chosen for "liberty" and "freedom" say over...the Democratic Republic of Congo. However for some reason, within the political and corporate media culture, this has become a quiet truism that is best not spoken aloud. For years when this obvious fact was brought up by critics of the Iraq War, they were quickly chided as engaging in "fanciful conspiracies." That the US had gone to war primarily over oil was something only the "loony left" could dream up. So when GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain back in early May inadvertently stated as much in a townhall meeting, saying that dependence on "oil from the Middle East" had sent American "young men and women into conflict,"--a policy he fervently endorses--there was an audible gasp from the media punditocracy, that their venerated "maverick" had let the cat out of the bag.

Last week a new development has turned the bag inside out, leaving it naked for all to see, as four major US oil giants--the Texas-based Exxon Mobile, British BP, Total of France and Royal Dutch Shell, all original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company that was ousted almost 40 years ago from Iraq after a near monopoly since the 1920s--are set to make a dramatic return in a new set of no-bid contracts with the installed and propped up Iraqi regime.

Surprise. Surprise. Finally, after 4,000 American lives, tens of thousands of wounded soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, 4 million refugees, and a country wracked by military occupation, bombings, a shredding of infrastructure and organized chaos, Iraq is safe for the European oil conglomerates to colonize all over again.

Though I want to just go on and on about how "I told you so," some good articles on it have already been done it for me, which I share below.

Read More...

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Republicans for Voldemort...



Okay, so it has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But this campaign ad makes up for it in pure humor. So, Why are YOU voting Republican?

Read More...

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Obama's Pandering Problem & Foreign Policy




In the past few weeks, as the never-ending Democratic primary has finally run its course, and a nominee has emerged, there has been alot of jubilation. As a person of color, a man of mixed-race heritage who proudly calls himself African-American, the son of a partially immigrant past, and with a connection to the global world seemingly built into his gene pool, Senator Barack Obama stands poised to make history on several fronts. And the world is certainly taking notice.

From Europe to Asia to Africa, Obama-mania and fascination is high. Street vendors in Cairo follow his speeches while newspapers in Germany are abuzz with his name. Both here and abroad, Obama is being hailed as the best great hope for peace and global stability. Yet, one has to wonder if perhaps many of the world's citizens are setting expectations too high. Would a President Barack Obama be the figure who would single-handedly push back against American Empire, making the US a nation among equals? Would he stand with many of the powerless of the world who expect that his background and past make him a natural ally to their cause? Is the "change" he is promising to bring going to be so monumental that it will harken a new age?

Or are we all kidding ourselves?

Two recent speeches by the presumptive Democratic nominee may signal that for many initially caught up in the Obama euphoria, it may be time to "get real."

"This cheap way of throwing himself at the feet of this lobby [AIPAC] harms American interests … and encourages violence and terrorism by giving justification to extremist groups, such as al-Qaida," -- Al-Quds Al-Arabi.


"Obama is gambling with his image and the widespread hopes that many had placed on him to change the face of America, its relations with the world, and getting out of its economic crises stemming from its failed and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." --Palestinian Daily.


"It was so sad. To see a grown tower of a man come to his knees. Just like everyone before him, the presumptive democratic followed the suit of all US political leaders before him and bowed down at the footsteps of the pro Israel lobby. What happened to the anti lobby nominee? ...America's black nominee who would have supported divestment on racist south Africa blasted international divestment calls on Israel, and libeled Arab oil producing countries by saying that "petrodollars are responsible for the killing of American soldiers and Israeli citizens. How pathetic." --Palestinian journalist and visiting Princeton professor Daoud Kuttab.


Even those in the mainstream US media scratched their heads in wonder:

"A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner...As a pandering performance, it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillary Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd." -- Dana Milbank, Washington Post.


One sarcastic blog headline summed up the odd timing of the speech, which coincided with the clinching of the Democratic nomination: "Obama brushes off change confetti and reveals empty suit in AIPAC conference speech."

For much of the Muslim world, and among the more progressive blogosphere, those who had become enamored with the prospects of "change" in an Obama presidency, were left to shake their heads in dismay.

It wasn't long before the criticism reached diplomatic levels, creating a minor international firestorm. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas latched onto Obama's Jerusalem statement as something to be "totally rejected." In angry condemnation, he went on to proclaim: "The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having [East] Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini condemned the speech as propaganda that sought to destabilize and defame the Islamic Republic. "Such illusory and biased remarks are unacceptable. It is most evident that they are not a particle of truth and are very much divorced from the reality about Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

In less than 72 hours, as criticism mounted, Obama was forced to backtrack on his most incendiary statements regarding Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a CNN interview, seeking to clarify his points, the Democratic nominee stated: "Well, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

Though the AIPAC speech and its controversies reached the mainstream media, this was not however the first time Sen. Obama's foreign policy directives seemed to fall short of substantial "change." Back in late May, Sen. Obama gave a speech in Miami to the Cuban American National Foundation on his approach to Latin America. While reaffirming his long voiced openess to meeting with Cuban leaders, a progressive break with traditional US foreign policy dating back to the Eisenhower administration, Sen. Obama stated that he would nevertheless maintain the crushing 46 year-old embargo on the island nation as a form of "leverage." In his own words, "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ... I won't stand for this injustice ... I will maintain the embargo." Fidel Castro himself penned a rebuttal at his sense of disappointment at the seemingly simplistic portrayal of the communist country.

"This man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate for the US presidency, portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights," Castro stated. "It is the same argument US administrations have used again and again to justify crimes against our country. The blockade is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values."

Indeed, in Sen. Obama's "New Partnership for Latin America," a policy guideline put out by his campaign, the foreign affairs approach to South and Central America and the Caribbean remains muddled with questions. On the one hand his stance on the IMF and the need for environmental cooperation seems promising, or at least a move in the right direction. On other matters however, there are continued plans for the funding of the right wing Colombian government war against FARC, with military aid in the form of the Andean Counter-drug program. The Colombian regime has long been accused of aiding right wing paramilitary death squads, and many have called the Andean Counter-drug program the new-age infamous "School of the Americas." Yet there seems to be no review by Sen. Obama of these long held US policies that masquerade under the heading of a supposed "War on Drugs."

"Many of us had great “hope” for the much-vaunted “change” in U.S. policy towards Latin America," Roberto Lavato wrote in a peice for Of America. "But listening to Barack Obama’s “substantive” speech on U.S. Latin America policy last week and reading his “New Partnership with the Americas” policy proposal, it’s pretty clear that Obama will do nothing to alter the basic structure of George W. Bush’s Latin America policy: trade backed by militarism."

On a key test of American diplomacy, the strained US relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Sen. Obama strayed little from his predecessors, parroting some of the worst rhetoric of the Bush administration and right-wing foreign policy hawks. In his speech the Venezuelan leader was depicted as undemocratic--even though Chavez was democratically elected president, repeatedly, by large swaths of his country's people. In the footsteps of the Bush administration, Sen. Obama utilized some of the same caricatures of Chavez as a "demagogue" with a "perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy." No where in his address did Sen. Obama point out that the attempted 2002 coup against Chavez, both supported and perhaps even directed by the Bush administration, may play a key role in any discordance in relations between the two countries. And any attempts at national programs that favor the poor rather than the country's wealthy oligarchs, were derided in Sen. Obama's words as nothing more than "the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past."

In his speech, Sen. Obama did place significant blame on the Bush administration. But it was not for their repeated attempts to destabilize Venezuela; rather it was for allowing its democratically elected leader, Hugo Chavez, to take what was termed his "stale vision" which had made"inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua." In repeating this bellicose language, Sen. Obama at once dismissed any legitimate attempts for Latin American economic independence, the empowerment of the popular will to choose political leaders of their liking--either in Venezuela, Bolivia or Nicaragua it would seem--and maintains the long held consensus that the hemisphere must be subservient to American will, both militarily and economic, rather than forge their own path.

To Latin American reporter Al Giordana, "change" was hardly the word for this address. "For those looking to see a continuation of destructive US policies in, and presumptions toward, Latin America from an Obama administration, his speech parroted some of the same bullheaded and divisive language that we’ve heard too much of already from Bush, Clinton and others before him." Giordana said.

Despite such dismal beginnings, there is however a bit of a silver lining to be found . For now, most of the world believes that these highly rhetorical speeches amount to little more than pandering--shameless yes, but *perhaps* not truly revealing of what a President Obama would do. If anything, as everyone from Palestinian reporters to Fidel Castro acknowledged, his speeches expose the sad state of American politics, where certain entrenched powerful lobbies and interest groups--be they AIPAC, Christian Zionists or hard-line Cuban nationalists--must be pandered to by anyone seeking the oval office. So in the case of Sen. Obama, a man who once spoke up for Palestinian rights and had dinner with the late scholar Dr. Edward Said, must sadly convert himself into a common right wing Likud-nik in order to assure skeptical conservative potential voters about where he stands.

But for those hoping for real substantial and progressive change in American foreign policy, the question that remains however is, where does the "pandering Obama" and the "real Obama" begin and end?

Certainly an Obama presidency would be light years more advanced than the current administration. And he shares vast differences on global affairs with the GOP nominee Sen. John McCain, whose own pandering has taken him to the fringes of the far-right and beyond. Even those critical of Sen. Obama's recent foreign policy speeches have been quick to point out as much. Yet this doesn't dull disappointment with his hawkish "more of the same" type rhetoric. To catch a glimpse of how a President Obama might act, one might need to look at his foreign policy advisors, who come from diverse backgrounds. They are former aides to previous Democratic leaders, human-rights advocates, retired generals and others. They aren't neo-cons by any means--all opposed the Iraq War early on. But sadly, neither can they be labeled progressives. Some, like his top adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, have pasts that are downright troubling. Most will likely offer the same foreign policy advice that so many previous American presidents have received, urging ways to further retain American power at the expense of others. They'll urge diplomacy yes, but not much else when it comes to meaningful change.

Yet, as in the case of the AIPAC speech recant, Sen. Obama has shown that if pushed he is willing to backtrack and step away from disastrous statements and choices. Given what we've seen in the past 8 years, that's a definitive change. And in a campaign that has sought to get the American voter "engaged," an Obama presidency would--and should--be held accountable to the people like no other. The hard truth is that those who want a more progressive approach to American foreign policy will have to push for and demand it. Voting and hoping a President Obama will just "do the right thing" is not enough; it's far, far, far from enough. His more progressive supporters will have to be willing to be watchful of anyone elected into office, and be just as willing to voice criticism as they were of the current administration . Otherwise that mantra of "change," might just end up being a hollow slogan we later look upon with disillusionment and regret.


Full text of Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-s-aipac-speech-11449

Latin American Speech: http://www.narconews.com/Issue53/article3109.html


Read More...

Saturday, June 7, 2008

White Women's Barack Bitterness





So the Democratic presidential primaries are finally over. Sen. Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee and will face the GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain this Fall in a battle for the White House. Given the tragedy of the Bush years--from illegal wars to a faltering economy to the erosion of civil liberties--there's alot at stake in this election, perhaps more so than in any previous time in US history. To this end the Democratic primaries saw record turn-outs, with many first-time voters becoming engaged in the political process. Whoever wins in November may well determine what course the country will take. So with so much in the balance, how can there be groups of Democrats claiming they will either sit out the presidential election, or--worse still--vote for the Republican candidate? And how are many of these people women (mostly white women)--claimed feminists at that? Other than on certain aspects of foreign policy after all, Sens. Clinton and Obama are quite similar. With regards to issues of gender--from reproductive rights to wage equality--they are identical. This is a far cry from Sen. McCain, who has taken a recent pro-life stance, and would most certainly stack the Supreme Court with justices hostile to womens' issues. So what gives?

Well, I know if I told these self-described feminists "their whiteness is showing," I'd get in trouble. So I'm glad Tim Wise said it for me: An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November--Your Whiteness is Showing

Read More...

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Militaristic Iron Man- The Pentagon & Hollywood




So during my month-long hiatus I did make it to the movies to see one of the first blockbusters of the summer- Iron Man. This was after a one-week boycott upon learning that Ghostface's cameo would be cut. Anyone familiar with the Wu phenom knows that he has long ago taken on the persona of the Marvel comic icon, and it would have been a treat to see him (not just a video) in the flick. Anyways, I walked out of the movie like many fans, giving it an overall "job well done." Robert Downey Jr. played an excellent Tony Starks, adding a bit of flamboyant hedonism to the heartless arms-dealer turned crusader. The storyline was well-paced out, allowing for the development of the character/hero rather than rushing into repetitive action scenes. The dialogue was even memorable--a far cry from that god-awful Ghostrider. And the special effects were cutting edge--couldn't have asked for better. But as usual, I found myself disturbed by more than a few things. As seems to have become the norm for summer blockbusters, Iron Man was an ode to American militarism. Much like I highlighed in my blog post about last summer's Transformers, this blockbuster looked as if the Pentagon was waging another propaganda war--like they did on the mainstream news media. The US military is prominently featured, with shiny machines of war and noble good guys. In fact, they're so good-hearted that they refrain from stopping an ongoing masscre by some "Islamo-fascist boogey men" in Afghanistan because civilians might get hurt in any air strikes--a policy the real life US military has hardly ever followed in any recent war. Though the story does offer a twist by which Starks shuns the weapons industry for its role in perpetuating war, rest assured its not the US Defense Department who's doing this, but a rogue corporate bad-guy--naturally. And how does Starks set about fighting this Military Industrial Complex? Why by building an even better war machine! And who does he use it on first? Why the Mid Eastern bad guys of course. As is often the case, I was immediately chided by fellow Marvel fans for "reading too much" into the movie. That's why I'm often glad when someone else does the "reading" for me.

Nick Turse, author of How the Military Invades Our Every Day Lives has written an excellent piece on this topic called Torturing Iron Man: The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuste I post it fully below in agreement and vindication.

Read More...

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Right-Wing Shill Gets Surrrved!



While I missed alot of posts in May, this one I most regret...

Someone call Hell and check the temp. Because today I have to give Chris Matthews--he of MSNBC Hardball who usually annoys me to no end with his ceaseless prattling about *nothing*--his just deserved props. As one of my least favorite media pundits, Matthews admittedly became my hero for about *a few minutes* as he completely eviscerates right wing radio talking head Kevin James who in his screaming about Obama, appeasement and Hitler, doesn't even know who Neville Chamberlain is. Keep in mind, this headcase used to be a federal prosecutor!

Read More...

Morpheus Returns! May Roundup




So I'm back. Time off from the blog scene does the mind and body good. Sometimes, you have to unplug from the Matrix, or you'll get consumed in it. The downside is, you miss a whole lot. To that end, let me recap what I missed before I catch up:

* "Mission Accomplished"-5 Years Later * Food Crisis Worsens * US Airstrikes in Somalia * Sami al-Haj Freed * Immigration Rights Marches * Myanmar Cyclone * Gas-Tax Follies * Suicide Among US Troops * North Carolina & Indiana * Hiroshima Aftermath Photos * Sean Bell Protests * Sadr City Offensive Kills 1,000 * Lebanon Clashes * 60th Anniversary of Israel * High Oil Prices * Chinese Earthquake * West Virginia & Kentucky * "Hard Working" White Voters* Palestinians "Nakba" 60 Years Later * John Edwards Endorsement * President Bush & Nazi Appeasement * California Legalizes Gay Marriage * McCain Lobbyist Advisors * Cluster Bomb Ban * Sen. Ted Kennedy Brain Tumor * Israel, Syria Peace Talks * Farm Bill * Pastor Hagee & Hitler * Obama Embargo Pledge on Cuba * Sydney Pollack Dies * Nepal Republic * Scott McClennan * Clinton RFK Comment * DNC, Michigan & Florida * South Africa Xenophobia *

Read More...