Friday, January 30, 2009

The Party of Limbaugh



Not one to waste time on conservative mouthpeices. So last week, when GOP shockjock posing as an intellectual Rush Limbaugh proclaimed to his gleeful dittoheads "I hope Obama fails," I ignored it. But the story, which made news headlines for its sheer absurdity, took an even more bizarre turn with the entrance of Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. Gingrey, reacting to criticism of the GOP Congress by Limbaugh, told the radiohost to back off.

More after the fold...

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Disagree with the GOP or not, many applauded Gingrey for having the backbone to stand up to Limbaugh. Alas, his fortitude was not to last. Within 24 hours, Gingrey was issuing a stated apology--to Rush Limbaugh!

"“I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.”

Gingrey went as far as to appear on Rush Limbaugh's show, "hemming and hawing" before the radio host in the best "white steppin' fetchit" role I've ever heard. So to recap, a sitting Georgian elected member of Congress, rather than defending the President of the United States, has decided it's more important to beg for forgiveness from an entertainer.

The end of the GOP is nigh... .




Read More...

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Tragic Failure of American Journalism in Gaza



Look at the news in the world, and in the past weeks you would have watched as the Israeli military machine destroyed Gaza, UN buildings and even an American school, using controversial weapons that have left thousands of civilians dead and injured. Catch the news in the US however, from broadcast television to newspapers, and you would think you live in some other world--where Israeli military and government propaganda serves as the script for a necessary and "defensive" war.

That US politicians are unable (through cowardice or tunnel-vision) to critique Israel, is nothing new. Neither is it news that our media find objectivity a lacking trait when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, with the sheer scale of what happened in the past few weeks, it is still shocking to see this willful blindess and group-think in action.

Below is an article by journalist Chris Hedges, examining this sad state of affairs:

With Gaza, Journalists Fail Again

By Chris Hedges
Jan. 26, 2009

The assault on Gaza exposed not only Israel’s callous disregard for international law but the gutlessness of the American press. There were no major newspapers, television networks or radio stations that challenged Israel’s fabricated version of events that led to the Gaza attack or the daily lies Israel used to justify the unjustifiable. Nearly all reporters were, as during the buildup to the Iraq war, pliant stenographers and echo chambers. If we as journalists have a product to sell, it is credibility. Take that credibility away and we become little more than propagandists and advertisers. By refusing to expose lies we destroy, in the end, ourselves.

Full article here or after the fold.


Read More...

Friday, January 23, 2009

A Final Message from the Bush Admin...



If only it was that easy...
Then again, maybe "forgetting" isn't the best remedy.
And our memories of the past eight years should be kept, if only to serve as a warning...

Read More...

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Bush Era Remembered




In her article "Drowning our Sorrows and Lifting a Glass," the mad law professor Patricia Williams recounted the many surreal yet tragically factual elements of the outgoing Bush administration. It makes even a cynic like me take pause, and realise that even in an imperfect Obama, we've made some serious change.

Some of these are listed here, with links. Will add as my repressed memory allows me access. So in case any of you forgot the sheer horror of it all, here's what may finally be over.

*Pax Americana and the aspiration to consolidate a global American empire.

*The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare.

*Hurricane Katrina and "heckuva job, Brownie."

*The explicit rejection of the Geneva Conventions.

*John Yoo's and Alberto Gonzales's redefinition of torture.

*Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank subsidizing his girlfriend.

*Ahmad Chalabi.

*The FCC allowing greater consolidation of media.

*The outing of Valerie Plame.

*The manipulations asserting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

*The addled handling of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court.

More below...

Read More...

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama- History in Photos





A photographic look at the Obama Inauguration, in the US and throughout the world--courtesy of The Boston Globe.

See them all below:






































Read More...

Friday, January 16, 2009

9 Ways to Talk to Cuba




"If Barack Obama and Raúl Castro sat down for negotiations, what could they talk about?" That was the question posed by the Center for Democracy in the Americas in a report released this week titled “9 Ways for US to Talk to Cuba and for Cuba to Talk to US.” For over sixty years the relationship between successive American administrations and the small island have gone from dismal to extremely dismal. Ignoring repeated pleas from the UN, the US keeps a stifling embargo on Cuba and refuses engagement with its leaders. President-elect Barack Obama however during his campaign signaled this could change, promising that his administration would be willing to sit down with its enemies. Putting aside the question on whether Cuba and the US are enemies, this has given many--from moderates in Florida to those in Havana--a glimmer of hope. Drawing on essays by a team of experts in varied fields, the report details 9 practical ways Cuba and the US can cooperate in military affairs, migration, energy, trade, academic exchange and other fields. The authors of the report envision a future relationship where Cuba can not only benefit from the US, but where the US can learn a few lessons from its smaller neighbor.

For full report, visit the Center for Democracy in the Americas or download the PDF file here.

Read More...

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Bush, Bushisms and Buffoonery



"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Thus starts off what Jacob Weisberg at SLATE deems The top 25 Bushisms of all time. As part of a farewell to the 43rd Commander in Chief, Weisberg has selected 25 of the most bizarre utterances to have come out of the soon-to-be-former occupant of the White House. Given the sheer number to choose from, I am amazed he was able to narrow it down to under 30. Not wanting to be accused of sipping the hater-ade however, Weisberg is certain to distance himself from Bush-bashing:

People often assume that because I've spent the past nine years collecting Bushisms, I must despise George W. Bush. To the contrary, Bushisms fill me with affection for the man....I find the Bush who flails with words, unlike the Bush who flails with policy, to be an endearing character. Instead of a villain, he makes himself into an irresistible buffoon, like Mrs. Malaprop, Archie Bunker, or Homer Simpson.

Yes... only unlike those mythical figures, this "irresistible buffoon" managed to wreak havoc on the lives of some 28 million Iraqis, tens of thousands of American soldiers, unknown numbers of tortued and "rendered" individuals and as yet underdetermined swaths of the global community. Reducing dislike of Bush down to a personal ability to "despise" him seems to miss the point. And buying into the affable clown ignores the real life horrors unleashed in the name of this "irresistible buffoon."

Probably Weisberg best captures this dark comedy with his final words:

Being able to laugh at yourself is a rare quality in a leader. It's one thing George W. Bush can do that Bill Clinton couldn't. Unfortunately, as we bid farewell to Bushisms, we must conclude that the joke was mainly on us.

True.

Full article here. See the 25 Bushisms below...

Read More...

Monday, January 12, 2009

Bush Wacky




Is this guy for real?

In his last press conference the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, gave a performance that ranged from defensive to clueless, underscoring just how out of touch both he and his adminstration have been with reality. From the debacle that is the ongoing Iraq saga to the spectacle that was Katrina, Bush 43 defended a legacy that only he and his most stridently right-wing supporters would dare call anything less than disastrous. Stunned reporters listened, laughed awkwardly and recorded this gem for the history books. Sadly, none of them had the courage or outright temerity to remove a shoe and hurl it at him.

Highlights from the press conference, and my own witty commentary, below.

The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. In other words, helping the Palestinians in the West Bank develop security forces, which we have worked hard to do over the past years....The challenge is to develop -- help the Palestinians develop a democracy -- I mean -- and a vibrant economy in their -- that will help lead to democracy. And the challenge, of course, is always complicated by the fact that people are willing to murder to stop the advance of freedom. And so, the -- Hamas or, for that matter, Al Qaida or other extremist groups, are willing to use violence to prevent free states from emerging. And that's the big challenge.


Well actually the Palestinians did manage a democracy, in which they elected Hamas. Since that wasn't the democracy you, or the EU or Israel wanted, you decided to scrap democracy and back the group that lost--Fatah. You then went on to supply Fatah with weapons and money and worked to *destabilize* the democratically elected Hamas government instead of talking to moderates within the organization and bringing them to the table. As for the Israelis, they don't seem to ever have to make any concessions, and violates UN resolutions with impunity. As for al-Qaida, they have nothing to do with the Palestinians or Hamas, as intelligence officials are well aware. However, images of hundreds of Gazans--including children--buried under the rubble caused by Israeli bombs (paid for by US tax dollars) is the best recruiting tool Osama bin Laden could have wished for.

On Iraq

...when the history of Iraq is written, historians will analyze, for example, the decision on the surge. The situation was -- looked like it was going fine, and then violence for a period of time began to throw -- throw the progress of Iraq into doubt. And rather than accepting the status quo and saying, "Oh, it's not worth it," or "The politics makes it difficult," or, you know, "The party may end up being -- you know, not doing well in the elections because of the violence in Iraq," I decided to do something about it and sent 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing. And so that part of history is certain, and the situation did change. Now the question is, in the long-run, will this democracy survive? And that's going to be the challenge for future presidents.


As then presidential nominee Barack Obama reminded John McCain, the Iraq war didn't start with "the surge." And there wouldn't have been a need for "the surge" if there had been no war--which most analysts now agree need not have taken place. Contrary to this hindsight idea of "will this democracy survive," the Iraq war wasn't sold as having to do with democracy, but finding WMDs. Remember? Besides, contrary to popular myth, the success of "the surge" is at most illusionary. Violence has dropped in Iraq because former insurgents were paid off by US military officials, and many neighborhoods in the midst of civil war have been ethnically cleansed. In the long-run, for the millions of Iraqis left in this war's tragic wake, it will not simply be a matter of "will this democracy survive" but whether their broken country can mend itself.

On how he made policy.

And -- and in times of war, people get emotional. I understand that. I've never really, you know, spent that much time, frankly, worrying about the loud voices. I, of course, hear them. But they didn't affect my policy, nor did they affect -- they affect how I made decisions.


Well that one just speaks for itself. No comment...

On possible mistakes.

Look, I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly, putting a "mission accomplished" on a (sic) aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.


So... the banner was your sole mistake? Not the war built on a false threat of WMDs that took some 4,000+ American lives, wounded tens of thousands of others, has led (directly or indirectly) to perhaps 1 million dead Iraqis, displaced some 4 million more, has cost some $588 billion (and counting), sanctioning torture, carrying out "rendition," circumventing the Constitution, refusing to admit a failed economy or any of the 100 other matters---just a sign.

On Katrina.

I've thought long and hard about Katrina; you know, could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. The problem with that and -- is that law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission.... You know, people said, "Well, the federal response was slow....Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed...That's a pretty quick response. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs?


Stunning. What can be said about this that hasn't already been said? Just stunning.

That's about all I can presently stomach. Anyone with a stronger constitution, see the full transcript and video.


Read More...

Saturday, January 10, 2009

US Rejected Israeli Request to Attack Iran--Thrice




So it would seem in the question of which set of neocons are more sane--those in Tel Aviv or the ones on Pennsylvania Ave--the latter has won out. The NY Times is reporting that in at least three known incidents, the Bush administration denied Israeli pleas to launch a military attack on Iran. More below.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.


More interesting, it turns out that one of the key reasons the Bush administration began backing away from any outright attack on Iran had to do with that pesky NIE report released in Dec. 2007. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran had in fact stopped its attempts at building a nuclear bomb as far back as 2003.

Officials stated that "the Israelis responded angrily and rebutted the American report," providing their own evidence of Iran working on a nuclear weapon. The Bush administration reacted to their own NIE report with similar scoffing. Secretary Robert Gates, the very one kept on by the Obama administration, was "highly critical" of the NIE report. Gates stated the NIE had "presented the evidence poorly, underemphasizing the importance of Iran’s enrichment activity and overemphasizing the suspension of a weapons-design effort that could easily be turned back on." In other words, Gates was laying the ground for the ideology of pre-emption--in which intelligence should be used to predict worst case scenarios rather than current reality. Nevertheless, the much ballyhooed NIE still seemed to be enough to put a speed bump in any Iran attack plans.

The undaunted Israelis however, intent on remaining the only undeclared nuclear power in the neighborhood, was insistent however on attacking Iran. On two occassions in early 2008, they made requests for weapons and other aid from the US in order to strike Iran. And, in what was called "alarming" to US officials, they wanted to do it via Iraq.

In an unmitigated bit of chutzpah, the Israelis asked the US to allow its bombing run on Iran to take place by overflights through Iraq. "Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off," the NY Times said, citing a US official, "but 'we said 'hell no’ to the overflights." Concerned that the uproar in Iraq over such a military operation could turn the country into a cauldron of discontent, the Bush administration rebuffed the Israelis. Disagreement over Iran even led some to worry that tensions could arise between the two allies.

As a White House official told the Times, Israeli intentions on striking Iran via Iraq "really spooked a lot of people." White House officials openly fretted that the Israelis might fly over Iraq without American permission. Some pondered whether American military would be ordered to shoot them down or be accused of being complicit in an attack on Iran.

In order to pacify the Israelis, the Times states the US settled on starting up a covert operation meant to deter Iranian attempts at nuclear enrichment. As stated by the Times, this operation, mostly involving sabotage, is "aimed at the entire industrial infrastructure that supports the Iranian nuclear program."

Thus far the Israelis have determined that without US help they cannot carry out an attack on Iran. However, as the Israelis press a popular "war" in Gaza and flex their muscle, whether the next administration can keep the most powerful military in the Middle East from sparking a regional conflict remains to be seen.





Read More...

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Skewed Priorities




Think you're hit hard by the current economic meltdown? Those across the globe, suffering under neoliberal trade policies, IMF/World Bank "restructuring," and soaring food prices are welcoming us to the party. Not surprisingly, as bailouts in astronomical figures are thrown about by elites at home and abroad to rescue the global financial sector, the worst-off among us get nothing. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies finds that "the approximately $4.1 trillion that the United States and European governments have committed to rescue financial firms is 40 times the money they’re spending to fight climate and poverty crises in the developing world." Seeing as how the West is directly implicated as a causative agent in these countries' climate and poverty crises, such funding would hardly be charity.

Link to full report here.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The Möbius Strip Issue



Möbius Strip: a surface with only one side and only one boundary component.

In our one-sided political and media culture, it's hard to get an objective side to any dealings between Israel and the Palestinians--much less the Palestinian side. Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal-leaning or conservative, politicians and pundits have come out in force for Israel's attack on Gaza, co-signing onto a policy that has left hundreds dead while hiding behind a pretense of self-defense. It is a shameful hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious, one has to believe we are watching theatre instead of reality--because no one can possibly be that obtuse. As often of late in these times, the sane voice has come not from journalists or those we elect to office, but from a biting, humorous, half-hour satire known as The Daily Show.

In what some have called "brilliant" or "brave" and downright "ballsy," host Jon Stewart manages to raise valid questions not only on current Israeli policy, but calls to task a media and political class that reduces a complex topic into "the Möbius Strip of Issues."

Read More...