(10 am – promoted by ek hornbeck)

I’ve been struggling a bit. With role assignments. Because I’m confused. Are the Iraqis themselves the terrorists? Or do Iraqis harbor terrorists? No. Wait. Terrorists infiltrate Iraq. And we are there to get rid of terrorists, right? Wait, or was it to get rid of the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WsMD)? Or was it the threat of terrorism? Who are the insurgents btw? Are they related to the terrorists? Wait. Iran is involved in this, right? It’s terrorists [being paid by Iran to infiltrate Iraq] who are killing Iraqis, right? Or are the Iranian people themselves terrorists? Or do they just harbor terrorists? I know… maybe they outsource their terrorism. Anybody? Do they also have WsMD? Wait.

Tell me again, who are the terrorists?

      The Historic Basis of … Prosperity

The main expansionist strategy of the European business classes during the 19th century was colonialism; that is, each country would try to carve out areas of control in the third world, using its technological superiority translated into military terms. The raw materials and labor and markets of these colonies were for the exclusive exploitation of businesses centered in the home country. The inherent weakness of this colonialist strategy, from a capitalist point of view, is that the bulk of the populace remained in poverty and therefore provided not much of a market for the goods of the home country.

• Fast forward a few hundred years to the 20th century…

     Why the U.S set out to destroy Iraq (during the Gulf War) :

This was one event in multinational capital’s ongoing struggle with third world nationalism, a powerful 1esson to nation-states that do not obey the rules of the game laid down by the major capitalist power centers.

• to justifying another assault on Iraq in the 21st century

     October 2007

President George W. Bush:Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror…

• Arsenal of terror? Does that mean WsMD?

      FactCheck addresses the question of Iraq WsMD…

No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Center for Nonproliferation Studies breaks down Iraq’s WsMD and programs for WsMD.

• “We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control

    of that country to its own people.”

    ^{President George W. Bush, March 19,  2003}

      Bush said in the same speech that coalition forces would help Iraqis achieve a

      united, stable and free country [that] will require our sustained commitment.

Bush and his architects will endeavor to build a new Iraq, a McDonaldized Iraq ruled by westernized overlords and serviced by US corporations. This can only happen if the methodical process of destruction is allowed to unravel centuries of Iraqi culture and decades of Saddam’s iron-fisted rule.

“The water is not clean enough there is no petrol for our cars, and the occupation forces intend this,” said Usama Asa’ad. “They want to make all of Iraq’s services for private companies, so that United States companies will take as much money from Iraq as they can”.

• Coalition forces would “make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.”

   ^{President George W. Bush, March 19,  2003}

      Bush said, in the same speech, that coalition forces came to Iraq with respect for its citizens,

      for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice.

Iraq’s death rate has risen sharply. With stepped up Coalition bombing and ground attacks as well as rise in sectarian violence, a growing number of Iraqis are being forced to leave their homes and minority groups are now seriously at risk. According to UNHCR, there are 1.9 million internally displaced people in the country and 2 million refugees escaped to neighboring countries, especially Syria and Jordan. Unemployment and poverty rose sharply, too. According to the United Nations Development Programme, one-third of the population now lives in poverty. Education has broken down. Further, Iraqis basic needs in drinking water, food, sanitation and electricity are not met. Hospitals lack basic medical supplies and are understaffed.

The international relief system has not been able to respond to the growing humanitarian challenges. International agencies have themselves faced serious problems in reaching Iraqis at risk. Iraq’s humanitarian emergency has reached a crisis level that compares with some of the world’s most urgent calamities.

In the long term, Destruction of Cultural Heritage or the “British and American Collusion in the Pillaging of Iraq’s Heritage Is A Scandal That Will Outlive Any Passing Conflict”

• Tell me again, who are the terrorists?

   Documented Iraqi civilian deaths… 82,693 – 90,219

   ^{Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit in U.S. history}

   Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths… 1,196,514

   ^{Tax Benefits, New Contracts Send Halliburton Profits Soaring}

   Collateral damage: 84% of Iraq’s universities destroyed in the war

   ^{Blackwater in Iraq, Killing for Profit}

        Baghdad…

        A park turned into a cemetry…

        Orphans rely on charity of militias…

        and blame parents’ death on America

<sup>note: all figures, except combat deaths & wounded, were reported

on the fifth anniversary of the war, March 19, 2008). i pulled this off the internet

and forgot to get the link… so thanks to whoever made this list</sup>

• Total U.S. combat deaths: 4023
• Total U.S. combat casualties- 29,628, but estimated as high as 100,000
• Number of days since President Bush said he’d get Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive”: 2368
• Number of Al Qaeda camps in Iraq before the U.S. invasion–0
• Number of days since the invitation of Iraq began: 1829
• Number of days since Bush put the flight suit and said “Mission Accomplished”: 1774
• Number of days between Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII: Only 1347
• Number of days that the former CEO of defense contractor Halliburton has NOT shot a man in the face: 757
• Number of weeks since the Pentagon decided NOT to release a recent Defense Dept. report showing Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had no working relationship (might spoil the anniversary!)–2
• Estimate of war costs by the Bush Administration during congressional hearings before the war-$50-$70 billion (when they were not saying that it would “pay for itself.”)
• Estimate of overall costs of five years of war including long-term care for battlefield casualties (see above) and replacement military hardware–$3 trillion
• Number of years Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain says the U.S. will stay in Iraq-100

 Let’s do the disclaimer first:  

I support Obama and want him to get the nomination over Hillary, and win the general election over McCain.

There.

That being said, I was mostly excoriated by the orange Obamabots when I posted this diary, back in February, to wit:  It Begins:  What Will Obama Do?.  They have a very “shoot the messenger” attitude over there, if it’s not blowing kisses at Obama.  I can’t abide such things.

At any rate, that now being “of record”, let’s turn to today’s Talking Points Memo and an article found there entitled:  Conservatives Planning New Attack Group for Election.  A’yup — it’s all about what’s already sort of started, but which hasn’t begun to really get going, yet:  an assault on Sen. Hopey Hope the likes of which will make mere Swiftboating look like a deluge of love letters.

The very first comment under the TPM article is the best one, too:

The issue is this…

                    Will the Democrats collectively wet their pants

                    at the sight of these attacks or will they

                    counter-attack?

                    JimboF

                   

And, no, I’m not “JimboF”.  

The answer to the question is, well, I don’t know.  When Ed Shultz called McCain a “warmonger” a couple of days ago, the Obama campaign attained light-speed in its rush to denounce Shultz.  So, I’m not sure what’s going to happen when the gloves really come off.  And the people at orange think that Hillary’s all diabolical and nasty.  She’s a piker compared to what the GOP’s going to do to Obama.  Brace yourselves . . .

Mu . . .

This is not a pressing political issue.  If you want to read something “important”, read something else.

One thing that I have often been given grief for while blogging is my antipathy towards certain figures on the political left, notably Edward Said and Noam Chomsky.  Some people have deeply questioned my commitment to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza because of it.

This post by David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy illustrates very well why I have long felt that Chomsky is not to be taken seriously on political issues:

First, I’ve located the original source cited by Chomsky. It’s Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud 42-43 (Revivim, 1985), a Hebrew book, never translated to English, written by Israeli dove Beilin. It’s a secondary source that provides only the barest context for Dayan’s remark–all the book tells us is that Dayan’s comment illustrates an extreme attitude toward Palestinian refugees, and was made during a meeting with other leaders of the small RAFI party, which was composed of hawkish defectors from the dominant Labor Party. Apparently, Chomsky couldn’t be bothered to look up the original transcripts, which are footnoted by Beilin.

Second, Dayan didn’t make this remark in the “early 1970s,” he made it in September 1967, just three months after the Six Day War.

Third, he didn’t say it to his “cabinet colleagues,” or in any official government capacity, but at meeting of the leaders of his small party, and his statement on that particular day may or may not have reflected his more general, or his longer-term, views regarding the Palestinians.

Fourth, according the book, Dayan was addressing the situation of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, not all Palestinians, or even all Palestinians in the West Bank.

Fifth, and by far most significant, Chomsky leaves out the next few sentences uttered by Dayan: “For now, it works out. Let’s say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule and we will have four to five military compounds on the hills, and they will sit ten years under the Israeli military regime.” Thus, rather than this quote reflecting a long-term “plan” by Israel, it reflected Dayan’s view of the alternative if a peace deal with Jordan (Beilin notes on the same page that Dayan was willing “to divide authority on the West Bank with Jordan”), could not be reached. Moreover, even in the absence of an immediate peace deal, Dayan was not speaking of a permanent occupation, but of a ten-year Israeli presence.

The first reason why this rhetoric by Chomsky has always bothered me is because it is an old, mendacious, and cheap debate team trick: reference an obscure and rather meaningless quote, and then dare one’s opponent to disprove it.  I did it a lot.  When I was sixteen.

Second, it is not only a cheap trick, but one without actual historical importance.  For example, Thomas Jefferson once said, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”  I can easily use that quote to imply that Jefferson supported John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, so long as no one points out that Jefferson actually held them to be unconstitutional and repealed them as President.  The actual historical case is that whatever Dayan believed, he was not the head of state of Israel, nor able to pronounce official policy.  The best analogy is that of Gen. MacArthur; a well-respected national hero who nonetheless was not granted the power to dictate policy on military matters in disagreement with the civilian government.

Finally, Chomsky here speaks to one of my greatest complaints about intellectual processes in the present era.  This particular comment was part of a debate with Alan Dershowitz.  Dershowitz is both an idiot and a particularly pernicious one.  Certainly, were we forced to choose between which side of that debate to sympathize with, all of us would likely side with Chomsky.  But the most likely truth in most circumstances is that we are simply watching two idiots argue.  A debate between Pat Buchanan and John McCain would no doubt show many areas of disagreement.  We would likely sympathize with Buchanan’s arguments, particularly regarding the Iraq War, over those of McCain.  But this would hardly suggest that the case of Buchanan’s is true, or right, simply because he is less horribly wrong than McCain.  Indeed, this should be the argument that is most sympathetic to bloggers; we have few more persistent complaints than that the media tends to report what is declared by various politicians as if there are two sides to the argument, rather than an objective truth which may be championed by only one or often neither side.

Chomsky is often less wrong than many others when it comes to politics.  As Bernstein demonstrates, this does not mean that he is usually, or even often, right.

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

Another good idea undoubtedly doomed to fail, but worth the effort to try:

Military Families Speak Out is challenging U.S. Senators — starting with two named Obama and Clinton — to filibuster and stop President Bush’s request for more money for the Iraq war and occupation, another $102-billion.

Democrats aren’t even talking about saying no.

The Democrats’ plan appears to be to load up the bill with more domestic spending, rather than trying to stop the war spending. They want to add money for everything from storm-damaged national parks to local law enforcement grants to trying to use nuclear fusion to produce energy, CQ reports.

Instead of trying to stop the war, they’ve written Bush a letter, politely suggesting that he should change his strategy and plans.  Right. That’ll be happening any day now, no doubt.

Military Families Speak Out has a simple idea:  Stop the war by refusing to fund it.  That, you may recall, is how we finally got out of Vietnam.

They start by quoting Obama and Clinton, then ask them a simple question:

“Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.” — Sen. Barack Obama, September 12, 2007

“Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war — not next year, not next month — but today.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton, July 10, 2007

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both say that the war in Iraq needs to end. Military Families Speak Out has one question for them: what are they doing now as sitting United States Senators, to bring our loved ones home from Iraq?

The petition is simple, too:  

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, you have both said that the time to begin ending the war in Iraq is now.  As sitting Senators, you have that power in your hands.   President Bush cannot spend a penny on the war without the approval of both houses of Congress.  

When the Senate takes up the next war funding bill, we call on you to lead a filibuster, refusing to stand down until your colleagues agree to vote against any bill that continues to fund the war in Iraq rather than funding the swift and safe return of our troops

And their call to action makes a point that some of us have been making for a long time:

Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq now. The President can’t spend a dime on this war without the approval of both houses of Congress.

A single act of bold leadership by Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could be instrumental in ending this war. When the Senate takes up the next war funding bill, either one of them could lead a filibuster, refusing to stand down until their colleagues agree to vote against any bill that provides funding to continue the war rather than funding specifically for the swift and safe return of all our troops from Iraq. They wouldn’t even need a majority of their colleagues to back them up — all they need is 40 Senators prepared to unite behind their leadership and block additional funding to continue the war from making it through the Senate.

The Senate Democrats’ excuse for inaction has been that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, so they have held some test votes, gotten less than 60, and moved on to the next topic.

It doesn’t take 60 votes to stop funding.  It takes 41.

Are there 40 Senators who would stand with an Obama or a Clinton — or maybe a Russ Feingold? — and refuse to cut off debate?

I’m afraid we know the answer.

Democrats will be too frightened that someone will claim they are “against the troops.”  If you’re “for the troops”, you leave them there to be killed and to kill more Iraqis.

Are Military Families Speak Out against the troops?  Hardly, since this is who they are:

Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones currently in the military or who have served in the military since the buildup to the Iraq war in fall of 2002. Our membership currently includes over 3,700 military families, with new families joining daily.

I hope some Senator will stand up on this.  If nothing else, it would provide a good gut-check roll call that would tell us who really wants to end the war and who wants to posture about it.

Above title comes from MoJo, short for Mother Jones, for those not in the know.

It covers this:

Washington Dispatch: We asked a dozen national security experts what Congress should ask the top military commander in Iraq at this week’s hearings. Here’s what they came up with.

There’s a short introduction, before the panel asks their questions. In the intro we are reminded of what Petraeus gave as an answer the last time:

But when Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus if the Iraq War “makes America safer,” the general replied, “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted [it] out in my own mind.”

Ought to be real interesting what answer he gives this time!

From the invasion, and building these five, now plus, years, I could tell him We Are Not Safer! Reason we have now created more Hatreds and Enemies out of Tens Of Thousands of Iraqi’s, and probably as many in the region, that Didn’t Exist Before!!

I would also point out that there seems to be a Nationalist group that is beating him at his expertise, Counter Insurgency, and we saw that Explode these last couple of weeks and continue, as the Iraq Government? and the U.S. are still trying to quell that Nationalism, with the Iraqi Government? threatening to not allow this group, never minding all the others, to participate in the coming elections, Hell Of A Democracy We Gave Them!

The dozen National Security Experts participating in giving the questions are:

Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University

Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence official

Wayne White, head of the State Department’s Iraq intelligence team 2003 to 2005 and an adviser to the Iraq Study Group

Juan Cole, professor of history at University of Michigan

Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force colonel and expert on military strategy

A research professor at a military institute who asked not to be named

David Isenberg, military affairs analyst and adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute

A former intelligence analyst who handled Middle Eastern issues for years and who asked not to be identified by name

Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell

Gordon Adams, professor of U.S. Foreign Policy at the School of International Service, American University

Retired Colonel W. Patrick Lang Jr., former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s human intelligence service

A former Army colonel and planner who asked not to be identified

Take a trip over to MoJo to view the questions they asked and see if you think they are better than

The questions he received from the legislators were mostly softballs. (Neither senators Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were impressive when questioning Petraeus.)

the Congressional Questions last time

This time is a Huge Question Mark coming from a Congress not following the Will Of The People!

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,” – George W. Bush, Texas Gov., 1999

” What does it matter to the dead, the orphan, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

– Mohandas K. Gandhi

” Wars, conflict, it’s all business. One murder makes a villain. Millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.”

-Charlie Chaplin

And so from the spectre of the summer soldier who shrinks from the hard truths and his country’s crises, comes the Winter Soldier who will not look away.

Oregon Senate candidate and current House Speaker Jeff Merkley has been endorsed by equal rights advocacy group Basic Rights Oregon. This is yet another endorsement for the House Speaker in his Senate race in Oregon. Just this past Friday, there was a Democratic primary debate. In Jeff Merkley’s opening statement he talked about how he fought for workers’ rights and environmental protections. He cited his huge accomplishments during the past 2007 legislation. Where he seemed to get the most fired up, was when he talked about his work for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. Here’s what he said:

“I fought so hard for gay and lesbian families that Karen Minnis cut off my mic on the House floor and threatened to have state troopers remove me. But I kept right on fighting and in 2007 won passage of historic legislation for basic rights and domestic partnerships. And, today I’m proud to announce that my campaign has received the endorsement of Basic Rights Oregon”

If you’d like to watch the debate in full go here.

Merkley is not a Weak-Kneed Democrat

Back when Jeff Merkley was Minority Leader and the domestic partnerships legislation was about to be assigned to a House committee, Republican Karen Minnis blocked it. Minnis rewrote the House rules in order to prevent the bill from hitting the floor for an up or down vote. Jeff Merkley and many other gay rights activists were upset to say the least. Here’s a snippet from Gay Rights Watch about how upset Merkley was at the Republicans attempt to block this legislation from a vote:

Democratic Minority Leader Jeff Merkley (D- Portland) stood on the floor of the House this evening at around 7:15pm standing up for the rights of gay and lesbian Oregonians. I truly wish I could have seen this. I’m not sure of all the details, but from what I hear Jeff was not happy at all. Outraged at what Speaker Minnis did today to destroy House rules – he did not hold back. He was gavelled about 4 times before either being told that his microphone would be turned off – or it was actually turned off by Speaker Minnis. He was called into Speaker Minnis’ office to discuss the floor ‘dispute’. Pretty intense.

So thank you Representative Merkley, for sticking up for what you believe and fighting for the rights of GLBT Oregonians. We applaud you and your efforts.

I don’t know about you, but I wish more Democrats had the passion to fight for what is right. While Minnis may have effectively stalled the legislation’s passage back in 2005, the bill was eventually passed in the House and Senate and signed into law in 2007. Oregon joined nine other states in legally recognizing partnership rights for gay couples. The domestic partnerships legislation will give gay couples in the state of Oregon the same benefits married couples are awarded. The fight isn’t over here in Oregon, there are constant efforts by inequality groups to repeal the legislation.

Merkley not only had a hand in helping pass the domestic partnerships legislation, he also fought hard with fellow Democrats to pass historic anti-discrimination legislation. We passed a law in Oregon just days before the passage of domestic partnerships that states that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the law. Jeff Merkley has been a strong leader for gay rights here in Oregon. I’m really hoping we can send Republican Gordon Smith packing, and replace him with a strong-willed progressive like Merkley. Don’t you think we’d all be better off if we had someone like Merkley fighting for us? I do, and that’s why I support Merkley’s candidacy 100%.