Skip to content

On to Iran

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Stephen Kinzer, former New York Times reporter, and now columnist for the Guardian, makes the case that, mired as he is in Iraq, the Boy-King and his handlers are making ready to attack Iran:

When President Bush took his place in front of television cameras last Thursday to deliver his latest assessment of conditions in Iraq, one thing was certain. He would utter the word “Iran” more than once.

Sure enough, Bush blamed “Iranian-backed militants” for much of the violence in Iraq. He said the United States had to keep fighting in Iraq in order to “counter the destructive ambitions of Iran.” Then he warned that Iran’s efforts to influence events in Iraq “must stop.”

…

We have now entered a season in which every speech by an official of the Bush administration that has anything to do with Iraq or the Middle East includes threats against Iran. This intensifying drumbeat suggests that, incredible as it may seem, the United States is seriously considering launching a military attack on Iran.

…

This latest round of saber-rattling comes in the wake of more concrete evidence that the US is marshaling its forces for an attack on Iran.

Two prominent British specialists recently issued a report asserting that US military planners have identified an astonishing 10,000 bombing targets in Iran. Private contractors report that the Pentagon has asked them to prepare cost estimates for ground support and reconstruction in an unnamed West Asian country.

A former CIA analyst, Bob Baer, published an article predicting that the US will use Iran’s activities in Iraq to justify a massive bombing campaign, and concluded: “There will be an attack on Iran.”

One of the truly amazing things about the Bush war marketing machine is its ability to make self contradicting assertions that go unnoticed in the American Press. Thus, we are told that our primary enemy in Iraq is Iran, while we are simultaneously led to believe that we are battling Al Qaeda. That would make some kind of sense if those two entities could be considered to be working together, but that’s a neo-con fantasy. The Shia Iranians are simply not in an alliance with the Sunni Al Qaeda, any more than the secular Saddam was likely to be allied with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda.

Bush can successfully have it both ways because no attempt is made at fact checking, and anyone who mentions these inconvenient facts runs the risk of being branded as soft on terror, merely for pointing out that reality and Bush have no points of connection. Thus, it appears, we may be sold an Iranian war with the same marketing strategy that gave us Iraq. This time, apparently, the strategy will be to simply blow them to bits. It is always possible, of course, that such a strategy will succeed, but given Team Bush’s batting average, there’s no reason to think that it will. As Kinzer points out, there’s lots of reasons to believe that it won’t. This time, by the way, there’ll be no consultation with Congress. If it happens, it will happen without notice. Both Iran and American democracy will be reduced to rubble.

I should, I suppose, acknowledge that Bush could be saying we are fighting both of these entities at the same time. That amounts to an admission that we are smack in the middle of a civil/ideological war in which we don’t dare choose sides, since either alternative is unpalatable.

Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Historical Revisionism, Conservative style

Monday, September 17, 2007

To hear Alan Greenspan tell it, he watched helplessly as a Republican President and a Republican Congress destroyed the American economy. In today’s Times, he tells a amnesiac and properly deferential Times stenographer:

In an interview timed with the release of his memoir Monday, Mr. Greenspan sought to distance himself from the economic policies of President Bush and refute critics who say his policies at the Fed contributed to the housing bubble and bust that is now roiling the economy.

Mr. Greenspan unleashed bottled-up frustration about President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican leaders in Congress who, he contends, put politics ahead of Republican goals like fiscal discipline and lower government spending.

“I’m just very disappointed,” he said glumly, as he sat in his living room. “Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, less regulation — they had the resources to do it, they had the knowledge to do it, they had the political majorities to do it. And they didn’t.”

In the end, he said, “political control trumped policy, and they achieved neither political control nor policy.”

But over in the op-ed pages, Paul Krugman is having none of it. It’s hard to pick the juiciest bit, but this section is illustrative:

Mr. Greenspan now says that he didn’t mean to give the Bush tax cuts a green light, and that he was surprised at the political reaction to his remarks. There were, indeed, rumors at the time — which Mr. Greenspan now says were true — that the Fed chairman was upset about the response to his initial statement.

But the fact is that if Mr. Greenspan wasn’t intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have made a difference.

His first big chance to clarify himself came a few weeks after that initial testimony, when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Here’s what I wrote following that appearance: “Mr. Greenspan’s performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.

“In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.”

I received an irate phone call from Mr. Greenspan after that article, in which he demanded to know what he had said that was wrong. In his book, he claims that Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, was stumped by that question. That’s hard to believe, because I certainly wasn’t: Mr. Greenspan’s argument for tax cuts was contorted and in places self-contradictory, not to mention based on budget projections that everyone knew, even then, were wildly overoptimistic.

If anyone had doubts about Mr. Greenspan’s determination not to inconvenience the Bush administration, those doubts were resolved two years later, when the administration proposed another round of tax cuts, even though the budget was now deep in deficit. And guess what? The former high priest of fiscal responsibility did not object.

And in 2004 he expressed support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent — remember, these are the tax cuts he now says he didn’t endorse — and argued that the budget should be balanced with cuts in entitlement spending, including Social Security benefits, instead. Of course, back in 2001 he specifically assured Congress that cutting taxes would not threaten Social Security.

Krugman points out the all too oft ignored obvious-the continuing pattern of so called wise men buckling to Boy George’s will when in a position to do something; then later claiming to have opposed him:

In retrospect, Mr. Greenspan’s moral collapse in 2001 was a portent. It foreshadowed the way many people in the foreign policy community would put their critical faculties on hold and support the invasion of Iraq, despite ample evidence that it was a really bad idea.

And like enthusiastic war supporters who have started describing themselves as war critics now that the Iraq venture has gone wrong, Mr. Greenspan has started portraying himself as a critic of administration fiscal irresponsibility now that President Bush has become deeply unpopular and Democrats control Congress.

We’ll be hearing more of this as more of these memoirs come out. Poor George, he’ll have a lot of rebutting to do when he starts working on his recollections.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Get Well, Liz

Monday, September 17, 2007

My wife and I were talking to Marcia Greenhalgh tonight after the Citizen Appeciation Day festivities at the Groton Senior Center, and were sorry to hear that her sister, Liz Duarte, has had some setbacks in her recovery from some recent surgery.

Liz is one of the hardest working local Democrats. She is one of the folks who mans the phones on a regular basis, helps organize fund raisers, organizes things on election day, etc., etc., etc. Elections don’t get won without people like Liz. Joe Courtney would be a small time lawyer today without the hard work of folks just like her, and she’s one of the best. Besides all that, she’s a real solid progressive and a great person.

Marcia says that Liz should be fine. I know everyone in Groton is wishing her a speedy recovery.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (3)

This should be interesting

Monday, September 17, 2007

The Iraqi “government” has cancelled Blackwater’s license to employ “contractors” in Iraq. Seems like Mercenaries R’ Us has engaged in exactly the type of behavior one would expect from an organization that employs thugs that are expressly exempted from the reach of all law, both civil and military:

The Iraqi government said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad.

…

“We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities,” Khalaf said.

The spokesman said witness reports pointed to Blackwater involvement but said the shooting was still under investigation. It was not immediately clear if the measure against Blackwater was intended to be temporary or permanent.

Perhaps the most basic element of true sovereignty for any nation is the power to enforce criminal law within its area of jurisdiction. This is illustrated, in a way, by the fact that in its present Imperial phase, the United States has declared that its criminal laws reach anyone anywhere in the world. The United States has declared itself to be a privileged nation, a super sovereign, if you will, and it has made that assertion stick.

The other nations of the earth, for now, must stick to the old fashioned kind of sovereignty, since for the most part they retain power within their own borders. If the Iraqi nation has any claims to be a truly sovereign nation, it should be able to make this “license revocation” stick. If it can’t, then its failure will prove beyond doubt that the Iraqi state is a powerless facade for the American occupiers.

I could become a rich man if anyone would care to bet that Blackwater will leave Iraq because the Iraqi government has ordered it to do so. That’s about as likely as the American Army leaving Iraq should the Iraqi government request it to do so.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Iraq | | Comments (0)

Yet Another Friday Night Concert

Friday, September 14, 2007

Talking Heads, from Stop Making Sense.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUgKb-5u6v4[/youtube]

Okay, here’s another artist covering the same song. I wasn’t sure about putting this up, but what the heck.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jbya4kxC6E[/youtube]

Back to Maine tomorrow. I may or may not be posting tomorrow.

Filed in Music | | Comments (1)

The general speaks

Friday, September 14, 2007

There appears to be real reporting going on at the McClatchy newspapers. The reporters there don’t seem to be awed by all those medals on the chest of the great general. He is, they report, going to go back to Iraq and try to get the Iraqis to do our bidding by threatening a troop withdrawal that no one expects to happen. Apparently, he believes the Iraqis can’t read or access the internet. Apparently the general would have been better off had he stuck to Fox:

Despite President Bush’s pledge Thursday that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq after he leaves office, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, said Friday that he will still use the prospect of troop withdrawals to persuade Iraq’s political leaders to resolve their differences.

In a half-hour interview Friday with McClatchy Newspapers at the Pentagon, Petraeus said the message that he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will take back to Baghdad is: “Let’s get on with it (or) you are going to have to take it on by yourself.”

We also learn from the good general, who wrote an op-ed piece glowing with false optimism just before the 2004 election, is uncomfortable with his role as chief political spokesperson for the boy king:

The general expressed discomfort with his growing public persona and with the fact that some now see him as a political figure who’s become the face of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

“I am not entirely comfortable, candidly, with sort of being in this particular situation,” Petraeus said. “I’ve actually tried to stay somewhat apolitical. …I guess it’s sort of evitable to end up in this position.”

One must wonder if it has dawned on the hero (it is not precisely clear why he is a hero, but he is) of Iraq that he is not supposed to be “somewhat” apolitical. He is supposed to be entirely apolitical. But that, apparently, is far too much to expect in this corrupt age.

Besides making do with generals that are only somewhat political, we must also, apparently, make do with generals that are somewhat honest:

“We are not trying to mislead, I assure you that.”

But Petraeus also acknowledged that his claim that Baghdad’s security forces have 445,000 people on the payroll may have exaggerated the size of the force.

I submit however, that I could get Petreaus off should someone sue him for misrepresentation. In order to maintain such an action, one must prove that someone reasonably relied on the actor’s falsehood. It is per se unreasonable for anyone to rely on anything coming from Bush or his mouthpieces.

Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Comments

Friday, September 14, 2007

Lately, a number of spambots have successfully breached the Bad Behavior wall. I have changed the settings, but there is a possibility now that real people will be blocked. If you are a real person, and your comment does not appear after you post it, please email to me and I will change the settings back. My email address is in the “About Me” page, which can be accessed from the upper right hand corner of the home page.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Getting out

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A few thoughts jotted down while I don’t watch Bush’s speech.

There’s been some talk, as I mentioned recently, to the effect that whoever gets elected in 2008 will soon own the war that Bush will bequeaths to him or her. At this point, as anyone case see, his entire strategy is to repeat his life story-leave a mess behind and let someone else clean it up.

It’s an unfortunate thing that so few of the Democratic candidates are willing to do what needs to be done if and when they get elected: Get out of Iraq completely. Bill Richardson says that he will, and I assume Dennis Kucinich feels the same way, but the front tier candidates get vague when they talk about their plans for the future. Each of them plans to maintain an imperial presence.

There’s no doubt that as we depart, either from a combat role or completely, there will be massive bloodshed. That’s happening now and it may very well increase for a while. That’s a result that was fated from the moment we went in. That blood is on Bush’s hands, not that he cares.

If we stay, in any role, we will be a permanent irritant. We have had, and will have, no success in being a force for good in the Muslim world. There was, in fact, a time when we had a good reputation among Muslims-back in the palmy days of Roosevelt when we were viewed as anti-colonialists.

We don’t understand the Muslim world, and never will. If we step aside they will not have us to kick around, so will, no doubt, start kicking each other, which appears to be something they enjoy doing. If we stay, we will hasten our own demise as a great nation. We have already entered that period in an Empire’s history where the cost of Empire exceeds the gains. This is amplified in our system where the fruits of empire go not to the nation, but to corporations- mostly oil companies. (Okay, in fact the fruits of empire always go to ruling elites)

It’s time for us to recognize that we harm ourselves as much as our still undefined “enemies” by wasting our blood and treasure on maintaining our presence in a part of the world where we can do no good. We could, on the other hand, help ourselves tremendously in the Muslim world by announcing that we will stand down from interfering in their countries. If the people of Iran, for instance, were secure in the knowledge that we did not intend to attack them, the chances would increase tremendously that the present government would be replaced by one more rational. Ahmadinejad is almost as unpopular as Bush; he stays in power by playing the same fear card that works for George.

Back to where I started, most of the Democrats feel the need to prove their manhood (be the candidate male or female) by proposing that we maintain a presence in Iraq. Any other course, apparently, would be a sign that they are not serious people. Staying will be a disastrous mistake, and if the next president makes that mistake, he or she truly will own Iraq policy. Our only hope, oddly enough, is that we’ll end up leaving as we did in Vietnam, with the last guy hanging off a helicopter.

Filed in Democrats, Iraq | | Comments (0)

Cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless

Thursday, September 13, 2007

According to a poll commissioned by Daily Kos, Ned Lamont would handily beat Joe Lieberman today, if the voters of Connecticut had another chance to vote. Most of the shift, as you would expect, comes from the Democrats and Independents who were taken in by Lieberman. By the way, it’s hard to believe that the election was less than a year ago. So much damage has been done by LIeberman and his pals since then that it’s hard to believe they could do it all in a year.

The folks at Firedoglake have it about right:

That Ned was willing to enter the race last year when the geniuses at the head of the Democratic Party were telling everyone to shut up about the war, put his own money into challenging the war lobby by beating its own toad prince in the primary and then fighting him and his Democratic Senate buddies in the general, is to his credit. He awakened the shiftless and the recalcitrant up to the reality that the party’s voters wanted their candidates to do more than smile, kiss babies and be Not Republican. We want them to end the war.
We owe him and everyone who worked on his behalf a great debt of gratitude.

Joe won the election but in doing so diminished himself into the pitiful, Ann Coulter loving spectacle that he is today. We in Connecticut who backed Ned from the first can be justly proud that we were instrumental in changing the national conversation and in pushing the leaders of the pathetic Democratic Party into listening to the people for once instead of the pundits.

Filed in Democrats, Lieberman, Local issues | | Comments (0)

The Day drinks the Petreaus Kool-Aid

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

In an effort to prove that they are very serious people, the Day has opined that despite its belief that we should end our military involvement in Iraq, we should not in fact end our military involvement in Iraq. We should, as the editorial is titled GIVE NEW IRAQ STRATEGY TIME.

This editorial deserves to be annotated, so rife is it with irrational thinking and ignorance of the facts. Let’s try to scrape the surface.

First, there’s the title. This is not a new Iraq Strategy. This is a strategy (the surge) that was announced in December of 2006 and, according to its proponents would bear fruit by this time. Keep in mind that the fruit it would bear would be political reconciliation- i.e., a stronger central government with more popular support. It has failed spectacularly on those terms. In any event, there is no new strategy-Petraeus is offering more of the same.

Now, the introduction, in which the editorialist notes that the good general is testifying on the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack, which as it acknowledges in the fourth paragraph, was and is entirely unrelated to the war in Iraq. So why make a connection that is acknowledged to be without foundation?

Then we have this:

What resulted was four years of terror bombings, bloodshed and revenge killings. Most ironically, al-Qaida, a non-factor in Iraq when the late Mr. Hussein was in power, now is a significant player and seeks to fuel the sectarian violence in hopes of handing the United States an embarrassing foreign policy failure in the Middle East. (Emphasis added)

It’s the line they’ve been pushing, of course, but couldn’t the Day do it’s homework and learn a little about the subject from non-propagandists. It might start here, (washington monthly), where it would find that al-Qaida’s presence in Iraq is miniscule, and it is not even clear that those calling themselves “Al-Qaida in Iraq” have any formal connection to Osama’s Al-Qaida. But why let facts get in the way of a good story line.

The Day goes on to tell us that:

At the local level, Sunni tribal leaders have worked with our nation’s forces to root out al-Qaida and other terrorist elements.

You mean these guys (see, Washington Post, In Iraq, a Perilous Alliance With Former Enemies)

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation.

American generals insist they are not creating militias. In contracts with the U.S. military, the sheiks are referred to as “security contractors.” Each of their “guards” will receive 70 percent of an Iraqi policeman’s salary. U.S. commanders call them “concerned citizens,” evoking suburban neighborhood watch groups.

Yes, that’s right. We are busily arming people who have, until recently, been bowing our soldiers to bits. What could go wrong?

But the Day recognizes the problem, in a way, doesn’t it?

These Sunni tribal groups that our forces now work with by providing money and military aid could one day turn on the central government or other factions, generating the civil war the U.S. policy has sought to avoid.

Earth to Day: The Civil War has been raging for years. It just may be that we are now taking sides against the central government we created (while still supporting the central government-it gets so confusing, doesn’t it?). What a great position to be in-on both sides of a civil war in a country we refuse to understand.

Some more tidbits. According to the Day, Congress should drink more of the Kool-Aid the Day has been drinking because it supported the surge in the past. To the best of my recollection Congress had nothing to say in the matter. How convenient to forget how impotent is our Congress. In any event, the surge was “sold” on the terms I mentioned above, and it was to be judged based on its success exactly now. On the pre-announced terms, it has failed.

Like all the serious folks in Washington, the Day doesn’t appear to notice that the goal posts keep moving, and the rules keep changing. There are some constants that the Day should keep in mind: Everything they say is a lie, they can always find some general to be their front man (see, Powell, Colin and Thompson, Tommy) and their only goal is to run out the clock to leave someone else to clean up their mess.

Filed in Iraq, Media | | Comments (1)