The Rise and Fall of the US As Superpower

Many people, including myself, believe we are witnessing historic times. Gregory Djerejian at THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH this morning asked what I think might be a good summarizing question about this past century. He is always a good read, though I frequently disagree with him.

50 yrs or so from now--when major historians look back at the last 100-120 yrs of American history--what date will be deemed to have had a larger impact on the course of this nation's history, Dec 7, 1941 or Sept 11, 2001? There are a lot of angles to approach this essay at prognostication, but as 9/11 is so much fresher in all our minds, let me just remind readers of the critical import of America's decision to join the allies in WWII, ie. how the future of Europe was changed so materially, how an entire post-war security architecture was created by the likes of Dean Acheson that still exists to this day, how the post-war settlement helped lead to a fifty year Cold War with the Soviets, and so much more. Big stuff, all this, very obviously. There is also, of course, the post-Cold War era that lasted from the fall of the Berlin Wall to, I guess, 9/11 (though some would say the magnitude of 9/11, while huge, doesn't supersede the post-Cold War era so that, often, you hear that we are inhabiting both the post-Cold War and post-9/11 era, not merely the latter). Still, the post-Cold War era (remember Herbert Walker's New World Order?) now seems to have been relegated to something of footnote status, with the demons of unleashed nationalism that wracked the Balkans (and still do parts of the FSU), now so overshadowed by the reining hegemon's robust pursuit of the global war on terrorism (nationalist fervor was often portrayed as one of the major potential perils stemming from the end of the Cold War).

I think the primary driving force of history is economics. 12/7 and 9/11 represent two catalytic dates in US history. By it's shear size, the US economy has a overwhelming effect on the world economy, therefore world history. No one likes bad news, and I'm afraid my this post and the blog's economic catogory is full of it, especially bad economic news. However, more blogs are raising similar alarms. I can only hope I am wrong.
Imperial Admiral Yamamoto was indeed prophetic in his statement, "We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve". After successfully propagating a war against the Japanese in the Pacific and assisting the European allies in defeating Hitler's Germany. The industrial might created prior to, during and after WWII, created the conditions where the US became the sole superpower after "winning" the Cold War.
The Marshall Plan and the US occupation of Japan led to rebuilding Western Europe and Japan into more modern industrial nations remaking the world economy for likely the next 60 years.
Globalization combined with the events on and following 9/11, will likely remake the world again. This time, however, the decline of influence of the United States will be the telling factor. There are several reasons for this coming decline, but the writing is already on the wall and it seems unlikely the momentum of history will redirect the outcome.
One of the primary features of this coming change is the deindustrialization of the United States. Jobs have move away from heavy industry into service industries. Rather than rebuilding infrastructure in the US as it depreciated however, economic leaders have rebuilt outside of the US where labor is cheap. Now, most consumable goods in the World are produced overseas, creating an oppresive trade deficit in consumer America driving the world economy.
By shear numbers of people, the dominant labor force now lies in Asia. China and India are the future economic superpowers. Perhaps even more significantly, universities in Asia are turning out more engineers and scientists than the United States. Already, US based corporations have to look to new graduates from Asia to fill positions here and US giants like Microsoft are building satelites in India to ensure availability of highly skills specialists. Already, the US is being displaced in it's dominant position in the modern industries that have produced the highest wages in the world.
Meanwhile, in the US, wages have stagnated, largely because of the competition overseas. Unemployment has remained high despite signs of recovery in the economy again because of competition overseas and vigorous outsourcing to cheaper resources overseas.
Two other factors have combined to apparently lock in this inertia in the US economy. The National Debt has ballooned beyond comprehensible proportions. Future tax resources will be largely consumed by interest and principle payments, largely to China and Japan. Much has been said about the coming correction in the world imbalence where interest rates will rise precipitously. Many have been counting on the falling value of the dollar will bring about a rebuilding of the industrial base in the US and more competition of US goods in the world economy. Or will it?
The second event that seems to have locked in future events is the recapitalizing of the upper class in America. There are now more billionaires in the US than ever. So there should be plenty of eager investors to rebuild the US infrastructure. Or are there?
American consumers drive the world economy. But the current imbalence created by overwhelming debt and trade deficit ensures current conditions have to change. The devaluing of the dollar may well made American goods more competitive, but will it be enough to offset the cheap labor in Asia? I don't think so. So when the correction comes, interest rates will rise, demand for goods from the US will decline, world recession is the result and even deflation is a risk. A new depression is not beyond belief. The chaos that raged through Argentina in the 1990's may threaten the US. Even the perenial optimist Greenspan is warning of a difficult correction for the world.
Recession is not often a time of investment. Labor will remain relatively expensive in the US and there will continue to be a shortage highly trained engineers and scientists in the US. US and other investors are much more likely to invest their fortunes in Asia than in the US. The US infrastructure will probably continue to decline, the middle class buying power will likely have to decline just to keep up employment, and fewer middle class youths will have the means to go to college.
Government will be in no position to intervene. The National Debt has effectly "starved the beast" because no one will support raising taxes sufficiently to offset rising interest payments. The current Congress continues to try to cut taxes without any justification of than to line the pockets of their constituents.
9/11 signals the beginning of the decline of Superpower America. It seems unlikely the US will dig itself out of stagnation in the first part of the 21st Century. Asia by then will dominate the world economy and very likely world politics. We will be the largest debtor nation in the world for along time. After Bush's incompetent foreign policy and treasonous economic manipulation, our prestige is all but lost, our world power rusting away. The shining city on a hill, is dimming, decline, and in danger of falling away from it's central role in history. Worse yet, will the US engage in other futile aggressive moves like the invasion of Iraq to forstall it's fall?
Is there a way to avoid this scenario? I don't know of one. It's possible I over estimate the impact of our current fix and the solution show it self. It seems likely to me that anything even hoping to be effective will also be very painful and cost our national character greatly. Our values as a nation will be tested. Will we retain our optimism as a country? I can only hope.

Information Overload?

Achenblog

We live in a world supersaturated in information, in which the technologies of communication have vastly outpaced our ability to find something new to say. Information of one kind or another is everywhere, much of it provided for free. I sell information for a living. The market forces are against me.

Yes there is more information out there than a single person can consume. But to claim there is nothing new to say is hogwash. Unless Archenblog is operating under a topic restriction, there is as much new information has there is someone to consume it. Americans, simply are so self-involved, they in general spend little time with what's going on in the world. Witness that Technocrati doesn't even offer a "Foreign Policy" tag! The only tags I found on the list that relates to world events is World News and World-News. A quick perusal of that tag category reviews few topics originated from America related to world news beyond the Middle East. Other blog catalogues have the same absense of a worldview catagory. Everyone is primarily focused on their own perspective. I'd call that part of the problem.

You can tell yourself that the words you type are better than the other words out there, that they're fashioned together with superior raw materials (lots of interesting consonants like "K" and "v"), forming premium sentences that contain an unusual number of adverbs and adjectives per square meter. You know the motto here at the A-blog: "Using Adverbs Promiscuously Since 2005."


These ruminations were inspired by the Bill Raspberry piece the other day on why columnists are necessary. Bill has pondered whether a world of too much info needs opinionators. He decides that they're useful filters -- to a point: "I find it useful to have a half-dozen opinion columnists digest the day's offerings for me so I get a sense, from several points of view, of what is worth spending my time thinking about. That, by the way, is one of the reasons I deplore those members of the craft who write (or so it seems to me) as political propagandists. I don't need a political-operative-by-stealth using valuable op-ed space to promote partisan interests." Who's he referring to? I'd guess Robert Novak, for starters, since Novak seems to channel Cheney et al. George Will does not represent the Republican Party in power -- he's an old-line Conservative, not a neo-Con, and it seems unlikely he'll be getting invited to many Bush family Christmas parties. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Op-Ed types who say liberal things and sound like Democrats, but the Democratic Party, as an institution, doesn't have anyone voicing its opinion on the Op-Ed page, since the party doesn't actually know what it thinks.

He does have a point. It seems like there is an awful lot of political blogs that talk about much the same thing, each trying to squeeze out a new angle that might capture the audience. "Promiscuous adverbs" sometimes is all it amounts to. But the reason is far from his allegation of too much information, it's America's narrow focus of interests in politics.
But there is a purpose to political blogging, even if repetitive.
From another WaPo Blog William Raspberry:

The same torrent of information that makes blogging attractive also underscores one of the services columnists provide: the weeding-out function. During those times when a single story dominates the news -- as during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath --you don't really need a columnist to help you know what to think. It's those other times, when there is genocide in Darfur, political violence in Gabon, race riots in France, bird flu in Asia, the toppling of a government in Canada and a congressional scandal in the United States, that you may find it helpful for someone to arrange the information for you -- not so much to tell you what to think as to tell you what, among thousands of options, you might want to think about.


News organizations have always done that, of course, in what some describe as a gatekeeping function. That is, they not only decide what is on the news agenda in any given news cycle but they also do their best to screen out bad information and to distinguish between hard fact and rumor -- something the unchecked Internet cannot always do.

Point well made. But now he loses his way.

To say you read it in The Post or the New York Times is to claim some level of authenticity. To say you read it on the Internet is about as helpful as saying you heard it on the telephone. That's the branding function of newspapers.

This is no longer the case. It seems that everyone has an agenda. The MSM has become a conduit for powerful special interests. One can no longer tell news from propaganda. The only solution is to check multiple sources, with different axes to grind, to attempt to ferret out something near the truth.

But sometimes you feel the need for something more. I find it useful to have a half-dozen opinion columnists digest the day's offerings for me so I get a sense, from several points of view, of what is worth spending my time thinking about.

Back on track. I blog for myself. I write to share my insights into the patterns of events across the globe. I've come to believe I have a knack for pulling out the forest from the trees. But ya know, as much as I'd like someone to read this, even if no one did, I'd still write it. It purges my anger, frustration and helplessness and gives me one last chance to find understandable patterns that separate world events from chaos.

Bating From Left and Right

Political conflict is rife in this country. Too many people are resorting to name calling, finger pointing, even down right prejudice. I'm probably no better than the next blogger when I get angry about something. After all, what got me into blogging was my anger and frustration with the growing Republican plutocracy and risk of theocracy.
Politics has become less about ideas and education, more about bating emotions and distortions of the real issue. One is either a part of solution, or part of problem. Let this day be the first we all back off the rhetoric and put more effort into education rather than spreading hate and discontent.
Below are several lessons in this topic:
Seeing the Forest

The Republican charge that there is a "war on Christmas" is a prime example of this. Now we find out who they have been implying is behind this war - because they're dropping the code words and saying it out loud. Townhall.com: The Jewish Grinch who stole Christmas by Burt Prelutsky:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?


[...]How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? [...]Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in.


[...]When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront. [...]But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that’s just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.


[...]It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.


[...]I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

Heritage's TownHall is central to the whole Right Wing Noise Machine. Heritage Foundation is the hub of the "conservative movement" that now controls the Republican Party. The Christian Right has learned to use code words to disguise the anti-Semitism at the core of their movement, but here they just come out and say it.


You think I've been kidding when I say that "liberal media" comes straight out of the old far-right "Jew media" and "Jew York Times" stuff? "Liberal" and "Jew" used to be interchangable words for the Right. They have always been able to talk about the ACLU to get votes in the South, but here you see what they have meant.

The quote from the Townhall.com is disturbingly anti-semetic. He is calling the ACLU a Jewish organization, condemning all Jews as if they are all ACLU members. It's not only prejudice, it's stupid illogic won't impress anyone but another anti-semetic.
Dave Johnson in his conclusions makes a similar albiet much less flagrant error. He concludes that far right wing nuts are predominantly anti-semetic. Case in point, the author of Stop the ACLU is pretty far out to the right. But on today's page, he's supporting Liebermann as a potentially good Secretary of Defense. Here is an example of far right wing without anti-Semitism. After all, Neocons are pro-Israel and often Jewish. The far right and the Neocons last time I looked are still tightly aligned in foreign policy.
Doubly disturbing however, is another article on the ACLU saw today in the New York Times:

But another matter was more urgent: smoothing out a soured relationship with one of the organization's biggest donors, Peter B. Lewis, the insurance magnate, who was unhappy with Mr. Romero and the board and was threatening to suspend his contributions. After a red-eye detour to Los Angeles and a breakfast with Mr. Lewis at the Beverly Hills Hotel in August 2004 , Mr. Romero assuaged his concerns and persuaded him to continue his financial support, including an $8.5 million gift largely to buy a new office building in Washington.


Mr. Romero has had less success winning over his critics within the organization itself. Among issues big and small, they have fumed over his commitment to name the new building the Peter B. Lewis Center for Civil Liberties - without consulting the board or its executive committee. "I don't think it's appropriate for us to name anything after anyone other than a founder or leader of the organization," Marjorie Esman, a lawyer who represents the Louisiana affiliate on the board, wrote afterward in an e-mail message."We are not for sale, and I don't like to convey the impression that we might be."


Mr. Romero's operating style, as shown in the building dispute, has led to a rift in the organization, with some applauding his winning ways and others fretting that fund-raising has become too much of a priority. Since Mr. Romero stepped into the job just four days before the Sept. 11 attacks, the A.C.L.U. has been transformed. Under his watch, membership and revenues have risen sharply. The use of data to maximize contributions has become more sophisticated. Big donors have been wooed and won. At the group's first membership conference in Washington in 2003, 1,500 members descended on Congressional offices.

I support the ACLU because they are consistent. They don't chase emotion, they stand on principles. Even though I don't support everything they do, I'm a member.
But now we see the ACLU has some serious in-fighting at the very time we need them the most. Fascism has raised it's ugly head in America, under the far rightwing of the Republican party. Our rights are in danger. The poor have been already targeted as scapegoats funding tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting health care and housing for the poor and disabled. Now we see prejudice is being spoken in the same paragraph as religion.
We live in dangerous times. End your conflict, ACLU. Get back to business. You are going to need all the funding you can get to beat back what's coming. The far right wing nuts are gloating.

Double Talk about Torture

Rice chooses Ukraine for this announcement. Perhaps it's to reassure them that their possible CIA run gulags are needed and won't give them any trouble. To the press, Rice, as usual, minces words in the tradition of Doublethink Dubya.
WaPo

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United States prohibits all its personnel from using cruel or inhuman techniques in prisoner interrogations, whether inside or outside U.S. borders. Previous public statements by the Bush administration have asserted that the ban did not apply abroad.


U.S. obligations under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, extend as "a matter of policy" to "U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," Rice said here at a news conference with Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko.


[...]In Washington, supporters of an anti-torture bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war, greeted her statement as a sign that the White House was abandoning claims that the measure could complicate the fight against international terrorism.

Between the lines she says that if anyone is using inhuman or degrading methods, they don't know about it and they are doing so at their own peril. Remember Mission Impossible? "The Secretary [of State] will disavow any knowledge of your actions."
Why would she choose Ukraine to say this? Perhaps the secret gulags aren't so secret.
UPDATE: From The Next Hurrah, not many are believing the double talk these days.

From the Telegraph:

The world's two most powerful women had probably been hoping for a more relaxed encounter yesterday, even if Catherine the Great stared down at them from a portrait. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, was on the defensive as never before since taking office.

From the Bush-friendly Times:

Despite the uproar in Europe over America’s “extraordinary rendition” of suspects to countries such as Afghanistan, and claims that secret CIA prisons are located in Romania and Poland, Dr Rice said that she expected American allies to co-operate and keep quiet about sensitive anti-terrorism operations. Abandoning the emollient tone that she has adopted towards Europe during her 11 months in office, she pointedly reminded European governments that they had helped the US for years in a “lawful” policy of rendition — the removal of suspects to third countries for interrogation.

Apparently, we're not the only ones who have had it with outright lies and deceptions from this Administration. But torture is something that crosses all bounds of, at the risk of sounding downright European, civilized behavior. McCain is right. We lose more than we gain. How bad is it? Saddam's in the dock, a known dictator and human rights violator, lecturing the US (and the Arab world) during his trial about Abu Ghraib. It doesn't get much worse than that.


That's inevitably what happens when, like Cheney, Gonzales and Bush, you condone torture instead of condemning it. Oh, not by what Rice says, but rather by what the US does (and by what Cheney says). Well, Bush and his cronies including Rice have brought this on themselves. Why should Europe trust these people? Why should we?

The Litmus Test: Fascism vs. Democracy

Some people believe that during wartime, our civil liberties should be effectively suspended, even if that war is a never ending war like the "War on Terror". Think Progress quotes Bill O'Reilly and one of his guests former Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

The media can no longer sustain their pretenses of being aloof, objective observers dispassionately recording events. The media are combatants. [from a new book New Glory: Expanding America’s Global Supremacy, Page 49]

Peters took his thesis to Fox News last night. When asked about a recent ABC report that the CIA moved detainees out of secret prisons in Europe prior to Secretary of State Rice’s visit, he said:

When ABC or any other outlet gives away our national secrets, or verifies them, and underscores them by repeating what others have said, and seems to verify for the world — look, they are putting Americans at risk. They’re putting our allies at risk, as you observed. And they’re putting our programs at risk. … But worst of all, Bill, it’s killing American soldiers. [The O’Reilly Factor, 12/6/05]

Bill O’Reilly agreed with Peters’ new definition of the media:

I would not have reported what ABC News reported. I would not have done it. I — as you know — didn’t put Abu Ghraib pictures on this broadcast, the only television journalist not to do so. I do feel that the press has a responsibility to help the government in the war on terror. [The O’Reilly Factor, 12/6/05]

Funny, and we thought freedom of the press was a fundamental democratic value.

If, as in the War on Terror, there is a never ending war and civil liberties such as freedom of the press, laws against torture, and the voters no longer have the right to be informed about what is really happening, democracy is effectively shutdown. America becomes a plutocracy, government by the monied. That ladies and gentleman is fascism, pure and simple. That's the government given a free hand to use any means without justification or accountability. I think these statements make O'Reilly and Peters sound like neo-Nazis. Fascism is alive and well in American government today.

Central Asia Moves Away From the US

Bush has lacked a cohesive foreign policy throughout his Administration. The incompetency unfortunately extends beyond Iraq to Central Asia. However, the Washington Post editorial today shows the same shallow reasoning that got Bush into trouble.

IS RUSSIA a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism? You wouldn't know it from the bitter campaign Moscow is waging to thwart President Bush's democracy agenda in Muslim Central Asia. Mr. Bush rightly believes that political liberalization in the energy-rich and mostly authoritarian republics that lie north of Iran and Afghanistan is essential to denying Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist movements influence or bases in the region. Yet Moscow insists on portraying U.S. encouragement of free media and free elections as a plot to extend Western influence at Russia's expense. Russian President Vladimir Putin offers a warm embrace to any autocrat who rejects reform.


[...]Uzbekistan thus joined an emerging Moscow-led bloc of dictatorships. Belarus, home of Europe's last strongman, and Turkmenistan, ruled by a despot whose cult of personality rivals that of Kim Jong Il, are charter members; Mr. Putin is also working hard to win over authoritarian Armenia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Through his diplomats and the Russian media, he conducts a mendacious propaganda campaign, arguing that U.S. support for independent civic groups, free media and opposition political parties is a cover for CIA-sponsored coups. He presses Central Asian governments to expel U.S. forces from bases while offering energy and military deals of his own. He publicly applauds fraudulent elections and crackdowns on opposition movements.

Bush first engaged the new republics in Central Asia, seeking bases and cooperation. Speaking of human rights and liberalizing the political process were appropriate topics for discussion. But contrary to the Neocons perspective that democracy will sprout where ever you feed it, we see in every headline on Iraq how naive that position was. Yet, Bush stupidly changed course in his second term, using coercion to the sitting governments and covert aid to the political opposition, he actively undermined what had been a good start in engaging Central Asia.
Recognizing the threat, they have one by one turned back to Russia as a friend they can trust, who supports their values. Russia is merely exploiting Bush's incompetence.
The active engagement of China begun by Nixon is a good example of the approach that might have worked. Once countries share a economic success through heavy trade, persuasion, even gentle coercion becomes an option. Bush played his cards before he had a winning hand.
Truly, the article points out some of the ways Russia has not been helpful. But isolating Russia and restarting the cold war will make things worse, not better. Quiet diplomacy and active trade is a potent long range strategy with all potential adversaries.

AIPAC Not Happy With Rice's New Approach To Iran

AIPAC, an Israeli interest and spy agency operating in the United States. They've been very cozy with the Bush Administration and ultimately led an aid to Doug Feith, Cheney's man> at the Pentagon, Franklin and his two buddies at AIPAC being indicted for espionage.
National News

"We're prepared to see if the Russians can explore something that may bring the Iranians around to the recognition that they cannot enrich and reprocess on their territory, that they have a credibility problem with the international community as to the fuel cycle," Rice told USA Today last week. "We'll see whether it works."


Within days of Rice's interview, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee delivered a rare public criticism of the Bush administration. "Last week's decision allowed Iran to win a critical round in its game of cat-and-mouse with the international community," AIPAC said in an email earlier this week headlined "IMPORTANT -- AIPAC press statement critical of Administration's recent decisions on Iran policy." AIPAC and Israel had hoped that the United States would nudge the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, into referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council last week for sanctions. The IAEA board met last week in Vienna and deferred a decision on whether to refer Iran to the Security Council while Britain, Germany and France -- the "E.U. 3" -- try to negotiate with Iran.


[...]But that could be too late, according to an assessment by Maj.-Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, Israel's military intelligence chief. "If, by the end of March," the IAEA board "does not succeed in transferring the issue to the Security Council, it will be possible to say that the diplomatic effort has failed," Zeevi-Farkash reportedly told the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee this week.


[...]"The danger is a global danger, and I think it is entirely clear that we cannot allow situation to emerge where Iran becomes a nuclear power," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said. Israel's military chief of staff said Sunday that he doubts diplomatic pressure will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project," Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz told foreign journalists. "I don't believe for the time being that political pressure will bear any fruit."


Iran says it has no interest in enriching uranium to weapons levels, and wants only to convert it to fuel for peaceful energy purposes. But AIPAC and Israel are concerned that allowing Iran any uranium conversion capability would bring it dangerously close to weaponization if the E.U.-Russia deal falls through.


[...]Another factor informing resistance to the E.U.-Russian formula is that advocates of sanctions do not regard Russia as entirely trustworthy when it comes to Iran. Russia has an array of defense and nuclear investments in the Islamic republic, and Russian media reported Friday that Russia and Iran have just signed a $1 billion missile deal.


[...]The undercurrent of the U.S. strategy appears to be to allow Russia to realize how stubborn the Iranians are, a process that would finally drive Russia into the camp in favor of sanctions. "We were supportive of the efforts of the E.U. 3," the official said, referring to a failed agreement last year to shut down Iran's nuclear cycle. "They came to a dead end. Now we're trying to be supportive of Russia's efforts."

But there is more too the Israeli's discomfort. They have indicated that they prefer Assad to an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Syria. And they are very concerned about the new initiative of direct talks with Iran. Juan Cole at Informed Comment shares his view:

US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad is going to start direct talks with the Iranians. Say what? Wasn't Scott Ritter saying only last winter that a Bush military attack on Iran was in the offing? What has changed?


Well:
1. The security situation in Iraq is deteriorating over time.
2. The Shiite religious parties won the Jan. 30 elections, which was not what Bush had hoped for.
3. The Neocons are going to jail or given sinecures, and their star is falling faster than the Chicxulub meteor that killed off the dinosaurs.
Veteran journalist Jim Lobe has put it all together in a tight analysis I haven't seen elsewhere.


It is the return of Realism in Washington foreign policy. You need the Iranians, as I maintain, for a soft landing in Iraq? So you do business with the Iranians. This opening may help explain why Ahmad Chalabi went to Tehran before he went to Washington, and why he was given such a high-level (if unphotographed) reception in Washington.


Likewise, it helps explain the Cairo Conference sponsored by the Arab League, the results of which were an effort to reach out to the Sunni Arab guerrillas. The Iraqi government even recognized that it was legitimate for the guerrillas to blow up US troops! This is a startling admission for a government under siege with very few allies. But it recategorizes the Sunni Arab leaders from being terrorists to being a national liberation force. You could imagine dealing with, and bringing in from the cold, mere nationalists. Terrorists are poison.


The Neocons began by wanting to destroy the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and their Baath Party, and then going on to overthrow the ayatollahs in Iran. They inducted Bush and Cheney into this over-ambitious and self-contradictory plan, which depended on putting the Shiite Iraqis in power in Baghdad. But wouldn't the Sunni Arabs violently object? Wouldn't the Iraqi Shiites establish warm relations with Tehran.


Of course. The Neocons kept getting their promoters to proclaim how brilliant they are. But Wolfowitz isn't exactly well published as an academic, and Feith is notoriously as thick as two blocks of wood. Their plan was stupid. It is hard to escape the conclusion that they are, as well. And now the stupid plan has collapsed, as anyone could have foreseen (I did, in 2002). And Realism is reasserting itself.


The two beneficiaries of the 180 degree turn by Bush's ship of state toward the fabled shores of Reality? The Neo-Baath of Sunni Iraq and the ayatollahs in Tehran. But who cares? If the US dealing with them can get our troops home and prevent a regional war that screws up the whole world, it will be well worth it. Ambassador Khalilzad has all along been the most pragmatic of the Neocons. There was even a time in the mid-1990s when he was willing to deal with the Talaban to get a gas pipeline built from Turkmenistan. His pragmatism (which the Neocons may well castigate as a lack of principle) will stand him in good stead in his talks with Tehran. The thing you always worry about is that it is already too late.

While I'm not as optimistic as Cole on this topic, I think the gist of his argument is true. Condi seems to have brought an element of realism to the Bush foreign policy. But after her press conference yesterday, clearly the lying and deception continues.
Speaking of optimists, here is one that made me chuckle.
Open Source

Late in our show What John Murtha Wrought, Chris asked the question “What would your ideal President do now in Iraq?” Anatol Lieven, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, suggested that Bush, like Nixon to China, approach Iran. Iran, intransigently nuclear-bound and newly lippy about Israel, is not going to go away, and it does not seem, so far, to have been put off by our democracy-building project in Iraq. Some are suggesting (see our show Steven Vincent, Basra and Iran) that the war in Iraq has allowed Iran to do precisely what it always wanted to do: make real its natural inclinations toward the Iraqi Shiite majority.

Can you imagine Bush doing something so statesman like as going to Tehran and shaking hands with Ahmadinejad? More realistically, the Bush Administration seems incapable of doing anything but dictating terms of agreement. I don't see much negotiation.

Corporate Interrogators in Iraq and Afghanistan

Lockheed-Martin has gotten into the contract interrogator business.
CorpWatch

Susan Burke, a lawyer for Iraqi prisoners who say they were tortured at Abu Ghraib, challenges the legality of using private contractors for interrogation. "Interrogation has always been considered an inherently governmental function for obvious reasons. It is irresponsible and dangerous to use contractors in such settings given that there is a long history of repeated human rights abuses by contractors." The Philadelphia attorney charges that the use of private contractors is illegal. "The United States Congress has passed laws (the Federal Acquisition Regulations) that prevent the executive branch from delegating "inherently governmental functions" to private parties."

Some might argue this is a weak argument. What the heck is an "inherently" government function. However, the real scary issue is that we are using tax payer dollars to train and enable corporations with no public accountability to enter into an arena of government responsibility that has been exclusive: intelligence, foreign policy, even manipulating media reports in the US by actually or just appearing to change world events. Now it's interrogation. Next will it be rendition? Or is this already happening?
Anyone watching the multinationals world-wide have seen them manipulating events and public opinion to further their interests. Natural gas interests talked of seceding their gas rich deposits and land from Bolivia. I'm sure this has been played out many times over the past couple of centuries.
What terrifies me is multinationals secretly conducting their own corporate foreign policy in a coordinated way using the tools, technology and ruthlessness of the CIA. Where do you suppose the Bush foreign policy team will go after 2008? I'm sure there will be jobs waiting.

Cheney's Rich!

Raw Story

An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year, RAW STORY can reveal. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.

Not surprisingly, even in a blind trust, Cheney made sure he's a rich man. His stock benefit amounts to $8 million of debt that will be paid by future taxpayers, our children.

Starving The Beast

Since Reagan, Republicans have been committing deliberate sabatoge of the American economy, so far at the expense of our children. The tactic is called "starving the beast". I've been talking about this topic since the second month of this blog and a half dozen times since then. I suppose I continue to be as disbelieving that first, a loyal American would do this and that the voting public seems blissfully unaware while they too pile up their credit card accounts. While the latter appears to be true, the guys doing this are loyal to capitalism, even if it's the death of the American way of life.
Here is a post that is very visual and understandable. Even the creator of the chart is astounded by it's implications. Hat tip to Brad DeLong for the link.
Angry Bear

Even with the Bush administration's probably unrealistic goals for cutting NDNHS discretionary spending, their budget plans will result in on-budget deficits of $400-$500 bn (roughly 3% of GDP) for the next several years. And of course, this forecast assumes steady real GDP growth of roughly 3% per year. Much more likely, of course, is that there will be a recession sometime in the next five years, which will cause the deficit to be much, much larger.


But the truly remarkable thing about the graph is just how far federal revenues have fallen over the past fifty years. It appears that successive tax cuts, especially those by Reagan and Bush, have driven down federal revenues in a permanent way. Equally important, it is clear that those tax cuts have NOT driven down federal spending; the only substantial decline in federal spending happened during the 1990s, following a major tax increase in 1993. Yet more evidence that the "starve the beast" theory has the empirical validity of the Ptolomaic solar system.

Fixing the Game

The times has an excellent editorial that outlines the political slant law enforcement has slid toward since Bush became emperor president.
New York Times

The rules of American democracy [...] say the majority party of the moment may not use its powers to strip citizens of their rights, politicize the judicial system or rig the election process to keep itself in office.


There are sections of the Justice Department that are supposed to be dedicated to enforcing the laws that protect the rights of all Americans, not just Republican officeholders and the people who give them money. [...] The Justice Department has been suppressing for nearly two years a 73-page memo in which six lawyers and two analysts in the voting rights section, including the group's chief lawyer, unanimously concluded that the Texas redistricting plan of 2003 illegally diluted the votes of blacks and Hispanics in order to ensure a Republican majority in the state's Congressional delegation. That plan was shoved through the Texas State Legislature by Representative Tom DeLay, who abused his federal position in doing so and is now facing criminal charges over how money was raised to support the redistricting. The Post said the lawyers charged with analyzing voting rights violations were overruled by political appointees, and ordered not to discuss the case. The Justice Department then approved the Texas plan, which had been under review because the voting law requires states with a history of discriminatory election practices to get electoral map changes approved in advance.


[...]Last month, the Post reported that political appointees also overruled voting rights lawyers who rejected a Georgia law requiring that voters without a picture ID buy one for $20 - at offices that were set up in only 59 of the state's 159 counties. The Justice Department falsely claimed that the decision to O.K. the law - which was little more than a modern-day version of a poll tax aimed at reducing turnout among poor minorities - was made with the concurrence of the career lawyers. A federal court later struck down the law, properly.


[...]The Post said the administration has filed only three lawsuits regarding discrimination in voting. All came this year, and the first accused a majority-black district in Mississippi of discriminating against white voters.


The administration's abuse of its narrow electoral majority extends to other areas. Mr. DeLay's requirement that lobbying firms contribute only to Republicans and hire his loyalists comes to mind.


Mr. Bush and his team don't understand that they merely hold the current majority in a system designed to bring periodic changes in the governing party and to protect the rights and values of the minority party. The idea that the winners should trash the system to make sure the democratic process ended with them was discredited back around the time of the Bolsheviks. MORE

Yes there may well be a history of some favoritism for the ruling party. But trashing the system, particularly upsetting the checks and balences between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches undermines the very foundation of our democracy.
If you want an plutocracy, move to Latin America or Africa! If you want a theocracy, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia!

Hillary May Have Found the Formula To Win

Hillary may have found the message to win the presidental election:
My Way News

"It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she wrote.

This is the position that won Richard Nixon the election against Humphrey. And this isn't neo-Republicanism, either. This is just plain smart politics. She is no less aware of the disaster Iraq is, and can't possibly see a win in Iraq in any strategy. No one but Bush and the Neocons are that stupid. If she could carry the Jewish vote, or at least divide that vote, carry other minorities, the NE and the West coast as well as take a handsome Iraqi war voter 'tax' out of every state, she has the election won.
Here is what some polls are saying.
Election 2008

Election 2008
Hillary Clinton 47%
Condoleezza Rice 40%


Election 2008
John Kerry 43%
Condoleezza Rice 45%

Presidential Primaries 2008

Dems in Florida


The poll asked Democrats their choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.


Hillary Clinton led with 37%;
Al Gore with 14%;
John Kerry with 11%;
John Edwards with 5%;
Wesley Clark with 5%;
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden with 3%;
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson with 2%;
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold with 2%;
Virginia Governor Mark Warner 2%;
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell with 1%;
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsak with 1%;
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh with 1%;
California Senator Barbara Boxer with 1%;
15% undecided.


Fla. GOP Poll


Guliani with 23%;
Rice 21%;
McCain 11%;
Gingrich 6%;
Frist 4%;
Allen 2%;
Pataki 2%;
Santorum 2%;
Romney 1%;
Hagel with 1%
27% undecided.

Republicans are worried about Hillary. So much so some pundits are wondering about doing the unthinkable:
JustOneMinute

Instead, we have to move to Stop Hillary, Plan B - get behind her! Yeah, that's it! If righties start saying nice things about her, she will be alienated from the left forever.


OK, this is a bit risky - if Hillary is perceived as having cross-over appeal and bipartisan, centrist support, she may remain unstoppable. But hey, she is already unstoppable; maybe righty support will provoke an ardent anti-war lefty out of the woodwork and into the fray.


We live in perilous times.

Perilous for Republicans only.

Inability of Bush to fire Rumsfeld for Near Dereliction of Duty and (just shy of) Criminal Negligence

Increasingly wise Republicans are repudiating Bush for his lack of leadership. Again, Gregory Djerejian from THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH

I've now come to the point where the continued inability of President Bush (who, after all, is our Commander in Chief) to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for his repeated near dereliction of duty and (just shy of) criminal negligence have pushed me to a bursting point.


In the main, this is because of two main factors: 1) his inability to hold Rumsfeld accountable, and 2) his kow-towing to Dick Cheney on the torture issue where the clear way ahead is that of John McCain, and Victor David Hanson, and Tom Kean, and so many other adult, responsible Republicans.

Israel: We prefer Assad

There is some sobering news from the Middle East. Even Israel is concerned about what Bush will do next. They are concerned about Syria without Assad.
JTA

Israel told the United States it fears the outcome of regime change in Syria. At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.


U.S. officials told their Israeli counterparts that toppling Assad could be “transformative” and dismissed concerns about an Islamist regime taking his place. Israel and the United States favor pressure on Syria to force it to stop hosting Palestinian terrorist groups and supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization.

This is not surprising. Bush only knows one strategy. "Stay the course." Josh Marshall has a pretty cute comment. There is nothing better than good sarcasm.
Talking Points Memo

I guess since we've never overthrown a secular Arab strongman only to have the whole thing blow up in our face, it's just hard to know whether the Israelis' concerns might be well grounded.

Update: Gregory Djerejian, a conservative, but not prone to falling for blind ideology chides the Bush Administration in his blogTHE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH:

Kiddies, let's not be more Catholic than the Pope on this one, OK? The Israelis know the local neighborhood, after all, better than a lot of chest-thumpers sitting in cubicles at our high-falutin' 'think'-tanks....and there are other outcomes besides, er, "evolutionary" ones that one can espy, alas...

The Bush Alliance With Sun Myung Moon

The Reverend Sun Myung Moon hasn't made the news regularly since the 1980s when the mainstream media recognized him as a leader of a worldwide religious cult. But now he reappears as the owner of the Washington Times, often called the Newspaper of the Right, and United Press International.
Some people unaware of history may say "so what?" Helen Thomas was the UPI White House correspondent for eight presidents. She was so highly respected, she was routinely asked the first question at presidential press conferences. But when Moon bought UPI, she quietly resigned.
Guardian Unlimited | Sunday May 21, 2000

She was the undisputed doyenne of the White House press corps, a no-nonsense inquisitor eight US Presidents came to fear. Helen Thomas, now nearing 80, was poised to tackle a ninth - until the worldwide wire service with which her name had become synonymous was taken over by the Rev Sun Myong Moon's Unification Church.


A formidable woman, famous for asking the first question at White House news conferences, Thomas won't be asking them any more - at least not for United Press International (UPI). For the first time in four decades, her front-row seat in the briefing room was empty last Tuesday. After 57 years she quit the near-bankrupt but once-venerated wire service rather than work for its controversial new owners.


'This room will not be the same without Helen sitting in the UPI chair,' White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters. 'She's been there for longer than I've been alive, and knows more than I'll ever know about this business, about this building, about this town.'


[...]'For most of us, she was UPI,' said ABC's Sam Donaldson, the famed former White House correspondent who sat next to her for years. 'To me, UPI just died.'


[...]But Lee Michael Katz, who quit the same day as UPI's international editor, said he had no doubt about the reasons for her departure: 'Look at the timing of this, and Helen's devotion.' He said that his own decision was 'a no-brainer' and added: 'I cannot work for the new owners.'

The rise of the Republican right-wing extremists has changed many things in America. Helen Thomas herself warns us:

As for current President George W. Bush, Thomas commented on the lack of news conferences he holds, and the few questions he answers. “He doesn’t call on me,” she said. “I don’t blame him.” Thomas drew her speech to a close with a call for the press to continue to “comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comforted.”

Moon has been one of the silent architects of the Religious/Right-wing alliance Daily Kos describes recent events.

Below: Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon ca. 1999
Neil Bush joining the conservatives Messiah Sun Myung Moon on his world tour -- this stop Manila. Moon is promoting his planet gigging unit, The Universal Peace Federation. The UPF is designed by Moon to cajole United Nations into adding a theocratic body to work within the UN structure or, should that fail, the UPF will act as Moon's own "God centered" UN. There are others who have proposed a bigger role for the religious within the UN but they have settled for operating like an NGO, working from outside the UN in an advisory capacity. In Moon's vision, the theocratic body would be a separate body and be above the current secular one, with the leader of the UN coming from this religious and "cultural" body. The UN is supposed to have laughed at the idea, yet they passed a resolution for dialogue on the subject a year ago.


[...]I find, quite frankly, no one who seems to understand Moon. People think that until we go down and vote for him in a theocracy that all is well, he isn't winning. Others ignore him because he is old and they think when he dies it's all over. They are wrong.


Moon outspent Scaife moving our nation right and theocratic. He and his operatives make it clear his job as "messiah" is to raise up the Christian "right" and bring them into control of our nation. Christianity had to be revived so they will accept him and his "work."


Let me tell you something, Moon has more to do with our nations current political climate than anyone. Anyone. Yet again, thanks to an ineffective media, our nation is unaware of his efforts.

The Bush family has in fact established a strange and disturbing relationship with Reverend Moon. Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon? is a blog dedicated to disclosing it's activities in Washington DC.

As regular readers of this blog know, attending these groups is a Bush family tradition. Barbara and George H.W. Bush have long attended Moon's lucrative and stately peace festivities, which stress the Reverend's mastery of family values as God's path to world peace. It's unclear whether wayward son Neil, who romped with prostitutes in Asia, has any special expertise in this area.


Lately Neil Bush has also been jogging with a fugitive Russian tycoon and lobbying Capitol Hill for Scientology.

What's very strange is that his right-wing benefactors are happy to take his money and ignore the disturbing truths of this guy. He is creating a false historical legacy that will place him in the center of future events. He doesn't care that he is misleading people. In fact he brags about it, and uses as proof as his central importance in coming events. From one of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's web pages:

In the year 1992 True Mother was elevated to equal position with True Father. We lost the foundation of Christianity which stands in the position of the bride. Through True Mother we reached the American Congress and the United Nations through True Mother's speaking tour. We also declared True Parents Day to the world. Men and women in the American Congress didn't know what they were doing, but as you know Congress passed the resolution of Parents Day.


[...]When God created Adam and Eve there was only one commandment that God gave to them. Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They needed to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to that commandment from God. However, they did not. When God gave that commandment to Adam and Eve He already had the foundation of absolute faith, absolute love and absolute obedience. Upon that foundation God could give that commandment in the position of subject to His objects. But Adam and Eve did not follow God's standard of absolute faith, love and obedience. Therefore God lost His love partner. We now live in the time when we have to restore the mistake of Adam and Eve. This means that we have to demonstrate absolute faith, absolute love and absolute obedience in order to accomplish the task that is upon our shoulders. In order to do this we have to grab hold of True Parents' belt and go with them all the way to the end. Then we will accomplish our mission: the building of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Amen.

This other recent event on Capital Hill was again an example of how he orchestrated events that made him look as a religious leader the most powerful bow down to.
Sun Myung Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below: Washington Times owner Sun Myung Moon is crowned Messiah on Capitol Hill.
As part of an Ambassadors for Peace ceremony, Rev. Moon was one of several dozen honorees at a ceremony at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 23, 2004. In what both church insiders and media commentators have called a "coronation ceremony," Moon and his wife were given bejeweled crowns by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-IL.


Moon announced that he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of even such murderous dictators as Hitler and Stalin, who he claimed had received "the Blessing" through him. Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him from the spirit world, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."


The media ignored the event at the time except for Moon's Washington Times, but freelance journalist John Gorenfeld spent the next three months reconstructing the details of the event. His writings forced a sheepish Washington Post, scooped by Web sites, to cover the Senate ritual, which The New York Times editorial page compared to an act of the Roman emperor Caligula.


The awards ceremony was the grand finale of the Family Federation's coast-to-coast "take down the cross" tour, intended to inspire almost 300 Christian ministers to remove crosses from their churches, the idea being that the cross has been an obstacle to uniting religions. Wealthy churches largely have refused to participate in the tour, and nearly all the church's success has been in poor neighborhoods.


The invitation for the event lists representatives Danny Davis of Illinois, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Chris Cannon of Utah, and Harold Ford of Tennessee as "Congressional Co-Chairs." Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, representatives Tom Davis of Virginia and Phil Crane of Illinois, and Republican consultant Charlie Black (whose PR firm represents Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress) were among a list of members of the "Host Committee."

Moon has financial and political ties worldwide worth billions of dollars. His ambition is no less than worldwide theocracy led by himself or his "sinless children." This guy has become my number one candidate for the anti-Christ.

'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq' Is Misleading Propaganda

What others have called "overselling", I call propaganda. The Smith-Mundt Act forbids domestic desemination of information (read: propaganda) prepared for foreign audiences.

America historically has been sensitive to the use and misuse of propaganda, especially by its own government. Americans from all walks of life react angrily when they believe that crude propaganda is imposed on them or used to disseminate inaccurate information. MORE

Technically, the Bush Administration can lie to us everyday without any legal accountability solely to the act of deceit. The problem is while the Bush Administration has lied everyday of his Administration, the mainstream media hasn't regularly challenged him. Paul Krugman has increasingly taken up this topic with increasingly shrill tones. DeLong points out that this shrillness is the antithesis of the Krugman he knew. Something has changed him.
NY Times - Paul Krugman

"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is neither an analytical report nor a policy statement. It's simply the same old talking points - "victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest"; "failure is not an option" - repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business meeting.


It's an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it's also an important test for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts - that it won't be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead the public. It's up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.


[...]There's a lot more like that in the document. Refuting some of the upbeat assertions about Iraq requires specialized knowledge, but many of them can be quickly debunked by anyone with an Internet connection.


The point isn't just that the administration is trying, yet again, to deceive the public. It's the fact that this attempt at deception shows such contempt - contempt for the public, and especially contempt for the news media. And why not? The truth is that the level of misrepresentation in this new document is no worse than that in a typical speech by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet for much of the past five years, many major news organizations failed to provide the public with effective fact-checking.


So Mr. Bush's new public relations offensive on Iraq is a test. Are the news media still too cowed, too addicted to articles that contain little more than dueling quotes to tell the public when the administration is saying things that aren't true? Or has the worm finally turned? MORE

Bush's War on Free Press

Our Democracy is based on an informed populous with access to a free press. That press is endangered on several fronts. First of all, newspapers are losing readership by leaps and bounds. Most of the voters in America rely on sound bites of news from TV. That is not the way to be an informed populous, especially since the Republican's are buying up media sources and will soon hold a monopoly on what major media will say.
Bush's war on the free press is well thought through and will be effective, unless we can educated the public before they strangle the last source of untainted information.
Free Press

America’s leadership is waging a war against the journalistic standards and practices that underpin not only a free press but our democracy. The Fourth Estate is withering under an unprecedented White House assault designed to intimidate, smear and discredit investigative journalism — and allow the president and his political cronies to lie with impunity. If left unchecked, this and future administrations will continue to:

• manipulate the media "message" by producing propaganda, putting journalists on the government payroll and tightly scripting all public events;


• dismiss all dissenting views in the media as biased and politically motivated;


• undermine public trust in journalism using the right-wing “echo chamber” to sow hostility toward reporters who challenge the official line; and


• eliminate access to information making it nearly impossible for journalists to investigate vast swathes of the federal government.

Read the whole report here.

Christmas Comes to the Hill, But Only For Some

In the Christmas spirit, our illustrious House Speaker wants to bring Christmas back to Capital Hill. He may already brought Christmas to himself according to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmunds and sources in Turkey in the form of bribes from Armanians. And then of course there are all the tax cuts for the wealthy he and his party have orchestrated. As Think Progress points out, however, it's Christmas on the Hill for the rich and the poor will have to pay the bill.

Tens of millions of Christians decorate Christmas trees each year to celebrate the marking of Jesus birth. They perform generous acts of kindness for their family, friends and the less fortunate, mindful of the Christian teaching that “faith without works is dead.”

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has decided to mark the season by loudly insisting that the Capitol’s decorated spruce be called a “Christmas tree,” as opposed to a “Holiday tree.” He is right on this point. It is a Christmas tree. And while the Speaker may consider his action a “work,” the message of Jesus means more.

If Speaker Hastert really wants to put Christ back into Christmas, he should start by joining a long list of religious leaders in supporting a budget that isn’t balanced on the back of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Before the House went on Thanksgiving break, it passed $50 billion in spending cuts that target millions of poor and working-class Americans. The budget’s Medicaid provisions “would allow state governments to impose co-payments even on the poorest beneficiaries for emergency room visits for on-emergency health problems and for drug prescriptions not on a list of preferred treatments.” The Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill “would cut food stamp benefits by about $45 a month for 225,000 people” and that 40,000 children would lose their eligibility for free meals at school. At the same time, conservatives are seeking to “extend several of Mr. Bush’s biggest tax cuts, including those on stock dividends and capital gains” — over half of the benefits from those cuts go to people earning over $1 million per year.

Hastert should heed the true spirit of Christ by caring for the vulnerable. As Jesus reminds us in Luke 4:18-20, by following his example we can “bring good news to the poor.”

Gulf Stream Sputters, Threatening EU Weather

Global warming? There is no proof that anything is happening. It's just a bunch of tree hugging liberals who want to protect the environment and prevent a fair profit.
New Scientist Breaking News

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age. The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream. The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

War Vets Chewed Up by Iraq Are Going Back!?

Veterans of the Gulf War II are being treated shabbily by the DOD. They are in tough psychological condition after multiple tours of Iraq and are being forced to go back. A few have anonymously spoken out. Thanks to Thomas Leavitt of Seeing the Forest for the link.
Coalition for free thought in media

The truth is all I am worried about right now. No one seems to be willing to listen to us soldiers who have been over there and then come home. We want to tell them to send someone else, but we can't say that in public or where anyone might hear it and report us.


I am redeploying for my second tour in Iraq and I am not real happy about it. In fact I'm quite angry that they are sending me back. I have been away from my family for almost three of the last five years, and I've had enough. Even though I'm fed up with it I can't refuse to go back. No way am I becoming a C.O. (conscientious objector) and doing time in Leavenworth. That's even worse than going back to Iraq.


You wanted some details about troops with PTSD. Okay, I can answer some questions for you.


I have PTSD that would probably qualify for at least 50% disability and maybe as much as 100%. They won't let me get through all the steps to get into the system and qualify me as having PTSD significant enough to be unable to perform my duty. I know I have it real bad, but they keep giving me the run around.


I feel I am unfit for combat. If I have to be completely honest I would be a danger to anyone serving with me. I am in no way capable of going back to Iraq and conducting operations for another year. There is no possible way I could do my duty in a normal manner, I am just having too many problems that will diminish my capacity in the field.


I am all messed up in the head and I am suffering from depression and other mental problems. I don't think I am fit to serve combat duty, but I could manage to do a non-combat job, because I have been doing all right for the last year. I can do my job as long as I am not involved with combat or high-risk operations. I think it would be a mistake on the part of the Army to expect other men to serve with me when they know I have reported my problems too many times to count. They hear it but they don't really want to listen to it.


[...]I was in one of the 1043s that got hit and even the supplemental armor was not going to stop that 155mm round. We got hit bad and our driver was killed instantly. The guy riding shotgun lost his eye and parts of his hands and feet, and got torso wounds that almost killed him right there. I got a few chunks of shrapnel in my face and hands, but I was real lucky to be behind the doorpost, which absorbed most of the blast. The other two guys in the vehicle didn't get hurt at all just shaken up.
AIRBORNE!

I would like to know what is the written policy about repeated tours of duty. Are wounded men routinely sent back to battle? Are men with significant PTSD symptoms routinely sent back? This man clearly has experienced the kind of trauma that will scar him for life. And they send him back?

I can't get the Army to admit that I have a disabling amount of PTSD and it has been very hard to get counseling or any treatment for it.


I am not to sure about writing to you, but I'll take a chance. What can they do, send me back to Iraq? I am going again so there's nothing they can really do to me. It's just my family I am worried about. I can deal with the heat if they find out about me, but my family can't get hurt. I need the housing benefits and the family benefits we get because I am serving this country.


The problem is those who speak up are harshly punished for it and pay the price for speaking up. We get in trouble while the ones who made us this way carry on as if nothing ever happened. I have seen that first hand and have been in trouble already for criticizing Bush and the Pentagon's civilian assholes. I know of some guys who wrote home and told the truth. They got so much sh_t that I don't think they wrote anything else the whole time in Iraq.


I can't relate to anyone that isn't in the military. Everything I think about brings back the horrors of Iraq. Things were so much clearer there; you didn't have to think about it, you just did what needed to be done. Now I have to think about things all the time, and it is simple stuff but I can't do it. My thought patterns are all f__ked up.


I am scared because I have a three month old daughter, and I don't know if I'll be coming back to see her. I have two sons and they are both under 10. My sons watched me leave once, now they will have to go through another year or more separated from their dad. My wife was almost ready to divorce me before I knew I had to redeploy.


This is hurting my family because I have to leave again and they worry about me all the time. I haven't been able to talk to my kids the right way. I have pushed them away so that they didn't see all the pain and sh_t I was going though. I didn't think I was going back, so I just knew I had plenty of time to get my sh_t straight, and then deal with my kids.


Now I don't have that chance because I just didn't get things accomplished like I thought I would. If I die over there then all this shit will be unresolved and be forever part of what they remember about their daddy. I don't want them to remember me as the f__ked up man who came home for a year and was yelling and freaking out all the time. I don't want them to remember me that way, as just coming home and then leaving again and not coming back.


When I was over there I was always waiting for the next I.E.D or attack. I still expect to be attacked every time I walk outside or drive around in the car. I am always ready to jump out and take cover or to react with evasive moves with the car. I scared the sh_t out of my wife so much that I don't drive unless I am going somewhere alone.


I am drinking heavily and taking enough pills to kill Elvis. I just can't sleep unless I have passed out, and even then I wake up most of the time screaming and yelling or jumping out of bed and trying to hide under it.


[...]When I was in Iraq the attacks and expectation of dying were what I probably had the most trouble with. I was in several attacks and survived a few roadside bombs and IEDs. I almost died in one attack I have to tell you about.


I was in a cargo truck that got attacked by insurgents. We were in a supply convoy and were almost to our FOB when they jumped us. We never saw it coming and I can't remember all the details even now. They hit the back of my truck with an RPG and then opened fire on us with AKs.


When the RPG hit us it knocked me out for a few minutes. I was half awake and going in and out of consciousness but I was still aware of all the shit going on around me. I heard the bullets hitting the cab of the truck and felt the shrapnel and fragments hitting all over my body. Before I fully awoke, I heard another couple gunshots and figured that he got my driver as well. I came to and saw the f__kers shooting my driver, who had tried to pull himself out of the cab and return fire.


They killed three of us that day and wounded four more. I still wake up screaming and covered in sweat when I have that dream. I saw several more soldiers get killed after that, but it wasn't the same because I was able to shoot back at the assholes. That one attack was the hardest thing I went through over there because I was helpless the whole time they were attacking us.


Wish me luck and pray for me to come home safe,
WAR SUCKS WHEN IT HAS NO CAUSE OR ENDING!


GOD BLESS AMERICA
OOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! AIRBORNE!!!!!!!!

This man has all the symptoms of PTSD. Neither one of these soldiers are fit for duty. This is the reason Murtha and van Creveld have called for withdrawl. The Bush Administration is destroying our Army and Marine Corps for a political boondoggle.