Um, Yeah...

...so I've gotten some email recently wondering what the hell happened here, and why I haven't posted in a month. Well, it's a two-fold dilemma. First off, I've found out recently that multiple blogs already use either my exact title, or slight variations of it, and so I'm not sure if I am going to continue on with publishing under this url. Second, posting over four times a day is a really hard thing to keep up with, and it seems I either go feast or famine.

I'm in the process of trying to put together a shared blog with multiple other writers, with the hope being that A) we would be able to offer commentary from different perspectives (including, hopefully, from a varying array of professional and educational backgrounds), and B) we would be able to offer substantially more content to try and retain more regular visitors. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of the solo-blogger offering his or her perspective and allowing their site to be a reflection of a particular moral and political code; however, it does leave plenty of room for the ebb and flow of regular content; and also, at least in my opinion, it can often lead to a site driven by the cult of personality, which in history has only proven to be an enemy of the free-exchange of ideas. I'm rambling.

Anyways, if you are interested in possibly publishing with me, that would be the bee's knees. I'm looking for individuals who desire true editorial partnership, along with partial ownership. Just forward a letter of interest, and three articles pertaining to progressive politics to micheil.slactivism@gmail.com. Of course I'll do my best to keep everybody up to date with my latest machinations. Until then, may you rest with sweet dreams of Alberto Gonzales (and Rove?) swept away from the halls of our executive like so much trash. Man do I miss writing about this stuff...

Done for the Day

Here's a double-shot of Neil Young to finish off here.

Neil Young - Rockin' in the Free World

A song often misapropriated at the end of the 'Cold War,' the anger for the failure of 'Reaganomics' for working Americans is palpable, and it is my favorite Neil Young song.

Neil Young - Let's Impeach the President

Most Americans simply wish Bush was not in office today. When the investigations pick up, few would be suprised to see it all end with that short jaunt to Marine 1 out on the White House lawn.

Not to Make Too Much of It...

...but this whole Britney Spears press orgy is emblematic of our culture as a whole. We are consumers. The ultimate fate of the target of our consumption is of little to no concern of us; whether its our environment, the under-paid and over-worked producers of goods and services; or, as in this case, even our young.

This girl was paraded as a sexual object for men four times older than her before she had even built any personal identity, forget a sexual one. And because she made a lot of money (and perhaps in the view of some women, because she was a little too perfect), the minute she began living her life on her own flawed terms it became the right of every member of our society to subject her to whatever pejorative attack we saw fit.

Money is money, but it can't buy self-valuation, emotional well being, or the ability to construct relationships with others on terms other than manipulation. A lot of people are a lot more fucked up at twenty-five than she is, but they never dealt with carrying the expectations of being a cultural symbol. And so now that we have sucked everything we want out of her, and men across America can't imagine statutorily raping her; we are only too willing to kick her as hard as we need to to get her to the curb. It ain't right. We as Americans literally consume our young; and along with the rest of her family, we share the blame for whatever happens to her.

But it ain't news.

A Look Back

I published this on my old blog back on October 6th of last year. Thought it was prescient today.

Injustice: American Style

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While America has never seen fit to enforce these truths absolutely; in the context of the era under which they were written, the words themselves were entirely revolutionary. At no point in this basic proclamation endowing all men and women with a basic humanity not to be violated, was the term 'American' used as a qualifier for deserving such distinction. As a nation still rabid in the grip of phantom fear, we find ourselves failing in our daily confrontations with those who would render those words useless.

Recently, in one of his few acts still strongly supported by the general public, George Bush negotiated legislation that provides guidelines in the interrogation and 'trying' of supposed terror suspects. Among these, no clear distinction of torture was created, other than to allow discretion to be left in the hands of those whom have already failed to utilize it; however, the legal adjudication system created is far worse in its lack of respect for humanity. It allows permanent detention without trial; in trial it allows those standing accused to be dealt with without public knowledge, without being supplied of evidence kept in secret, or even the identity of witnesses testifying against them.

In our zeal to deal retribution to those we have judged responsible, we have forgotten a very important necessity in the ingredients for proper justice: guilt. We claim that these individuals are guilty of crimes so heinous that we should not be required to adequately prove their guilt in the first place; our fear has allowed us to accept whatever happens to these individuals in secret, while allowing us to awaken daily with the air of innocence. Our judicial hatchet men do it all without us directly knowing, as we still continually reassure ourselves that we are the good people, and the captured barbarians operate divorced entirely from the law, as the line between ourselves and our 'enemy' blurs dangerously.

We forget that each citizen's name is written invisibly on every flag, whether it flies over the White House, or Baghdad. That even the most despotic of nations took a first step down the wrong path, on which we may have treaded out too far to turn back without analyzing what inside ourselves allowed us this moment of weakness in our resolve for honor and fairness. That what is right is right, and what is popular is popular; and though they sometimes happily coincide, the path to righteousness is often found through the solitude of speaking against the crowd.

We're Holding them Over There, So We Don't Have to Give Them a Fair Trial Over Here

Court Backs Administration on Detainee Issue

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

…

Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as ''enemy combatants'' and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics.

But most criticized by Democrats and civil libertarians was a provision that stripped U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they were being held illegally.

Attorneys argued that the detainees aren't covered by that provision and that the law is unconstitutional.

''The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress,'' Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would accelerate efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights.

(Read More)

The Military Commissions Act is a historically depraved piece of legislation. Our fear of phantom terror has lead to the complicity of the American people in something that will be recorded as the low point in our American Empire. Basic morality requires that the Democratic Party ignores political expediency in making the eradication of this legitimizing of torture and political imprisonment a fundamental priority of their charter. Or else I fear what the rest of the world will think of us (or do to us) as result.

Just Say 'No'

US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed

Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 10:28 GMT

BBC

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

…

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

(Read More)

Or if an artificial connection between an Iraqi attack and Iran can be manufactured by the Bush administration.

Busy Night

Dead Kennedys - Kill the Poor



Quite possibly one of the sharpest satirical songs ever written.

Really, No.

Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

(Read More)

There are a lot of people sitting back and saying ‘he won’t do this;’ or hoping that everything will work out in the end. If George Bush doesn’t attack Iran, it will be because the people and its Congress told him he couldn’t.

Well, I'm For that While at the Same Time I'm Against It

Giuliani 'not confident' war will turn around

POSTED: 3:14 a.m. EST, February 15, 2007

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former New York mayor and 2008 presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani said Wednesday he is not sure the tide will turn in the war in Iraq, as President Bush has said.

"I'm not confident it's all going to turn around," Giuliani told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war.

"I'm confident that we have to try to make a turnaround, and we just can't walk out, and that it is critical to us that things get to the point in Iraq that we have some degree of stability and not the way they are now," Giuliani continued. "Because if we leave it the way it is now and we run out, then we're going to face further difficulties in the future."

…

...Giuliani's positions favoring abortion rights, gay rights and gun control may not be well received by the more conservative elements of the Republican party.

King pointed out that Giuliani has said that if he won the presidency he would appoint judges who are strict constructionists and might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"I don't know that," Giuliani replied. "You don't know that."

"I am pro-choice, yes," he said. "But I'm also, as you know, always have been, against abortion -- hate abortion, don't like it, wouldn't personally advise anyone to have an abortion.

"But I believe a woman has a right to choose, and you can't have criminal penalties. ... I think that would be wrong.

"I would select judges who try to interpret the Constitution rather than invent it," he said.

Giuliani also addressed gay rights and gun control.

"Gays should be protected. ... But the way I'm portrayed by my opponents -- and I guess to drive people away from me -- is that I'm in favor of gay marriage. I am not."

However, Giuliani said he does favor domestic-partnership laws for gay and lesbian couples.

And while he favors gun control, "I understand the Second Amendment," he said. "I understand the right to bear arms.

"I think that a lot of these things have to be resolved on a state-by-state basis," he said. "And I used to say also when I was the mayor, it's one thing for New York, it's something different for Texas."

(Read More)

Maybe I’m wrong, but did Guiliani make a concise stand on even one of the issues raised here?

And you have to love the invocation of ‘states’ rights’ here, which is a vestige of the segregationist movement; and has been adapted in recent times to suit the needs of anti-abortionists, creationists, and other groups whose views have been dismissed by wider society as erroneous.

And, as far as the war is concerned; well maybe Rudy would find a way to get those lazy troops to work a little harder (video below):

Kill the Poor

Americans' savings rate drops to Depression era-low

Sun Feb 4, 12:30 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Americans spent more than they earned last year as the economy steamed ahead, pushing the personal savings rate to negative 1.0 percent, the deepest hole since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The figure, published last week by the US Commerce Department, means that not only did Americans spend all their income, they dug into savings and used credit to buy more.

Over the past seven decades, the personal savings rate -- the difference between post-tax, or disposable, income and spending -- has been in negative territory only four times: 1932, 1933, 2005 and 2006.

In the 1930s, the Great Depression explains why Americans had to dip into their savings at a time when a fourth of the workforce was out of a job.

But in 2006 and in 2005, when the personal savings rate slipped to negative 0.4 percent, the economic situation was far different, which bothers economists.

"It's surprising, especially in a period with the economy growing so strongly," said Martha Starr, an economics professor specialized in savings and consumption issues at American University in Washington.

The US economy grew by a robust 3.4 percent in 2006 -- consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of US economic output -- and the unemployment rate ended the year at 4.6 percent.

"That, I think, is what may be really shocking. We would think that with the unemployment rate so low and the economy growing so vigorously that there wouldn't necessarily be any reason for the saving rate to be so low," Starr said.

…

The American dream could fade under the glare of overspending, MetLife, an insurance and financial services group, said.

"The announcement by the Commerce Department about the negative US savings rate, which is at its lowest level in 70 years, is a bellwether for the future of the American dream," it said.

"The lack of savings, combined with the seismic shifts that have occurred in our society in the last few decades with regard to pensions, social security and health care, are increasingly putting the dream out of reach for most Americans."

(Read More)

The outright war on working people in America has been waged subversively since the end of the recession in 2001. The recent growth in the economy has almost entirely gone to the upper echelon of American class strata; and while inflation and cost of living increases continued, real wages for the vast majority of Americans have evaporated.

Between 2001-2006, national gross domestic production has grown at an average rate of 5.54% per year (source). In contrast, from November 2001-January 2006, hourly wages have only risen $0.46 (1,2). To mitigate this, working Americans have relied more on credit accounts and cashing in on the equity of their property during the recently-fading housing boom to simply maintain their standard of living. This is a consequence of a period of ‘economic prosperity’ that has only positively affected already-wealthy capital owners, while the actual physical producers of goods and services have seen their take diminish.

Furthermore, when compounded by the exponential rise in healthcare costs, and the Bush Administration’s rewriting of bankruptcy laws; the effect on the working class has been devastating. While upward mobility has been mainly quashed in the current environment, national poverty statistics have grown substantially since Bush took office. Whole new classes of working poor, and even working impoverished have been created by this national disparity. Even as this has been metastasizing in plain sight, our President and media have seen fit to encourage Americans to spend their needed savings on consumer goods and services to ‘spur’ our economy.

As it stands now, the current economic direction of the U.S. is untenable. We are creating an entirely divisive society, while promoting the highest levels of our class system toward aristocracy status. While our international situation is obviously dire and of great importance, one unnoticed benefit it has been to the right is its ability to draw attention away from this massively important issue that requires immediate debate. We are heading down a road that is going to soon pit American against American. If a majority of our citizens are fighting to maintain their current class in a time of ‘prosperity,’ then it would be wickedly immoral to fail to prepare them for future difficulties which may even place them and their families’ lives at risk. There is no reason why this cannot be resolved if not for the outright greed of our corporate kleptocracy.

Calling it a Day

Bob Dylan - Masters of War

It's More than the Middle East

From The Times

February 15, 2007

Giants meet to counter US power

Jeremy Page in Delhi

India, China and Russia account for 40 per cent of the world’s population, a fifth of its economy and more than half of its nuclear warheads. Now they appear to be forming a partnership to challenge the US-dominated world order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

Foreign ministers from the three emerging giants met in Delhi yesterday to discuss ways to build a more democratic “multipolar world”.

It was the second such meeting in the past two years and came after an unprecedented meeting between their respective leaders, Manmohan Singh, Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin, during the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.

It also came only four days after Mr Putin stunned Western officials by railing against American foreign policy at a security conference in Munich.

…

One area of agreement is opposition to outside interference in separatist conflicts in Chechnya, the northeast of India and the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang.

Another is energy. India and China are desperate for Russian oil and gas, and Moscow is worried about its dependence on Western markets. But their most significant common ground is opposition to US military intervention in Iran. The joint statement did not mention Iran, but the three countries have taken a common stance in calling for a negotiated solution through the International Atomic Energy Agency. None of them wants a nuclear-armed Iran, but Russia sells Tehran nuclear technology and India and China need Iranian gas.

(Read More)

We are entering a very dangerous time. China, along with Japan, is the largest creditor nation to the United States, providing much of the previously unbudgeted costs for the Iraq War. India’s rapid ascent into the first world will only create greater competition amongst the developed world for energy. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin may be the most powerful man on Earth, as he establishes a new Russian autocracy that gives him dangerous levels of control over his nation.

The idea that America can act unilaterally without concern for the anxieties expressed against its foreign policies is no longer valid. Our excursions into Middle East imperialism are eroding American strength threefold: by creating a significant us vs. them scenario with the other world powers, which affects trade in valuable commodities (most notably energy), and causing a coalescence of world powers tired of being disregarded as irrelevant; by placing the United States in compromising positions in which in a dispute, nations in direct competition with us can call for repayment of debts owed (possibly crashing our economy); and by handicapping the functional abilities of what was the most powerful military on Earth.

It is precisely because of this position of weakness that others view an opportunity to challenge the status of U.S. hegemony. Should we choose to invade or bomb Iran, irreparable damage may be caused not only with these nations, but Europe as well. The unfortunate irony for the Bush Administration is that our persistence on displaying our strength in response to the completely unrelated event of 9/11 has only gone to compromise the status of American Empire.

However, if China and Russia were truly interested in a more democratic management of global tensions, then their steadfast refusal to consider reforming the structure of the United Nations Security Council is blatantly hypocritical. At least Bush makes no pretense of caring what other nations (or his own people) think.

The New Scarlet Letter

Wednesday, 02/14/07

Lawmaker wants Tenn. to issue death certificates for abortions
By ERIK SCHELZIG
Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee would collect death certificates for aborted fetuses under a bill introduced in the General Assembly.

Rep. Stacey Campfield said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed in Tennessee. The measure would also likely create public records on which women are having abortions.

"All these people who say they are pro-life -- at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," said Campfield, R-Knoxville.

The measure would give abortion providers 10 days following an "induced termination of a pregnancy" to file a death certificate with the state Office of Vital Records.

"Hopefully we'll be able to get a little information out of this," Campfield said.
Campfield acknowledged his bill might have a hard time making it through the Democratic-controlled House. But the Republican-controlled Senate "will probably pass it," he said.

House Judiciary Chairman Rob Briley, D-Nashville, called Campfield's proposal "the most preposterous bill I've seen in eight years in the Legislature."

…

Tennessee law already requires abortions to be reported to the Office of Vital Records, though the identities of women having abortions are not included in the reports. Death certificates require identifying information like Social Security numbers.

(Read More)

The Evangelical Anti-Sex Jihad strikes again.

The idea that public records of women who receive abortions would exist for the same zealots who have assassinated doctors and blown up clinics to peruse is terrifying. It is blatantly obvious that this would eventually lead to public condemnation and possible violence against women who want control over their bodies.

Furthermore, this is also a subversive attempt at abortion suppression. The day a woman can no longer count on receiving treatment in a private facility which provides absolute confidentiality is the day that desperate women fearing a judgmental society either travel out of state, seek out unregulated facilities that provide possibly unsafe (but confidential) treatment; or don’t seek any at all.

The attempts of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement to frame the issue as the protection of unborn children are intentionally duplicitous. This is part of a broad campaign to attempt to force evangelical ideas of sexual chastity on to wider society. When Plan B (commonly referred to as the ‘morning after’ pill) came up for FDA approval for sale without prescription, it met with efforts within the Bush administration to keep it from happening, despite both FDA studies recommending this reclassification; and the fact that Plan B acts BEFORE CONCEPTION. Compounded by fundamentalist-driven attacks on sexual education programs, and the idiocy of Republican-implemented ‘pharmaceutical discretion’ laws in allowing pharmacists to deny filling prescriptions on the basis of their personal belief; it becomes increasingly clear that the right wing stance on abortion is nothing more than a segment of a wider cultural view in which the many must acquiesce to the moral belief structures of the few. This fundamentally undermines democracy.

You Can't Trust Him.

February 14th, 2007 -"I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops."

January 28th, 2003 - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


We won't get fooled again.

The Clash - Clampdown

Most hits ever today, just a little Clash to say thank you for reading.

Only Pussies Believe in Diplomacy

Tentative 'deal struck' over N. Korean nukes

POSTED: 5:07 p.m. EST, February 12, 2007

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- North Korea has tentatively agreed to close down its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy aid, U.S. and Chinese officials said Tuesday.

But the proposed deal was being reviewed by officials in the negotiators' capitals before becoming final.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead American official at the talks, said the United States will give an unspecified amount of energy assistance to North Korea in exchange for North Korea freezing its production of plutonium.

Hill said negotiators are running the agreement by their capitals and would reconvene later Tuesday.

"We feel it's an excellent, excellent draft," Hill said. "I don't think we are the problem."

The United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia have been holding talks with North Korean officials since 2002 in an effort to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program. (Read More)

But we can’t talk to Iran. Because, you know, then nobody would die.

Spring Training Begins Next Week!

After a while, anybody gets sick of talking about war, so with that in mind, here’s this:

February 12, 2007, 02:40 PM ET
Bern It Down

by Jay Jaffe

So Bernie Williams has undertaken his version of Operation Shutdown, refusing the Yankees‘ admittedly half-assed offer of a minor-league contract for a player who — no matter his long list of accomplishments or central place in building their recent dynasty — has no business being on their 2007 roster. Instead Williams plans to continue spurning guaranteed offers from other teams and wait for the Yankees to change their minds and offer him a guaranteed roster spot. In other words, he’s painting himself into a corner roughly the size of the spot on the Venn diagram where the keen strategy of a four-year-old’s hold-breath-until-blue temper tantrum meets a paraphrased Yogi Berra chestnut: if he doesn’t want to come to spring training, nobody’s going to stop him.

…

Ok, enough piling on. I’m not trying to be harsh; I wish Bernie absolutely no ill and thank him for the fond memories, and hope that he simply takes the hint and bows out gracefully. The real purpose of this post is to get to reader Devin Lavelle’s emailed question:

I was just wondering if you could update us on Bernie Willams’ HOF status. I’ve always believed him to be likely the greatest unheralded players of this era. I think his HOF qualifications are fairly borderline — but I think he should be in.

According to the latest build of JAWS (which sometimes differs from what’s on our DT cards), which I presume is what Devin is asking about, Williams scores at 106.2 career WARP3, 63.6 peak and 84.9 overall. That’s the ninth-best score among all centerfielders:

Player           Career  Peak   Overall

Willie Mays      206.1   91.9   149.0

Ty Cobb          190.0   81.8   135.9

Tris Speaker     173.2   77.8   125.5

Mickey Mantle    155.1   85.3   120.2

Ken Griffey Jr   130.9   79.4   105.2

Joe DiMaggio     120.2   77.3    98.8

Jim Edmonds      103.9   70.6    87.3

Richie Ashburn   105.0   66.1    85.6

Bernie Williams  106.2   63.6    84.9

Andre Dawson     109.5   58.4    84.0

AVG HOF CF       111.7   65.1    88.4

Good as it is, Williams’ score is 3.5 points below the average Hall centerfielder, though it is well about the median Hall centerfield score of 76.3. As an aside, I’ll note that I don’t think I’ve ever received an email critical of my decision to make JAWS such a mean bastard that wasn’t arguing in favor of a sentimental favorite’s JAWS score relative to the median rather than the average — which is actually not the average, because I drop the lowest at each position, so I call the positional scores “standards”. The point of JAWS, as I’ve always maintained, is to ever-so-slightly raise the bar of Hall selections by identifiying above-average candidates.

In any event, by the JAWS method, beloved Bernie falls shy, but JAWS knows nothing about Williams’ five All-Star appearances, four Fielding Grammies, 22 postseason homers or four World Series rings, the kind of stuff that can — and should — be factored into an informed voting decision. I suspect Williams will fall shy when his name comes up for a vote in six or seven years, but that he’ll creep in eventually, either because so many writer hold him in high esteem due to his key role within the Yankee dynasty (the Olney position) or because he’ll be at the upper end of a Veterans’ Committee ballot, with a candidacy significantly stronger than the Roger Maris types certain factions tend to wishcast into Cooperstown.

This is a source of constant debate with friends of mine. I’m almost hoping Bernie moves on to another team so he can pad his credentials a little more.

Sure, I am entirely biased; and Bernie is by no means an easy Hall of Famer. However, there have been many, many worse selections. After 8 years as a Yankee season ticket holder, and being a fan long before that, I’m going to feel a little older the day Bernie Williams isn’t roaming the outfield in Yankee Stadium anymore.

And in Other News, The Sky is Blue

Ex-Bush Iran official: US seeks pretext for conflict with Iran
David Edwards
Published: Monday February 12, 2007

A former top Bush administration official for Persian Gulf affairs has said in an interview this morning on CNN that the US may be trying to spark a conflict with Iran.

Hillary Mann is the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. She warned in the interview that the recent flare up between Iran and the US over the former's alleged assistance to Shi'a militias results from a US desire to provoke conflict with the Iranians.

"They're trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," Mann said. (Read More)

No.

I don’t care what ‘evidence’ the White House cares to come up with, I steadfastly refuse to accept any military action against Iran under any pretenses.

That is it; that is my stance. The intelligence agencies who report to a voracious, war-driven executive branch cannot be trusted to produce impartial information that at some base level is not driven by the motivations of the Bush Administration. The question now is not ‘if’ Cheney bombs/invades Iran; but instead if the American public and Congress will allow him to.

Today, officials attempted to offer proof of material support from Iran for Sunni fighters and Shiite militias whom have consistently attacked U.S. forces and contractors. Newsweek writes of the briefing:

A trio of American military officials led the show. Their mission: rolling out the administration’s case that Iran is supporting attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Under the rules of this afternoon’s briefing, the three could not identified by name. No TV cameras or tapes were allowed in, and journalists’ cell phones were taken away before they entered the briefing room. But if their job was to provide proof of Tehran’s involvement in Iraq’s bloodshed, they’re unlikely to convince the doubters with what was shown Sunday.

If the Administration has absolute confidence in their assertions, then why hold this briefing under such tight control? Under the best of circumstances, the Iraq War will be remembered in history for pre-war intelligence rife with inconsistency and sloppiness (if not outright deception and malice). The idea that ANY international maneuvering, particularly that which may lead us toward war; could be conducted without ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY only further explicates the totalitarian-based fantasy world that Cheney and Co. live in.

With two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf right now, and allegations that plans floating around the Pentagon reportedly center on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to disable Iran’s nuclear enrichment program; what people often fail to take into account is proxy war. The minute that American bombs strike Iran, the likelihood is that occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (both border nations) will become untenable. Considering the current state of deterioration, an honest appraisal of it would be calling it outright ground war; causing casualties in numbers significantly higher than that currently seen. Where are our re-enforcements to send in this likelihood? Oh, that’s right. They don’t exist.

I do not believe that Iran is a threat to the United States, our allies, or interests. I do not believe our nation is financially prepared to accept the burden of worsening military engagements in the Middle East. Though our bombs are mighty, the rest of our army is in disrepair while mired in compromising positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is not fair to ask so many more of our uniformed personnel to sacrifice their lives for the bloodlust of our Executive. I believe it is immoral to leave another nation in ruin and its people suffering or dead. I neither believe nor trust our President; nor those who work under him. Therefore, I am a member of the American majority. It is up to us. Are you tired of five and a half years of death and war? Then stand and shout until you are heard. We can no longer stand aside and shrug our shoulders in expressions of powerlessness; the stakes are too high.

This Is Not a Game, People!

Hillary: I didn't vote for 'pre-emptive war'

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

Friday, February 9^th, 2007

Manchester – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton today insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

…

Clinton said Bush and his administration “have performed a great disservice to our men and women in uniform, to our country, to our vital national security interests in the region and to the ongoing struggle against Islamic extremists.”

Clinton spoke with UnionLeader.com and the New Hampshire Union Leader on the eve of her first campaign visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state this weekend.

She said she does not “at this time” support a cut in funding for American troops in Iraq. She backs instead a cut in funding for Iraqi troops.

“We have got to get their attention,” she said of the Iraqi leadership. She said they “do not fulfill their promises and make “worthless” assurances. (Read More)

Meanwhile…

Obama declares candidacy for US presidency in 2008

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Saturday February 10, 2007

Washington- US Democratic Senator Barack Obama Saturday announced officially his candidacy for the US presidential election in 2008. Announcing his presidential bid to rapturous crowds on his home turf of Springfield, Illinois, Obama, 45, a fast-rising African- American, pledged to free the US "from the tyranny of war".

"America, it's time to bring our troops home," he said. (Read More)

Hillary Clinton is playing word games with the lives of both Iraqis and American soldiers. She believes that she can play both sides. That she can continue intellectually dishonest prattle of how she would deal with an insignificant Iraqi government differently; while also believing that with a wink, the activist left will trust her in her efforts to triangulate.

Obama may be a latecomer to John Murtha’s party; however he is currently the only mainstream candidate who has advanced legislation calling for a withdrawal. He also holds distinction as being in the minority of candidates who did not vote for the resolution to give Bush authorization, as well as voicing clear disapproval of the impending invasion. Clinton attempts to insinuate that she was never enthusiastically supporting invading Iraq, but unfortunately for her, the modern world has things like video cameras, tape recorders, and reporters with notebooks:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Hillary Clinton, United States Senate, October 10^th, 2002

The importance of our current context requires that Clinton admit that not only was the Iraq policy flawed, but that her support of it was a mistake. Without a clear disavowal of her previous position, she cannot be trusted to not make similar errors in the future. Indeed, even as the Iraq war rages, another unnecessary confrontation looms in the horizon.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel

The Associated Press

Published: February 1, 2007

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

…

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said. (Read More)

The reason why Hillary Clinton is dangerous is because she views and utilizes war as a political tool. Everyday as the Iraq war degrades, and the mice jump off the sinking ship; her triangulations and wordplay only go further to ensuring her defeat in either the primary or general election.

Some issues require tests of personal integrity over political expediency; and Clinton consistently fails every one. The Iraq War is not just unpopular; it represents a world view and ideology that Americans have grown to understand is wrong. Clinton’s dogged persistence in supporting it is both immoral, and a miscalculation. As was so eminently clear in November, we are entering into a new age of American liberalism, and this Thatcher clone is unfit to carry our banner.

Honey, I Didn't Mean to Cheat on You! It Was All George Tenet's Idea!

(The original video from Doug Feith's appearance on The Situation Room has been pulled from YouTube. To see the clip, head over to Crooks and Liars)

One of these days, George Tenet is going to tire of being the fall guy; and when that day occurs, the White House and Office of the Vice President will have another thing coming. This is all the result of attempts by Cheney and Rumsfeld to set up an autonomous intelligence unit within the Pentagon which they utilized to promote their Iraq policy. They browbeat the CIA into submission in the run up to the war, and now are trying to deflect all blame toward them.

But intelligence officials are neither stupid, nor powerless. The day one of them flips, and tells where the metaphorical bodies are buried just might be the end of the Bush Administration.

Cultural Bankruptcy

A society is often judged on who it celebrates. I am less upset with our media's infatuation with this inconsequential passing than I am terrified that this is what American society wants to discuss. This segment is nothing more than another segment in our national freak show. And it isn't news.