8/8/07
8/7/07
Chalmers Johnson
I should note that when Chalmers Johnson speaks about the end of the Republic, he doesn't mean that everyone's going to die. Rather, he suggests that because of our rampant militarism and the global actions we set forth on the world, we will sooner or later be attacked and this country will not know why -- this is what he refers to as blowback -- us being attacked and due to be actions of our government that were taken SECRETLY without anyone's knowledge.When we are attacked, people cannot put the attack in context and ask questions like "why do they hate us." This will lead to end of our constitutional republic. Both the Roman and British empires faced a choice between keeping their democracy at home or their empire abroad, a historically unstable combination. The British chose their democracy and gave up their empire, the Romans did the opposite. Which will be the way the US goes?
Chalmers Johnson essay on Empire v. Democracy.
Chalmers Johnson interview with world public radio (GOOD ONE).
Chalmers Johnson short interview.
Chalmers Johnson long interview.
Chalmers Johnson long interview with Charles Goyette.
And here's another one I found with a little on the press, the Roman Republic, and war with Iran.
Gingrich: War on Terror is Phony
So even inside of the Bush Administration, the war on terror has been written off as a scam that served its limited political purpose and is finished.
In the last couple of weeks, Gingrich, Cheney, and several other major architects have “revealed” that the war was always just about oil. And you thought it was weapons of mass destruction . . .
8/6/07
Iraq crumbling.
122 Dead in Civil War Violence;
The Collapse of the al-Maliki Cabinet
Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks at WaPo have an excellent overview of the collapsing security and political situation in Basra. What most American observers do not realize is that as Basra goes, so goes Iraq. Meanwhile, As the British withdraw, they are leaving behind dozens of Iraqi interpreters whose lives are in danger because they are seen as collaborators by Shiite militiamen.
Chris Hedges opines,
The war in Iraq is about to get worse—much worse. The Democrats’ decision to let the war run its course, while they frantically wash their hands of responsibility, means that it will sputter and stagger forward until the mission collapses. This will be sudden. The security of the Green Zone, our imperial city, will be increasingly breached. Command and control will disintegrate. And we will back out of Iraq humiliated and defeated. But this will not be the end of the conflict. It will, in fact, signal a phase of the war far deadlier and more dangerous to American interests.
Iraq no longer exists as a unified country. The experiment that was Iraq, the cobbling together of disparate and antagonistic patches of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious powers in the wake of World War I, belongs to the history books. It will never come back. The Kurds have set up a de facto state in the north, the Shiites control most of the south and the center of the country is a battleground. There are 2 million Iraqis who have fled their homes and are internally displaced. Another 2 million have left the country, most to Syria and Jordan, which now has the largest number of refugees per capita of any country on Earth. An Oxfam report estimates that one in three Iraqis are in need of emergency aid, but the chaos and violence is so widespread that assistance is impossible. Iraq is in a state of anarchy. The American occupation forces are one more source of terror tossed into the caldron of suicide bombings, mercenary armies, militias, massive explosions, ambushes, kidnappings and mass executions. But wait until we leave.
inside the "black sites"
The New Yorker's Jane Mayer goes in to the dark side of the CIA's hidden torture sites. (intense and disturbing)
long live the decider!
In lieu of the recent Chamberlain-esqe appeasement by 57 Democratic congressmen and women I thought it would be appropriate to bring in an old quote. It's in oldie but a goodie.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. --Hermann Goering
8/3/07
8/2/07
The last days of democracy and what you should do
Truthdig speaks with Elliot Cohen, author of “The Last Days of Democracy,” who argues that the United States is in political and cultural decline, with media and telecommunications giants engaged in “a well-organized effort to hijack America.”
Scheer: But, I want to know, does that mean you have hope? Do you have hope that this system can be changed or do you think that it’s hopeless and we should just kind of cower and go away?
Cohen: Never cower. Never cower. It’s not over until it’s over, and right now we need to understand that that’s where we’re heading. And it’s easy enough to say, “Well, you know it happened in [Nazi] Germany, but we’re different.” That’s a very pompous attitude. As though Americans are somehow different than Germans. They’re not. They’re people. And if we don’t watch it, this is where we’re heading. Well, what do we do about it? There’s thing we can do. Well, one thing is for the average person to make sure that they’re informed: To stop relying on mainstream media as much as they do, and to get their information from independent media. Then really when you look at the survival of dictatorships, and whether they thrive or not. They thrive on keeping people ignorant. And if the masses of people are just ignorant and they don’t take responsibility for their failure to know, then we aren’t looking in the face of hopeless dictatorship; people need to wake up. They need to start learning about what’s going on and they need to say, “We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it.” They need to join activist movements like, for instance, Free Press , which is an organization that’s been really doing a lot to try to counteract the taking-over of the free Internet and the destruction of Internet neutrality. And a lot of other causes about media ... [like] organizing massive letter-writings to Congress. People need to start thinking in terms of doing these sorts of things. Peaceful assemblies. And demonstrations. These are constitutional rights, and as long as we have these rights in our Constitution we should make sure that we see that through. These are things that we need to do. Educators should stop placating and looking for fair and balanced and start speaking out because there’s danger here and every educator has an obligation to step up onto the plate as a vanguard of democracy. The lawyers of this nation, including the American Bar Association, need to present a unified front against violations of the rule of law. They did that at one point where they denounced Bush’s instituting signing statements to do away with the congressional lawmaking authority and they made it clear that it was illegal and unconstitutional. But we need to be more unified as educators as citizens. As journalists too. I think the journalists associations and the schools of journalism need to start making a unified stand that, you know, journalists need to be vanguards of democracy. We need to get back the Fourth Estate, and we can’t simply support these large corporations allowing this go down the tubes and that’s exactly what’s going on. I think we need to take the unified stand. Is it going to happen? Well, you know, people like us, you and your site and the things that I’m trying to do with the book and doing these kinds of interview are the things that more of us need to take seriously. And listen and learn. Is that going to work? Well, I think that we better do that. It’s better than laying down and playing dead.
read the full transcript here.
Or just Listen Here.
7/31/07
7/28/07
Must-Read article on martial law
As we go about our daily lives -- our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing -- we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.
Bruce Fein isn't an alarmist. He says he doesn't see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever." (It may be significant that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, has called for the revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq, but not of the earlier 2001 AUMF, which Bush claims makes him commander in chief of a borderless, endless war on terror.)
Great Discussion of Al Qaeda and Iraq
For one of the best discussions I've heard yet on Al Qaeda and Iraq check out this episode of Bill Moyers Journal. He interviews Fawaz a. Gerges, a scholar with extensive knowledge of the Middle East, and Brian Fishman, a member of the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy.
Here is a transcript.
1933 coup and the F-word in America?
The BBC reports on a plot to overthrow the government by... who?... you guessed it, Prescott Bush et al. (W's grandfather). (must-not-miss)
David Swanson has a wonderful commentary and a startaling history lesson here.
Why you should be proud to be a partisan
Jane Hamsher pens a really inspiring and touching story on why you should be proud to be a 'partisan.'
The need to fight right now to restore the Constitution and end the war is strong, and that means some people are going to have to take a stand against a ruthless and intractable opponent. We need to rally behind them and acknowledge their heroism rather than stand back and allow others to tear them down as “partisans” for their willingness to do so.
Because sometimes fighting is the right thing to do.
7/27/07
Psychoanalysis Of a Madman
Ray McGovern in other members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity with the assistance of Dr. Justin Frank have just released a report entitled, "Dangers of a Cornered George Bush." It is a must-read and frankly when of the most unsettling I have come across in recent time. Here is a synopsis,n this special memorandum, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated with psychiatrist Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch, to assess the potential dangers and possible countermeasures available to constrain Bush:
Echoing many of my posts on this blog, this article shed slight of the very real danger that Bush will attack Iran. Dr. Frank adds in his analysis,
George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong.
...George W. Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course.’” He does whatever he wants.
He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.
...
His certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a b-b-gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers.
His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular with reporters when talking about American casualties in Iraq. Instead of seeing a president in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the absence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, in the vain search for which so many young Americans died.
And looks at the following contingencies,
Scenario A: Destructive Attack on the Green Zone
Scenario B: Israeli Attack on Nuclear Targets in Iran.
But What if Impeachment Begins?
Scenario C: Congress Cuts War Funding This Fall
I cannot recommend this article enough, it is a must read. Continue reading here.
7/26/07
Peak Oil
$100 a barrel of oil in the coming months? via Bloomberg
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The $100-a-barrel oil that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said would prevail by 2009 may be only a few months away.
Jeffrey Currie, a London-based commodity analyst at the world's biggest securities firm, says $95 crude is likely this year unless OPEC unexpectedly increases production, and declining inventories are raising the chances for $100 oil. Jeff Rubin at CIBC World Markets predicts $100 a barrel as soon as next year.
BusinessWeek chimes in with the piece titled "From Peak Oil To Dark Age?," here is an excerpt:
Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.CNN profiles a billionaire investor discussing what he perceives as the next issue.
What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.
GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession. But policymakers can hide behind the possibility that vast troves will be available from unconventional sources, or that secretive oil-exporting nations really have the huge reserves they claim. Yet even if those who say that the peak has arrived are wrong, enough disturbing omens—for example, declining production in most of the world's great oil fields and no new superfields to take up the slack—exist for the issue to merit an intense international focus.
The reality is that it will be here much sooner for the U.S.—in the form of peak oil exports. Since we import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume, global oil available for export should be our bigger concern. Fast-growing domestic consumption in oil-exporting nations and increasing appetites by big importers such as China portend tighter supplies available to the U.S., unless world production rises rapidly. But output has stalled. Call it de facto peak oil or peak oil lite. It means the U.S. is entering an age when it will have to scramble to maintain existing import levels.
Educate yourself at this site, The Oil Drum, which provides an introductory overview.
Then watch these videos:
A short (15 minutes) new segment from Australia that provides a basic outline.
A documentary from Ireland that's very well made.
A Patriot Speaks (UPDATED)
I forgot about posting this article after reading it but it's well work it.
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
for more on the cover-up plus allegations of murder click here or here.
Mary Tillman lets her thoughts be heard today after the news broke.
For the best story of Pat Tillman's life I have come across yet, checkout this Sports Illustrated piece on him.
Tillman's comrade clarifies the story on his last moments.
7/25/07
7/24/07
Three short (<10 minutes) interviews that will explain why Iran is NOT a threat to the US
First, Click here for a 12 minute interview with Dr. Gordon Prather,
Nuclear physicist Dr. Gordon Prather debunks the War Party’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program.
Then click here for a 5 minute interview with Juan Cole,
Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, debunks the War Party’s claim that the president of Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Lastly, and most importantly, Click here to hear the 10 minute interview with Philip Giraldi.
Former CIA counter-terrorism officer and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi debunks the War Party’s claims that Iran backs al Qaeda, explains U.S. support for the terrorist groups Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah against Iran, and the two most likely circumstances in which Cheney will use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.
The Impetus To Withdraw
Recently, the former director of the NSA under the Reagan administration, General William Odom, wrote an essay calling for a strategic change in Iraq. Specifically, Democrats should frame the notion of “supporting the troops” as withdrawing them.
General Odom goes on to say that Congress should withhold funding of the war if the president does not comply. What’s more, he advocates impeachment if Mr. Bush tries to “extort” Congress into funding the war.
Isn’t General Odom emboldening the terrorists by setting timetables for withdrawal?
Nonsense, experts say. This is confirmed by ex-CIA analysts like Michael Scheuer, who warn that our continued presence in Iraq greatly exacerbates the threat of terrorism. According to Mr. Scheuer, the invasion of Iraq “broke the back of our counterterrorism efforts” and validated every claim that bin Laden spread to his followers.[i]
As the LA Times opined, “Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap.”[ii]
Fellow CIA analyst Bruce Riedel adds in Foreign Affairs that Al Qaeda has welcomed and celebrated the US invasion as an opportunity to kill Americans and pursue its ‘bleed-to-bankruptcy’ strategy.[iii],[iv] With more than 3600 US dead and spending at the rate of $14 million an hour, we are certainly assisting Al Qaeda in both goals.[v]
But if we withdraw, won’t Al Qaeda follow us home, as the president and others has repeatedly warned?[vi] After all, we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, as Mr. Bush has repeatedly claimed.
The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was recently released is evidence that both these claims are fallacious. Fred Kaplan of Slate and professor of Middle East history Juan Cole offer the following argument derived from the NIE.[vii],[viii] ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ (AQI), an affiliate Salifi Jihadist group in Iraq that has threatened attacks on US soil, is one of the main factors for the NIE to conclude that the United States is “in a heightened threat environment.” AQI didn’t exist in Iraq under Saddam’s rule prior to the US intervention and only came into power long after the occupation, empowered by anti-American opposition to the invasion. Therefore, the US invasion is at least partially responsible for AQI’s emergence, as many intelligence officials warned. AQI would not exist had it not been for President Bush’s war.
As Mr. Kaplan concludes, not only is the President’s argument wrong, the exact opposite is true – “that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here.” Mr. Kaplan and others conclude that this is the reason why the US should start withdrawing from Iraq.
Surely though, a US withdrawal would embolden Al Qaeda as supporters of the war like Senator John McCain have claimed. It would give Al Qaeda a permanent base from which to launch attacks.
Analysts like Riedel concede that indeed Al Qaeda will take credit for a US withdrawal, but quickly point out “Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.”ii
The recent Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks states that most experts agree that Al Qaeda will not likely take over Iraq, noting that while the group is particularly lethal, military officials report it is only a responsible for 15% of the attacks in Iraq.
What about the moral responsibility we bear to the Iraqis? Surely, there will be a power vacuum once the United States withdraws and a likely genocide.
In truth, the genocide has already begun. West Baghdad is being “cleansed” according to Colonel Patrick Lang and the United States and we don’t have the numbers to control it.[ix] As General Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War said in March, “"Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now…Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.”[x]
Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke adds, “All the things they say will happen are already happening. Iraq is already a base for terrorists; there is already a civil war. We've got 150,000 troops there now and we can't stop it.” Moreover, journalist Nir Rosen describes the current situation as “complete anarchy,” echoing Mr. Ricks’ description of Iraq as resembling the Hobbesian ‘state of nature.’ix
The president was briefed about this reality as far back as November 2006 when CIA director Michael Hayden said, “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible.”[xi]
In regards to the responsibility we owe to the Iraqis, first consider these sad and undeniable truths; several hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed so far as a result of the US invasion, nearly 2 million refugees have fled Iraq, of which the US has accepted less than 200 in fiscal year 2006-07[xii], and an average of 55 Iraqis are killed every day due to the sectarian violence.[xiii] That is a monumental debt which we cannot repay.
If we do have a responsibility now, surely it is to follow the will of the Iraqi people. If spreading ‘democracy’ is so highly valued in this administration, then it should listen to the Iraqis. The overwhelming majority (more than 70%) want a timetable for US led forces to withdraw, including more than 90% of Sunnis, the group most likely to be persecuted by the majority Shia.[xiv] The Prime Minister has also expressed his view that American forces can “withdraw anytime they want,” a sentiment shared by the majority of the Parliament, which backed a bill favoring US withdrawal back in May.[xv],[xvi]
As for our country, in a July USA Today/Gallup poll, more than 70% support withdrawal for all but a limited number of US troops by April 1 of next year.[xvii] Moreover, according to Think Progress, 60% of those who participated in a Military.com poll (the largest military and veteran membership group) favored troop withdrawal as well.[xviii]
So what happens after withdrawal?
DeYoung and Ricks report that Iraq could separate into three autonomous entities due to a withdrawal, citing a recent “war game” simulation carried out for the military. Senator Joe Biden -- whose son is in the Army and likely headed to Iraq next year -- is a longtime advocate of the three-state solution. There will have to be intense regional diplomacy, unlike anything this administration has offered. He warns however, that without such a political solution and dramatic change in the near future, the likely result will be much, much more catastrophic than the situation at hand.
How much more catastrophic can things get if there is not dramatic change? Vastly more, experts say. Zbigniew Brzezinski warns
If the war continues without any American willingness to accommodate regionally and to pull out, the Iraq War will be extended to Iran. And if we get involved in a war with Iran, that raises the prospect of a twenty-year-long involvement in protracted violence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and probably Pakistan. I'm not a prophet, but if the president doesn't change course, then the more grim prognosis is a likely one.x
Nir Rosen fears
…borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice. Throughout the region, government officials are terrified. Nobody knows how to stop it. This is World War III. How far will it spread? Anywhere there are Islamic movements, like in Somalia, in Sudan, in Yemen. Pakistan has always had Sunni-Shia fighting. The flow of Iraqi refugees will at some point affect Europe.
General Tony McPeak envisages the worst-case scenario
The worst case? Iraq's Sunnis begin to be backed into a corner, then the Sunni governments -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia -- jump in. Israel sees that it's threatened by these developments. Once the Israelis get involved, then everybody piles on. And you've got nuclear events going off in the Middle East. That would be about as bad as it could get.x
In conclusion, Mr. Riddell and former national security adviser Samuel Berger opine
A clear US commitment to a complete, irreversible withdrawal from Iraq may now be the only way to develop a regional concert of powers that could work with Iraqis to try to stabilise the country and cauterise the conflict.
The continuing US and British occupation is a roadblock to that co-operation. The galvanising impact of a decision to depart unequivocally can be the last best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region. How we design and implement our departure is our last significant remaining leverage.[xix]
The grim consensus is there are no good answers. One thing is clear, those who advocate President Bush’s ‘stay the course’ strategy are clearly leading this nation on a perilous path against the will of both nation’s populous. The tragedy of the entire Iraq debacle is that withdrawal remains at best, the least disastrous of all options.
7/22/07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
