Peace Rant

Derailed.

No wonder George Bush is traveling in Europe in hopes of “securing his legacy” as recent articles have put it.  His legacy here at home is pretty much a foregone conclusion:  Worst President Ever.

A new New York Times/CBS opinion poll found that 81% of Americans believe “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.”  It’s the worst result since this question was first asked in the early 1990s.

A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.  [New York Times article]

That’s a national consensus of opinion almost unheard of in this country.  Are the Democrats in Congress listening?  They’ve been running scared from the threat of a presidential veto on any number of issues—Iraq war funding, wiretapping and other assaults on civil liberties, torture.

I think Congress needs to confront the veto pen with this national consensus.  Let Bush bluster and bluff and engage in his fear-mongering.  Backed with such bi-partisan consensus, Congress could roll over Bush as easily as a skateboarder skims over fresh new asphalt.

While they’re at it, Congress might want to actually listen to the national conversation.  Again, from today’s NY Times article:

In assessing possible responses to the mortgage crisis, Americans displayed a populist streak, favoring help for individuals but not for financial institutions. A clear majority said they did not want the government to lend a hand to banks, even if the measures would help limit the depth of a recession.  [Emphasis added.]

Americans almost always display a populist streak.  We’re no dummies, when you get down to it.  Clear majorities have long favored national health insurance, for example, but Congress has always allowed the monstrous medical industry to call the shots.

There may never be a better time to aggressively push a progressive agenda than now.  The villagers aren’t quite storming the gates of the citadel with pitchforks and flaming torches, but the mood of the country is an angry one.

And that’s something Bush can’t veto.

Episode 23: The audacity of farce (4/2/08)

Click to Play

Admittedly, this one is a bit over the top, almost out of control.  No, I'm not talking about the video.  I mean the presidential campaign!  (OK, the description applies to the video, too.)

Last lap for Statesman Guy

Bush is off to his last NATO summit as President and his presumably final summit meeting with Vladimir Putin.  Perhaps Bush can peer into Putin's eyes one last time, not to see his soul again, but to perceive the seething resentments his foreign policy has created.

The standard story line in the corporate press has to do with Bush trying to "salvage" his legacy.  As Reuters put it, Bush will be "seeking to reassert himself on the world stage in the twilight of his term..."  Hasn't this man asserted himself enough already?  No matter.  The consensus seems to be that other world leaders are looking past Bush and will just bide their time on major policy matters until there's someone new in the White House.  They don't much care who it will be.

What's not mentioned so much by the corporate media is the huge blow to the chin that Bush just took with the recent Maliki - Sadr clash in Iraq.  Our man Maliki's "surge" against Sadr's Mahdi Army was a miserable military failure.  Even worse for Bush, the negotiated settlement to the round of violence was brokered by Iran.  And to top it all off, the negotiations took place in Iran.

Iraqi political leaders from both sides of the recent strife met in secret in Iran:

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.  [Iranian general played key role in Iraq cease-fire, McClatchy News]

You wouldn't know this from James Glanz's latest New York Times story about the negotiations.  Not a word about Iran.  To me, however, Iran's role is the story.  Iran's role in Iraq, and the region, just took a huge step forward.

Which may very well mean that the likelihood of a US attack on Iran -- before Bush runs out his legacy -- has just increased.

P.S. - The Iranian general who brokered the ceasefire is on the US terrorist watch list.

Update:  Juan Cole has a fresh-out-of-the-oven article about Maliki's surge over at Salon.  Why al-Maliki attacked Basra 

At long last, democracy takes root in Iraq

The Iraqi parliament has enacted a law calling for provincial elections to be held on October 1.  This is a benchmark breakthrough, pushed by Cheney on his recent visit.  Whoopee, rejoice ye all!  Democracy at last.

The setting of an election date also explains, to an extent, the recent outburst of violence in Iraq:  Election season in Iraq is underway.

The government says it is fighting "outlaws", but Sadr's followers say political parties in Maliki's Shi'ite-led government are using military force to marginalize their rivals ahead of local elections due by October.  [Reuters article]

Sounds just like an American election.  Marginalize.  Attack.  Destroy. 

By George, they've got it!

Tibet, torches, and our own backyard

A friend sent me an AP photo -- well, it seems to be an authentic AP photo -- depicting a man who is presumably pro-Tibet, shall we say.

Click on the image to see a larger version.

The killing of citizens in Tibet, their only crime being protest, is unacceptable, unconscionable.  Protests against this kind of repression are welcome.

Some (mostly the guilty) argue against using the Olympics as a forum for protest.  "It's all and only about athletics."  Hogwash.  It's an international event.  Given the chance for even a moment on a global stage, any organizer for social change would be negligent not to try for it.

So, with that in mind, and the hope that the AP photo gets global coverage, I submit my own version (humbly auditioning for that global stage), directed at protesting another international human rights outrage.

Click on the image to see a larger version.

4,000 US dead. Page 9.

Tonight's post has been evolving all day.  And the evolution has gone from bad to worse.

Earlier today while reading the New York Times -- the print edition, whilst basking in the sun in my backyard -- I noticed that the report of the deaths of four more US soldiers in Iraq was exiled to page 9.  And so I thought I would blog about how Iraq has fallen out of the news.

When I sat down at my computer this evening to put blog to electrons, I first checked out tomorrow's New York Times -- digital edition and the sun has long since set -- to find a bit of bitter irony.  The business section has an article titled, "The War Endures, but Where’s the Media?"

Since the start of last year, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a part of the nonprofit Pew Research Center, has tracked reporting by several dozen major newspapers, cable stations, broadcast television networks, Web sites and radio programs. Iraq accounted for 18 percent of their prominent news coverage in the first nine months of 2007, but only 9 percent in the following three months, and 3 percent so far this year.  [Link]

A perfect fit for what I already wanted to write about.  And so the post evolved.

I decided to make a quick check of my email before writing.  There I found two messages announcing the fact that US deaths in Iraq had just reached a new milestone number:  4,000.  Another grim evolutionary turn for my once-modest blog entry. 

[NYT does have an early AP wire story about this on their home page now.]

The business section article speculates about possible reasons for the declining media coverage.  Here's the first explanation, Excuse A:

The drop in [media] coverage parallels — and may be explained by — a decline in public interest. Surveys by the Pew Research Center show that more than 50 percent of Americans said they followed events in Iraq “very closely” in the months just before and after the war began, but that slid to an average of 40 percent in 2006, and has been running below 30 percent since last fall.

Hold on.  The paragraph begins with a conclusion, then cites statistics that may just as well support an exactly opposite conclusion.  Let's rework that first sentence:

The drop in coverage parallels — and may be explained by — a decline in public interest.

The decline in public interest parallels — and may be explained by — a drop in coverage.

I think the second iteration is the right one.  Perhaps the Times would like to test the theory by putting Iraq back on page 1?

Today's US deaths were accompanied by day-long mortar attacks on the Green Zone and more than sixty Iraqi deaths.  Meanwhile, continuing to explain away the dearth of media coverage, the Times goes on . . .

He [Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow on national security at the Brookings Institution] argued that Americans who support the war might not have wanted to follow the news when it was bad, and that Americans against the war are less interested now that the news is better.

You bet.  The news just keeps getting better and better.  At this rate it won't be long before the news about Iraq is so good that it disappears entirely.  And then there'll be no need to even mention the 5,000th death.

Episode 22: Son of a Ditch (3/20/08)

Click to Play

Brother can you spare $30 billion?

Dick Cheney explains democracy. So?

Let's allow only the annointed to speak tonight.  Mr. Cheney's deep philosophical grasp of the concept of democracy is awe-inspiring.  Martha Raddatz, ABC News, interviews the Dark Lord.  The topic is Iraq:

RADDATZ: Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting . . . the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So?

RADDATZ: So -- you don't care what the American people think?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No

Of course I'm not making this up.  Transcript, video here.

Five years. The crime remains the same. Out now.

This above all else:  The US invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression.  It was and remains an unforgiveable offense against international law and basic human rights.  It is an offense against common sense and common decency.

Unforgiveable.

Iraq posed no threat to the security of America.  None.  Iraq was physically, geographically, economically, and militarily incapable of posing a threat to this country.

At the Nuremberg war crime trials -- the prosecution of Nazis for the aggression that led to World War II, and the horrific war crimes that followed -- the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, said . . .

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Our country crossed the line.  We launched a war of aggression.  Worse, it was a war of choice and political opportunity.  We destroyed a country because we could.

The supreme international crime.

With bonus points.

There no can be excuse, no reason, no logic, no humanity, no morality, that can argue for the perpetuation of the supreme international crime.

The crime is done.  It can never be made right again.  But it can be brought to an end.

Out now.

Are you feeling economically stimulated yet?

I received my Economic Stimulus Payment Notice from the IRS recently.  I was very excited.  Stimulated, in fact.

Under the economic stimulus plan approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush, about 128 million households will receive checks for approximately $600 per adult.  Everyone, of course, is expected to rush right out to purchase unneeded electronic gizmos which were designed in Japan and manufactured in China.  This will stimulate our economy.

Under an entirely different economic stimulus plan, decreed by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, with no vote from Congress, the investment bank Bear Stearns will receive a check for $30 billion.  That works out to $234.38 for each of the households getting the $600 checks.

Let's look at this from some other angles.  Without the Bear Stearns bailout, maybe we could all be receiving checks for $834.38 instead of a mere $600.00.  Think how many more consumer gizmos we could buy to stimulate the economy.  Or, maybe what's happening is that we're being asked to write a check to Bear Stearns as our first stimulating act.  That brings the stimulus package down to $365.62 per stimulated taxpayer. 

That means fewer electronics for us taxpayers, of course, but the news comes as a big relief to Alan Schwartz, Top Dog of Bear Stearns, who is barely managing on his $16.5 million per year compensation.

What a generous, caring people we are to come to the aid of a single powerful corporation like Bear Stearns.

What about the nearly two million people who are facing foreclosure on their homes, you might ask?  Hey, $365.62 is more than enough to rent a U-Haul van for the weekend.  What's the problem?