Sunday, June 22, 2008

A Sorry Interruption



January 19th 2008
America and the world

The Great Experiment:
The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States,
and the Quest for a Global Nation

Strobe Talbott

[Mr. Talbott] is frankly partisan, a multilateralist who sees the unilateralism of Mr Bush's presidency as a sorry interruption in history's inexorable progress towards a more consensual world in which going it alone can no longer answer pressing problems such as nuclear proliferation and climate change.







"Mr Bush's presidency [is] a sorry interruption in history's inexorable progress towards a more consensual world."



Thursday, May 31, 2007

We Have Spoken

Support for impeachment growing...in new places

The people have spoken, but Congress has failed to answer. When push came to shove, the Democratic party establishment decided to fund the war effort without condition. Their decision is in direct contradiction with the majority of the country, which is against the war and the Bush administration by a large and ever-growing margin. But rather than be turned away, that majority has decidedly stepped up to the plate. Just over the last month, the impeachment movement and antiwar movement have expanded their organizing efforts and increased their visibility.

A veteran of the Afghanistan war speaks out against Bush in New London on May 23

On May 23, Bush was the featured speaker at the commencement ceremony of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT. In response the people of New London and surrounding areas came out in force, displaying impeachment and anti-war signs and banners directly outside the Academy. Local police and members of the press estimated that 1,000 protesters came out -- a remarkable number considering the fact that the protest took place on a Wednesday morning, and that New London hasn't been home to any such protests since the 1980s.

Three days later, Dick Cheney arrived in West Point, NY to speak at the Military Academy there. He received a similar welcome, with impeachment and anti-war activists and volunteers filling the street to the Academy's entrance. Both these protests were supported by ImpeachBush.org, along with dozens of other progressive and anti-war organizations. This is an important stage in the development of the impeachment and anti-war movements. Big national protests are important displays of unity and strength, but our success requires that the impeachment message be felt not only in the big cities, but in every neighborhood across the country.

Yesterday the New York Times ran the picture above of a member of the North Shore Women for Peace, after a demonstration in Highland Park, Ill.

Yesterday the New York Times ran an article "Some Hitherto Staunch G.O.P. Voters Souring on Iraq," which revealed the increasing resentment for the war in the areas previously considered Republican heartlands. The article also interviewed members of the North Shore Women for Peace, an organization in Highland Park, Illinois, which has opposed the war from the beginning, but now "more passionately than ever. According to the Times, the group "had never gone so far as the call for Mr. Bush's impeachment -- until recently. Now they carry yellow signs with black letters that say 'Impeach.'"

These activities are becoming increasingly popular. The Times reported that when the North Shore Women for Peace initially staged protests "in the breezeway of a high-end strip mall in nearby Highland Park... they drew sneers, expletives, and many thumbs down.

"By 2005, members said, they had found a more neutral audience, given to stares but little else. Recently, people smiled in support, honked their car horns and volunteered to join the cause at a peace rally.

"'Anything I can sign?' asked one shopper, Lynne Black, a retiree from Wilmette. 'I feel desperation at this point.'"

Our movement must and will continue to reach people just like Lynne Black, to let them know that yes, there is something you can sign: an impeachment petition. And this is exactly what we've been doing. Due to the recent flurry of impeachment activities, including the ImpeachBush.org ad in the Hartford Courant which reached over 200,000 readers and received tremendous support, over 25,000 additional people have signed the petition to impeach Bush in the last several weeks.

You can help place more ads for impeachment and help ImpeachBush.org support local impeachment activities by making a much-needed donation today. To make your donation, click this link.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Impeachment X 2

Conyers Comes Out For Impeachment

Posted by Guest Blogger at 7:55 AM on May 30, 2007.

David Swanson: The House Judiciary Committee chairman breaks with Pelosi and joins the growing list of legislators around the country supporting Bush and Cheney's impeachment.

This post originally appeared on The Smirking Chimp

Advocates for impeachment can take some measure of encouragement not just from the 85 cities and towns and 14 state Democratic parties that have passed impeachment resolutions, or the 11 state legislatures that have introduced them (Maine was #11 on Tuesday), but also from comments made Tuesday evening in Detroit by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

For about a year now there have been two Congressmen Conyers, the defender of our Constitution and the follower of Nancy Pelosi in her ban on impeachment. Citizens in Detroit organized a town hall forum on impeachment and invited the Congressman. Both John Conyerses came on Tuesday, and they both left partway through the event. But, judging by the Associated Press story, Conyers the impeachment advocate was winning the internal battle.

There's a very short version of the AP report posted on websites.

The report reads in its entirety:

"Detroit Congressman John Conyers says he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But he stopped short today of pledging to take action to back it. The veteran democratic [sic] lawmaker chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which would lead any impeachment hearings. Conyers did say that he encourages nationwide efforts to build support for impeaching Bush."

Judging by that story, Conyers is not yet committed to acting, but he wants to be able to, and he wants to see an increase in public pressure to make it easier for him to move ahead. Let's give it to him!

There's a longer AP article posted on websites.

This longer article begins:

"U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said Tuesday he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but stopped short of pledging to take action to back it. 'I've been supportive of that movement,' said Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that would lead impeachment hearings. 'I encourage that nationwide.' But Conyers, who left a Detroit church before a town-hall meeting attended by a standing-room-only crowd of about 250 people, remained noncommittal about lending his official backing for impeachment proceedings. Conyers had also convened a separate town-hall meeting in Detroit on Tuesday evening to discuss high gas prices. 'The goal is whether to impeach or follow up on the defects and disabilities of an administration' that has shut out Congress, he said."

So far, the longer article gives about the same impression as the shorter one as to Conyers' position. And, reading on, it continues to do so, but the reporter throws in material from other sources:

"A message was seeking comment were left [sic] Tuesday night with the Republican National Committee. Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, suggested Conyers was simply indulging old obsessions, adding, 'It has no legs, it's gaining no support in Michigan, let alone nationally.'"

This charge is called into question later in the same article by the report that Detroit City Council recently passed a resolution to petition the US House for impeachment. And pronouncements on public support for impeachment, or lack thereof, are almost always complete guesses or fabrications. The few polls that have been done show strong support for impeachment: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling but none of these polls are recent, none are focused on Michigan, and none are likely to be repeated anytime soon, since polling companies are refusing to touch the subject even for cold hard cash. The article continues:

"Anuzis cited the recent approval by Congress to fund the Iraq war, and he said there is serious analysis going on to determine how best to deal with the situation there. 'This is moving along the way it should in the normal course of action and I think that the Democrats in Congress that are a little more reasonable are working with the president,' he said."

More reasonable than Conyers? Or more reasonable than the public? Or more reasonable than the Detroit City Council?

"Speakers and audience members expressed frustration and disappointment Tuesday that Conyers did not return by the event's conclusion. The town-hall meeting featured panelists who took questions from the audience. Behind the panel, a large sign bearing handwritten signatures hung endorsing impeachment proceedings. On May 16, the Detroit City Council unanimously passed an impeachment resolution that claimed the two [presumably this means Bush and Cheney] had conspired to defraud the public to justify the Iraq war. The resolution was sponsored by Councilwoman Monica Conyers, the Democratic congressman's wife. Nationwide, more than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment."

Not 70, but at least 85: http://www.impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Next the AP article simply quotes from a McClatchy article that came out Tuesday about the national movement for impeachment:

"'There's a lot growing in support [sic],' Tim Carpenter, director of the liberal group Progressive Democrats of America, told McClatchy Newspapers for a Tuesday story. 'Whether Congress will respond, that's another question.' On the Judiciary Committee, Conyers has been criticized by Republicans for his vocal opposition to the White House's handling of the Iraq War."

Yeah? What does the public think? Any idea?

"During the last session, when Republicans controlled Congress, he introduced a bill calling on lawmakers to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment over the government's warrantless wiretapping program."

In fact, Congressman Conyers introduced H Res 635 before the warrantless wiretapping program was first reported on. The bill would have created "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." target="_blank">http://afterdowningstreet.org/635

Conyers released a report at the time on some of the apparent crimes of Bush and Cheney, which his staff later updated to include the warrantless spying. http://afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

Tuesday night's AP article adds a final sentence that appears not to be a quotation or even to derive from Tuesday night. It reads:

"But amid pressure from party leaders, Conyers has said that he does not intend to move forward with any impeachment effort."

Of all the things Conyers has said for and against impeachment, why pick this one to paraphrase? The people packed into the meeting in Detroit might have preferred a beauty like this one:

"I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act."

Here's a description of Tuesday evening's event from the media advisory sent out beforehand:

Metro Detroiters to Hold Impeachment Town Hall Discussion Congressman John Conyers, Jr., is expected to appear

Tuesday, May 29th @ 5 pm (Refreshments & Organizing 5pm; Panel Starts Promptly at 5:45pm; Parking Available at Church) Central United Methodist Church

23 E. Adams Ave., Detroit, MI 48226

with Special Guests: Jazz Great Spencer Barefield & Friends Panel & Discussion to Include:

*Jack Lessenberry: Detroit Metro Times editorialist. *Bill Goodman: Former Legal Director of Center for Constitutional Rights, local Detroit NLG attorney. *JoAnn Watson: Detroit City Council Member. *Maureen Taylor: State Chair of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization. *Malik Rahim: Co-founder Common Ground, New Orleans; Green Party Candidate for NO City Council in 2002; former Black Panther Party member. *Ann Wright: U.S. Army Colonel and diplomat who resigned in protest the day before the war began. *Ray McGovern: Former CIA analyst who prepared the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates; Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity member. *Debra Sweet: National Coordinator, World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!

Initial List of Sponsors: National Lawyers Guild, Detroit & Michigan Chapter; MIImpeach.org; Veterans for Peace; Latinos Unidos of Michigan; Michigan Welfare Rights Organization; Democrats.com; AfterDowningStreet.org; Progressive Democrats of America; World Can't Wait--Detroit Chapter; A28; Green Party of Michigan.

For more information: NLG at 313.963.0843 or MichiganNLG(at)michigannlg(dot)org; www.michigannlg.org; David Palmer: www.MIImpeach.org; miimpeach(at)yahoo(dot)com

Reporting on recent passage of impeachment resolution by Detroit City Council:

The Detroit Free Press: http://tinyurl.com/2tp8gc

The Detroit News: http://tinyurl.com/32gu72

AfterDowningStreet.org, including full text of the resolution: http://tinyurl.com/3yvmdm

As more reports come in from Tuesday's event they'll be posted at http://afterdowningstreet.org/mi

To contact and encourage John Conyers and his colleagues, go here: http://afterdowningstreet.org/judiciarycommittee


David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.

Airwaves

The federal government is on the verge of turning over a huge portion of our public airwaves to companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast—who will use them for private gain instead of the public good.

These newly available airwaves are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize Internet access—beaming high-speed Internet signals to every park bench, coffee shop, workplace, and home in America at more affordable prices than current Internet service. Phone and cable companies don't want this competition to their Internet service—they'd rather purchase the airwaves at auction and sit on them.

In June, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will make a major decision: Use the public airwaves for the public good, or turn them over to big companies who will stifle competition, innovation, and the wireless Internet revolution.

The FCC is only accepting public comments for a few more days. Can you sign this petition to them today, and send it to your friends?

"The public airwaves should be used for the public good. The government must protect our airwaves from corporate gatekeepers who would stifle innovation and competition in the wireless Internet market."

Sign here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?id=10433-4448193-.QZuWL&t=3

We'll deliver your petition signature and any accompanying note directly to the FCC's public comment record, which FCC Commissioners use to guide their decisions.
There are many innovative companies jumping at the opportunity to forge ahead with the wireless Internet revolution—bringing us high-speed wireless networks from coast to coast and all sorts of innovative wireless devices. But the old phone and cable companies are aggressively trying to block this progress. They've spent billions laying wires, and they enjoy having their customers locked in with few alternatives.

Without access to the public airwaves, wireless innovators can't enter the marketplace. So the strategy of companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast is to buy the administrative rights of our airwaves at auction—and then use those rights to block competition. They also stifle the development of new wireless devices by only letting their own endorsed products work on their networks.

We're urging the FCC to protect the public good by setting auction rules that prohibit this anti-competitive behavior. If the government auctioned off the right to maintain a public highway to Ford, we would certainly not let Ford block Toyotas from the roads. Likewise, big phone and cable should not be able to keep innovative companies off our airwaves.

They also shouldn't be able to tell their wireless Internet customers which websites they can access—as they do now. And just as phone companies can't tell customers what phones can be plugged into a wall jack, cell and wireless companies should not be able to dictate which phones or wireless devices people use on their networks.

The opportunity to revolutionize the Internet and wireless world is at our fingertips. The only question is whether our government will embrace it, and whether regular people will fight for it.

The FCC is only accepting public comments for a few more days. Can you sign the petition to them today, and send it to your friends?

Sign here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?id=10433-4448193-.QZuWL&t=4

Thanks for all you do.
–Adam Green, MoveOn.org Civic Action

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

PS—Most people haven't heard about this critical issue yet—so it's really important that we spread the word and get others involved. As you consider who else to tell about this issue, here's what innovation and competition in the wireless world means for regular people:

  • Families would no longer be forced to choose solely between high-priced phone and cable Internet. A new wireless market—including lots of competition within that market—would mean more affordable Internet access for families.

  • Poor and rural communities which phone and cable companies never bothered to wire with high-speed Internet access could now have high-speed Internet signals beamed directly into their homes.

  • Blackberry and other handheld wireless users are currently blocked by phone companies from accessing Internet-based phone service and other innovative services.2 The FCC could stop these anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices by mandating wireless Net Neutrality.

  • Socially responsible buyers could someday go to a store, scan the bar codes of products with an Internet-equipped cell phone, and find out which items are socially responsible. Phone companies can currently block such innovations from working with their devices (they often try to shake down innovators into giving them a massive cut of their profits)—but the FCC can prohibit such practices on these newly available airwaves.

  • Technology consumers in America are currently denied all sorts of cutting-edge technology that people in other countries have—like using Internet-equipped cell phones to buy products, transfer money, or give to charity. By opening the doors to competition and innovation, the FCC can change that.

  • P.P.S. Can you support this people-powered campaign today? As corporations like AT&T and Verizon spend millions to get public policy skewed in their favor, we will win these fights because of the power of regular people. A donation of $10, $20, or more would go a long way. You can donate here:
    https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/creditcard.html?id=10433-4448193-.QZuWL&t=5

    Tuesday, May 29, 2007

    Flags Wave to Honor Soldiers Past


    The Media Equation
    Not to See the Fallen Is No Favor

    By David Carr
    Published: May 28, 2007

    On this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.

    Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less.

    Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

    If Joseph Heller were still around, he might appreciate the bureaucratic elegance of paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DoD Directive 5122.5:

    “Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent.”

    Photographs and other images of casualties have always been a delicate matter and most media outlets have shown restraint, particularly with pictures of the dead. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the ground commander in Iraq whose own son was seriously wounded in action, is said by reporters to be particularly alert to the depictions of casualties.

    Working reporters say the soldiers in the field are not overly concerned with media coverage — they have more serious matters in their gunsights. The journalists also suggest that the current regulations have allowed the military to take concerns for the privacy of soldiers and their families and leverage them into broader constraints on information.

    Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.

    “They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”

    “They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”

    Lt. Col. Josslyn L. Aberle, chief of media operations for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said that the regulations are a matter of common sense and decency, not message management.

    “The last thing that we want to do is to contribute to the grief and anguish of the family members,” she said by phone from Iraq. “We don’t want the last image that the family has of their soldier to be a photo of him dying on a battlefield. You have to ask how much value is added.”

    There are some people stateside who would agree. In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.

    Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.

    Kimberly Dozier, a CBS correspondent who was seriously wounded by an I.E.D. — CBS will run a special about her experiences tomorrow night — has been on both sides of the camera. When she was transferred from Iraq to a hospital in Germany, images of her crumpled body were broadcast all over the world.

    “I think some regulations are a good idea,” she said. “Does a soldier lose his rights to privacy because he is in a combat zone and wounded? I don’t think so.”

    But then Ms. Dozier, whose amazing recovery means she will be back in the saddle soon, had a second thought. “The tough pictures, some pictures, need to get out,” she added. “But choosing which ones is a very touchy matter.”

    Journalists are frustrated with the new regulations in part because, as this current surge has progressed, there have been further pinches on information. On May 13, the Iraq Interior Ministry said bombing sites would be off limits for an hour after an event; just days later, Iraqi police forces fired shots over the heads of working press to enforce the decree.

    In a war where the enemy could be around every corner and support on the home front is weakening, officials are starting to see menace everywhere. In April, military officials placed new restrictions on soldiers’ blogging that define attempts to solicit “critical or sensitive information” as acts of espionage. In an operational security slide presentation (which was partially published in the Danger Room blog on Wired) for military supervisors, media is defined as a “nontraditional” threat in the same category as drug cartels.

    There is already so much that American readers and viewers cannot see simply because Iraq has become too dangerous for reporters to do the routine footwork of combat journalism. The Committee to Protect Journalists puts the number of slain media workers at 143; many others have been severely wounded.

    Colonel Aberle said that the realities of the battleground, and not government control, are to blame for any lack of coverage.

    “The enemy has done a good job of taking the journalist out of the fight,” she said. “They are now relying on Iraqi stringers who have a cellphone and a camera, but not much in the way of training. It is challenging and frustrating for the reporters I know who are still covering the story.”

    But James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops.

    “As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important,” Mr. Glanz said. “This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told.”

    Capturing the brutal realities of war is a tradition in this country dating back at least to Matthew Brady, and it is undoubtedly part of why Americans, regardless of their politics, have come to know and revere the sacrifices that generations of soldiers have made on their behalf.

    When this war began, the government attempted to manage images by banning photographs of coffins returning to United States soil. If the government chooses to overmanage the wages of war in Iraq, there is a real danger that when this new generation of veterans, whose ranks grow every day, could come home to a place where their fellow Americans have little idea what they have gone through.

    Monday, May 28, 2007

    A Real Option

    Pay More Than Lip Service To Diplomacy
    Bob Schieffer Reminds The U.S. That There Is No Military Solution In Iraq

    WASHINGTON, May, 27, 2007

    (CBS) Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

    I had breakfast the other day with the ambassador from one of America's strongest and closest allies. We got to talking about Iraq and Vietnam, and he asked me what I thought the great lessons of those years have been.


    I said, first, that we can help people but we can't do it for them, and, second, that America leads best when it leads by example – when we demonstrate how our system works by practicing what we preach, not by resorting to the methods of those who oppose us.

    "May I suggest one more thing?" he asked. "That America is most successful when it does not work alone, but with its friends."

    "America has the strongest economy in the world and without question the most powerful military, but when it has tried to work alone, it has seldom been able to work its will," he continued. "Yet when it has been able to forge broad coalitions it has seldom failed."

    That is more than opinion. It's just a fact which makes me wonder, even at this eleventh hour, shouldn't that be the focus of our Iraq policy? Bringing together a broad coalition of western nations and Iraq's neighbors to contain the war and pressure its warring factions to settle their differences?

    Instead, we have paid lip service to diplomacy, made the debate about battlefield tactics and searched for a military solution to a political problem.

    So far, we haven't found one.

    By Bob Schieffer
    © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

    Decoration Day


    Tomb of the Unknowns



    Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead." While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868.



    USMC Color Guard



    2 Heroes Come Home

    This Memorial Day,
    we honor the memories of the nearly 3,600 Americans who have died in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In memory of Army Spc. Justin Rollins

    May the rest of them, ALL of them
    come home alive... NOW!

    Sunday, May 27, 2007

    Public Enemy No. 1

    Editorial
    War Without End

    Published: May 27, 2007

    Never mind how badly the war is going in Iraq. President Bush has been swaggering around like a victorious general because he cowed a wobbly coalition of Democrats into dropping their attempt to impose a time limit on his disastrous misadventure.

    By week’s end, Mr. Bush was acting as though that bit of parliamentary strong-arming had left him free to ignore not just the Democrats, but also the vast majority of Americans, who want him to stop chasing illusions of victory and concentrate on how to stop the sacrifice of young Americans’ lives.

    And, ever faithful to his illusions, Mr. Bush was insisting that he was the only person who understood the true enemy.

    Speaking to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, Mr. Bush declared that Al Qaeda is “public enemy No. 1” in Iraq and that “the terrorists’ goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home.” The next day, in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush turned on a reporter who had the temerity to ask about Mr. Bush’s declining credibility with the public, declaring that Al Qaeda is “a threat to your children” and accusing him of naïvely ignoring the danger.

    It’s upsetting to think that Mr. Bush believes the raging sectarian violence in Iraq awaits reigniting, or that he does not recognize that Americans’ support for the war broke down many bloody months ago. But we have grown accustomed to this president’s disconnect from reality and his habit of tilting at straw men, like Americans who don’t care about terrorism because they question his mismanagement of the war or don’t worry about what will happen after the United States withdraws, as it inevitably must.

    The really disturbing thing about Mr. Bush’s comments is his painting of the war in Iraq as an obvious-to-everyone-but-the-wrongheaded fight between the United States and a young Iraqi democracy on one side, and Al Qaeda on the other. That fails to acknowledge that the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq is not a democracy and is at war with many of its own people. And it removes all pressure from the Iraqi leadership — and Mr. Bush — to halt the sectarian fighting and create a real democracy.

    There is no doubt that organized Islamist terrorism — call it Al Qaeda or by any other name — is a dire threat. There is also no doubt that terrorists entered Iraq — mostly after the war began.

    We, too, believe that Iraq has to be made as stable as possible so the United States can withdraw its troops without unleashing even more chaos and destruction. But Mr. Bush is not doing that and his version of reality only makes it more unlikely. The only solution lies with the Iraqi leaders, who have to stop their sectarian blood feud and make a real attempt to form a united government. That is their best chance to stabilize the country, allow the United States to withdraw and, yes, battle Al Qaeda.

    The Democrats who called for imposing benchmarks for political progress on the Iraqis, combined with a withdrawal date for American soldiers, were trying to start that process. It’s a shame they could not summon the will and discipline to keep going, but we hope they have not given up. As disjointed as the Democrats have been, their approach makes far more sense than Mr. Bush’s denial of Iraq’s civil war and his war-without-end against terror.

    Cheney Has To Go Too!

    In this alert we will propose a plan of action, which if we execute it faithfully, WILL result in the impeachment of Vice President Cheney by the end of the summer. So please read on, we think this is VERY important strategic stuff.

    But first we want to let you know that thanks to your kind donations, and following your suggestions, we were able to run blog ad action buttons for the National Cheney Impeachment Poll (with now more than 55,000 submissions) in 8 more progressive blogs this week, TalkingPointsMemo, FireDogLake, BartCop, TheSmirkingChimp, CliffSchecter, onegoodmove, Pandagon and TheCarpetbaggerReport. We want to add CrooksAndLiars among others to the movement this coming week, and DailyKos (which also got many mentions from you) the week after that if you will keep the donations coming, and we know you will.

    DONATIONS PAGE

    And especially if you have other ideas, please email to us as we are making the ad buying decisions based on your input.

    Memorial Day is the traditional kickoff to the summer season, and we are planning a kickoff of the biggest impeachment initiative ever. More and more people have begun to realize that the core problem with Congress is getting them to actually CONFRONT the Cheney administration.

    That's right, we said the Cheney administration. Whether even he knows it or not, Bush has made no actual decisions since he was first installed. And if it weren't for the talking points they give him to rehearse, he would not be able to complete a logical sentence in English in public. He can barely do that as it is.

    At the same time we recognize, and as demonstrated by the vote on the Iraq supplemental capitulation, that about half the Democratic members of Congress and most of the Republicans are basically throwaways in terms of actually standing up for we the people. And we are even now hearing widespread talk of primary challenges on the basis of this one vote alone.

    Indeed, if we can get them to understand that the people will no longer buy their shuck and jive then any policy change is possible. So primary challenges will be the first and fastest way to let them know that their failure to act represents real political career jeopardy for them.

    Our experience in the last election cycle teaches us that nothing is more important in winning an election campaign, whether in a primary or a general election, than having organized boots on the ground. With enough warm bodies in place whatever money is needed will come. Regardless of what else we do we need to spend the next 6 months building a cadre of seasoned canvassers, the core of a volunteer activist campaign oriented base. And we have an incredible opportunity to use the National Cheney Impeachment Poll as a vehicle to do just that.

    IMPEACHMENT POLL SIGN UP SHEET

    If each one of the people who has ALREADY submitted a vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll were to print out just one of the vote sheets above, and collect just 20 votes from their friends and neighbors, we'd be over a million votes, bam, just like that. And at the same time, those who do the best job organizing this canvassing would naturally emerge as the actual candidates we need to turn the tide.

    In short, on top of everything else, we are proposing using this vote collection drive as a way to TEST DRIVE your potential as a candidate or volunteer in a REAL election, and to use that opportunity to get invaluable "on street" training. Just print out some of the vote sheets above, grab a clip board and some pens, and you're ready to rock.

    We had one volunteer in Hollywood, CA this afternoon at one of the larger health food markets, and in just about an hour they filled up one of these vote sheets with 20 votes. This is going to be EASY. All you have to do is say to people, "Hello . . . will you vote in the Cheney impeachment poll?", and hold up your clip board so they can see the sign up sheet. If the name Cheney catches 10% of their ears you will quickly be able to engage and mobilize the people in your community who will speak out, and before we know it, the base of the future will be built.

    No matter where you go to collect votes, you are just NOT going to find a lot of people who don't think Cheney should be impeached. Based on his current approval rating (if not his impeachable crimes) there is zero chance he will ever break 10% in this poll (we're currently running 99.36% YES in favor of impeachment). You can tell people we are not asking if he WILL be impeached, we are asking if he should be impeached. The most important thing to remember if you are going to participate in this is

    ENTHUSIASTICALLY ACCEPT ALL VOTES WHETHER YES OR NO

    The other side knows they can only win by skewing the vote. All we have to do to win is ensure the vote is not skewed.

    IMPEACHMENT POLL SIGN UP SHEET

    Wherever you decide to do this, if it is a place of business FIRST seek out the premises manager and ask their permission to collect signatures for the poll. Emphasize that this is a poll, and people can freely vote either way, and you can also suggest you will only be doing it for an hour or so. Then introduce yourself to the security where you will be standing and tell them the name of the manager who gave you permission.

    We don't have to sell people on impeachment. Anybody who is remotely paying attention should jump at the opportunity to speak out on this. For those who rush by, trying to keep their heads down, just let them go, and trust that we will get them also, as they hear more and more about the National Cheney Impeachment Poll. We don't have to chase any votes around the block.

    You will meet people who are very gung ho. Of the 20 people who signed with our volunteer this afternoon, two were into it enough that they were given blank sign up sheets to make their own copies of and collect signatures on their own. So carry extra sign up sheets for this purpose. This thing can spread like wildfire if we just get out there.

    You are probably already thinking of your own creative places to collect votes, people in your apartment building, your school, office, church, lines at movie theaters, swap meets, anywhere that people gather. You should be welcome everywhere as long as you keep it straight, and act as the impartial pollster. If people ask your own personal position, feel free to tell them, but emphasize that all votes are accepted and duly entered.

    There are instructions on the vote gathering sheet to tell you what to do with the entries you collect, of which the email address is critical. We will be using this to confirm their vote by email. Therefore, one more thing cannot be overemphasized

    BE SURE TO READ BACK THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS TO THEM TO CONFIRM THE SPELLING

    We don't want to lose any votes to scribbled or ambiguously written email addresses. Is it a "two" or is it the letter "Z", is it a "one" or is it the letter "L", is it a "zero" or is it the letter "O", etc. Make sure you yourself can read all entries so that you can accurately enter them on the web input form we are providing. If necessary, make additional small notes on the sheets to remind yourself of the correct spellings.

    And when you finish go back and thank the premises manager for their gracious hospitality, so that our next volunteer will also be welcome.

    Once we get a million votes things will start to snowball, and we can put serious pressure on our members of Congress, and let them know that fulfilling the duty of impeachment is the only way for them to keep their jobs. With that many key mobilized activists we can have impact on every election in the next cycle, and we will find many ways of letting them know what they are in for long before that.

    Nothing in this alert should be construed as advocating for or against a particular candidate in any particular race. Until we actually mobilize we will not know who will step up to the plate and who will not. But we need to mobilize just as hard EVERYWHERE regardless, for none can be counted on unless we do.

    Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

    Saturday, May 26, 2007

    Still Going On


    Can You Believe This War Is Still Going On?

    By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted May 26, 2007.

    After committing troops to a war that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions without homes, George W. Bush says he prays for safety and peace. Way to go, Georgie, shift the responsibility for your mess to God.

    * 3,300 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead.

    * Rumsfeld said the Iraq attack would cost $50 billion. The tab so far exceeds $500 billion.

    * Almost two million Iraqis have fled the country and only 30% of kids can go to school.


    On Easter Morning, George W. made another of his periodic shows of Standing With The Troops. He attended church services in the chapel at Fort Hood in Kileen, Texas, after which he offered to the assembled media this pious little announcement: "I had a chance to reflect on the great sacrifice that our military and their families are making. I prayed for their safety. I prayed for their strength and comfort. And I pray for peace."

    He prayed for our troops' safety? How clueless is he? George, you have the troops stuck in another country's vicious civil war. They're under attack from every direction by every faction, every hour of every day, hit by car bombs, roadside bombs, chlorine bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, rocket fire, mortar rounds, snipers, and assassins. There is no safety in Iraq.

    He prayed for peace? George, YOU made this war. Don't put it on God! The ONLY reason that America is in Iraq is because you, "Buckshot" Cheney, Rummy, and the rest rode us into an invasion and occupation on a pack of lies.

    God didn't do this, YOU did. Praying won't get it done. God helps those who help themselves. You have peace in your own hands.

    Yet the war goes on

    Only three days after George the Pious told us about his prayers for safety, strength, comfort, and peace, his Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, announced that all active-duty soldiers already in Iraq or going there will have their tours of duty extended from 12 months to 15. "Our forces are stretched," Gates admitted, but he said that this added burden is "necessary" in order to carry out Bush's latest war strategy, his "surge" scheme. The extension order affects 100,000 soldiers. Plus their families. Bear in mind that many of these families have already gone through two or three tours in Iraq.

    Back at Fort Hood, where Bush prayed, families were angry. "A year is so long apart you hardly know your husband," said Nichol Spencer. "Now they're making it longer?"

    Theresa White said, "To a civilian, three months is 12 weeks. To an army wife, three months is the straw that broke the camel's back."

    Of course, that's three more months in hell that Bush is committing these people to endure (this from a guy who could not even complete an Easy Street tour of duty stateside in the "champagne unit" of the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War). To add insult to injury, after saying that he had prayed for the "comfort" of these soldiers and their families, Bush didn't even have the courtesy to inform them in advance that the extension was coming. "It was disrespectful," said Mindy Shanahan, also from Fort Hood. Her husband is in Iraq and will now be stuck there an extra three months, assuming he survives. "We should have had at least 48 hours notice, instead of having to see this on CNN," she said.

    Prolonging the time soldiers must spend in Iraq hides one of the military's other little problems: Very few Americans want to join Bush's war. Not even those young Republicans who say they so enthusiastically support the war are willing to bet their lives on it. So, in a country of 300 million citizens, recruiters are straining to meet a quota of roughly 80,000 new soldiers a year, much less find more troops to cycle into Bush's surge. The military has already raised the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42, which means that if you and your wife had kids when you were 20 and you're now 40, the whole family could go to war. Wow--the Brady Bunch does Iraq!

    Despite doubling the number of felons permitted to enlist and lowering the minimum standards so more high-school dropouts and people with low mental-aptitude scores can be taken, the Pentagon still is not getting enough volunteers. Even recent West Point graduates, the Army's elite, are saying "no thanks" to Iraq, choosing to leave active-duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades.

    Yet, the war goes on

    Bush's war, now in its fifth year, has already lasted longer than World War II. On Easter Sunday, as George was saying his prayers, the number of American military deaths in Iraq was approaching 3,300. And now, with his surge, the rate of U.S. deaths is on the rise. All this killing has prompted more eloquence from the commander-in-chief: "Make no mistake about it. I understand how tough it is. I talk to families who die."

    Then there are some 24,000 soldiers who haven't died but instead have come home maimed and traumatized, including more than 1,300 who've lost arms and/or legs, and more than 4,600 who've suffered severe head or brain injuries. Many of them have been sent to the "comfort" of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, just a short hop from Bush's hangout at the White House. There they have been greeted with horrific conditions and cold indifference.

    When news of this scandal broke, Bush feigned surprise and expressed obligatory outrage. But, wait, George -- you're the president, you're in charge of this disgrace! It's your Pentagon budget (now above half-a-trillion dollars a year) that has been lavishing money on favored contractors while quietly snipping away at funding for Walter Reed. A review panel concluded last month that your Pentagon was aware of this neglect, yet it still cut funds even as the hospital was being inundated with thousands of severely maimed soldiers returning from Iraq. The panel said the hospital is now beyond repair.

    It's not just Walter Reed, either. The nationwide VA system is overwhelmed with patients and experiencing crucial shortages in staff and facilities. As of January, there was a backlog of 600,000 vets awaiting care--nearly a third of whom have been waiting six months or longer. All this on your watch, George--while you've been demanding that war critics "support our troops." Meanwhile, your current budget proposal reduces funding for veterans' care in 2009 and 2010--just when the military expects that the influx of wounded will peak.

    Yet, the war goes on

    Asked in January 2003 what the price tag was for the Bushites' upcoming Iraq attack and occupation, Donny Rumsfeld said that the budget office forecast "a number that's something under $50 billion."

    Not quite right. Iraq is now costing us $6 billion a month (the surge will be extra), and total direct costs through this year will top $500 billion. Included in that is $12 billion that was airlifted in 2003 to the interim Iraqi government in shrinkwrapped stacks of $100 bills (the load weighed 363 tons) and promptly disappeared. Poof...gone!

    Add in such indirect costs as veterans' long-term health care and replacement of the military hardware consumed by the war, and the tab runs to $1.2 trillion or more. David Leonhardt, a New York Times economic analyst, has itemized some other things we could've bought with that sum instead of the mess in Iraq. His list includes:


  • TEN YEARS of universal health care, covering every American who is now without it.

  • DOUBLING the cancer research budget.

  • GLOBAL IMMUNIZATION of the world's children against measles, whooping cough, tetanus, TB, polio, and diptheria.

  • UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL for every 3- and 4-year-old child in America.

  • RECONSTRUCTION of New Orleans.

  • IMPLEMENTATION of all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.


  • Yet, the war goes on

    Being positive is one thing, but George W has gone from positive to delusional. Last year, in a rhetorical reach to claim that things were looking up in Iraq, he offered this: "I think--tide turning. See, as I remember--I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of--it's easy to see the tide turn."

    He might ask the Iraqi people about tide-turning progress in his war. Outside of Baghdad's four-square-mile fortress known as the Green Zone, where the U.S. brass and Iraqi political elite reside, life is miserable. Violence erupts constantly and unpredictably, fear is everyone's companion, jobs are scarce, going anywhere is dangerous, basic services are practically nonexistent, and distrust, frustration, and anger rule.

    An official UN count puts last year's death toll of innocent Iraqi civilians at 34,452--three times higher than the U.S. had admitted. Another 36,685 were wounded. One analysis puts the civilian death toll much higher--a total of 655,000 since the invasion.

    Some 2 million Iraqis (16% of the population) have fled the country, including 40% of professionals (one third of doctors fled, 2,000 have been murdered). Three thousand people a day are fleeing--so many that Saudi Arabia (Bush's superrich ally in his war) is building a 560-mile fence to keep them out. By the way, the U.S. allowed only 202 Iraqi refugees into our country last year.

    Another 1.6 million Iraqis are displaced within their country, forced from their homes by various factions in the civil/religious war. Many of these are children. Only 30% of Iraqi children attended school last year (pre-war, nearly 100% percent were in school). Children routinely witness violence and killings that are often gruesome, including seeing family and friend die. A recent study of 2,500 grade school children in Baghdad found that 70% showed symptoms of trauma.

    While Bush brags that his war has liberated women, in reality there has been an explosion of violence against them, including widespread abductions, public beatings, rapes, "honor killings," torture, beheadings, and public hangings. The president of the Iraqi National Council of Women goes nowhere without a bodyguard. "I started with 6," she said, "then I increased to 12, and then to 20, and then to 30." One of the women in Iraq's parliament said bluntly, "This is the worst time ever in Iraqi women's lives."

    Yet, the war goes on

    Lest we forget in the foggy mist of Bush's rationales for his war (WMDs! al Qaeda connections! Democracy for the people!), Iraq sits atop the world's second-largest oil reserve. The proven reserves are 112 billion barrels, with a probable pool in excess of 400 billion barrels. At current prices, that's about $25 trillion worth of crude.

    When certain outrageous commentators (like me) suggested at the start of the war's build-up that an oil grab could be involved, Rumsfeld barked to the media, "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." Could that have been another Bushite lie?

    Yes. Big Oil has long wanted to get its hands on Iraq's vast reserves. In a 1998 speech, Chevron's CEO said, "I'd love Chevron to have access." Big Oil's wish is Bush's command, and as early as December 2002, just before the invasion, the state department's oil-and-energy working group was saying that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

    In 2004 Bush & Company drafted a secret legislative proposal to deliver this national treasure to the oil giants. This February, the proposal was introduced to the Iraqi parliament, and now the Bushites, oil lobbyists, and a handful of Iraqi pols are urgently trying to pass it.

    This law would transform Iraq's oil reserves from a nationally owned resource to a privatization model, opening two thirds of the known oil fields (and all fields discovered in the future) to control by Big Oil. Instead of having Iraq's parliament make the major decisions over oil, an unelected authority called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would take charge. And guess who would have seats on the council? The major oil corporations!

    This autocratic group would then decide who gets the contracts to extract the nation's oil. That means Big Oil would be approving its own bids! Also, the corporations would not have to hire Iraqis, reinvest profits in Iraq, or share new technologies. Foreign interests would even be allowed to divvy up the territory now, hold their pieces of the action until after the current civil war settles down, and then move in to grab profits.

    Yet, the war goes on

    If you think that maybe our selfannointed "war president" is in over his head, ponder this bit of strategic insight from George: "No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."

    Uh, yeah...and it seems to be working. Bush's surge strategy is intended to concentrate our forces in Baghdad to rid the capital of violence. But since the surge began, residents have not noticed any lull in the carnage, instead experiencing a record number of car bombings. On April 12, the Green Zone itself got a wake-up call when a suicide bomber detonated himself in the parliament's cafeteria, killing three lawmakers and five others.

    Meanwhile, knowing that the U.S. surge was coming and would last for only a few months, the deadly Shiite militias based in Baghdad have simply stood down to wait out Bush. With U.S. and Iraqi forces surging in Baghdad, the bloodshed has spread to the countryside. In late March, for example, two massive truck bombs ripped through the town market in Tal Afar, killing 48. In response, Shiite militia went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents, killing some 60 of them.

    Then there's the Kurdish zone in the north, which had been rather calm...until now. The Iraqi constitution cobbled together by the Bushites a couple of years ago contains a provision requiring a referendum on the future of the region's capital city, Kirkuk. Now, because two sides want to control this wealthy city, a new front has opened in the Iraq war.

    On one side are the Kurds, who have set up their own essentially autonomous government in the north and have well-armed, battleseasoned militias ready to fight for the land they claim as their own. Opposing them are the Arabs, who were moved into the Kurdish zone by Saddam Hussein years ago but now consider it to be theirs. They are also heavily armed and--follow the bouncing ball here--they are backed by the government of neighboring Turkey, which is fighting a Kurdish independence movement inside its own borders.

    Literally underlying this explosive ethnic imbroglio is one of the world's largest oil reserves, which means Big Oil also has a keen interest in "winning"--whatever that involves. To add to the nasty potential, Iran cares very much about this fight and has deployed security forces to the border it shares with the Kurdish zone.

    The government in Baghdad, under enormous pressure (aka blackmail) from Kurdish legislators, has just decided to back the Kurds' claim--and the Arab side in Kirkuk is already setting off bombs in Kurdish neighborhoods.

    Yet, the war goes on

    In a tragi-comic bit of presidential posturing, Bush assembled a dozen or so veterans, soldiers, and family members in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House for a media show on March 23. With these human "stage props" lined up behind him, George lashed out at congressional Democrats for passing a bill requiring withdrawal from Iraq next year. Without even a smile of irony, Bush called the Democrats' effort "an act of political theater."

    Well, this particular withdrawal bill won't get the job done, but it's a reflection of the broad public demand to stop this horrible folly. Roughly two thirds of Americans want out of Iraq by next year, and 54% support a cutoff of funds for Bush's surge. Even the troops in Iraq want a withdrawal, for only 35% of those polled by Military Timeslast December said that they approve of George W's handling of the war.

    Still, some progressives despair. They say that last year's elections were a clear mandate for withdrawal, but the Democrats have been weak and the killing continues, so what's the use? That's right on the facts, but totally wrong on the attitude. We made great strides last year, and we've changed the national debate on the war. Yes, Bush and Cheney are boneheads, and the Democratic leadership has Jello in its spine, but what did you expect? Popular movements have always had to muster the tenacity to overcome disappointments-- and ours is no different. Come on--we've got 'em on the run! Far from being down, take energy from the gains we've made--and keep pushing on. No one is going to stop the war but us.


    From "The Hightower Lowdown," edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, May 2007. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."

    Attack Iran


    Right Wing Itches to Strike Iran

    By John Tirman, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2007.

    The hard right in the U.S. has tried to exploit the arrest of Middle East scholar Haleh Esfandiari to create a reason for America's conservatives to attack Iran.

    The case of Haleh Esfandiari's imprisonment in Iran is sparking the kind of commotion that periodically grips America's intellectual class, and, more ominously, is providing reasons for America's right wing to attack Iran.

    Dr. Esfandiari, 67, was born and raised in Iran, but has spent much of her professional life in the United States, now as the much-respected director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a leading think tank in Washington, D.C. At the end of a visit to her ailing mother in Tehran last winter, she was detained, and recently was arrested and now is in prison awaiting trial. A citizen of both America and Iran, she has been charged with trying to foment a "velvet revolution" in Iran -- soft, non-violent regime change. She and everyone associated with her deny the charges.

    Editorials have been lambasting Iran's Intelligence Ministry, which many see as responsible for this, and a number of important public intellectuals are calling for action. Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and a specialist on the region, wrote in his highly regarded blog, Informed Comment, "I had been planning to go to a conference in Iran in July, hosted by some French scholars, but I have cancelled in protest against this detention of my friend. I don't see how normal intellectual life can go on when a scholar at the Wilson Center can't safely visit Iran."

    A boycott was rumored but apparently is not actually afoot, as Ali Banuazizi, the eminent scholar at Boston College and past president of the Middle East Studies Association, told me. "Boycotts punish too many innocent people," he says, "but letters and statements send a signal." A strongly worded letter that Banuazizi helped craft, and is signed by a Who's Who of Iran scholars in the U.S., protested the arrest and imprisonment, rightly noting that "in her capacity as the director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, Dr. Esfandiari has been a staunch advocate of peaceful dialogue between Tehran and Washington in resolving their disputes."

    Noam Chomsky, possibly the most influential intellectual in the world, also weighed in with a sharp rebuke, as have several others.

    As if on cue, the hard right in the U.S. has tried to exploit the Esfandiari arrest to ridicule cooperation and dialogue. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Reuel Marc Gerecht, an American Enterprise Institute fixture who describes himself as belonging to the school of "suspicious, cynical, hawkish and religiously oriented analyses of the Islamic Republic," argued that those seeking to have some dialogue with Iran are getting their deserved comeuppance in the Tehran regime's treatment of Dr. Esfandiari.

    The arrest is undeniably troubling, as was last year's arrest and long detention of Ramin Jahanbegloo, a Canadian intellectual, and detentions of many others, including the Open Society Institute's representative in Iran last week.

    Beyond the simple human rights considerations, there are two other aspects of this grim matter that deserve mention. First is the way in which the intellectual elite in this country pick and choose their battles. Haleh Esfandiari, whom I know, certainly deserves the protest being stirred on her behalf. But we have many cases of abuse of freedom of travel and speech -- some committed by the U.S. Government -- that gain little notice. Why some and not others? To some extent, the protest in effect reflects U.S. policy preferences and the drumbeat of anti-Iran media coverage in this country.

    More important, however, is how the case is becoming fodder for the attack-Iran posse. As Chomsky says in his statement, "These actions [by Iran] are deplorable in themselves, and also are a gift to Western hardliners who are trying to organize support for military action against Iran. Now is a time for diplomacy, negotiations, and relaxation of tensions, in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Iranians, as recent polls reveal."

    The U.S. Navy is conducting extensive exercises in the Persian Gulf, what William Arkin tartly calls "dumbboat diplomacy," but is clearly meant as a signal that the U.S. is ready to strike. Bush is proposing new sanctions to punish Iran for its alleged nuclear activities. A covert operation by the CIA to degrade Iranian financial assets and step up anti-cleric propaganda was revealed last week by ABC News, another set of actions -- among many reported -- to bring down the regime. In the political game in Washington, "Bash Iran" is a free card used by nearly everyone to look tough on foreign policy.

    In this hostile climate, some elements in Tehran are saying, in effect, "we want nothing to do with America," and they are sending that message with harsh actions. Engagement by American intellectuals, athletes, NGOs, and cultural groups has proceeded for several years now, and can be viewed as at worst harmless and at best building bridges of dialogue. It was precisely such activities during the Cold War that lowered tensions and empowered a peaceful conclusion to that far more dangerous confrontation.

    Very few serious analysts of the situation in the Gulf believe that hostile American action will result in a more placid outcome. Many in the U.S. military are vehemently opposed to air strikes, not least because of the catastrophe in Iraq. The Tehran state is sturdy and, like it or not, democratic in many respects. The NGO and academic engagement must continue, just as we must continue to object strenuously to unwarranted arrests. Neither tactic, however, is aided by Washington's contemptible and counterproductive strategy of regime change.

    American Empire


    Representative Confronts American Empire on House Floor

    By Jim McDermott, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2007.

    Jim McDermott (D-WA) rescues some history from the Memoryhole, and puts Iraq into context: It's always been all about the oil.

    Editor's note: After a week that saw Democrats cave to the White House in the worst possible way on Iraq, we thought this speech, offered on the House floor by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) last Wednesday, was worth highlighting. In a brief, five-minute commentary, McDermott does something almost unheard of in Washington: he looks at an issue in its larger historical context instead of pretending it just sprung up overnight like mushrooms after a rainfall.

    Mr. Speaker:

    This President and Vice President have vowed to repeat the mistakes of history, and they have put into motion a plan to do just that in Iran, even as the House is about to send the President a box of blank checks for Iraq, against the will of the American people.

    The history is worth knowing.

    In 1953, the United States and United Kingdom launched Operation Ajax, a covert CIA operation to destabilize and remove the democratically elected government of Iran, including then Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

    Why? Oil.

    Under Mossadegh, the Iranian government decided to reclaim Iranís rightful ownership of its national oil treasure, which had been exclusively controlled by the British who were taking 85 percent of the profits.

    Oh, and by the way, the UK also kept the books secret, merely telling Iran what its 15 percent take was.

    As soon as Mossadegh began to reclaim Iranís oil treasure, it was all over. Operation Ajax was set into motion.

    The U.S. embassy in Tehran provoked phony internal Iranian dissent, while the Brits engineered an Iranian financial crisis by orchestrating a global boycott of Iranian oil. We brought down the Iranian government and installed the Shah.

    For two decades, we propped up the Shah against the will of the Iranian people. It was all about controlling Iran. It still is. Today, ABC News is reporting exclusively that this President has authorized a new covert CIA plot to bring down the Iranian government.

    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the journalism produced by chief investigative reporter Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News.

    This is their lead sentence in the story.

    “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.”

    We’re back in 1953 and that worked out so well.

    Of course, the Vice President wanted to invade Iran, so we can be sure he will spin new tales of fear in coming days to keep his preferred option, invasion, very much alive.

    The President knows only one way -- my way or the highway.

    His Vice President knows only one way- invade and seize control of what you want- and he wants the oil treasure of Iraq and Iran to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the western oil companies he so favors.

    With Iraq in civil war, the President has authorized a secret plan to repeat the doomed mistakes of history in Iran.

    How many billions of reconstruction money for Iraq will be siphoned off for the deconstruction of Iran?

    The American people are virtually shouting at us to pay attention and get our soldiers out of Iraq, now.

    Vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money are flowing into Iraq and billions of US dollars are missing.

    The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction told a San Antonio newspaper last week that corruption in Iraq is endemic and debilitating.

    But, Prime Minister al-Maliki has granted ministers and former ministers immunity from prosecution by Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity.

    And, in turn, the ministers can shield their own employees from prosecution.

    And, a government that has been told by this President and Vice President to pass an oil law that transfers control- and profits- to western oil companies, just like the good old days in Iran.

    Overthrowing Iran in 1953 was all about oil. Invading Iraq was all about oil. And the new secret plot against Iran is all about oil.

    Oil is the only benchmark this President and Vice President want, and they will keep American soldiers fighting and dieing until an oil law is passed in Iraq that gives western oil companies control of the spigot.

    It is time to unmask the latest doomed plot to overthrow Iran and past time to get out soldiers out of Iraq.

    Nothing less than protecting our troops is acceptable.

    Thank you.