We Cannot Allow An Unmanned Drone Bomber Gap!

It's the classic case of keeping up with the neighbors. Especially the new ones: the hoards from America who always wear helmets, build massive bases of operation, bring along thousands of "independent contractors", and tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

The latest object of regional envy for militaries in the Middle East: killer drones. The USA introduced them, now everybody wants them.

First, the Iranian government announces they have a new unmanned military drone bomber. Iranian President Ahmabinejad said "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship." The remote-controlled flying weapon's estimated range means local major enemies of humanity - like Israel - remain out of reach. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ml-iran-unmanned-bomber,0,4364976.story

Iranian officials gaze admiringly at a model of their new drone.  It will strike fear in enemies of humanity who are within its 620 mile range - and will probably just cause mild anxiety to those farther away.

Then Israel announces, they too have a new unmanned miltary drone. According the the Telegraph in London, "Israel considers Iran a strategic threat because of ...repeated references by its leaders to the Jewish state's destruction." Wouldn't do to have a flying drone gap with an archenemy, so the Israeli version can make it all the way to Tehran:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7287623/Israel-unveils-unmanned-drones-which-can-fly-to-Iran.html

No models here - the Israeli drone makes an appearance. It's capable of carrying diverse payloads - like propaganda leaflets to drop over Iran.

In the meantime, the Middle East pioneer in the field of conducting aerial bombing via remote control - the USA - is way ahead of the game. Actively using them for years now, our tax dollars are funding more operators in obscure Nevada locations and increasing robot drone attacks in Afghanistan (courtesy the U.S. military) and Pakistan (courtesy the CIA):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html?_r=1

American drone on the job, firing away - is it collateral damage if we bomb targets in an ally's territory?

But remember, as noted in the Telegraph article, President Ahmabinejad has touted spectacular weapons advances before that didn't amount to much. Remember the Iranian long-range missile announcement a couple of years ago?

Iran's latest rocket technology takes flight - with Plan B waiting on the bench. Good thing the Japanese goverment is friendly with Israel.

Besides, we can't let the Iranians usurp our best military slogan!  Peace and friendship?  That's why you call in the USA - we're the professionals:

General Jack D. Ripper and Colonel Lionel Mandrake exemplify the Strategic Air Command's motto: Peace Is Our Profession.

Just in case you thought Stanley Kubrick made that last one up:

Circa 1962 - after all the US military doesn't kid around. Now you kids get off my lawn!

Stranger Than Fiction? Your Tax Dollars At Work: Blowing Things Up

Dave Lindorff at Information Clearinghouse says it best, so there's little need to do anything but recap the lead and send you over there to read his words:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25206.htm

Our tax dollars will fund a United States government budget that devotes 53% of its revenues to the military and all its associated ancillary operations. More than half of the money spent by our federal institutions go to blow things up, kill people, or buy the weapons and materials necessary to prepare for those eventualities.

That is the value system we citizens perpetuate. Our budget reflects our values - or somebody's values.

Is creating a global police/military force really where Americans want to spend the majority of their money? If you had a choice, would you really choose guns and bombs over improving health care, providing money to upgrade the educational system, building new energy infrastructures, or hundreds of other worthy projects that truly benefit all citizens?

Really? We want to spend most of our money on weapons and death? What are we afraid of?

This situation can be fixed. The example is right there in the very fine film "Stranger Than Fiction." IRS auditor Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) enters the bakery owned by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllennhaal) to discuss her non-payment of taxes:

Ana Pascal: Listen, I'm a big supporter of fixing potholes and erecting swing sets and building shelters. I am *more* than happy to pay those taxes. I'm just not such a big fan of the percentage that the government uses for national defense, corporate bailouts, and campaign discretionary funds. So, I didn't pay those taxes. I think I sent a letter to that effect with my return.

Harold Crick: Would it be the letter that begins "Dear Imperialist Swine"? It says, in the file, that you only paid part of your taxes for last year.

Ana: That's right.

Harold: Looks like only 78 percent.

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you did it on purpose?

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you must've been expecting an audit.

Ana: Um, I was expecting a fine, or a sharp reprimand.

Harold: A reprimand? This isn't boarding school, Miss Pascal. You stole from the government.

Ana: No I didn't steal from the government. I just didn't pay you *entirely*.

We need more people to decide to not pay "entirely." What if everyone only sent in 47% of their tax bill and let the military-industrialist-congressional powerbrokers figure out how to pay for their profits?

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

All together now, to the tune of "Barbara Ann," as popularized by John McCain. The bunker-busting Blu-110 and Blu-117 smart bombs are the middle and bottom respectively.

The Empire moves in mysterious ways...or it posts its military shipping manifests in public places. Since many duties formerly performed by the US military are now outsourced to private contractors, it's sometimes harder to shield activities from the public.

Unless you live in the United States, where you will be saved from learning about such details by our benevolent corporate media.

That's why this story from Scotland is so interesting. The Navy, according to public records, is shipping hundreds of bunker-busting smart bombs to a US military base in the Indian Ocean. Now which of our many terrorist enemies might have underground bunkers that need busting? Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Militants in Iraq? Those pesky Hamas leaders in Lebanon and Gaza? Not them?

How about Iran! The government in Tehran been raised as a specter of global doom for the last decade by the USA. Probably because they figured out that if they have a nuclear bomb, the USA won't attack them. So it appears that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has approved moving some heavy weaponry into place for another round of saber rattling. Or something more.

Now Mr. Obama is a smoother fellow than his predecessors, so he might not go public with the overt threats for a while. But rest assured that the Iranian government is aware that the big bombs are heading over for rapid deployment, should the situation arise. For the opinions of European observers following the developments, read all about it here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151

Good to see that yet another Bush-Cheney priority - using the military might of the Empire to cower those who don't want to play ball by our rules - is alive and well in the Obama Administration.

By "yet another", I'm thinking about the renewal of the Patriot Act, the refusal to totally to abolish torture as a tool, contract renewals for Blackwater - oops, I mean Xe - and expanding both the military and private contractor base in Afghanistan...well, I guess the USA didn't really change anything with the 2008 presidential election.

A different smiling face, and a little less bluster. The actions remain depressingly consistent.

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." - Michael Parenti (political scientist, author)

Unsolved Mysteries Are Usually Conspiracies - That's My Theory

Around the world - and increasingly in the USA - the official government story about the events of September 11, 2001, as issued by the 9/11 Commission is being questioned.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used as shorthand by establishment-types to identify wackos and nutjobs and others who might have a thinking brain able to form intelligent questions. However, there is little doubt that the attacks, explosions and demolitions in New York City and Washington, D.C. were not carried out by single assailants - a crew conspiring to do damage was organized, trained and deployed. That's my theory. The question is, who were the conspirators?

The 9/11 Commission was forbidden from investigating that particular aspect. Not that it's resulting slipshod inquiry would have uncovered anything substantial.

A recent article by Elizabeth Woodward, published online at Global Research, details media stories about 9/11 from around the world that have appeared in the last fifteen months. Her survey shows a shift is taking place: the official 9/11 story is openly debated and openly doubted. Go here and see this excellent summary of world news stories, including my favorite: from Focus Money, a German business magazine, an article plainly called "We Don't Believe You": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WOO20100214&articleId=17624

As mentioned in that overview, some American media outlets - including the mighty Time Warner conglomerate - have started to approach the subject less hysterically. TW's newly launched TruTV (formerly Court TV) includes a show called "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura." The former governor of Minnesota hosts weekly explorations of mysteries, and included a show called "9/11" in its first season (http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/mysterious_ways.html). Notable in this episode are the appearances of several top 9/11 independent researchers.

A series of acts on 9/11/01 have led the USA to spend trillions of dollars on war, eradicate traditional American civil liberties via the Patriot Act and other laws, and cemented America's reputation as a thuggish global emissary for violence and disaster capitalism. At the very least, the events of 9/11 deserve a new investigation - and voices around the world are turning up the volume on that initiative.

"My Country Has Been Hijacked" by Cynthia McKinney

Cynthia McKinney is a true American patriot. A former six-term member of the House Of Representatives representing Georgia as a Democrat, she left the party in 2007 to run as the Green Party candidate for President in 2008. McKinney is also an outspoken commentator on all things related to 9/11.

In short, Ms. McKinney does not mince words when it comes to politics and power. Here is a transcript of a speech she gave at a peace rally in Munich, Germany in February 2010.

Thank you for allowing me to come from the United States and participate in this rally for peace.

My country has been hijacked by a criminal cabal intent on using the hard-earned dollars of the American people for war, occupation, and empire.

As a result, the national leadership of my country, both Democratic and Republican, became complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

As a Member of Congress from the Democratic Party, I drafted Articles of Impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. Later, when Democrats voted to support more war rather than take care of the needs of the people, I declared my independence from them and all national leadership; the Green Party nominated me to run for President, which I did on a platform of truth, justice, peace, and dignity.

I watched as Candidate Barack Obama came here to Germany to speak. I saw tears on the faces of many in the crowd who believed that, finally, there was something worth believing in again. That America had turned a page from its evil playbook that had so outraged and disappointed the world. That good was finally about to triumph over evil.

I know that beleaguered people all over the world, victims of cruel and deadly military, economic, imperial policies finally could believe in hope and change. And America could be believed in again.

Everywhere I went all over the world there were pictures of Barack Obama, slogans “Yes, We Can,” and the words “Hope” and “Change” plastered everywhere.

And after eight years of George W. Bush, Barack Obama seemed to be the man the world was waiting for.

So when the Candidate became the President, we held our breath in anticipation.

That torture and rendition; spying on innocent, dissenting Americans; war and occupation; crimes against the U.S. Constitution and crimes against the peace would end and that the United States would finally join the community of nations.

Sadly, one year into the Presidency of Barack Obama, that is not the case.

On our front door step we have witnessed U.S. complicity in the overthrow of President Zalaya in Honduras and the hostile takeover of Haiti by 20,000 troops with guns sent in when the devastated people needed food, doctors, and heavy lifting equipment.

President Obama is expanding U.S. troop presence in Colombia, threatening the people’s gains in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

President Obama has drones killing innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. And Administration lawyers are trying to figure out how to legally kill U.S. citizens. You even have U.S. assassination teams on German soil!

Sadly, President Obama is guilty of every item I cited in my Articles of Impeachment against President Bush.

Both Tony Blair and President Obama justify war in Afghanistan by citing the tragedy of the September 11th attacks in New York and on the Pentagon. But my government has not told the truth about what really happened that day. Just like they lied to start a war against Iraq.

So what are we to do? Let us work together on behalf of truth, justice, peace, and dignity. I will struggle in the U.S. and I will struggle with you:

Not one more dime for war.

We can’t give in and we can’t give up. We must take our countries back.

Letters To Washington

A copy of a letter sent to Representative Ed Perlmutter, my congressional district representative, on 12/2/09:

Representative Perlmutter:

I urge you to help stop this madness of ever-escalating war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more soldiers have to die before you and your Congressional colleagues begin to shut down these wars of occupation?

How many more soldier's families have to suffer the loss or injury of a loved one? How many more innocent civilians have to die in Afghanistan? How much more money has to be spent, lining the pockets of multi-million dollar private contractors as they build the infrastructure to house the US military for a long-term presence in the region?

How can a Democratic majority, elected in 2006 to both houses with a mandate to end the wars, continue to vote to expand them instead? How can our country absorb the incredible financial, physical and psychological costs that endless wars bring? How do you think we'll manage it - I'm interested in your view, since you have repeatedly voted to continue these wars.

And as soon as someone in the government can tell me how Al-Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 - well, then maybe the other flimsy rationales offered by the President for expanding the wars will make sense.

Stand up and be counted on the side of sanity and peace, Mr. Perlmutter. The President's twisting of words to explain this "surge" is as dumbfounding and insulting as any mangling of the language used by Mr. Bush. Do not blindly support the President because he is a Democrat.

There are resolutions before the House now to stop funding this war - H.R. 3699 from Representative Barbara Lee is one such measure and I hope you will co-sign and champion it. The House has the power to stop the killing - please use it!

If not, I'd like to know how you sleep at night, knowing you have a direct hand in meting out unnecessary death and destruction that will affect - and haunt - generations of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis.

Same Old Story: But Now It's The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's Expanding The Wars

I would like to think I'll be able to retire this picture someday...but someday is not today.

I'm getting really tired of writing about the wars, but they keep going on, keep getting bigger, keep getting more and more of our tax dollars to pound down a Middle Eastern sinkhole. Except for the dollars that enrich the hundreds of thousands of private contractors and energy company operators.

That's why these wars will never end - too many people making too much money at the expense of soldiers and their families lives, and citizen tax dollars fuel the enterprise.

President Obama's speech on December 1st outlined his new plan to "surge" 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is fulfilling his campaign promise to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan and continue the wars. Will Congress fight back this time?

They did not fight back against the Bush Administration war machine, even though by 2006 the Congressional Democrats could have severely hindered if not outright stopped the free-flowing money spigot required for endless war. So if they wouldn't stop their Republican political opponents, does anyone think they will stop their own party's leader?

A colleague at work told me of a Thanksgiving holiday encounter with a military officer relative just returned from a lengthy tour of duty in Iraq. "He says it's a joke over there" was the quote, and he recounted several examples related to him of excessive resource waste, luxury building materials, and unrestricted budgets available for the officer's duties. I urged him to watch Robert Greenwald's movie "Iraq For Sale" to get even more details. (http://iraqforsale.org/)

I think most people have the idea things in Iraq and Afghanistan are much different than they are portrayed in the American media. More folks need to understand that, and start hounding their congressional representatives to stop this fiscal/military madness. It's the only way this particular folly of empire can be halted.

Some other notable reactions:

From Cindy Sheehan, pointedly dead-on in her analysis, as usual - "You Get What You Vote For": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

Blogger Arthur Silber expertly analyzes between the lines of the President's speech, pointing out that Obama has effectively gutted the anti-war movement, leaving an open field to continue the Bush Adminstration's war machine:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

And Representative Dennis Kucinich uses just a few words to skewer the President's war plan - "What part of 'get out' do we not understand?"
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=157597

Read The Fine Print

An Associated Press story this morning says that President Obama is dissatisfied with the options given him for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and wants changes. But there's some fine print that didn't make the headlines.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.US.Afghanistan/

As usual, "the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations."

Unfortunately, these same officials were also the source of these remarks (the highlights are mine):

"Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort."

"The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options...though a substantial troop increase is still likely."

"The White House says Obama has not made a final (plan) choice...(but) he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than (General) McChrystal wants at the outset."

Make no mistake, it's a good thing to talk about dissatisfaction with the Afghan War, and it's good to have that story coming out of the White House. It would really be something to draw down troops and leave. That is obviously not happening. Read the fine print.

President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to expand the war in Afghanistan. Even as unnamed administration sources seek to paint a different picture.

Yes, the president is saying, we'll send more troops. But I will complain grumpily while signing the authorization. And yes, I'm in charge.

And finally, this statement:

"He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy - troops are just one component..."

The troops are also the component that is on the ground, shooting and returning fire, killing and dying. How many more Afghans and Americans will die as the USA "revamps" its destructive strategy? That fine print is deadly.

Talk is cheap. Scarring and ending thousands of lives carry the highest costs imaginable.

State Department Adventures In The War Zone

The State Department has been making headlines lately in the Middle East, and not in a good way for the current caretakers of the American Empire.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - the Empire's top diplomat - spent three days in Pakistan, much of it with Pakistani television, radio and other journalists. U.S. news media readers/talkers should take note: tough questions were asked about the ongoing war on "terror." Questions about drone bombers, American interference in Pakistani government, and "daily 9/11s". Questions you are almost guaranteed to never hear from American journalists.

Check out these articles about her trip, and try to imagine any network or cable news personality in this country with the gumption to ask questions similar to those posed by Pakistani reporters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8784194

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/asia/31clinton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pakistan%20hillary%20clinton%20trip&st=cse

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/31/Clinton-finds-Pakistani-mistrust-and-anger/UPI-59211257023194/

One of Secretary Clinton's colleagues has quit his job in Afghanistan as a protest against the Empire's actions in that country. Matthew Hoh - a former Marine captain who served in Iraq before joining the State Department - is a principled man. Thanks go out to him for making a statement, with this action, in favor of common sense and decency.

Mr. Hoh says he cannot understand America's purposes in Afghanistan. If a State Department operative, actively working on the ground in the country, cannot articulate the mission...my guess is it's not because he's stupid. It's because his bosses, somewhere up the line, count on him to do his job and not ask questions. We need more people like Matthew Hoh - here's the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews

Sheehan On The Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Cindy Sheehan offers her thoughts on the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Check it out here:http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Visions-from-Stckholm-Sw-by-Cindy-Sheehan-091010-460.html

Speaking out is something Sheehan has done consistently for years now. She's been derided by many on both the left and the right at various times, but I urge you to go hear her talk if she comes to your town. Her willingness to stand up for what she believes in and speak truth to power is inspiring.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - For Giving Hope

2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner - can we get an interview with some people on the streets in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thought I had time-slipped somehow back to April 1, or maybe a it's really a headline from the reknowned satirical paper The Onion: "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize." But here's the official statement from the Nobel organization:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/

Quoting from the statment: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Obama has been given a major "peace" award for giving hope and his alleged diplomatic philosophy. Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling - a Norweigian committee's view of "peace" looks like an Afghan man's bombed-out home filled with dead relatives.

Memo to the Nobel Peace Prize committee:

1) The largest defense/war budget in American history was requested by the Obama Administration for fiscal 2009.

2) In June of this year, an additional $106 billion "supplemental" funding bill for the ongoing Iraq/Afghan occupation was passed by Congress at the Administration's request.

3) Debate is underway on adding more troops to the Afghanistan debacle - on top of the 21,000 additional troops that the Obama Administration has deployed this year.

This is hope? This reflects the values and attitudes shared by the majority of the people of the world? These are the actions of a man working towards a better future?

The Nobel site extols the President's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Really? Can you give me the details, I've forgotten - it's been a long nine months in office. Just who have we had these efforts with? Honduras? Iran?

"The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." There's been some work, some actual reductions? So far, there has been some talk with the Russians and agreements to talk further. No actions.

Past Peace Prizes have gone to folks with questionable credentials (Henry Kissinger) before. But this one is being awarded before any concrete steps towards peace have even been taken - so far the "peace" effort is all campaign promises, all talk and no actions. In fact, Obama's military moves since taking office fly in the face of his talk.

Did the Nobel Peace committee buy "hope and change" election promises? It's okay if they did. But it's another thing altogether to sell them to the rest of the planet as some sort of "peace" philosophy worthy of international recognition. George Orwell would be proud.

For America, War Is Real Good Business

"Because the United States does not look like a militarized country, it's hard for Americans to grasp that Washington is a war capital, that the United States is a war state, that it garrisons much of the planet, and that the norm for us is to be at war somewhere at any moment."

"What does it mean when the most military-obsessed administration in our history (Bush II), which, year after year, submitted ever more bloated Pentagon budgets to Congress, is succeeded by one headed by a president who ran, at least partially, on an antiwar platform, and who has now submitted an even larger Pentagon budget?"

"If...weaponry is being endlessly developed for our safety and security, and that of our children and grandchildren, why is it that one of our most successful businesses involves the sale of the same weaponry to other countries? The U.S., with $37.8 billion in arms sales (up $12.4 billion from 2007), controlled 68.4% of the global arms market in 2008."

TomDispatch.com is a valuable web site, calling itself the "antidote to the mainstream media." Tom Englehardt's excellent article, "Is America Hooked On War?" is a question for which any clear-thinking citizen already knows the answer.

"Defense" spending makes up more than half of the annual federal budget every year, and weapons industries continue to make up a major segment of our economy. Yet this wholly anti-Christian and anti-humanity government program is never questioned by the media, our elected representatives, or by most citizens of the nation.

Indeed, if the American government's addictive attachment to weapons and death is ever questioned, a likely answer will have something to do with the treasonous act of second-guessing the defense of the nation. Defending the USA against...whom, exactly? And, as Mr. Englehardt points out, if we as a nation are so afraid of other countries, why do we sell more weapons to other countries than anyone on the planet?

Essential reading, sobering statistics, and a subject that anyone who professes Christian/humanitarian ideals must ponder. Thanks, Tom.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175115

The New Illiteracy Takes Over

"The US government is more than willing to invest billions in wars, lead the world in arms sales and give trillions in tax cuts to the ultra rich, but barely acknowledges the need to invest in those educational and civic institutions - from schools to the arts - that enable individuals to be border crossers, capable of connecting the private and the public as part of a more vibrant understanding of politics, identity, agency and governance." - Henry A. Giroux

Truthout has published a highly recommended article by Henry Giroux - "The Spectacle Of Illiteracy and the Crisis of Democracy" - which examines American anti-intellectualism, ever-growing civic illiteracy, and how both are undermining the democratic foundations of the USA.

The American education system devalues important skills such as the ability to question and critically think through issues. The result is a "chronic...and deadly civic illiteracy" that renders individuals unable to connect personal troubles to larger societal issues; the country has "moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting, and in doing so (has) restaged politics and power in both unproductive and anti-democratic ways." The current health care reform "debate" is but the latest example.

Giroux places the timeline of this disintegration - the inability to connect the personal with the public - against the rise of the corporation and militarism as major influences in American life. As he writes, "How else to explain the rage against big government, but barely a peep against the rule of big corporations, which increasingly control not only the government, but almost every vital aspect of our lives from health care to the quality of our environment?" Military/weapons industries dominate our economy and authoritarian violence and blood defines our American culture, from movies/television to video games to sports.

The lesson: teach your children...to question. Before it's too late.

http://www.truthout.org/091509A

Americans Don't Want War In Afghanistan, But Does It Really Matter What They Want?

Will the GOP become the anti-war party in 2010? They threatened an earlier war funding bill tghis year with their purely partisan opposition. Public support for the Democrat-led expansion of the Afghanistan occupation/war is dwindling, according to many reports released today. How will Democratic legislators explain their support for ongoing Middle East war after years of decrying the Bush/Republican invasion/occupation? Here's the CNN story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

And McClatchy News is reporting that a rift is developing between the military and the administration on expanding the war. How is this going to set with the energy companies that need their oil pipelines/infrastructure located in a politically friendly Afghanistan? More troops are required, but "the additional troops are 'only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,' said another senior military official."

Nice to see that American military lives are measured in terms of future payments for the profit of Big Oil. And that these same lives are a political football in Washington - that will be cold comfort for the mourning families of military men and women killed in the meantime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3303057

If President Obama really wants to create change, he could start by doing the morally correct thing - replace all those troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and capital for civic improvements like hospitals, schools and power/communications plants. Think that is an option that will be discussed in Washington?

Pocketful Of Miracles?

I've lately been engaged in an energetic and interesting email dialogue with several friends, acquaintances and others concerning aspects of the health care "reform" proposals and debate. In the course of the discussion, other topics surfaced, including civil rights loss / domestic surveillance and the Obama administration.

One correspondent - a person with strong progressive leanings - penned a post reminding everyone that President Obama is "human" and not the "second coming," both very worthwhile points. The writer touched on the many challenging issues the current administration inherited from the Bush regime. Then things got interesting.

It was asserted that Congress should not take up time with "witch hunts" and chasing down potential/former torturers in the government employ. Keeping info on those potential perps and accomplices still around in Washington is valuable, and Obama can use it to help "sell" health care "reform." Revealing the President's file cabinet full of undisclosed and damaging info on his Republican opponents will convince (strong-arm) them into finally capitulating on health care. And then the writer said: "I think he has a bunch of stuff in his pocket that one after another will come out to show the opposition it will be worse to fight him on the straightforward stuff."

A pocketful of miracles? The post got me thinking, and that's why we started a blog...to think kind of out loud. Here's my response:

Yes, the President is human. You are absolutely correct that he is not the “second coming” and that is an important thing for his supporters to recognize.

Mr. Obama was also a well-marketed product. And despite the 2008 advertising claims about “change,” he has continued the major programs of the Bush Administration – the ones that account for the majority of the federal budget. War and military expansion, continued domestic surveillance practices and covert international prisons are the highlights there. Yes, he inherited some issues, but is this continuation of many of the policies of 2003 – 2008 even disputable? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on these counts?
(see details: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2009/08/just-few-billion-every-year-once.html)

A couple of your comments got me thinking. I’m not sure I understand “witch hunts.” If laws were broken in the Bush White House concerning surveillance and torture – and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that is the case – what does it say about our “nation of laws” that the next President wants to sweep it under the rug? The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law – what’s more important than enforcing the laws pertaining to national government?

The vision of a carrot and stick - secret files that might be used to influence/threaten legislators – is a Cheney strategy, although it is a time-honored political tactic. And not a pretty one, as it plays on people’s fears, secretive nature and back-room thumbscrews. Come to think of it, those are classic empire-building tools.

Finally, surmising that the President has a “bunch of stuff in his pocket” that is going to reveal his true liberal/progressive nature is what another writer called “faith-based” thinking, and belies your earlier observation on his humanity. The Obama administration has already taken on all the “straightforward stuff”, the big-ticket budget items – see above – and now they offer the last agenda item, a flimsy health care reform (complete with privately negotiated deals with pharma/insurance companies: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss ).

So what’s left? Will his administration suddenly – we don’t know the time – reverse course on Afghanistan, secrecy protocols, investigations and the rest? Mr. Obama is okay continuing and increasing the killing in the Middle East while waiting to play his trump cards at home?

Believe your eyes. What is happening in all these arenas – including ignoring Medicare-for-all - is approved by the President. This is who he is.

I am glad you are in favor of many progressive changes proposed for the USA, and I know you speak out for them. For me, it’s important to recognize this Administration for its acts, not its campaign rhetoric or its marketing genius or its potential for magic tricks. By their actions, I’m having a hard time distinguishing Mr. Obama and most Democrats from George Bush and the Republicans.

Growing the Empire

The American empire continues to expand. Here's The Washington Post report on the dollar costs of our adventures in creating allies, or "nation-building" in Afghanistan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283.html?hpid=topnews

Mr. Obama's candidacy was generally regarded as the "stop the wars/peace" faction. Yet his expansion plans for the attempt to finally subjugate Afghanistan were plainly spelled out in his website campaign site/platform. In the times I saw him on television during 2008, he always confirmed that stance. The majority of American voters elected the "peace" president: who promised more killing, more long term deployments, more dollars for weapons.

Some congressman fret that Afghanistan has proven chronically unmanageable and a sinkhole for other "liberators" in the past century. But most of Congress have enthusiastically voted for ever-expanding military budgets and seem prepared to run this foreign government overhaul like a business - but with an improved model.

Private contractors are getting hired, although there is one "help wanted" ad according to The Post. The government is looking for a company "to bring together Afghan economic, social, legal and political groups to help build the country's infrastructure." The kind of stuff State Departments used to do. Yes, capitalism is alive and well - but it still needs the government to supply the troops riding patrols, engaging in remote firefights, getting blown up by mines, dying.

Afghanistan must be crossed by oil/gas pipelines. And those pipelines belong to companies who are not interested in a future where an unfriendly government could nationalize the business. So if it takes decades to guarantee business safety, so be it. At least - until the subjugation of Afghanistan is complete - there will be lots of friendly guns around.