AND SO IT'S WAR AT HOME, NOW

.
REPUBLICANS TOSS BIPARTISANSHIP OUT THE WINDOW

THEY ONLY EVER USE IT AS A CLUB AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS

YOUTUBE: FUXSNOOZE
"Rush Limbaugh on Hannity - I hope Obama Fails with His Socialist Agenda - Part 2"
Two sick, traitorous a-holes. Conservatives, in other words.



Now They're Using Rank Right-Wing Partisanship To Scuttle The U.S. Economy Out Of Spite

Politics as usual from the GOPers: After admitting how pleased they were that our new President had made a rare Executive visit to the Legislative Branch (to the Republicans first) only the day before, the very next day the 'Pukes voted against the only economic stimulus package currently on the table. After giving Dubya a blank check (which he promptly gave away to his buddies on Wall Street, who instantly blew it on bonuses, dividends and acquisitions) now the 'Pukes won't give Obama one thin dime. Screw America!

Obama angered many in his own Party by reaching out to the 'Pukes, even reshaping his stimulus plan to meet their demands. But that wasn't good enough for the Grand Old Party that America just threw out the windows of the Executive and Legislative branches. They claim that the package gives too much to ordinary working Americans, and not enough to themselves and their rich lazy friends and crooked corporations. But, really, this is the opening shot in the campaign for Congress in 2010.

The Repuke's Reichsmarshall, Fat Herman, er, Fat Rush, shadow Minister of Propaganda of the crypto-Nazi government in exile, has openly called upon his fellow Fascisti to do everything they can to scuttle the U.S. economy, and damn the consequences. Wealth, privilege and power are at stake here for our hereditary parasites and foreign corporations. The people who used to bleat "America First!" are now sniveling "SCREW America."

I really don't see how the Red States, those racist throwbacks who voted for McBush, can stomach their "champions" in Congress and the tame corporate media today. After all, through their own ignorance and stupidity, they are the poorest States in the nation. They'll be the first ones to suffer, they'll suffer the most, and they'll be the last to recover. From Alabammy to Idyho, pointy-headed ignoramuses will be unable to hold onto their jobs and businesses, homes and SUVs, wives and families, guns and dogs. Their life-long desire to live in a Country-Western song will be fulfilled. Then they'll shoot their whole families.

[continued]
.


.
The corporate media are already blaming Obama, in office for two weeks, for anything and everything. Despite his kow-towing to them on every issue, they're out for his blood, and ours. Despite the fact that Dubya took the Clinton budget surplus and blew it out his psuedo-redneck ass, and pushed deregulation to the point where it crippled the entire economy, sending gas prices sky-high and home prices mud-low, with joblessness headed for 1929 levels, "Obama is at fault." So the Repukelickin's are going to obstruct and punish him, and every living American, until they get back in power and ruin us all over again.

The ultimate goal of today's Party of Lincoln is to enslave all of us, to bring us all down to the economic level of the Red States and lower, the Third World. They want to be slave-masters, hidalgos, patroon's, lords of the manor. They want to roll the clock back to Old Testament times, and they want to be Pharaoh. They always talk about "class-warfare," as if the average American even knew what that was. Well, now they're going to show us.

In the words of George W. Bush, "Bring it on!"

If moderate mild-mannered center-Right Obama and his crew of Republican-Lite DINO's and "Blue Dogs" was too far left for them, then let them have a taste of democratic socialism. Not the Red States, of course: Cut them off completely. If their Representatives in Congress don't want any stimulus, don't give them any. Most of them live in negative-tax States anyway: They pay less in taxes than they receive in Federal moneys. Screw 'em. We obviously don't need their votes. They obviously do not understand the changes that came in November: They lost, we won, get out of the way. If all they're going to do is obstruct us, let's just push them to the side. Raw naked capitalism has simply not worked, ever, for 99% of Americans. It's time we lived as well as people in other advanced industrialized nations. If that means socialism, let's give it a try, with an American spin.

You had your chance, Repukes, and you blew it. Again. You deserve Gitmo, nor more consideration. Screw you!

BOYCOTT RUSH: List Of Limbaugh Show Advertisers.


IPS NEWS
"US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision"
And none dare call it treason.

' The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal. Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable". The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning. Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans. The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno. Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge. It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan. '

MCCLATCHY NEW SERVICES
"House passes stimulus plan, but with no Republican votes"
First blood.

' After a sharply partisan debate on Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package designed to create millions of jobs quickly and give consumers more money to spend. The vote was 244 to 188. None of the House's 178 Republican members voted yes. Despite a fresh plea for cooperation from President Barack Obama , who insisted that "we don't have a moment to spare," Republicans spurned the Democratic bill. The White House tried hard to soften the partisan edges. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met privately on Tuesday night with a small group of GOP moderates, but the effort was futile. '

NY TIMES
"Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus "
Bearding the weasel in his den?

' President Obama made a campaign trip of sorts on Tuesday to seek bipartisan support for his economic stimulus plan, visiting Republicans on Capitol Hill and suggesting that he was open to some limited revisions that would address their demands for more tax cuts. But, Republicans interviewed after the meeting said, Mr. Obama told them he would listen to proposals to expand on provisions cutting taxes for small businesses and would be opento corporate tax cuts as well if Republicans cooperated to close tax loopholes for big business. Democrats said Mr. Obama could also support a demand from a senior Senate Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, to add a provision adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not hit millions of middle-class taxpayers this year. That would add costs of nearly $70 billion over 10 years to a package that Republicans already say is too big. Trying to forestall other Republican attacks, Democrats also stripped out $200 million for restoring the National Mall, another provision that the minority had mocked. '

MIAMI HERALD
"Obama urges Democrats to dump family planning from stimulus"
The Great Compromiser strikes out. Well, he tried, didn't he?

' President Barack Obama is urging congressional Democrats to drop a proposal to spend money on family planning from the proposed $825 billion package to stimulate the economy, a symbolic gesture that could help him make inroads into Republican ranks. With the move to drop the controversial family-planning money from the stimulus package - as well as cordial lunch meetings at the Capitol with Republicans - Obama started selling himself to the opposition party as a good cop to the bad cop of congressional Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," Obama said as he traveled between his Capitol meetings. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have, and I respect that. ... I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now." Republicans were pleased with the outreach from the Democratic president, comparing it favorably with what they say is the cold shoulder they've received from Democrats who are running Congress. "We are grateful," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "House Democrats have completely ignored President Obama's call for bipartisan compromise." '

TRUTH OUT
"Obama: Urgent Action Needed for Economic Recovery"
From the horse's mouth.

' We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime - a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks. Nearly two million jobs have now been lost, and on Friday we are likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any time since World War II. Just in the past year, another 2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. Manufacturing has hit a twenty-eight year low. Many businesses cannot borrow or make payroll. Many families cannot pay their bills or their mortgage. Many workers are watching their life savings disappear. And many, many Americans are both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold. I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world. In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse. '

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
" 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails' ... but Rush's recent record stinks"
Rush is WAAAAAAAY Right!

' The next two days of Obamapalooza will be filled with good feelings and positive vibes. Except from one man, Rush Limbaugh. The other day, Rush related how a publication asked him -- to mark Tuesday's inauguration -- for 400 words on his hopes for the Obama Administration. El Rushbo, take it from here: "My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.' (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, 'Oh, you can't do that.' Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the drive-by story is. I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it." '

[Cross-posted at blog me no blogs by cosanostradamus]
.
.

There's more: "AND SO IT'S WAR AT HOME, NOW" >>

Don't let them change the subject; the war goes on

That image, courtesy of the Defense Department, is just a reminder of what's happening on the other side of the world as we count the caucus votes in Iowa.

The caucus-eve New York Times reported:

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes...

The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq...

Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.

“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”

Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas...

We must not let them change the subject.

It's the war, stupid.

Most of the candidates would be happy to talk about something else. It was encouraging that DNC Chair Howard Dean mentioned the war at the top of the short list of issues where Democratic and Republican candidates are at odds. But someone should make sure to tell the candidates that.

That, my friends, is up to us.

As they continue the campaign and ask for your support, your help, your vote, and your money, remind them that getting out of Iraq is still a priority.

Challenge the candidates. Confront them. Put them on the spot. Make them uncomfortable. Keep the issue in front of the voters.

There may be a temporary reduction in violence in Iraq, but there is no exit strategy and not even a plan to begin withdrawing troops, except in the vaguest sort of way proposed by Gen. David Patraeus, who made it clear that could be revisited and changed at any time. A new assessment is planned in March. I suspect we'll learn that the general has been spending some time cuddling with Rosie Scenario.

Don't let them take the war off the table. Call it an occupation, if you prefer; I don't care what you call it, but when the military is killing people every day I tend to think of it as a war.

It's got to stop. We've got to stop it.

Need ideas? Iraq Moratorium #5 is in two weeks. You might start at that website.

Or do something else.

But do something.

We'll all feel better if you do.

There's more: "Don't let them change the subject; the war goes on" >>

Does the current state of most Democrats demand less idealism, or MORE?

Here’s my take on my willingness to vote third-party in 2004, and again in 2008, or in future midterm elections, even should I live in a swing state like Ohio:

Is it a “test of ideological purity” to say that I won’t vote for candidates that support remaining in Iraq, or a political party, too?

Sorry, but that fact (especially my mentioning Greens “too often”) was one of the two reasons I got banned from Daily Kos — proudly banned, I’ll ad.

BG makes my point exactly, but with a different conclusion: the older I get, the more I see there’s too much at stake for half measures on a number of issues. I voted against Kerry, and for David Cobb, not only over the Iraq War itself, but, the imperialism-lite of too many Democrats. (It's too bad Kevin Drum didn't tackle this issue at Political Animal in his otherwise excellent post about the “foreign policy establishment.”

To me, the “we gotta support the Democrats in the end” exemplifies not just what’s wrong with current Democrats/Democratic Party, but what’s wrong with the deep structure of U.S. politics.

First, to look at the Democrats.

Where’s a bill for federal public financing of Congressional campaigns, including reasonable provisions for financing third-party campaigns? Before the midterm elections, a federal Congressional campaign finance bill, but one that would squeeze out third parties, was rumored to be in the mix. I found it appalling that such a thing would even be considered under the guise of campaign reform.

Where, at state or federal levels, are Democratic supports for things like Instant Runoff Voting? Nonexistent, that’s where.

At an even deeper level, and even more idealistic one, though, I’m convinced our Constitution itself needs reform. Not at the edges, though, right at the center.

The only real way for third parties to have a chance in the American process, AND the only way to adapt the speed of the American government to the nuclear/computer age, is to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy.

I heartily recommend David Lazare’s “Frozen Republic” as the best writing I’ve seen on this subject. (Reviewed by me on Amazon.)

Short of that, though, I won’t hold my breath on either Democrats or Republicans doing anything at all at the federal level, and precious little at the state level, to make it easier for third parties to get more of a purchase on the political process.

Beyond that, I hope that as I get older, I become less apologetic for being idealistic.

There's more: "Does the current state of most Democrats demand less idealism, or MORE?" >>

Amen to Lynn Woolsey: Let’s have some Dems get anti-war primary challenges

That’s what California Democratic Congresswoman Woolsey says herself:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is encouraging anti-war activists to find challengers to centrist Democrats, with the aim of moving the party to the left and ramping up opposition to the war in Iraq, to the chagrin of top Democratic aides.

“You folks should go after the Democrats,” Woolsey said in response to a suggestion from an activist during a conference call last month organized by the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

“I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.”

Democratic leaders have yet to punish Woolsey for her stance, but their aides were irked by and dismissive of Woolsey’s remarks.

“The political reality is that the real targets of the outside groups should be Republicans who have so far refused to join the overwhelming majority of Democrats in voting for a change of course in Iraq,” a top aide said.

Ahh, the current Democratic Congressional leadership: shoot the message as well as the messenger.

Oh, let’s take Ms. Woolsey’s call one step further.

Let’s have more liberal bloggers beating the drum for Green Party or socialist candidates for the general election, too. I intend to do so.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Watching Those We Choose.

There's more: "Amen to Lynn Woolsey: Let’s have some Dems get anti-war primary challenges" >>

George W. Obama? Or Hillary R. Bush?

[Cross-Posted at Daily Kos]

Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has written probably the most sobering article I've yet seen about the prospects for the Iraq occupation, and what can be expected from Democratic presidential candidates.

Tomgram: Ira Chernus, Democratic Doublespeak on Iraq

Start with the simplest, most basic fudge. Newspapers and the TV news constantly report on various plans for the "withdrawal of American troops" from Iraq, when what's being proposed is the withdrawal of American "combat troops" or "combat brigades." This isn't a matter of splitting hairs; it's the difference between a plan for full-scale withdrawal and a plan to remain in Iraq in a different military form for the long term. American combat brigades only add up to perhaps half of the troops we presently have in that country.

Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.

But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the US must control every strategically valuable region of the world -- and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate.
...
So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war -- with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts -- while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

It's depressing, but I'd recommend reading the entire article.

George W. Obama?

"The single most important job of any president is to protect the American people," he affirmed in a major foreign-policy statement last April. But "the threats we face.... can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.... The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." That's why the U.S. must be the "leader of the free world." It's hard to find much difference on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama, except that Barack is more likely to dress up the imperial march of U.S. interests in such old-fashioned Cold War flourishes.

That delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly: "His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.... To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States." To control everything and everyone, he wants "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.... A 21st century military to stay on the offense." That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines -- precisely the number Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended to President Bush.

Hillary R. Bush?

Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: "It is time to begin ending this war.... Start bringing home America's troops.... within 90 days." Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all. A few months ago she told an interviewer: "We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq.... What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region." A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.

Why all these troops? We have "very real strategic national interests in this region," Clinton explains.

You are being played again.

They are counting on getting your vote by default, because they know that people are afraid that if they DON'T vote Democratic EVEN if the Democrats will not end the occupation they will end up with the rethugs back in power.

Remember all the fearmongering that Bushco did? The Democrats are now using it against you.

BUT, if they are elected next year in spite of that fact that they continue the occupation... WHAT DIFFERENCE is there between them and the rethugs?

What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.

In other words by electing the Democrats next year out of fear of the rethugs, even if the Democrats won't end the occupation, EFFECTIVELY the country will have re-elected rethugs (called democrats).

Cheerful prospect, hmmm?

Think it through. Don't vote out of fear. You have the power and the dems know you have the power. So they fearmonger.

The only hope you reading this have, the only hope any of us have, is to threaten the Democrats with loss of support if they will not use the power they have to stop funding the Iraq occupation and force a COMPLETE withdrawal. Otherwise settle in for a never ending occupation if Iraq while you watch the death tolls grow.

It's the only way to change the paradigm.

Foreign Policy in a post-Bush America

On January 20th, 2009 America's new President will face a new era of foreign policy with challenges and options different than those faced by prior administrations. Many of these new challenges have been brewing for decades, but most were created or exacerbated by mistakes made since the turn of the century.
...
If American wants to maintain its position of influence over world affairs, and the privileges which that influence brings, we need to dramatically change our approach to foreign policy. As popular as Clinton is overseas, a return to 90's style diplomacy in a post 3/20/2003 world will not be enough. A clear rejection of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike and a return to coalition building is certainly a good start but we need to go beyond that. We can no longer expect to world to accept that our intentions are in good when they see negative consequences of our actions.

We can no longer use our military might to protect our access to resources such as oil without expecting repercussions in the form international anger and angst which expresses itself as protests, or much worse, terror. We cannot continue to negotiate trade agreements which favor our corporate interests and neglect the rights of workers abroad and needs of workers at home. As we select a new face to govern America, we must also choose a leader who is able to reevaluate America's approach to foreign affairs and establish a new doctrine of policies which can carry us forward, repairing the damage from our mistakes and building a strong foundation for our relationships with nations around the globe.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation
End the War (On Terror)

With the 2008 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.

A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world - reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.

Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring real national security.

Princeton Universities Wilson School has in fact been working on devising a new cogent and workable foreign policy for America that may show promise. The Princeton Project on National Security on September 29, 2006 released their final report in the form of 96 page PDF document titled "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, U.S. National Security In The 21st Century, which according to their mission statement was developed by 400 contributors over a 2 year period, to "set forth agreed premises or foundational principles to guide the development of specific national security strategies by successive administrations in coming decades".

The Princeton Project's report is here.

.......................................................................

In 2008 either the Democrats or the Republicans will take control of the Executive Branch and the Presidency, and therefore the administration of US Foreign Policy.

The purpose of this post is to highlight the need for, and to ADVOCATE for a drastic overhaul of US Foreign Policy.

My own politics are best described this way: I am not at all concerned with which party "wins" next year. I want the occupation ended as soon as possible so that the fewest Americans and Iraqis die. Preferably none. Period. I also see the occupation as a specific instance of the more general doctrine of preemptive war - really imperialist hegemony - that the neocons and rethugs want to pursue. I want the specific instance ended and the mindset behind the general doctrine made politically and socially unacceptable and people who hold that mindset treated as pariahs, so that no matter which party is elected it will not happen again.

A new and sensible Foreign Policy framework is something that is badly needed if America is to move forward as a respected and respectable member of a community of nations, and avoid creating terrorism and tragedies like 9/11 in future.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention:

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.

NOTE: Ira Chernus, besides blogging at The Smirking Chimp, is also the author of the book: Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror And Sin:

In an ambitious effort to clarify a complicated issue, Ira Chernus tackles the question of why U.S. foreign policy aimed at building national strength and security has the paradoxical effect of making the country less safe and secure. His answer: The "war on terror" is based not on realistic appraisals of the causes of conflict, but rather on "stories" that neoconservative policymakers believe about human nature and a world divided between absolute good and absolute evil. The root of the stories lies in these policymakers' terror of the social and cultural changes that disrupted American society during the sixties. The neoconservative stories portray those responsible for change not simply as political opponents, but as enemies or sinners acting with evil intent to destroy American values and morals--that is, as "monsters" rather than human beings.

Exploring both secular and religious components of this political ideology, Chernus shows that after 9/11 the Bush administration transferred the story from a domestic to a foreign stage. The goal of the war on terrorism is to keep on fighting monsters forever, to give Americans a global arena where they can show that they still believe in eternal moral values and have the strength to resist the winds of change. Traditional conservatives support the war on terrorism because its story mirrors their own stories about a war against sin. Liberals accept an endless war against foreign evil because they fought the same kind of war against communism for forty years. They act out old stories that feel familiar and safe, rather than finding new policies that would actually make us more secure. This turns the United States into a national insecurity state.

There's more: "George W. Obama? Or Hillary R. Bush?" >>

Talk is Cheap

Playing the part of a dissenting senator can get you a few spins in the network news cycle, but until you put up, you may as well shut up (honestly, how hard is it for a GOP senator to come out against policies of a president whose popularity has fallen to 26%?).

Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is giving the GOP-Iraq doubting troika of Voinovich, Lugar & Domenici a low-cost (in terms of reputation) chance to do their putting up.

Following the three deadliest months of the war, Democrats are forcing President Bush and Iraqis to finally accept some measure of accountability for this war through the Defense Authorization bill this week. Starting off the debate, Webb will introduce an amendment to the bill that requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.

Why is supporting this amendment such a safe move for the troika? Because it is absolutely the least they can do both to demonstrate real support for our troops in harm's way and stick a finger in the eye of the (mis)administration which has so ill-treated our troops.

No mention of withdrawal timetables. Hell, no mention of even providing adequate body armor and properly armored vehicles for troops on patrol in dangerous forward areas. We're simply talking about a chance for returning troops to have an adequate chance to rest, recuperate and get their personal & family affairs in order before being fed back into the meatgrinder.

If these three GOP senators cannot do at least this much for our fighting men & women, then I sure as hell don't expect to see their fatuous faces on my Sunday talk shows again anytime soon.

There's more: "Talk is Cheap" >>

American Exceptionalism In Iraq

This film by John Pilger was made before George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, but after George H.W. Bush attacked Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War in response to the Iraqi invasion Of Kuwait.

"After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations (backed strongly by the US and UK) imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq that lasted for 10 years (1991-2001); the harsh restrictions on imports of everything, including access to key medicines, resulted in over a million deaths, more than half a million of which were women and children. That's more deaths than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and 9/11 combined."

The film is an hour and fifteen minutes long. Watch it.

While you're watching it, keep in mind that George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle has happened to Iraq since this film was made.

I saw someone earlier today make the claim that the Democratic control of Congress is too narrow for a fast, effective action to get us out of Iraq.

That, in the sense that matters most, is utter, unadulterated, self-deceiving bullshit.

The only sense in which it is true is that too many Democrats in Congress are placing their own interests ahead of the the lives of the soldiers and the Iraqis that are dying everyday, while those Democrats cynically try to use supporting/funding/continuing the debacle to win elections next year.

If the Democrats don't want to do the right thing... it becomes obvious that they want to continue the occupation.

For what? Cheap gasoline? Or the neocon vision of world domination?

What has been needed all along and is needed now is for the Democrats to show that they have some balls and display A Measure of Morality in Congress:

If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?

So what if they chance losing their seats. How horrible is that?

Personally, I think it is the best way for them to retain their seats.

The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is also part of the big lie.

If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullshit and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

...........................................................

Maybe America needs an Exceptional new National Anthem.

When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

There's more: "American Exceptionalism In Iraq" >>

inaction alert!! no more $$ for dems!!

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs.

steven d, writing over at booman last week, expressed some sentiments that have been roiling in our minds as of late:

half my spam these days comes from democratic politicians requesting my credit card number, or my check, preferably in an amount larger than $100. true, it does get worse during an election year, but since 2008 is the "big one" with the presidency up for grabs, the calls for cash have started earlier and earlier…

no, we are the free money people. our emails receive automated replies, not personal ones. our phone calls get stuck in easily deleted voice mail caches, or if we're lucky, half listened to by some young staffer who probably thinks what we have to say is a big fat waste of his or her time. and the reason is because we can't contribute enough money in our pay to play political system to earn us any real access…

the single biggest reason democrats won control of the house and senate was their pledge to change the direction of the war in iraq. well, they didn't change it, bush did with his "surge" plan which is now killing more american soldiers each month even as there is no let up (so far as we can tell from censored media reports) in the levels of death and destruction which the iraqi people are continuing to endure.

the democrats gleefully took our money. they gladly accepted our volunteer efforts. and they rejoiced in our votes which gave them control of both houses of congress for the first time in over a decade. then they slapped us in the face, told us to shut up, and tried to make lemonade out of the bags of stale urine they dumped on our heads after they voted to give bush every damn thing he wanted without a single relevant concession on his part.

okay, that's fine. nobody said politics wasn't a dirty game. but no one said we have to keep paying for being mistreated and abused by the party that putatively represents our interests, either. so here's my recommendation to you:

stop sending dems your money!

i mean it. stop all contributions. and after you do, send them emails or call them on the phone and tell them you will no longer contribute to any democrat or democratic organization or political action committee, ad nauseam, until they stop funding the iraq war. that's what i am going to do with respect to the democratic national committee, the only democratic organization i contribute to on a regular (i.e., monthly basis). i send them a monthly amount via my credit card every month. but no more.

look, i understand that democrats can't get much of their agenda, if anything, passed so long as george bush can veto their legislation. they can't pas universal health care, for example, or a bill to start limiting our use of fossil fuels by putting caps on carbon emissions. they don't have the votes to override a veto by bush. so i won't hold them accountable for not passing much needed progressive legislation.

but funding the iraq war doesn't require passing legislation. all it requires is not passing a bill to fund the war in iraq. or keep sending the same bill back to bush which mandates a withdrawal of us troops and make him blink first. but they couldn't do that, despite the fact that 70% of americans disapprove of both bush and his handling of the iraq war.

so let them drink tea and eat cake without my hard earned dollars paying for their privileges. and without yours, and yours, and yours ... etc. because maybe then they'll finally take us seriously and pay attention when we tell them to:

support the troops -- bring them home. now!

period. end of discussion.

we totally agree. and we have already begun to implement this policy.

both mr. and mrs. skippy have donated extensively (at least, for middle class people) to various dem candidates and organizations in the past. they have donated enough to be on several lists of suckers that give money which other organizations use to call and solicit funds.

just yesterday skippy received a call from the "democratic finance committee." once the caller identified whom he was representing, skippy told him in no uncertain terms, "you guys really screwed up on the iraq funding withdrawl vote. i'm not giving you guys another cent until you get that right."

and he hung up.

we strongly urge everyone to do the same. not only stop giving money to dem pols, like so many enablers spotting the drunk on the corner a dollar for "food," but also let the candidates and organizations know exactly why the teat of free currency has dried up.

who's with us?

ps. if you'd like the nifty "no $$ for dems" logo for your own blog, email skippy and he'll send you the code!

There's more: "inaction alert!! no more $$ for dems!!" >>

"We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land"

[cross-posted at And, yes, I DO take it personally]

a quote that will live in infamy...

a cursory glance at today's home pages of the washington post and the new york times show sparse coverage of the intense feelings of anger and disappointment burning through the liberal/progressive grassroots and blogosphere about the dismal performance of what we thought was "our" democratic congressional leadership, the people we elected to the majority in large part to halt the illegal war in iraq...

After Victory on Hill, President Shifts Tone on Iraq

House, Senate Pass Iraq War Funding Measure

Congress Passes War Funds Bill, Ending Impasse


instead, most of the stories seem to take this tack...

[P]arty leaders vowed it was only a temporary setback in their efforts to bring home American troops.

[...]

[B]ackers said the bill's provisions -- including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid -- represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.

how many times is it possible to hear statements like that before they cease to have any meaning whatsoever...? before, during and after the 2006 elections, the democratic leaders have consistently failed to demonstrate their understanding that the bush presidency is destroying our country, and it's not just about iraq... the actions taken by bush and his criminal colleagues in the past 6 1/2 years call for responses that reflect the utmost urgency but that is never what we hear... instead, we get this...

"We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land," [Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.)] said.

and there ya have it... the country we've been assured all of our lives was governed "by the people, for the people, and of the people", is nothing of the kind...

and, oh, yeah, opposition did get a few mentions...

• Antiwar groups demanded that Democrats continue pressing for withdrawal dates and bombarded congressional offices with angry phone calls and e-mails in the hours before yesterday's votes.

• Antiwar groups warned lawmakers who supported the spending bill that they could become election targets.

• "We are moving backward," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a war opponent.

isn't it interesting how "antiwar" can be made to sound like a disparaging epithet rather than something noble...?

and then the unkindest cut of all...

The votes yesterday marked a rare moment of bipartisanship in an otherwise contentious and emotional debate.

i've grown to truly detest that word... it's become synonomous with "complicit..."

There's more: ""We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land"" >>