Creative destruction
Heckuva job, fellas!
The monster called Iraq that the Bush administration has bequeathed humanity was created with a breath-sucking mix of high-tech ruthlessness, messianic ideology and sheer, FEMA-quality incompetence — and, it turns out, a little help from the Italian Mafia.
I hope what has happened these last four years — this abominable exercise in what neocon theorist Michael Ledeen called “creative destruction,” back in those heady days immediately after 9/11 when most of the American public was intoxicated with vengeance and nationalism — is a lesson we don’t forget. That’s our only hope: that we smell the racism and self-interest the next time a demagogue pushes war, and that we remember not just the horrors of this one but the irony. The Bush administration’s “war on terror” is a terrorist’s best friend.
The monster called Iraq that the Bush administration has bequeathed humanity was created with a breath-sucking mix of high-tech ruthlessness, messianic ideology and sheer, FEMA-quality incompetence — and, it turns out, a little help from the Italian Mafia.
I hope what has happened these last four years — this abominable exercise in what neocon theorist Michael Ledeen called “creative destruction,” back in those heady days immediately after 9/11 when most of the American public was intoxicated with vengeance and nationalism — is a lesson we don’t forget. That’s our only hope: that we smell the racism and self-interest the next time a demagogue pushes war, and that we remember not just the horrors of this one but the irony. The Bush administration’s “war on terror” is a terrorist’s best friend.
It really is a Democratic Congress
Should it go without saying that the current Congress is Democratic? The Democrats have the majority, control the agenda, and chair and hold a majority on every committee. But does that make the Congress Democratic?
Liberal commentators averse to criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun flailing around for a reasonable explanation for the behavior of her Congress. Matt Stoller has latched onto the idea that, even though there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, the Republicans secretly have a majority. This is an appealing proposition, since all of us on the left view the Republicans as worse than the Democrats. We'd like to be able to blame them for everything, not just most things. And, as an added bonus, this theory transports us into the enjoyable realm so often inhabited by those on the right, the realm of thoughtless belief in utter nonsense.
Stoller's argument is basically that the conservative, or "blue dog" Democrats insist on voting with the Republicans. True enough. But that's not the whole story. Stoller also acknowledges in passing a couple of other problems:
Liberal commentators averse to criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun flailing around for a reasonable explanation for the behavior of her Congress. Matt Stoller has latched onto the idea that, even though there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, the Republicans secretly have a majority. This is an appealing proposition, since all of us on the left view the Republicans as worse than the Democrats. We'd like to be able to blame them for everything, not just most things. And, as an added bonus, this theory transports us into the enjoyable realm so often inhabited by those on the right, the realm of thoughtless belief in utter nonsense.
Stoller's argument is basically that the conservative, or "blue dog" Democrats insist on voting with the Republicans. True enough. But that's not the whole story. Stoller also acknowledges in passing a couple of other problems:
Resistance of one
There is something else we can try. If you've given up on staging marches and rallies, or if – like me – you haven't but you want to try something else as well, and if you've given up on lobbying Congress as pointless, or if – like me – you haven't but you want to try something else as well, and if educating your fellow citizens as to exactly how completely corrupt the whole system is seems like an incomplete answer, and if staging a general strike or taking over the capital only seems like a good idea if you can get millions of others to join you, there is another approach that can be taken right away by a single person, a small group, or a crowd.
Commenting on the black commentator
I've been a reader and contributor to the Black Commentator since it began, as well as to the Black Agenda Report, which split off from it. The July 23rd sit-in in Congressman John Conyers' office, in which I took part, has led to quite a brouhaha in both publications. Last week the Black Agenda Report printed a column I wrote about that action, and the Black Commentator published a column by Rev. Lennox Yearwood who also took part, as well as a response from Larry Pinkney criticizing our efforts and specifically denouncing me as racist and arrogant. This morning the Black Commentator published various readers' responses, more opinion from Pinkney, and an article of mine about impeachment (despite my arrogant racism, I guess). Also last week, Rev. Yearwood and I discussed this topic on the Pacifica Radio show "Voices of Vision," and this morning Pinkney and I are scheduled to discuss it again on the same program.
Disciples of Yossarian
Following on the heels of his flirtation with violent "decisiveness" toward Pakistan, Barack Obama got twisted up even further in the conflicting loyalties that complicate the lives of Democratic presidential candidates and the people who vote for them. Pretty soon the other candidates were in there with him, like cats in the yarn.
After declaring in a speech last week that he might order military strikes on Pakistan border areas to take out suspected al-Qaida camps, he was asked by an AP reporter if he’d use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.
I pause here a moment to ponder the insanity of this question, or what I might call the "Yossarian moment" it produces, referring, of course, to Joseph Heller’s notorious central character in the World War II novel "Catch-22," whose everyman sanity stood in constant amazed contrast to the routine insanities of war, like people all the time trying to kill each other. This is a Yossarian moment on steroids, reporter to almighty-deity-in-chief wannabe: When killing thine enemies, sir, would you be inclined to take ’em out 50,000 at a swath? A hundred thousand? A million?
After declaring in a speech last week that he might order military strikes on Pakistan border areas to take out suspected al-Qaida camps, he was asked by an AP reporter if he’d use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.
I pause here a moment to ponder the insanity of this question, or what I might call the "Yossarian moment" it produces, referring, of course, to Joseph Heller’s notorious central character in the World War II novel "Catch-22," whose everyman sanity stood in constant amazed contrast to the routine insanities of war, like people all the time trying to kill each other. This is a Yossarian moment on steroids, reporter to almighty-deity-in-chief wannabe: When killing thine enemies, sir, would you be inclined to take ’em out 50,000 at a swath? A hundred thousand? A million?
Failure to stop Bush is not a victimless crime
If you support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, I'm sure you have your reasons and that they're based in hard scientific calculations. But please indulge me for a moment and help me do this little math problem:
All the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever they may be)…
Actually, let me stop right there. The benefits you have in mind for this calculation should not include the increased price of gas, the killed and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, or the creation of a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq (that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made us less safe is the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, supported as well by a conservative British think tank). Oh, and please don't factor in the Iraqis' gratitude, since the majority of them believe the invasion and occupation have made them worse off, and they want the U.S. to leave.
All the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever they may be)…
Actually, let me stop right there. The benefits you have in mind for this calculation should not include the increased price of gas, the killed and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, or the creation of a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq (that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made us less safe is the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, supported as well by a conservative British think tank). Oh, and please don't factor in the Iraqis' gratitude, since the majority of them believe the invasion and occupation have made them worse off, and they want the U.S. to leave.
Let us now praise an infamous woman -- and our own possibilities
The problem with letting history judge is that so many officials get away with murder in the meantime -- while precious few choose to face protracted vilification for pursuing truth and peace.
A grand total of two people in the entire Congress were able to resist a blood-drenched blank check for the Vietnam War. Standing alone on Aug. 7, 1964, senators Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Forty-three years later, we don’t need to go back decades to find a lopsided instance of a lone voice on Capitol Hill standing against war hysteria and the expediency of violent fear. Days after 9/11, at the launch of the so-called “war on terrorism,” just one lawmaker -- out of 535 -- cast a vote against the gathering madness.
“However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint,” she said on the floor of the House of Representatives. The date was Sept. 14, 2001.
A grand total of two people in the entire Congress were able to resist a blood-drenched blank check for the Vietnam War. Standing alone on Aug. 7, 1964, senators Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Forty-three years later, we don’t need to go back decades to find a lopsided instance of a lone voice on Capitol Hill standing against war hysteria and the expediency of violent fear. Days after 9/11, at the launch of the so-called “war on terrorism,” just one lawmaker -- out of 535 -- cast a vote against the gathering madness.
“However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint,” she said on the floor of the House of Representatives. The date was Sept. 14, 2001.
Senator Dodd thinks you're stupid
In a report on a recent discussion between Senator Chris Dodd, Democratic candidate for president, and a group of bloggers, we learn that:
1. Even though 54% of Americans favor impeaching Cheney, and 40% oppose, Dodd opposes impeachment because, he says, he bases his actions on what the average American thinks, and
2. Even though any useful bill Congress might pass will be vetoed, Dodd is going to continue to oppose impeachment on the grounds that Congress needs to focus on other things, not because Dodd believes this makes any sense, but because Dodd believes the average American buys this line.
And we can infer that:
3. Dodd believes that after another year and a half of every useful bill being vetoed, every useful subpoena being rejected, every useful witness suffering miraculous memory loss, every contempt citation being blocked, and every sentence being commuted, the public will still believe that Congress should avoid impeachment in order to accomplish other things.
1. Even though 54% of Americans favor impeaching Cheney, and 40% oppose, Dodd opposes impeachment because, he says, he bases his actions on what the average American thinks, and
2. Even though any useful bill Congress might pass will be vetoed, Dodd is going to continue to oppose impeachment on the grounds that Congress needs to focus on other things, not because Dodd believes this makes any sense, but because Dodd believes the average American buys this line.
And we can infer that:
3. Dodd believes that after another year and a half of every useful bill being vetoed, every useful subpoena being rejected, every useful witness suffering miraculous memory loss, every contempt citation being blocked, and every sentence being commuted, the public will still believe that Congress should avoid impeachment in order to accomplish other things.
The dumbest thing the Washington Post could print
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you... what's next?
The Washington Post today published an article by Michael Tomasky called "The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make." With a lot of publications, this article itself would have been the dumbest thing they'd ever printed. Of course, we're talking about the Washington Post, a newspaper that cheered in hundreds of articles and columns and editorials for a cakewalk in Iraq. Still, this was the single dumbest thing the Post could possibly have printed at this time.
The Washington Post today published an article by Michael Tomasky called "The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make." With a lot of publications, this article itself would have been the dumbest thing they'd ever printed. Of course, we're talking about the Washington Post, a newspaper that cheered in hundreds of articles and columns and editorials for a cakewalk in Iraq. Still, this was the single dumbest thing the Post could possibly have printed at this time.
34 Congress members for impeachment
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D., Wisconsin) and Congressman Donald Payne (D., N.J.) have signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 333, a bill proposing articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, according to Congressman Dennis Kucinich's office. Kucinich is the original sponsor of the bill. Baldwin is the fourth member of the House Judiciary Committee to have added her name to the bill. A fifth Judiciary Committee member, Steve Cohen, has thus far signed on only to a bill proposing the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
H Res 333 cosponsors include, in addition to Baldwin, Payne, and Kucinich: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady.
That bill, H. Res. 589 sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee, has 15 cosponsors in addition to Inslee: Xavier Becerra, Michael Arcuri, Ben Chandler, Dennis Moore, Bruce Braley, Tom Udall, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Keith Ellison, David Wu, Yvette Clarke, Darlene Hooley, Betty McCollum.
H Res 333 cosponsors include, in addition to Baldwin, Payne, and Kucinich: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady.
That bill, H. Res. 589 sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee, has 15 cosponsors in addition to Inslee: Xavier Becerra, Michael Arcuri, Ben Chandler, Dennis Moore, Bruce Braley, Tom Udall, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Keith Ellison, David Wu, Yvette Clarke, Darlene Hooley, Betty McCollum.