War-loving pundits
The third anniversary of the Iraq invasion is bound to attract a lot
of media coverage, but scant recognition will go to the pundits who
helped to make it all possible.
Continuing with long service to the Bush administration’s agenda-setting for war, prominent media commentators were very busy in the weeks before the invasion. At the Washington Post, the op-ed page’s fervor hit a new peak on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s mendacious speech to the U.N. Security Council.
Post columnist Richard Cohen explained that Powell was utterly convincing. “The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”
Continuing with long service to the Bush administration’s agenda-setting for war, prominent media commentators were very busy in the weeks before the invasion. At the Washington Post, the op-ed page’s fervor hit a new peak on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s mendacious speech to the U.N. Security Council.
Post columnist Richard Cohen explained that Powell was utterly convincing. “The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”
Not fighting the people who attacked us
AUSTIN, Texas -- President Bush has once more undertaken to explain to us "Why We Fight," which is also the title of an excellent new documentary on Iraq. According to the president, "Our goal in Iraq is victory." I personally did not find that a helpful clarification.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida." Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida." Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Bush: internationalist and isolationist?
AUSTIN, Texas -- It's hard to keep up with George W. Bush's shuttles between internationalism and isolationism. You may recall he first ran for office declaring he was against nation-building and other such effete, peacekeeping efforts. None of that do-gooder, building-a-better-world stuff for him -- he couldn't even be bothered to learn the names of the Grecians and Kosovians.
Until Sept. 11, except for staring deep into Vlad Putin's ice-blue eyes and concluding the old KGB shark had soul, Bush evinced little interest in foreign affairs.
Then he literally became an internationalist with a vengeance. Absolutely everybody signed up to help go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan -- offers of help gushed in. Next came the campaign to bring down Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world didn't think Iraq had much in the way of WMD, or at least felt the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to see if they were there.
Until Sept. 11, except for staring deep into Vlad Putin's ice-blue eyes and concluding the old KGB shark had soul, Bush evinced little interest in foreign affairs.
Then he literally became an internationalist with a vengeance. Absolutely everybody signed up to help go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan -- offers of help gushed in. Next came the campaign to bring down Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world didn't think Iraq had much in the way of WMD, or at least felt the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to see if they were there.
You know it’s hard out here being pimped: Thoughts Hustlin’ and Flowin’ in my mind
I can’t get Three 6 Mafia’s Academy Award winning lyrics out of my head: “You know it’s hard out here for a pimp. When he tryin’ to get this money for the rent. For the cadillacs and gas money spent.”
And every now and then, keeping the same beat with the same mood, thinking of pimp and pimping in a non-sexual way, with the pimp being the president of the USA, I find myself also humming and singing,: “And you know it’s hard out here being pimped. And our pimp don’t have to worry ‘bout his rent. He gets a nice per cent of gas money spent.”
And every now and then, keeping the same beat with the same mood, thinking of pimp and pimping in a non-sexual way, with the pimp being the president of the USA, I find myself also humming and singing,: “And you know it’s hard out here being pimped. And our pimp don’t have to worry ‘bout his rent. He gets a nice per cent of gas money spent.”
Hungering for justice at my first congressional testimony
Washington, March 14 -- Last Wednesday evening, the House Appropriations Committee voted to throw another $67,000,000,000 at the murderous work in Iraq and Afghanistan. That night members of the committee, righteously indignant and nearly unanimous, gave President "Bring ‘Em On" Bush a loud slap in the face.
Whoa! You mean the most powerful committee in Congress voted 62-2 to stop funding our national war crimes orgy? Of course they did…and then we all lived happily ever after.
No, the killing will proceed as planned, with no congressional intervention, although chances are you heard absolutely zip about the 67 Billion Dollar Question, thanks to the Guardians of Reality who insured the news from that hearing was the Dubai Port deal, not the unimaginable sum of our money Congress voted for war, nor the voices raised against it.
That news must come from places like the internet site you’re now reading, not the corporate press. And I’m here to tell you the story.
Whoa! You mean the most powerful committee in Congress voted 62-2 to stop funding our national war crimes orgy? Of course they did…and then we all lived happily ever after.
No, the killing will proceed as planned, with no congressional intervention, although chances are you heard absolutely zip about the 67 Billion Dollar Question, thanks to the Guardians of Reality who insured the news from that hearing was the Dubai Port deal, not the unimaginable sum of our money Congress voted for war, nor the voices raised against it.
That news must come from places like the internet site you’re now reading, not the corporate press. And I’m here to tell you the story.
Did Bush make mistakes in good faith?
When we watch a video of Bush being informed of the danger of Hurricane Katrina and recall that he claimed that there was no way he could have known of that danger, our faith in his good intentions may be shaken.
And when we learn that Bush has long since authorized wiretapping without court approval, what are we to make of his public statements (such as last June 9, or July 14, 2004, or April 20, 2004) when he reassured us that all wiretapping requires court approval?
Our President says the United States does not torture, but he's been informed that it does because even if he doesn't read newspapers, reporters have asked him and his press secretary about specific cases. When Bush signed a bill banning torture he added a signing statement claiming the right to keep torturing. Yet he says he doesn't torture. How should we characterize that statement? It's clearly not the truth.
And when we learn that Bush has long since authorized wiretapping without court approval, what are we to make of his public statements (such as last June 9, or July 14, 2004, or April 20, 2004) when he reassured us that all wiretapping requires court approval?
Our President says the United States does not torture, but he's been informed that it does because even if he doesn't read newspapers, reporters have asked him and his press secretary about specific cases. When Bush signed a bill banning torture he added a signing statement claiming the right to keep torturing. Yet he says he doesn't torture. How should we characterize that statement? It's clearly not the truth.
Chicago pro-immigrant, anti-HR4437 rally
CHICAGO -- On March 10, 2006, approximately 100,000 people converged in downtown Chicago under the slogan "We are America." The overwhelmingly immigrant crowd demonstrated for immigrants' rights and protested U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) bill HR 4437, which would "...amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes" via means such as increased legal penalties for illegal immigrants and employment eligibility verification programs. A number of politicians and community activists spoke in support of the rally, including prominant Democrats Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, pictured in this set.
View the photographs
View the photographs
Why did J. Kenneth Blackwell seek, then hide, his association with super-rich extremists and e-voting magnates?
The man who stole the 2004 election for George W. Bush -- Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell -- has posted a picture of himself addressing the white supremacist ultra-right Council for National Policy (CNP). He then pulled the picture and tried to hide his participation in the meeting by removing mention of it from his website, kenblackwell.com.
First discovered by a netroots investigator (uaprogressiveaction.com), Blackwell's photo at the CNP meeting was found on Blackwell's website on Monday, March 6. Then it mysteriously disappeared.
Blackwell has ample reason to hide his ties to the CNP. When the Free Press investigated the CNP and its ties to the Republican Party, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates told the paper that the CNP included "a former Ku Klux Klan leader and other segregationist policies." Berlet emphasizes that these "shocking" charges are easy to verify.
Berlet describes CNP members as not only traditional conservatives, but also nativists, xenophobes, white racial supremacists, homophobes, sexists, militarists, authoritarians, reactionaries and "in some cases outright neo-fascists."
First discovered by a netroots investigator (uaprogressiveaction.com), Blackwell's photo at the CNP meeting was found on Blackwell's website on Monday, March 6. Then it mysteriously disappeared.
Blackwell has ample reason to hide his ties to the CNP. When the Free Press investigated the CNP and its ties to the Republican Party, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates told the paper that the CNP included "a former Ku Klux Klan leader and other segregationist policies." Berlet emphasizes that these "shocking" charges are easy to verify.
Berlet describes CNP members as not only traditional conservatives, but also nativists, xenophobes, white racial supremacists, homophobes, sexists, militarists, authoritarians, reactionaries and "in some cases outright neo-fascists."
The ultimate movie monster may be the Military-Industrial Complex
Reviews of:
WHY WE FIGHT
A film by Eugene Jarecki
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
Directed by Jonathan Demme
As our nation lurches sickeningly toward outright fascism, it's both liberating and disturbing to see a complete, coherent take on the core of the problem.
WHY WE FIGHT is a deeply clarifying and profoundly saddening summing up of the domination of the United States by what Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex."
Eisenhower himself was hardly without blame for its rise. He was a great general who defeated the Nazis in Europe. He also raised serious questions about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. And at the end of his eight-year presidency (1953-1961) he famously warned of the power of the armed services in combination with the pull of the huge corporations that profit from them.
WHY WE FIGHT
A film by Eugene Jarecki
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
Directed by Jonathan Demme
As our nation lurches sickeningly toward outright fascism, it's both liberating and disturbing to see a complete, coherent take on the core of the problem.
WHY WE FIGHT is a deeply clarifying and profoundly saddening summing up of the domination of the United States by what Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex."
Eisenhower himself was hardly without blame for its rise. He was a great general who defeated the Nazis in Europe. He also raised serious questions about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. And at the end of his eight-year presidency (1953-1961) he famously warned of the power of the armed services in combination with the pull of the huge corporations that profit from them.
Democrats: When the war was lost
Here we are, in early 2006, and the headlines are briefly given over to the disclosure that the oil companies have been underpaying their royalties from drilling on U.S. public lands by $7 billion.
There was a time, a generation ago, when people here in the United States thought and wrote about the underpinning of the U.S. economy -- the energy industry -- in a serious way. In the mid-'70s, the country was bustling with groups pushing for public control, for extending the regulatory powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over natural gas prices, for break-up of the oil companies.
In came Carter, and up went the solar collectors on the White House roof. Aside from that it was downhill all the way. The oil companies spend millions to winch themselves out of the public relations debacle of the oil embargo of '73-'74, in which the public rightly perceived them as eager coconspirators with OPEC in price gouging and profiteering.
There was a time, a generation ago, when people here in the United States thought and wrote about the underpinning of the U.S. economy -- the energy industry -- in a serious way. In the mid-'70s, the country was bustling with groups pushing for public control, for extending the regulatory powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over natural gas prices, for break-up of the oil companies.
In came Carter, and up went the solar collectors on the White House roof. Aside from that it was downhill all the way. The oil companies spend millions to winch themselves out of the public relations debacle of the oil embargo of '73-'74, in which the public rightly perceived them as eager coconspirators with OPEC in price gouging and profiteering.