Friday, May 04, 2007

Hillary's Mother-F'ng Tour Business

From our friend Greg Palast:

Before his untimely death in a plane crash, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said,

“I’m not Hillary’s mother-f****** tour guide!”

That wasn’t a nice thing for a member of the President’s cabinet to say about the First Lady, now my Senator, Hillary Clinton.

And it’s probably not polite for me to bring it up now. But if I don’t, surely the Karl Rovarians will - if Senator Mrs. Clinton nails the Presidential nomination.

Bill Clinton used to say that, once he became president, he finally earned more money than his wife. That was a carefully crafted bit of modesty to show Bill as an aw-shucks regular guy versus Richie Rich-kid George Bush.

But Bill’s cute remark raised a question in my mind: How did Hillary get that big ol’ salary? And another question arises: how has she stayed out of prison?

The story’s a little complicated, involving a New Orleans power company, Indonesian billionaires, a New York nuclear plant and plain old influence peddling. But if we follow the money, we’ll get the picture. And it ain’t pretty.

But first, let’s stop at Wal-Mart. Read an official biography of the Senator and you’ll find her six-month stint on a child-protection task force. Yet you won’t find her SIX YEARS on the board of directors of Wal-Mart Corporation. She may have earned a Grammy for “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.” But it takes a Governor’s wife to provide cover for Wal-Mart’s profiteering off systematic wage-enslavement of children in its factories in South America.

Sam Walton called Hillary, “My little lady.” Sam paid her an eyebrow raising sum for a director - equal to 60% of her entire not-insubstantial salary as a lawyer. By contrast, Wendy Diaz (her real name), a 13-year-old in Honduras, was paid 25 cents an hour to make shirts for the “little lady’s” label.

Hillary’s rake-in was made possible by Wal-Mart’s 100% union-free operation and out-sourcing of 100% of its manufacturing, some to prison factories in China. Now, you could say that Hillary couldn’t hear the screams of the kiddies in Kamp Wal-Mart in Honduras. After all, she relied on the intelligence provided her by the President (of Wal-Mart).

Fast forward to 1994 and the Brown ‘mother-f’ing tour guide’ business. According to Nolanda Hill, the Commerce Secretary’s long-time business partner and love interest, Brown, who died in 1996, endorsed a Hillary cash-for-access scheme ($10,000 for coffee with the President, $100,000 for a night in the Lincoln bedroom). However, Brown resented the discount rate the First Lady put on US executives joining Brown’s lucrative trade missions. ‘I’m worth more than $50,000 a pop!’ he said.

One company more than happy to pony up for a cash joy-ride with Brown was Entergy International. This electric company, based in Little Rock, became one of the world’s biggest power system operators on the planet under the Clinton regime. Interestingly, Bill Clinton began his political climb by running for Arkansas Attorney General campaigning on a pledge to fight Entergy’s electric price hikes. His pro-consumer plan was defeated in court by Entergy’s law firm - which included one Hillary Rodham.

There were more favors for Entergy. In 1998, I discovered, while working under cover for the Guardian and Observer, that Tony Blair was personally fixing the system to let Entergy to violate British policy on coal plants. Why? I picked up in my secret recordings of Blair’s cronies that calls to take care of Entergy, rules be damned, had come in from the office of ‘the Flotus’ - the First Lady of the United States.

It gets creepier. In June of 1994, Entergy’s partner in Asia, the Riady family of Indonesia paid recently-resigned Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell a $100,000 consulting fee. Odd that: Hubbell was on his way to prison for the felony crime of inflating his legal bills. Why would Asians pay a lawyer for advice on Asia who was on his way to the pokey?

Maybe it had to do with his partner in crime. I’ve conducted investigations of lawyer over-billing. It is nearly impossible for a senior lawyer to pad billing records unless the junior partner also fraudulently monkeys with time logs to make sure the records don’t give away the game. Who was Hubbell’s “little lady” junior partner? Today we call her Madame Senator.

Hillary’s logs were worth close inspection by authorities, no? But the funny thing about Hillary’s billing records: when requested for disclosure in another suit, they disappeared. First, her law firm’s computers went ka-blooey. Then the paper printouts vanished, but not before, during the 1992 Presidential campaign, they were secretly combed over, line by line, by … Web Hubbell.

Hubbell knew his own logs were phonied, and he understood the consequences of exposure. Ultimately, bloated hours on those records caused him to lose his law license, his Associate Attorney General post and his freedom. He got 21 months in the slammer.

What did Hubbell see and know about Hillary’s logs? Hubbell won’t say, except for a cryptic remark, after seeing her bills, that ‘every lawyer’ fabricates records. Hubbell pleaded guilty, but refused to answer investigators’ questions, a requirement in any plea bargain - so the judge had to sentence him to prison.

Why would Hubbell choose to do time on the chain gang over testifying about the First Lady? His prosecutors did not know at the time of the $100,000 Riady payment, the first of over half a million dollars Hubbell would receive from Clinton friends in the weeks up to his entering jail.

And those Hillary billing records? Hubbell lost them - how convenient. Then they reappeared two years later, just outside Hillary’s office, right after Hubbell announced he would refuse to testify against her.

Maybe the Clintons knew nothing about the big money flowing to prison-bound Hubbell. Knowledge of the payments would suggest they were buying Hubbell’s silence. In 1996, when the LA Times uncovered the payments, Mrs. Clinton’s First Man Bill stone-cold denied he knew anything about it.

Then, in 2000, in a deposition by the Justice Department, the President changed his tune. Investigators confronted the President with this: on June 20, 1994, Hubbell met with Hillary. Two days later, James Riady, the Asian billionaire Entergy partner, met with Hubbell for breakfast. Just a few hours later, Riady returned to the White House, then met again with Hubbell, then made two more treks to the White House. Two days later, a videotape shows the beginning of another meeting in the Oval Office between Clinton and Riady — but oddly, before they talk, the tape goes blank. Two days after that, Hubbell gets his $100,000 through a Riady bank.

Lying to journalists is a venal sin, but lying to the Feds is perjury. In his deposition, the President’s denial transformed into amnesia. He couldn’t remember if Riady mentioned the payment. Then, the President slyly opened the door to the truth. “I wouldn’t be surprised if James told me,” Clinton said. Neither would I.

What did Riady get? The Flotus herself, says Nolanda Hill, forced Brown to accept the appointment of Riady’s bag man, John Huang, as a Commerce Department deputy. According to records of calls the Guardian obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, Huang’s first order of business was to wheedle his way into confidential CIA briefings on Indonesia and China, then call Riady and his Entergy partners.

The same day Riady met the President, documents show he called on a Clinton crony at the top of the department’s Export-Import Bank. “We just came over from the Oval Office,” is a nice way to provide assurance of the ‘political connection’ required for help. These and other Riady team meetings at Commerce are marked ’social’. Yet, shortly thereafter, the department agreed to promote and fund the Riady-Entergy China venture.

Influence is not a victimless crime. Riady and his minions’ visits to the White House (94 times!) included successful requests for the President to meet Indonesian dictator Suharto and to kill negative reports on East Timor and working conditions in Indonesia. Timorese and Indonesians paid for these policy flips with blood.

Has Entergy’s investment in Hillary’s jail-bird partner continued to pay dividends?

Code Pink and New York environmentalists have been pulling out their hair over Senator Clinton’s backing of the operation of the creaky old Indian Point nuclear plant just above - and within irradiating distance of - New York City. The owner of the Indian Point nuke? Hillary’s old buck buddies, Entergy.

Am I saying Hillary would arrange for a payoff to keep witnesses silent, to poison US foreign policy for the profit of corporate cronies, to vote in Washington loaded down with conflicts of interest? I would never say so. Even if the evidence will.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The GOP Morality Scam

From today's post on my blog, American Politik:

The Republican Party has made hypocrisy their political trademark the past couple of decades. Heck the biggest political headline of the day, likely Bush vetoing the Iraq emergency spending bill that passed in Congress, reeks of such hypocrisy. Bush who is choosing not to accept the funds made available by Congress by vetoing the bill somehow thinks he can blame the Congress for not funding the troops.

This post however, is about a different type of hypocrisy.

Sex is the biggest morality play to the Republicans far right religious base. They used President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky as a way to connect Democrats to immorality. Forget the fact that the man leading the charge, Newt Gingrich, was having an affair himself. They impeached Clinton in the House because of it and rode George W. Bush to the White House promising to clean up a supposedly dirty Washington D.C.

Now word gets out that a Washington D.C. escort service has been caught and it's speculated that it could contain a list of thousands of names (possibly including many prominent Republican lawmakers) was released to ABC News as the paid client list. Whether ABC, who was responsible for falsely blaming the Clinton Administration for the 9/11 attacks in a mockumentary last fall, releases the names of the key Republicans or not is still up for debate.

Regardless it's just another sign that Republicans are willing to say one thing and do another when it comes to sex. They use a false morality to seem above reproach on these issues. They confuse the deeply religious into thinking that these men are not the sinners their Democratic counterparts are. And they used those Evangelicals to help get Bush elected as President twice (with the help of some election fraud of course).

Gay Marriage seems the centerpiece of the Republican morality parade. According to the Right, Homosexuality is a "sin" and thus gay marriage is against the laws of God in the Bible.

The problem is this is a mean spirited way to prevent human beings who love each other from having the same rights as their heterosexual peers.

The people leading the charge say ridiculous things to equate their hate mongering for something moral.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott equated homosexuality with alcoholism, sexual addiction and kleptomania.

Former Texas State Republican Party Chair Robert Black, famously told the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay and Lesbian Republicans) that they didn't belong and "We don't allow pedophiles, transvestites or cross-dressers, either."

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the following disgusting comments:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum said in the interview. "You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

At another point in the interview, Santorum said marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. "That's not to pick on homosexuality," he added. "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."


Their morality might not be so easy to shoot down if they weren't so blatant about their own lengthy forays into this supposed world of sin.

For instance, here in Wisconsin, John Gard was the furthest right wing ideologue in the Wisconsin Legislature. When Mark Green left his 8th Congressional District House Seat to run for Governor, Gard immediately popped up as the Right Wing's favorite choice to replace him. Gard had made a name for himself by being the man out front in pushing the Gay Marriage Amendment that unfortunately passed here last November.

Gard and the Republicans had control of the legislature then (that has since changed with the Republican purge at the polls that occured in the mid-terms) and he was considerably abusive in getting the amendment through the legislature including keeping opponents out of the room in which it was being put together and yelling, "Go to hell, Marlin!" at one of the opponents in the hall.

Someone this opposed to gay rights and gay marriage certainly would be squeaky clean himself in this area right?



This previously uncirculated photo slipped into my hands thanks to an anonymous source this week. It shows a younger John Gard from the mid-1980s (circled on the right), cross dressing as a female nurse at a party for his UW-La Crosse Cross Country team.

Is there anything wrong with this photo? Not in my opinion. College parties tend to be wild and fun affairs. Dressing outlandishly at one is by no means a news story. Unless you have bigoted views like Mr. Gard does and do so much to contribute against the very society in which Gays, Lesbians, TS/TV citizens live and breath. Seems pretty hypocritical to have such exclusive views and still cross dress..

Of course he's not the only one doing this.


Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani cross dressed a couple of times as well. It's all in good fun, until you go out, reverse course and say you are now against Civil Unions (which is a step below marriage even!).

Of course these are not the only walking contradictions for the party which has used Gay Marriage as such a wedge issue to win elections.



How about Evangelical Leader Ted Haggard (see: Jesus Camp)? He was the man described as President Bush's personal pastor. He also got caught having a gay affair and using meth. There's a guy who truly was practicing what he preaches.






What about Republican Mark Foley? He only had erotic online chats with underage male Congressional pages on the floor of the House and had sex with them.






Of course there was the White House's favorite press corps member, straight from a fake news agency, Jeff Gannon. Remember that guy? He had lots of visits to the White House, besides his duties as a "member of the press". Oh yeah and he turned out to be a gay prostitute.

It seems to me that this list could go on forever.



Maybe John Gard and the other Republicans should show a little more compassion towards the GLBT community instead of throwing them under the bus for political gain.

But of course if Gard chooses to run against Steve Kagen again in the 8th Congressional District, Karl Rove already has that targeted (see below, click image to enlarge) as a race he wants to win. Maybe Rove won't be so eager to funnel RNC funds to a cross dressing hypocrite next time.



Is that fair? Nope. But it's the game the Hypocrite Republicans created and now they get to play by it's rules.

-Rp

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Milwaukee US Attorney On Firings

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and once targeted for firing by the U.S. Justice Department, released a statement this morning in response to a McClatchy New Service story, carried in today's Journal Sentinel, that quoted a source saying Biskupic was once on a Bush administration firing list.

Here is the statement:

  • Until the recent controversy surrounding the firings of eight United State Attorneys around the country, it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush's agenda.
  • It is my understanding that my name appears on a list, which was a ranking of United States Attorneys. My name appeared in a category questioning my performance and loyalty to the President. That same list characterized esteemed Chicago United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as "mediocre." I believe the list has no credibility.
  • The charging decision in the Georgia Thompson case was made in consultation with the then-Democratic State Attorney General, and the Democratic District Attorney for Dane County. The decision to charge Thompson was based solely on the facts, and was not made with consideration of my job status. To my knowledge at the time, my job status was entirely secure.
  • I am a career prosecutor, selected as United States Attorney through a bipartisan commission. My numerous public corruption cases include prosecutions of Democrats and Republicans. Our records show that since 2002 when I became United States Attorney, I have brought at least 12 cases against individuals who donated money to Republican candidates or who were aligned with the Republican Party.

Friday, April 13, 2007

The Big Lie gets sandbagged

from crooks and liars
During his speech to the American Legion on Tuesday, President Bush said this:

  • The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated.

On Wednesday Secretay Gates announced the Army would be doing this:
  • The Pentagon has announced that all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve three months longer than expected.
But on March 23 the House passed an Iraq spending bill that includes this:
  • The $124 billion legislation includes more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus billions more than Bush requested for combat equipment and training, for military housing and health care, to address the flaws in mental health care, brain trauma treatment and other issues that surfaced in the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal.
  • The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July.
Apparently in Bush World passing a spending bill that fully funds the troops, expands funding for veterans care, demands a one year rest period and seeks to extract the troops from a civil war if the Iraqis don't meet certain benchmarks — all in record time — constitutes "failing to fund our troops" and making "military families wait longer for their loved ones to return," despite Bush's escalation strategy that sends more troops to Iraq and Secretary Gates' decision to extend their tours by three months. Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr. Orwell…

UPDATE: Did the administration plan to announce the tour extension after the veto so as to lay blame on the Democrats? Only to have that plan scrapped because of a leak? Duncan notes the strange timing and ThinkProgress highlights Dana Perino's odd quasi-admission that President Bush didn't know about his own policy. This would all seem to suggest that the plan to blame the tour extension on the Democrats was short-circuited by a DoD leak. And who's politicizing the war and the troops?

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Chomsky - What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

Please check out the new link, tomdispatch.com, which has just been added to the growing list. From that site is this recent article from Noam Chomsky. While I don't agree with all the geopolitical and historical comparisons he posits, still, this piece provides a foundation to begin questioning the basis for middle eastern policy wonk-talk pushed through the media.

Putting the Iran Crisis in Context

By Noam Chomsky

--- Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

"The Iran Effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, usinggovernment and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.

Promoting Democracy -- at Home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.

Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.


Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works.

Copyright 2007 Noam Chomsky

This article was first published at www.tomdispatch.com

Friday, April 06, 2007

iPod Saves

Just featured as a top person of the day; the story of the US Army Sergent and the iPod that stopped a bullet.

Here is the original flicker pic set and the caption:
Photos sent to me by my friend Danny with this caption:

My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound.

I thought it was a great story so I posted them here.
Possibly more interesting is the original poster's documentation of the blooming of the Internet growth of the picture and the related story on the blog HavanaLion under the post "The Digg Effect".

That post even warranted an update:

I decided to move the updating on the Soldier and Ipod photos to my blog. It’s just easier to do it here.

First I want to thank everyone who has volunteered to replace the iPod. This includes people from Apple, Circuit City and Wal-Mart. There also numerous individuals who have volunteered to do it themselves or take up a collection. All of this support is real cool.

To make something very clear, DO NOT send me anything. I’m not trying to profit in any way from this story and I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings.

Danny and I are working hard to try and reach Kevin. When we do, we promise to pass the information along (if he wants us to) to those that are interested.

Thanks again everyone.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Wilde can't raise funds

From the Star Tribune

... Wendy (Wilde) Pareene and other supporters said in a news release Wednesday that a lack of funds forced the center's closure ...
Imagine that, but then looking at the 2006 fundraising numbers and should come as no surprise. Now we don't advocate surrendering in any district, but when the opposition in question (Ramstad) is more "moderate" than some individuals in the DFL, maybe contributions are better suited going toward real candidates in the 1st and 6th district against shaking and truly wingnut neoconservatives (assuming such a person runs against Walz).

Should retirement rumors for Rep. Ramstad prove to be true, members of the 3rd CD DFL should abandon Wilde for the pitch perfect Ford Bell. Wilde tried unsuccessfully to incorporate at least 2 members of Bell's Senate campaign staff, but Wilde was and may never be a candidate rather than a micromanager.

On the flip side, Bell proved he could fundraise, even under the most trying of underdog campaigns. While Wilde only had two personal friends contribute the maximum federal amount for the general campaign, Bell had many donors who double maxed (primary and general) in his contested run against party favorite and current Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

While Bell is more progressive than Ramstad, the two apparently know each well enough not to run in elections against each other. This why Bell won't run mano-e-mano against Ramstad. However, a Ramstad to Bell transfer of power will continue to be a pitch perfect representation of the district. And to put to rest any lingering thoughts, Bell raised money, only contributing $10,050 to his Senate ambitions.

At 1/6 of Wilde total 2006 congressional budget, that probably could have even kept the youth center open.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Obama raises $25 million from 100,000 donors

From Associated Press

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama raked in $25 million for his presidential bid in the first three months of 2007, placing him on a par with front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and dashing her image as the party’s inevitable nominee.

The donations came from an eye-popping 100,000 donors, the campaign said in a statement.

The figure was the latest evidence that Obama, a political newcomer who has served just two years in the Senate, has emerged as the most powerful new force in presidential politics this year. It also reinforced his status as a significant threat to Clinton, who’d hoped her own $26 million first quarter fundraising total would begin to squeeze her rivals out of contention.

The campaign reported that the figure included at least $23.5 million that he can spend on the highly competitive primary race. The Clinton campaign has yet to disclose how much they can use for the primary verses money that is designated for the general election.

While Clinton has honed a vast national fundraising network through two Senate campaigns and her husband’s eight years as president, Obama launched his bid for the White House with a relatively small donor base concentrated largely in Illinois, his home state.

But his early opposition to the Iraq war and voter excitement over his quest to be the first black president quickly fueled a powerful fundraising machine.

More than half the donors contributed a total of $6.9 million through the Internet, the campaign said.

“This overwhelming response, in only a few short weeks, shows the hunger for a different kind of politics in this country and a belief at the grassroots level that Barack Obama can bring out the best in America to solve our problems,” said Obama finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker.

Iran to release British sailors

From the Guardian Unlimited

Fifteen British marines and sailors held captive in Iran for almost a fortnight are expected to fly home tomorrow morning after the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced their release as a "gift" to the UK.

In a surprise announcement during a news conference at the presidential palace in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said the 14 men and one woman would be "going back home" in a move marking the birthday of the prophet Muhammad last Saturday and acknowledging Easter.

Iran's IRNA state news agency said later they would leave Tehran tomorrow at 8am (5.30am UK time) on a flight to London.

After the conference finished, Iranian television broadcast footage of the British naval crew, who were detained on March 23, meeting Mr Ahmadinejad on the steps of the palace.

Dressed in grey suits, apart from the sole female captive, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, who was wearing a striped top and a headscarf, they appeared delighted.

"We are very grateful for your forgiveness," said one of the male captives, Lieutenant Felix Carman. "You are welcome," Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi.

"You came here on a compulsory trip," the Iranian leader told another, getting the answer: "I don't know if I'd put it like that but you could call it that."

Downing Street welcomed the news but struck a note of caution, saying it was still establishing what the announcement "means in terms of the method and timing of their release".

However, the news prompted uncontained delight among relatives. Sandra Sperry, the mother of Royal Marine Adam Sperry, told Sky News: "I'm absolutely ecstatic ... I heard in Asda ... I think everyone thought I had gone mad ... we thought it would drag into next week."

Speaking in London, an Iranian diplomat said the next step would be for the detainees to be taken to the British embassy in Tehran before boarding a flight home.

It had been feared that Mr Ahmadinejad - renowned for being a hardliner and a critic of the west - would use his news conference to make more demands relating to the captives.

The initial signs were not positive - the president began with a long complaint about the invasion of Iraq, also criticising Britain for taking the case of the captives to the UN security council.

He also presented medals to three members of the Revolutionary Guard naval patrol that seized the Britons as they searched an Indian-registered merchant ship just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides Iran and Iraq.

But in a dramatic flourish about an hour into the address, the president suddenly announced: "While insisting on our rights, these 15 sailors have been pardoned and we offer their freedom to the British people."

Iran repeatedly said the patrol had been in Iranian waters, but Britain presented GPS evidence last week that it said proved the UK personnel had been well inside the Iraqi zone.

Later on during his two hour-plus press conference, Mr Ahmadinejad said the British government had sent a letter to Iran's foreign ministry pledging that incursions "will not happen again".

A foreign office spokesman refused to comment on the specifics of any communication with Tehran, but said it had "made our position clear" about where Britain believed the UK crew was when they were captured.

There has also been speculation that the release was prompted in part by an agreement to let an Iranian representative meet five Iranians detained by US forces in Irbil, northern Iraq, in January.

Tehran says the men are diplomats; the US says they are Revolutionary Guards linked to insurgents in Iraq. There have been claims that Tehran orchestrated the seizure of the British crew with a view to an exchange.

The US insisted today that there was no connection between the cases. "Not that I am aware of," said a State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, when asked if there was a link.

Feingold Ready to Up Ante

Mr. President, if you really want Congress to come back and give you a different bill to sign ... let's just say you're not going to be happy. Preach on brother Feingold!

Monday, April 02, 2007

Wisconsin Governor Tommy Tompson Is In

Democratic Fundraising Numbers Roll In

He thought about it in 2000, and it leaked out last week, but the main stream media found and reported it; the "boy from Elroy", former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, is in the hunt for the Republican Presidential nomination.

His announcement came with what might be one of the best Iraq solutions offered from the 2008 Presidential field.

Thompson will be holding events this Wednesday, April 4 in Wisconsin and Iowa:


Milwaukee Event
Time: 9 a.m. CDT
Location: Messmer High School - Tommy G. Thompson Athletic Center
742 W. Capitol Drive, Milwaukee, WI


Iowa Event
Time: 12 p.m. CDT
Location: 7 Flags Event Center
2100 NW 100th Street, Clive, Iowa

Could he pull it off? Consider these points:
  • His announcement on yesterday's "This Week" on ABC trumped any story regarding fund-raising totals by other Republican nominees.
  • Thompson is incredibly strong at retail politics and Wisconsin borders Iowa (Thompson grew up less than 100 miles away) which will provide an influx of volunteers and play to mid-west allegiances - two huge advantages in the first caucus of the 2008 election.
  • The endless accounts of how dissatisfied conservatives are with their field of Republican candidates. Playing to this is Thompson's talking point that he is "the only reliable conservative." The Des Moines Register quoted it back here and two weeks later here.
  • As a White House cabinet member from 2001-2005, he was secretary of Health and Human Services back when Bush was still popular enough to barely get reelected.
  • Before joining the Bush administration, he was the nation's longest-serving governor and will hand the perennial battle-ground state of Wisconsin's electoral votes to the Republican for the first time since Reagan
  • He has a proven track record of new ideas and change including the overhaul of Wisconsin's welfare system, some of which filtered up into the Clinton welfare redo (both with their detractors). Its what David Broder called Thompson's need to "fight the status quo" at the end of Broder's column regarding Thompson's departure from HHS.
  • He heads a health-care think tank, a major issue that the Democrats own on the national stage.
With the best idea about Iraq to date, Thompson said he would demand that the Iraqi government vote as to whether it wanted the U.S. to remain in the country. If the answer were yes, "it immediately gives a degree of legitimacy." If the answer were no, "we would get out, absolutely. It's a duly elected government." Quells the idea of cutting and running when the "sovereign" nation asks you to leave. This would also endure the Iraqi government to its people, being able to do something, especially as insurgents seem to make things worse. The blog Average Joe has more quotes from Thompson.

Democrats should unilaterally take up this stratagem. It'll kill Thompson's primary dreams, but as a way to honorably (not cut-and-run) get the troops out of Iraq and end the occupation, it's an idea that is win-win.

Thompson's biggest drawbacks are the limited pool of financial and political power from his home state of Wisconsin, and at HHS the flu vaccine shortage in the fall of 2004 and the anthrax scare which has yet to be solved.

Today of course the Democratic numbers trumped all things political with Barack Obama continuing to shine. USA Today placed Hilary Clinton's faux $36 million raised in its front page side bar (above the fold). The real number was $25 million from 50,000 contributors. Obama '08 pulled in $22 million from over 83,000 people.

That is impressive for two intertwining reasons. First is the weight of Rodham Clinton's insider contacts. Former DNC Chair and major fundraiser Terry McCauligh is her campaign chair, President Bill Clinton is an obvious asset and her cash crazy US Senate races have all combined to produce what should be the most productive fundraising call list ever. Ever.

Add to that the idea that Rodham Clinton has been running for years, and odds are that she had numerous verbal commitments that only required to be contacted. A cornucopia of low hanging fruit, in fundraising vernacular, who were willing to give $2300 for both the primary and general elections. This is the case, considering the estimated $500 per contributor for Clinton versus an estimated $265 per contributor for Obama.

As the less experienced candidate, especially against the insider heavy Clinton campaign, Obama's numbers are simply astounding. A clear advantage in donors puts Obama in drivers seat when you consider that the low-dollar donors will also be volunteers. As for the experience question, see the t-shirt graphic to the right and remember that Pedro won.

In the end, however, both dollars and volunteers have been poorly used (we're looking at you Joe Trippi and Howard Dean). Before now, the highest off-year, first-quarter total was $13.5 million reported in 1995 by Republican Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. That didn't help him secure the Republican nomination which was won by Viagra spokesman Sen. Bob Dole.

Rounding out the Democratic contenders are John Edwards, who raised more than $14 million — twice his first-quarter total in 2003 and also beating Gramm's old record — from more than 37,000 donors. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson raised more than $6 million.

All first-quarter reports are due April 15 at the Federal Election Commission.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Snoop says " f— Bill O'Reilly"

From TBOHipHop.net -- "Snoop was on a Dutch talk show ... called "Jensen!" [on March 29]. He couldn’t get into the UK so he decided to stay in Holland for a couple of days. The talk show host talked about how Snoop still isn’t seen as a good American citizen, while he has done a lot of good things for society. That was the moment they began to talk about Bill O’Reilly". [explicit]

Here is the original interview with Snoop's defence attorney [video]

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Federal Election Commission Deadline


Tonight at midnight the books close on this quarter's financial take for federal candidates. With polls all over the place the money raised will be the best indicator of where candidates are. Most campaigns will leak expected numbers soon even though they have a couple of weeks to file paperwork with the FEC.

Here are the Democratic candidates:

While all the campaign sites have links for contributions, props to the Clinton web people for being the only site making special mention of the deadline.
UPDATE
- The Clinton campaign was the first to specifically mention the midnight deadline, although the Dodd campaign had basketball themed donation goals, complete with a scoreboard, counting the hours to midnight. Since this mornings post the Obama, Edwards and Richardson (the chili pepper) websites also pronounce Midnight as the deadline.

National Journal's Hotline had fundraising estimates yesterday. They also have a list of questions that should be used to put the numbers into context.

Iran Hostage Crisis - Daily Show style

Yesterday we revealed some details regarding the United States' build up toward military action against Iran.

Of course saber-rattling is a two way street. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show's hardest working correspondent, John Oliver, deliver a spot on editorial to the leaders of Iran.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Russia Predicts US Attack on Iran - One Year Ago

Unearthed from a recent column by Heather Wokush is the prediction from Alexei Arbatov, head of the International Security Center in Moscow, that the United States will attack Iran soon.

"If [the U.S.] ventures a military operation, it will conduct it next year after thorough political, military and propaganda preparations," said Arbatov in a April 17, 2006 article in the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti (RIA-Novosti).

The Russian news service reported on Tuesday, March 27, "a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders" as well as U.S. Naval presence which has, "reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

Their main source for the article, Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

Wokush refers to another Russian estimate of American armed conflict, "predicting the US will attack Iran on April 6th, Good Friday".

Her researched and eye-opening article can be found here (article).

And in case you missed it something occurred just before the unanimous March 24 vote by the United Nations Security Council to impose stricter sanctions on Iran. There was a dispute between Iran and the the U.S. State Department on whether visas for the Iranian President, who sought to attend the session, had ever been granted. (article)

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Pat Tillman - "You know, this war is so f— illegal."


You know what he said. Some other gems revealed in an article from Sunday:

  • He totally was against Bush.
  • Tilman urged [a fellow Ranger] to vote for Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.
These observations of Pat Tillman and the title quote are taken from the San Francisco Chronicle article by Robert Collier. (article)

Shortly after the article was writen, Tilman's mother Mary was interviewed on ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick show, by Patrick and Keith Olbermann.

video_wmv Download (1813) | Play (1430)
video_mov Download (877) | Play (929)

Tit-for-Tat




Boobs - the only word that comes to mind for the Fox Noise Network. Keith Olbermann goes graphic to graphic with them on Tuesday's "Countdown".

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

File under "F" for Funny - McCain MySpace Hacked

From TechCrunch

Someone on Presidential hopeful John McCain’s staff is going to be in trouble today. They used a well known template to create his Myspace page. The template was designed by Newsvine Founder and CEO Mike Davidson (original template is here). Davidson gave the template code away to anyone who wanted to use it, but asked that he be given credit when it was used, and told users to host their own image files.

McCain’s staff used his template, but didn’t give Davidson credit. Worse, he says, they use images that are on his server, meaning he has to pay for the bandwidth used from page views on McCain’s site.

Davidson decided to play a small prank on the campaign this morning as retribution. Since he’s in control of some of the images on the site, he replaced one that shows contact information with a statement:

Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage…particularly marriage between two passionate females.

[Davidson] is making a political statement while also sending a message about respecting the property rights of others. I expect the changes to be reversed quickly, unless the wrong person is sick or out to lunch today. Either way, we’ve captured it above.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Do You Ted Rall?


If you don't you should check out his Website. Rall is a cartoon artist who goes the extra mile to point out the bull shit we so often smell. Plenty of honors have been heaped upon him (read his bio) and I read the cartoons each time they come out.

Here's the toon that prompted the glowing praise. You know someone over at the DNC offices has asked this question.

Monday, March 26, 2007

All Hail the Oligarchy - or - White House Experience Uber Alles?

I came to a simple realization recently. For my entire voting-age life only 2 families have ruled this country. Extend that through a hypothetical two-term Hillary presidency, and that will be an aggregate 28 year reign.

No need for that to be the end either. In 2016 Jeb Bush, two-term-due-to-term-limits Governor of Florida and member of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (the guys who thought in 1998 that invading Iraq would be a super-duper thing to do), will be a hale and hearty 63 years old. He could serve through 2024 and at 71 he would still be younger than Reagan.

Also in 2016, Chelsea Clinton will be 36, her first year of Presidential eligibility. A Disney movie called "Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century" makes reference to "President Chelsea Clinton" (found it on Wikipedia, so it's gotta be true). The movie does take place in 2049, the year that a new oath of office will be taken in January, so that puts the Chelsea ascendancy as early as 2040. Gosh, that's a 3 term gap, how will we get by without anyone with White House experience.

Bush twins!!

- funny side note from Chelsea Clinton's Wikipedia entry: As of 2005, Chelsea Clinton lives in the mid-Manhattan west side neighborhood of Chelsea. The neighborhood north of it is called Clinton. The two Midtown West neighborhoods are often lumped together as "Chelsea Clinton" and there was a local weekly newspaper "Chelsea Clinton News" before she became the famous first daughter.