While liberation is sometimes synonymous with free, occupation is almost always associated with repression, especially by those who find themselves living in the occupied country. Having been told that that initial war was meant to bring freedom and democracy to their country, regular Iraqis can only sit in incredulity as they see the shambles their country has become. Indeed, if this is the path to freedom, many doubtlessly would have chosen to leave bad enough alone. But once ‘liberation’ has gone out the window and all you are left with is occupation forces, it becomes difficult to sit back and wait for the promise of self-determination to begin. After all, Iraq was promised a democratic government. So far, all they’ve gotten is more bloodshed and a paralyzed parliament.

Increasingly, the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil has led to factional divisions within Iraq itself, as our lack of effective provisional governance created a vacuum of power in Iraq that has been filled by a rash of sectarian rebel groups, terrorist organizations who moved in to fertile training grounds, and disaffected Iraqi citizens fighting for their daily existence. Our lack of planning, competence, and ability to engage Iraq and its neighbors in finding peace has exposed the emptiness of American colonialism sans intelligence and revealed an American system of capitalist-controlled corporate governance that shares no values with the people of America, let alone Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Being exposed as such, the modern “Iraqi Street” has concluded that American democracy has only destroyed their once secular (albeit despotic) government and replaced it with a daily bloodbath where no one is safe, where you don’t know your enemy from your friend, and where each walk outside may be your last.

Our moment as liberators quickly transformed into an eternity as occupiers who have become little more than catalysts for chaos. And as yet, there seems to be no end in sight. President Bush has all but said that he’ll never leave Iraq while in office, meaning that more US troops will die needlessly, more Iraqi’s will die needlessly, and the flames of Mid-East tensions will continue to rise, fueled by arrogance and idiotic decisions from the Oval Office.

Unless…..

Unless the Iraqi’s have anything to say about it. In an under-reported story out of Iraq, the Iraqi parliament yesterday passed a binding resolution that will guarantee Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. The bill would require any new extensions to be approved by the parliament instead of the Prime Minister, as is now the case. And Iraqi lawmakers have indicated that when given the chance, they’ll block any future extensions of the mandate that do not contain specific timelines for withdrawal, meaning that coalition (read: mostly US) troops would no longer have UN cover to remain in Iraq. Without that cover, any foreign troops in Iraq would legally be considered as an armed occupation force, not so unlike the Japanese when they conquered parts of China back in the 1930’s. In other words, the overwhelming impression by Iraqis that American troops are now an occupying force would become a matter of international law and not just an overwhelming national opinion.

Of course, with George W. Bush at the helm, I have no doubt that he will ignore any such actions from the Iraqis. After all, democracy is great to this president, so long as he’s the one calling the shots. Remember, he’s the decider guy. But if the Iraqi’s pass this bill, and if they refuse to extend any further UN mandates that do not contain specific timetables for ending this conflict, expect this war to grow larger as other Arab nations in the region reach out to their Iraqi neighbors against American insolence and intransigence. And expect America to lose more and more of her foreign support, perhaps becoming even more of a target than she is today.

Six years ago America was ruthlessly attacked by a group of religious zealots who got lucky and were able to take advantage of our laxity. That was a monumental tragedy and represented an internal failure on our part. In the six years since that day, America, under Geroge Bush and Dick Cheney, has done more harm to herself and to world peace than any Middle Eastern mullah could have hoped for. And in the process, they have guaranteed that “freedom and democracy” aren’t going to be embraced in the Middle East any time soon.

Nice job guys. Nice job.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

I guess somebody didn’t get the memo from the Bush Administration that you aren’t allowed to use the words “Iraq,” “Civil,” and “War” all in the same sentence.

“Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a “civil war,” including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements. Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and, politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict.

Much of the present violence is focused on local issues …”

The report goes on to show a graph that lists who the key destabilizing elements in Iraq are and what their goals seem to be. In each of three cases, the main goal seems to be to get American and ‘coalition of the willing’ forces to leave the country. But that’s about where they part ways.

The report does note that much of the violence (up to 80%) is centered in 4 of the country’s 18 provinces, and those provinces account for almost 40% of the total population. And it seems to verify the notion that while most Iraqi’s don’t want American troops in their country, they also aren’t supporting the violence that is growing around them.

“More than 80 percent of the population rejects violence against the government under any circumstance, and more than 90 percent rejects attacks against women and children,” the report states. “However, two-thirds of Iraqis express a sense that conditions for peace and stability are worsening, and the population is roughly split on whether the government is moving in the right direction to quell the violence.”

It’s going to be hard now for Cheney and Bush (and their chickenhawk pals and apologists) to keep pretending that America has some nobel mission in Iraq, or even a chance at having a voice in the future of the country, short of committing to an all out assault and forcing American-style democracy on a weary and unimpressed people.

American soldiers have no place in a foreign civil war, even if American policies ultimately are responsible for conditions that allowed that civil war to bloom. Bush’s new commanders have said there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one. Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing’ has shrunk considerably, and the contributions of the remaining players are paltry to say the least. And now the Pentagon, heart and soul of the US Department of Defense (although we should really revert to calling it the War Department as the first presidents did, since that is how Bush has been using it) is saying Iraq is in civil war too.

I don’t buy the argument that we’ll be handing a victory to the enemy if we leave. In light of this report, I’d have to consider most Iraqi’s my enemy for that to be true. I don’t buy the argument that if America leaves we’ll be less safe either. Hell, the degradation of our military, our treasure, and our reputation due to our Iraqi involvement is what has made us less safe.

But since we have a chickenhawk administration and a new, Democrat congress more bent on rhetorical displeasure than on any real action to end the war, it looks like the American body count will continue to grow as our troops die in a conflict that no longer (if it ever did) concerns us.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

No ‘Plan B’ For Iraq If Surge Fails

In what has become typical Team Bush fashion, it turns out that there is no Plan B for Iraq if the president’s troop surge fails to deliver the results he seems to think they will. No matter that most of the rest of the world doesn’t think the surge has a snowballs chance in hell of changing conditions in Iraq, Bush and his jolly band of chickenhawks are so confident in Plan A (the Surge) that when asked by a group of governors last week during a meeting at the White House what the back-up plan was they were told by Marine General Peter Pace, “I’m a Marine and Marines don’t talk about failure. They talk about victory. Plan B is to make Plan A work.”

Plan B is to make Plan A work? Well, that’s sure comforting isn’t it? Does this mean that if the first surge of 21,000 combat troops doesn’t quell the violence that we’ll just send in another 21,000 ad infinitum until either all the Iraqi’s are dead or the US Treasury is bankrupted?

Not only did this administration never have a plan for Iraq in the first place, they still can’t seem to move their vision beyond Send in More Troops, despite the fact that sending in more troops hasn’t exactly turned hearts and minds towards American imposed democracy.

Mr. Bush- Plan A should have been to end the American presence in what is now an Iraqi Civil War. Plan B should be to help Iraq reconstruct once they have quelled their own violent tendencies and established a workable solution to what is now their own sectarian problem.
But it’s clear that the president has no desire to end the war in Iraq. While he’s busy recategorizing who belongs to his Axis of Evil club he has to keep up his ‘tough guy’ appearances somewhere.

As bad as the recent revelations are regarding what the Bush government means when it talks about supporting the troops, with Plan B for Iraq amounting to more of Plan A (i.e. keep on surging on), we can only expect things to worsen both for our troops abroad and for wounded vets who return home.

And sadly, the new Democratically controlled Congress is pussy-footing around the whole issue when they could take real steps to bring the troops home, restructure the real war against terrorism, and bring an end to the worst administration America has ever had to deal with.

Bush “Justice” Purge- Replace Crookbusters With Crooks

The ‘internets’ are all abuzz over the revelations coming out of the Congressional probe of the Bush DOJ firings of several US Attorneys. It seems that congresspersons, journalists, and citizens alike are shocked-just shocked, I tell you– to learn that the firings may indeed have been politically motivated to expel from the ranks of the DOJ those attorneys who actually decided that prosecuting corrupt public officials was a pretty good thing to do, even if those politicians were Republicans.

Excuse me for a minute while I roll my eyes. The shock of the revelations should be no such thing. This is how Team Bush runs ‘Merika, you know? In fact, when I first touched on this issue back in January, I said (about the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego), “Perhaps the real reason Lam has been swept aside has more to do with the very public Cunningham prosecution that began to shine a light on who the Republican Party really is.” So the facts coming out that seem to support a political purge are no shock to me.

But this particular bit of news was, even though it probably shouldn’t have been either, knowing too well how Team Bush operates.

Apparently tossing crookbusters out of the DOJ ranks just isn’t pushing the purge far enough for the president. Now it seems that the old method of stocking federal agencies and departments with cronies has been elevated to a new level. In short, replace the crookbusters with crooks. That way, there is less chance that your own Justice Department will turn on one of your own. And with that handy little insertion into the Patriot Act that allows the AG to appoint “permanent-interim” attorneys without the need for congressional approval, putting crooked cronies into positions of power just got a whole lot easier.

Enter Timothy Griffen, top pick for the newly vacated US Attorney position for Eastern Arkansas. Griffen, an assistant to Karl Rove, was the major player in a scheme to defraud up to 70,000 voters of their voting rights during the 2004 election.

From the article:

Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

In his article, Palast goes on to explain:

The Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not forward.” Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn’t living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.
Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn’t even know it.

And by the way, it’s not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas — even if they’re Black.
But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting.

 

Department of Justice? I don’t think so.

I seem to remember from my history classes that there were other governments who engaged in political purges….we have a name for those kinds of governments don’t we?

As Troops Languish At Walter Reed, Bush Decides To Send USS Comfort On PR Mission

It turns out that President Bush really does approve of free health care, so long as you live in Central or South America and are not a wounded US combat veteran. Prefacing his upcoming visit to Latin America (where he plans on winning all the hearts and minds away from his third highest ranking arch-nemesis Hugo Chavez) with a speech on Monday, the Decider-in-Chief promised to send the USS Comfort down the coast this summer to deliver treatment to 85,000 people in 12 countries.
>
With wounded soldiers living in mold infested barracks and enduring 7AM inspections, all while trying to put together the pieces of their shattered bodies and minds and navigate the obstructionist bureaucracy that has become the military medical system, you’d think that maybe, just maybe, there might be another good use for a US Military hospital ship. Something a little better than heading south for a PR mission perhaps?

The USS Comfort has as it’s primary mission “to provide a mobile, flexible, and rapidly responsive afloat medical capability for acute medical and surgical care in support of amphibious task forces, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force elements, forward deployed Navy elements of the fleet and fleet activities located in areas where hostilities may be imminent.” Seems like Bush’s little escapade in Iraq fits into that criteria pretty well. And since we know the president isn’t planning any troop pull-out by June, perhaps we should send the ship there (or keep it there, whatever the case may be.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for humanitarian missions. But folks…there’s a time and a place for everything. And when your stateside military hospitals are a shambles, understaffed, and expecting a continued flow of wounded patients, it makes sense to keep your resources at home. Not only that, we have a solemn duty to our fallen men and women to care for them to our best ability. It is only too clear that this administration has failed badly thus far. So why is the president making a bad problem worse by diverting more medical resources away from our troops? Is this what “support the troops” really means?

And don’t even get me started on the ‘free health care’ about face the president is pulling here. Why is it that free health care to foreign nations is a great idea for a PR junket but a lousy idea to even discuss here in America? If this isn’t a case of total cognitive dissonance then I don’t know what is.

Bush seems to be getting out of town at a good time- for him at least. With scandals breaking all around him, with the thin veneer of ‘compassionate conservatism’ wearing away to expose the rotten ideology for what it is, and with an American public (and even some –gasp-elected officials) increasingly calling for his impeachment, the president needs to get out of the harsh light of reality for a little while. That, and maybe he needs to clear some brush at Rancho Nuevo Bush in Paraguay.

The shame, it seems, never ends.

(articles originally posted at Bring It On!)

Highlighted in the report are the following:

There’s the $43.8 million spent on a temporary police training camp that has never even been used.

There’s the $36.4 million for armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons that no one seems able to account for.

There’s the $73 million facility built to train Iraqi security forces that has massive expansion cracks in the walls and trickling sewage from ceilings.

This does not even include all the billions stolen by shady civilian contractors who have been hired to perform certain services for the troops- there’s plenty of billions down the drain there too.

But of course, in the mind of the President, where all is well in Iraq (or at least was until around November 2006) and getting better by the day, what’s a few more billion unaccounted dollars between friends. After all, this Iraq war was all about generating massive corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex and their derivatives, not about anything so noble as spreading democracy or making the world a safer place.

We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq….

Bush’s plan was immediately rejected by a Democratically controlled Congress, a majority of the American public, a large contingent of world governments, former and current military commanders, most puppies and, of course, the baby Jesus. None the less, Bush stuck out his jaw and pressed forward. The surge was on, will of the people be damned.

In the 13 days that followed, Bush has made no indications that he is going to change his mind. Why should he? He is the Decider-in-Chief, after all. So, despite Congressional resolutions and pending legislation that would variously condemn, chastise, or curtail appropriations for new war outlay, Bush came forth in his State of the Union Address to reassert his administration’s plans for a broader Middle East conflict. Reiterating the themes he presented to the nation on January 10th, Bush told the assembled Congress and the American people that more troops were already being sent to Iraq…

“So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.”

No more debate folks, they troops are on the way. Bring on the surge.

Americans have made it loud and clear to this president that they want American involvement in Iraq to come to an end. They have declared that ending the war in Iraq is at the top of their governmental “To Do” list. The president has told the American people to Shut The Fuck Up.

But the president didn’t stop with the war in Iraq in the SOTU adress. He also remembered to ratchet up the threats to Iran. In a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention to his intentions, Bush reminded us all that his entry into Iraq was legal under a UN resolution…

“Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we’re not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.”

And in the next breath he declared that:

“The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Taken together with the recent build up of American naval power in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of the January 10th speech, it becomes more clear every day that Bush will expand his Middle East initiatives at the first opportunity, all the while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution. Just like before Iraq. Yet it is hard to engage in diplomacy when you refuse to speak to your adversary.

Make no mistake. The surge is on. And it may well not stop in Baghdad.

Bush has finally and very overtly changed the game of American politics. He has unilaterally declared himself unstoppable. He has thrown off the constitutional shackles imposed upon the Executive Branch repeatedly over the years, but has managed to stay out ahead by obstinance and obfuscation. But now he has done something even more bold. He has denied the will of the people he professes to serve, he has ignored the masses who he purports to hold dear. He has donned the rosiest of all rose colored glasses. He is an island unto himself. And that, my friends, is not what the American president is supposed to be.

I support a surge of elected officials demanding investigations into this administration’s covert and extralegal shenanigans.

I support a surge in politicians jumping out of the president’s sinking lifeboat of a party and climbing onboard the USS Sanity.

I support a surge in honest, hard-working Americans protesting online and in the streets against this president and his attempts to embroil this country’s future generations in unending warfare based on fabricated evidence and historical mythology.

I support a surge in scientists condemning the president’s anti-science agenda’s and bringing forth widely accepted evidence to counteract the president’s hired pseudo-scientific spin doctors.

I support a surge in religious leaders condemning the very unChristian antics of this, the Born-Again, Evangelical President.

In short, I support an overwhelming surge against this president, his policies, and his administration hacks who perpetuate this assault on American integrity and security.

I’m supporting the surge. Just not the same one Bush is supporting. On second thought, maybe it’s a purge I should be supporting.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For a while now, we’ve heard Team Bush lubricate the public with the notion that more troops in Iraq are inevitable, this despite comments from top military folks who don’t think that sending more U.S. soldiers into a civil war is such a bright idea. Now, all of a sudden, those top brass are getting their wrists measured for that golden TImex, because they are out.

(from the link)

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military’s ability to maintain in increase of that size “is simply not something that we have right now.”

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is “not necessarily opposed to the idea” of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to “help us progress to our strategic objectives.”

Shuffling in are two men who appear more inclined towards bending to the president’s foul wind. So part one of the plan is to toss out those who question and insert compliant tools.

More shuffling is happening with and old Bush family confidante, John Negroponte. His move from NID to 2nd at State is questionable, at least in terms of an “Iraq Policy” move. I’m no fan of Big John here…he has a history of being in just out in front of sectarian death squads in war torn third world countries…so don’t shed any tears at his leaving what should be an unbiased position. (A National Intelligence Director should tell a president what is real instead of fueling his boss’s fantasy filled worldviews.) This move smells more like political manuevering than anything else, tossed into the the “Iraq Plan” so as to not make waves of its own. Some are postulating that Negroponte move to State is a precursor to setting up Secretary Rice as a possible presidential candidate, the thinking going (I guess) that she could give Hillary a good run for the money. But I digress…

The President also wants to loosen the binds on descretionary funds “for reconstruction” that military commanders have control of. As if there hasn’t been enough misappropriations of funds so far. Other financial incentives Bush is pushing to convince Iraqi’s to “all just get along” include setting up a small business loan program. Perhaps that will be included in the new Balanced Budget Bush presents. (As an aside, I wonder what the budget has allotted for American small business assistance?) I guess this war just needs a little less accountability and ready cash to fix the problem.

Oh, and let’s not forget the sanest part of the plan- send in more troops! After all, if we don’t keep fighting them there (and making lots more of them by the way) they’ll be clammoring to our shores and attacking us here. Despite the fact that Bush told you he’s beefed up security around the borders and spending all that money on all that ‘security stuff.’ Funny, if we’re so much safer now, how could they even get here to fight us here? Kind of a paradox if you think about it. Oops…forgot…no thinking in the War Room.

Of course, all of this, though widely reported, is still speculative to a degree. And what the new Democratic Congress can do about any of it is still up in the air.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a grand new plan for ‘success’ folks. It’s just another shell game.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush again used the events of September 11, 2001 to further politicize America’s security and to drive a wedge between the American people. In the past, this effort has been successful, as so many American’s prefered to believe in the fantasies of their commander in chief. Today, fewer and fewer people are buying the administration’s version of reality. With mounting evidence to refute much of what the president believes, it’s no wonder that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions are turning away from Bush and his neo-con agenda. Much like a Hollywood film purportedly ‘based’ on real events, the difference between the real world and the world according to Bush is stark. Consider a few of the following points…

Bush Reality: “On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.”

Actual Reality: Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and our ally in the GWOT, Pakistan, has made peace with some elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This is hardly a picture of a Taliban on the run. And what was that again about distinguishing between terrorists and states that harbor them? Of course, when you ‘cut and run’ from an unfinished military effort, as Bush did in Afghanistan so he could start a war in Iraq, this is not an altogether unexpected result. If only Afghanistan had a bunch of oil, maybe we’d have finished the job. Then again…

Bush Reality: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. “

Actual Reality: The U.S. government has closed up the task force whose main goal was to track and capture or kill bin Laden. In fact, they haven’t been actively looking for bin Laden for years. After downplaying bin Laden for years, Bush has only recently begun to reincarnate this boogeyman as we near the mid-term elections, an election that most politicians and pundits believe will result in reversals of the Republican majority in one or both houses of government.

Bush Reality: “I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat…The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.”

Actual Reality: Hussein was an evil, brutal dictator, but he posed no threat to the United States, unless one considers his desire to create his own oil bourse using Euros instead of dollars as the primary exchange currency. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report states as much by noting that Iraq had no WMD’s and no ties to al-Qaeda. Kuwait may be safer today. Maybe even Iran or Israel are safer today. But ordinary Iraqi’s seem to be no safer, and certainly the U.S., Spain, Britain, Indonesia, and scores of other countries are not safer because Hussein was militarily deposed. This assertion by Bush is just another in a long string of false information clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

Bush Reality: “We’ve tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders…”

Actual Reality: Little to no action has been taken to secure American sea ports, strengthen security at our borders, or improve actual security at airports, unless you count banning water bottles and frisking grandmothers. It is almost as if by simply saying the word ‘security’ Bush expects us to believe that it is being done. But several million illegal border crossings do not suggest a secure border. Less than 10% of port cargo being inspected either before shipping or before being off-loaded into ports does not suggest increased port security.

I could go on and on and on deflating the president’s bubble of false assertions, but you clearly get the point. The president and his policies have offered little to America and the world in terms of security or success against global terrorism. In fact, his policy of preemptive war has only helped fuel the fires that create more terrorists. Time and again, the most successful efforts against terrorists and their plots have been won through persistent policing and investigative work. They have not been borne at the end of a gun, with the drop of a bomb, or by waterboarding some captured jihadist.

George W. Bush may not be a 21st century Nazi, but his propaganda tactics sure would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Indeed, by sticking to the Nazi propaganda minister’s primary dictum, that one must only repeat a lie often enough for it to eventually be taken for the truth, Bush has riden a wave of irrational exuberance for the last four years. It took total annihilation for the German people to rid themselves of their insidious propaganda government. Fortunately for America, we only have to wait a few more months. Come November, America will be changing the direction. We’ve had more than enough of the course we’re on now.

Economy Is Great- If You’re an Oil Company or Defense Contractor

Boy, this Bush economy is really spreading the wealth around, at least for Big Oil and the Military-Industrial complex.

Third quarter reports show ExxonMobile reaping record profit levels, raking in over $10 Billion in profit in the third quarter alone. Since the costs of extracting, refining, and delivering crude oil has not changed much, this is pure profit for the oil giant. If this were simply a matter of passing increased costs along to the consumer, the oil companies would not realize such extreme profits at all, as their costs would also be rising. It’s not about supply and demand either, despite market economy apologists. And it’s not just ExxonMobile either. Profits at Royal Dutch Shell grabbed over $7 Billion in profit in Q2 and ConocoPhillips sucked another $5 Billion out of consumers pockets.

Can anyone say price gouging? Add these obscene record earnings to the record tax breaks given these oil barons by the Bush administration and it’s clear that the Bush tax cuts are working wonders- for the uber-rich at least. Meanwhile, most of the regular joes are cutting back on summer travel, family entertainment, eating, and so on.

But if that’s not enough evidence that America is just a subsidiary of the corporate crassholes, defense companies are enjoying earning increases too, from 17 to 54 per cent as the neverending Bush war doctrine catches on around the world.

Can anyone say war profiteering? Many of these defense contracts are allotted through Homeland Security contracts, the federal governments newest money hole, where rampant fraud and waste have been documented.

You want to talk about ‘wealth redistribution?’ There it is folks. Plain and simple.

America Addicted To Oil, Bush Addicted To Bullsh*t

In his 2006 State of the Union Speech, President Bush declared that America is “addicted to oil.” He then laid out plans to fix that problem, including, among other things, a call to change how we power motor vehicles.

“We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”

Well that sure sounds good on paper, but the reality is that these comments were more rhetoric than reality. The reality is that no matter what technology develops, if you can’t get it into the hands of the consumer, it isn’t going to make a difference towards the goal of reducing oil use. It seems that someone in Congress figured that out too though, so a tax credit was passed for purchasers of fuel efficient hybrid vehicles. Seems the stage is set for some real progress to be made, right?

Wrong. For most people, even with the tax credit, the price of a new hybrid is still out of reach, especially with all other costs going up across the board, and with incomes growing at a snail’s pace. The tax credits were supposed to help level that playing field somewhat, but when drafting the law, Congress put a cap on the number of cars sold per manufacturer that would qualify for the credit. That magic number is 60,000. After that number of cars has been sold and given the maximum $3,500 tax credit, the next batch of cars sold only receive half that amount as a credit, and then six months later, half again of that. By October 2007, the credit will end altogether.

With over 258 million cars on the streets today, nearly 13 million cars would have to be replaced annually with hybrid vehicles just to replace the U.S. fleet in 20 years. That’s right…TWENTY YEARS. And yet the tool designed by Congress and touted by the president in his speech to the nation to help achieve the goal of ‘weaning America off foreign oil’ will barely make a dent in the effort, largely because it is too limited in scope and does not offer flexibility for those who couldn’t afford a new car ever. Even if eligible manufacturer’s pumped out and sold a half million units a year combined, it would take over 500 years to replace the cars we have now burning gas.

So much for breaking the addiction. But that’s no real surprise, is it? After all, we are being led by the biggest pusher and addict of all, our two-headed, executive branch oil monster known as Dick and Bush. Had the president been serious about his statements, he’d have pushed for a much more expansive tax credit program that would include more than just new car purchases, but for used hybrid cars, retrofitted engine replacements for older cars, credits for gas retailers who converted a portion of their businesses to flex-fuels, eliminated the cut-off threshhold for manufacturers, removed any cut-off date for the program, and established a one-per-person every five years rule that would ensure a spreading of the credits across a broader economic spectrum. Businesses with large vehicle fleets would have no such per-person rule.

But he won’t do that, because then Americans might actually make progress in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general for transportation fuel. And if that happened too quickly his buddies in Big Oil would stand to lose a big chuck of their outrageous earnings, and then where would the ‘ownership society’ be.

As with most things that come out of this president’s mouth, the claim that this administration wants to end the cycle of oil addiction is pure B.S. And that’s just the kind of thing we’d expect a failed Texas oilman to be addicted to.

Big Oil On The Right Track?

Just got the newest National Geographic magazine this weekend and noticed an advertisement (located on page 5) from our friends at Conoco Phillips.

The ad claims, in part, that our friends at Conoco Phillips aren’t willing to settle for just average when it comes to providing energy to the world. Claiming to be raiser’s of the bar and taking the lead in figuring it out, the ad goes on to say just how Conoco Phillips is moving forward to “solve the demanding increase in global energy needs.”

The solution? Finding new places to drill for natural gas and investing in Russia’s oil and natural gas reserves. WOW! These out of the box solutions will surely keep us in oil for decades to come right? Because we all know that oil is the only real source of energy worth pursuing, right?

The ad ends with this missive:

“Turning “what ifs” into “what’s next” – it’s what we do every day.”

Funny, I thought the “what’s next” might possibly include developing non-fossil fuel energy solutions, not just looking for new places to dig. Obviously, Big Oil isn’t interested in that at all.

Green Power

The ERA recently released this years list of Green Power Partnership Rankings and I’m proud to note that I Live near and work in this years list topper- The City of San Diego. By generating some of it’s own energy from renewable resources, San Diego saved many millions of taxpayer dollars and prevented as much as 91 million pounds of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Imagine that…saving money and fighting global warming at the same time. In all, San Diego generated over 65,000 megawatts of power derived from biogas, solar power, and hydro power. That represents nearly 25% of the city’s annual power needs. That’s enough to power 7,500 homes for an entire year.

In fact, the city is actually producing more energy than it is equipped to use, so they are selling it back to the power grid through the local utility, San Diego Gas and Electric. And this can’t be done elsewhere…why?

Sure, San Diego has the sun nearly year round, but it’s more than just a warm climate that is bringing success. By thinking out of the box with such ideas as converting falling water in its wastewater treatment plant into energy. Or by capturing the methane gas from landfills and other waste water treatment facilities. Or adding turbines to the city’s water delivery system to take advantage of wind power. And yes, lots and lots of solar panels.

The point though is that any municipality could do the same thing. All it takes is some leadership and commitment to doing the right thing. Right for the planet. Right for our own health. Right for our security. Right for our wallets. In fact, there’s nothing negative here at all, except that more cities aren’t doingthis too.

Rounding out the top five were the Austin Independent School District in Texas, the Montgomery County Wind Buyers Group in Maryland, the New York State Municipal Wind Buyers Group, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District in California. Only the city of Portland, Oregon had a more diverse mix of renewable energy sources than San Diego, as they already have a wind program in place. But Portland’s total green power generation was only 17,600 megawatts, putting that city 7th on the EPA list.

It’s obvious that alternative energy isn’t coming from the big oil companies or the federal government any time soon. But the answer can be found in our cities and towns. Contact your local officials and find out what your city is doing to help reduce fossil fuel consumption. If they are not doing anything see if you can help them develop a plan. Together we can make a difference.

(originally posted at Bring It On!)

To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.
If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see.

If there were ever any noble purpose attached to this war, it would be that we went to remove a sadistic dictator from power in the hopes of freeing a pleading people and giving them a chance at self-determination. Even if our objectives for starting this war were far darker than this, even if our government lied and stole from us to get and fund their war, the only acceptable way to end the conflict is to give the people of Iraq a chance to live safely amongst themselves and their neighbors, with a government of their making, and a relationship with other nations, including America, that is mutually beneficial to the people of those countries and not just their leadership.

We need our government to stand up and tell the people of Iraq, “ We were wrong to bring the war to your doorstep, but we hated Saddam as much as you did and found a convenient time to take him out. We thought we were being helpful. We now realize that sometimes our helpfulness is a bit overdone, so we’ll try to make some amends. We really do want to get to your oil too, but it’s your oil and we’re going to have to do this the fair way, through trade agreements. We hoped you’d take to our system of governing, at least the system we like to talk about, but if you want an Islamic government, so be it. We’ll have to figure out how to peacefully coexist. And we’d really like to be able to help you out with your security problem so that your people can have normal lives again, but you need to really step up to the plate and take the lead. Our folks are getting anxious back home. They don’t want us here any more than you seem to. So here’s our plan and we think it will help end this conflict.”

Step one is the rotation of all National Guard troops back to the United States and to release them from active duty status. The National Guard was designed to protect the homeland and assist in times of disaster or unrest. Their absence from home was all too evident in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Furthermore, these citizen-soldiers occupy an important place in our communities in their jobs as teachers and firemen and nurses and restaurant chefs and every other walk of life. They are not trained to be full time warriors, and their lack of comprehensive training results in higher numbers of casualties on all sides of the conflict. Without significantly reducing the numbers initially, Guard troops can be replaced with active duty personnel at a slowly diminishing rate. The impact of this move would be to assure American citizens that the pull out has begun. It would also serve to let Iraqi’s know that they would soon be responsible for their own security, but would be trained and assisted by professional soldiers who could be expected to adhere to the highest standards.

Step two is to establish a firm time line of no more than one year for the final withdrawal of American battle forces. The administration and its hawks have rejected this idea out of hand, saying that the terrorists and insurgents would simply bide their time until we left to unleash full terror on the Iraqi public. In reality, they may do that, but in the meantime, it could also reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur in the continuing daily warfare as insurgents continue the fight with American troops, killing many more civilians than they do soldiers. In that time span, we would need to stress the importance to Iraqi’s that the security of their country would soon be in their hands, and that responsibility for putting down the violence would soon be theirs too. We should be willing to provide logistical, material, and human support if they continue to request it, but only in a support role once our official withdrawal has occurred. Our withdrawal should be total, except for those requested as support.

Step three is to officially recognize whatever form of government the general public of Iraq elects to install without trying to mold it into an American clone. If that government develops and appears to include provisions which support oppression of certain citizens because of religion or gender, we should insist on a period of expatriation for those citizens who choose not to live under such a government, and provide them with opportunities to relocate to a country of their choosing. If a majority of Iraqi citizens then elect to subject themselves to strict religious doctrine, who are we to say they can’t? If we don’t like it that much, we can always politely refuse to do business with them.

Step four would be to remove all American corporations from Iraq and turn over the reconstruction to the Iraqi people. While accepting the blame for the massive destruction, we will still need to continue to pay a large percentage of the costs for this, but the money is already being funneled to our greedy corporations. We could probably rebuild the place for a fraction of the cost if locals were doing the work. Their investment in time and materials would also prove to be an incentive for them to combat the destructive insurgents in their midst. Such cooperation would reinforce the notion that the future of Iraq lay in the hands of Iraqi people, not just a bunch of greedy capitalist conquerors. Further, this would save untold billions of taxpayer dollars that should be returned to domestic issues for the American people.

Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.

This plan is by no means perfect, but it has the effect of ending this war in Iraq while providing Iraqi’s with the responsibility to reshape their own country in their own way. It offers a way for America to regain her integrity among the world’s nations by ending an increasingly ugly situation and returning to a stance of multilateral cooperation. It would not be tantamount to surrender in any sense of the word. Indeed, ending the war in Iraq is essential if we are ever to truly confront the radical terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. It frees up our resources to narrow the battle to those areas and people who want to fight while leaving out those who would be caught in the middle. It reduces the financial strain on the American economy, a measure that would greatly be appreciated here at home, but around the world as well. It is even likely that by giving Iraqi’s the responsibility for themselves, with a little help if they want it, we may actually gain a true ally, albeit one with a decidedly different world view, but an ally all the same.

It’s time for the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to really mean something.