Month: November 2007

This report, Hundreds converge on Ramallah for boycott summit from the Conference Steering Committee, was published on the Electronic Intifada on November 29, 2007.

It describes the application of South African boycott, which led to the downfall of Apartheid, to Israel. Its application to Israeli apartheid practices, its incessant military occupation, and its obvious intent to finish the colonization of the West Bank, is and has been the purpose of this international effort. And it grows every year.

An important milestone in building the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign was achieved in Ramallah on 22 November 2007. Some 300 activists, members of unions, associations and NGOs in towns, villages and refugee camps of the occupied West Bank, with monitors from the global solidarity movement in Britain, Canada, Norway, Spain and South Africa, convened for a day of discussion and debate about ways to promote all forms of boycott against Israel among Palestinian community organizations, unions, as well as political, academic and cultural institutions. Organizers and participants left the conference with a sense of accomplishment: practical recommendations are in place for building the popular Palestinian BDS campaign as a strategic form of civil resistance in the long struggle ahead against Israel’s regime of apartheid over the Palestinian people.

The conference was opened by Dr. Gabi Baramki (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel-PACBI) who reminded participants of the fact that boycott has been a tool of the Palestinian struggle since the 1920s. He stated that the power of popular boycott derived from international law and universal ethical principles, and emphasized the timeliness of a Palestinian popular boycott movement, especially now, when isolation and fragmentation are imposed more than ever on the Palestinian people, in order to bring about loss of hope, dignity and surrender. Boycott and popular struggle contributed to the liberation of India and South Africa, he stated, adding that, while it is true that the challenge for Palestinians is bigger, because South Africa never enjoyed the level of support Israel has from the United States and Europe, the Palestinian boycott campaign can be effective because of Israel’s ultimate dependence, politically, diplomatically and economically, on the West.

But what is perhaps more interesting is the remarks made at the end of the Annapolis Conference by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli PM, which would agree with this boycott approach. This from the BBC:

Olmert warns of ‘end of Israel’

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of the State of Israel.

He warned of a “South African-style struggle” which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established.

Mr Olmert was returning from the Annapolis conference in the US where he and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas pledged to launch formal peace talks.

The two leaders set a goal of reaching a peace deal with US support in 2008.

In the meantime, there was a Gaza rally against Mid-East talks also reported:

Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated in the Gaza Strip against the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, in the United States.

Leaders of the Islamist movement Hamas, which governs Gaza, said the summit was “doomed to failure”.

Smaller demonstrations, staged in the Fatah-governed West Bank, were broken up by police loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Earlier, three people were killed in Gaza, in two attacks by Israel’s army.

On Daily Kos I discovered this bit of malarkey from the Jerusalem Post, for which I can find no official confirmation whatsoever on the BBC or Ajazeera English. Of course, it was immediately pumped up by the right wing Zionist propagandists who, although they prefer silence to putting Israel’s occupation/colonization in the spotlight, are permitted to exploit Daily Kos, while well over two dozen liberal members have been banned from this allegedly left wing site for supporting peace.

Hamas demands UN rescind ’47 partition.

JPOST.COM STAFF

Nov 29, 2007 13:32 | Updated Nov 29, 2007 14:55

Hamas on Thursday called on the UN to rescind the 1947 decision to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.

The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that “Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews.”

Regarding the partition decision, Hamas said that “correcting mistakes is nothing to be ashamed of, but prolonging it is exploitation.”

Meanwhile, President Shimon Peres told Army Radio that recognition of the 1967 borders began with the Oslo accords.

“This is one of the greatest achievements. Without it, there would be no chance for peace,” he said.

Unable find a single confirmation of this report or its source And then there’s Peres still trying to play the peace advocate, when in truth he should be returning his Nobel Peace Prize to Sweden. Just where did Oslo take us, Mr. Peres? To an acceleration of settlements on the West Bank and more deception at the Camp David/Taba talks.

Contrary to popular belief, however, Hamas, if it had been invited to Annapolis, would likely have joined the Conference. But it wasn’t invited. It’s the Bush doctrine: whatever Israel says goes.

Hamas to consider joining Annapolis summit if invited.

GAZA, Nov. 7 (Xinhua) — An aide of deposed Prime Minister Ismail Haneya said on Wednesday that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) would consider joining an international conference on Mideast peace to be held Annapolis, the United States later this year, if the movement was invited.     Ahmed Yousef told reporters in Gaza that if Hamas movement was invited to join Annapolis conference, “it would think about joining and it can detour around its constitution.”

The bullshit back and forth goes on.

I wonder if Condi is smart enough to turn the fiasco in Iraq into a powerful bargaining chip during the negotiations between Israel and Palestinian factions in Annapolis. Iraq may be a lot of things right now, but it certainly seems destined to remain under permanent US occupation or eventually fall under Iranian influence.

Let’s presume that the Iranian regime will not be brought down by force and Iraq’s democracy is allowed to flower (I know, I know). Any ‘real’ form of Iraqi democracy will ultimately place the country squarely under Iranian influence. But that has not happened yet and the administration has shown plenty of resolve in forestalling that eventuality. This resolve turns Iraq into a bargaining chip: “You know you want it, you know you’ll get it, but you’ll have to ask and ask real nice because we can dictate WHEN you get it.”

US Iraq policy has generally and indisputably sucked. There is one possible way to make good out of this: Trade Iran a valuable asset they will likely get anyway (but we have the power to stall it indefinitely) in exchange for cutting funding to Hamas and other anti-Israeli forces and some sort of security arrangement to prevent military occupation of Iraq by Iran. This would peel away of some significant layers of the Onion of Middle East peace. The bargain is enforceable by both sides and is therefore more likely to be adhered to than a coercive surrender or military solution. Even to be able to dangle the possibility during the negotiations may be helpful.

I’m sure this is all fantasy, but wouldn’t it be nice to polish up this turd and get something real out of this mis-adventure?

 

… so it’s likely Bush won’t pay any attention to their demand for a comprehensive binding agreement to deal with global warming:

Global businesses have called for a legally-binding and comprehensive international deal on climate change.

A binding agreement on emissions reductions would encourage business to invest in low-carbon technologies, a statement from 150 businesses said. […]

Nokia, Tesco, Lloyds TSB and Nike are among the 150 firms that made the call.

The signatories represent companies from Europe, the US, China and Australia.

Still, it’s nice to know not all business leaders have their heads in the sand when it comes to the issue of rapid, human generated climate change. And no matter what you think of the British royals, this is one issue for which Prince Charles has been a consistent and persistent spokesperson:

Action now will stop the worst effects of climate change and at a fraction of the cost of inaction, the Prince of Wales – whose Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change led the statement – wrote in the Financial Times.

“What these signatory companies understand is that the effects of climate change are irreparable and permanent,” he wrote.

“If I have grandchildren one day, I could not bear it if they asked me: Why did you not do something when it was possible to make a difference?

“These business leaders have asked themselves that same question and have had the wisdom to recognise that we are doing this for those who come after us.”

Too bad the Bush administration will do its best in Bali next week to sabotage any binding legal framework. Bush has been slightly more vocal regarding the reality of global warming, but for all his rhetoric, he has never indicated he would support any treaty that placed hard and fast rules regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The official Bush administration position still asserts that any binding international agreements to address climate change are unnecessary and that we can and should rely on voluntary agreements by businesses and governments to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions. Indeed, Bush skipped all of the substantive talks at the last UN sponsored conference in September. Instead, at his own “global warming” conference held later that same month, this is what he had to say about what should be done to address global warming:

(cont.)

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Yet, the Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it. […]

We recognize our responsibility and will meet it — at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions.

Today, I make our investment in science even greater. My administration will establish the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.

I’m directing my Secretary of Commerce, working with other agencies, to set priorities for additional investments in climate change research, review such investments, and to improve coordination amongst federal agencies. We will fully fund high-priority areas for climate change science over the next five years. We’ll also provide resources to build climate observation systems in developing countries and encourage other developed nations to match our American commitment.

And we propose a joint venture with the EU, Japan and others to develop state-of-the-art climate modeling that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate change. America’s the leader in technology and innovation. We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce emissions — especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies. […]

I’ve asked my advisors [sic] to consider approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those that tap the power of markets, help realize the promise of technology and ensure the widest-possible global participation. . . .

Our approach must be flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new technology. We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world. We should pursue market-based incentives and spur technological innovation.

Shorter Bush: There’s a global warming problem, but we don’t know that much about it so we need more research to study it. And whatever we do, we should rely upon free market forces rather than any other approach that might hurt my pals in the oil business.

Quite a contrast from the 150 business leaders who endorsed this statement issued by the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, the group supported and led by Prince Charles:

On 30th November 2007, the business leaders of 150 global companies published a communiqué to world leaders calling for a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.

The initiative represents an unprecedented coming together of the international business community and includes some of the biggest companies and brands from around the world, including the United States, Europe, Australia and China.

It has been led by The Prince of Wales’s UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change, which are developed and run by the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry.

It is hoped that The Bali Communiqué will have a significant impact on the UN climate negotiations starting on December 3rd 2007 in Bali, Indonesia.

The Bali Communiqué calls for:

* a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change
* emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science
* those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort
* world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)

Here’s what Prince Charles wrote about this communique which was published in the Financial Times yesterday:

The signatories represent companies from Europe, the US, China and Australia. Their message is clear. They believe climate change is a reality, that continued economic growth depends on tackling it and that the costs of inaction are too great. They believe that rigorous targets must be set and be based on science and common sense, not on the demands of short-term competitiveness. They also believe that the industrialised countries will have to bear much greater cuts than developing nations and want the certainty of a binding framework so they can invest in new technologies and know that these will be good for business. […]

What these signatory companies understand is that the effects of climate change are irreparable and permanent. The floods, droughts, rising sea-levels, spread of disease and poverty will be with us for ever. It is why it will take a massive effort to tackle it and why so much responsibility rests on the governments in Bali. They meet in the knowledge that a broad spectrum of private sector interests is urging them on. This is critical because we must harness the power of all sectors, public and private. Of crucial importance is the role of big capital providers, such as pension funds and insurance companies, and their ability to direct their investments towards delivering a low carbon economy.

In short, these corporations realize that the future prosperity of their businesses requires addressing the problem of climate change immediately, because to fail to do so will only increase the costs to the global economy in the future. They are taking the long view, not the short term, “How high is the stock price today?” view of most corporations. They reject the Bush adminstration’s desire to push off taking any real action for the indefinite future until more research can be done, because they know that the research we have already completed and the evidence of the effects of unmitigated carbon emissions of which we are already aware are a sufficient cause for both serious alarm and immediate action. Unlike President Bush and the Republican party in general, they are not ignoring the information contained, and warnings set forth, in the IPCC’s most recent report, which clearly states the overwhelming consensus of climate researchers that global warming is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that immediate action is necessary to ameliorate potentially catastrophic consequences.

“With this final report, the scientists have done their job and explained that global warming is happening and we need to do something about it,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We have to stop hiding behind China, and China has to stop hiding behind us.”

But there’s no guarantee the hiding by the world’s two worst environmental offenders will in fact stop.

The IPCC is credited with mainstreaming the idea that climate change is a direct result of human activity — specifically by burning fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The international panel wants world governments to initiate a process under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that results in hard caps for emissions.

The IPCC hopes the report will frame the Bali meeting. A new international climate-change deal must be settled in time to ensure that action continues after 2012, when the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends. But China and the United States are unlikely to agree to a negotiating process with that goal.

“I have no reason to suspect that the Bush administration will support a real negotiating process in Bali,” said Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies at the Pew Center on Climate Change. “And as long as the U.S. takes that position, there is no reason for China or other developing countries to support emissions caps.”

Could one man, one President, have done any worse than George Bush to damage the world in which we live, and which our children and grandchildren will inherit? Sadly, I suspect the answer to that question will be the same today and in the future: No. No one. Let us hope and pray that the next leader of the United States takes steps to immediately reverse the course upon which Mr. Bush has set us, and push for the rapid elimination of carbon emissions by all countries. If he or she does not, we will have perhaps wasted our last chance to prevent a global catastrophe of monumental proportions. If we haven’t already, that is.

John Laesch is running for Congress in Illinois’ 14th Distict, a seat recently vacated by former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Laesch ran against Hastert in 2006 and received 40.25% of the vote. He has two opponents in the primary: Jotham Stein and Bill Foster.

To help progressives decide which candidate to support in this primary, I asked the Laesch campaign to answer some questions. Hopefully, the other campaigns will respond as well. Go below the fold for John Laesch’s answers to the Booman Tribune Open Seat Initiative.
Open Seat Initiative
BoomanTribune.com

Civil Liberties

We have learned since the passage of the Patriot Act that the government has used National Security Letters to invade people’s homes without a warrant, that they have violated the law to eavesdrop on our electronic communications, and they have held U.S. citizens in custody indefinitely, in violation of habeas corpus, which can only be constitutionally ignored in “cases of rebellion or invasion.”

1. Would you have voted for the Patriot Act?

I would have read the legislation and voted “no.”

2. Do you currently support the Patriot Act, desire to repeal it, or replace it? If replace, with what?

Repeal the Patriot Act as it violates the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment and 8th amendment.

3. How do you balance civil liberties and the right to privacy with national security?
I don’t believe that we have to sacrifice our civil liberties in order to be safe. Perhaps the real question is, “How do we keep America safe?” Many of the abuses to civil liberties are a direct result of the culture of fear that has been amplified by the Bush Administration. If we want to make America safer, we need a foreign policy that deals with the root causes of terrorism. Having served as an intelligence analyst in the Middle East for three years, I have a grasp on some of these root causes of terrorism; namely, our continued presence in the Middle East. While foreign policy is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, the U.S. Congress can play an important role in encouraging a new era of relations with those in the Middle East and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Congress can work towards energy independence and alleviate the perceived need for a continuous military presence throughout Southwest Asia. For example, the $1.5 trillion spent on the Iraq War alone could have been invested in solar power for over 37.5 million homes in the United States.

Congress can work towards peace between Israel and Palestine by cutting off funding for military programs to that region.

Congress should at all costs protect civil liberties and the rights of individual citizens.

Perhaps this answer seems to be lengthy and still incomplete, but I believe that Benjamin Franklin was correct when he said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

4. How would you have voted on the Military Commissions Act of 2006?
I would have voted “no” because it is unconstitutional and limits the rights of habeas corpus.

5. On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This resulted in the Protect America Act of 2007. How would you have voted on this bill?
I would have voted “no.” I also think that the RESTORE Act does not go far enough as it still allows for secret surveillance programs to exist.

6. Do you support telecom immunity from responsibility for prior cooperation in warrant less surveillance?
No. I have spoken out against Bush’s effort to give telecoms immunity for the very act of spying on American citizens; violating the 4th amendment, the right to privacy.

7. Do you consider waterboarding to be a form of torture that is banned by our Constitution, specific statutes, and by signed treaty agreements? If so, what should be done to people that authorized waterboarding, and to the people that carried out those orders?

Yes, waterboarding is a form of torture. I support an International Criminal Court (ICC) and those who violate the Geneva Convention and torture POW’s should be tried by the ICC. Until the ICC becomes a reality, we should try those who utilize torture in a military or civilian court; depending on their current status of service. More importantly, those who authorize torture should be held accountable and I would like to see a full Congressional investigation of the practices utilized by Donald Rumsfeld.

The War in Iraq

1. The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq passed the House by a 296-133 vote. How would you have voted on this resolution? Did you comment on the resolution at the time?

I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and I wrote my first letter to the editor on this issue after the United States Congress ceded their right to declare war in this blank-check vote. My background as an intelligence analyst, and understanding of Iraq, Iran and terrorism, caused me to get involved in electoral politics. I remain a staunch opponent of the occupation of Iraq, and ending the occupation will be high on my priority list when I am sworn in as the Congressman from Illinois’ 14th District.

2. Since the invasion of Iraq, there have been periodic supplemental funding bills. What, if any conditions would you have put on supporting those supplemental bills?
Understanding that President Bush is going to ignore any conditions on spending implemented by Congress is reason enough to vote “no” on any supplemental funding bill. Consider that the President has already usurped legislative authority by challenging over 1,150 laws by attaching “signing statements.” The only precedent for this unconstitutional behavior comes from Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese. Because this will be a special election, I will have ability to use my vote to cut funding for the Iraq War before Bush leaves office; perhaps as soon as March of 2008.

3. Do you support an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq, with the ultimate aim of complete withdrawal?
Logistically, we can safely leave Iraq within three months. I will work towards that goal as the next member of Congress from Illinois’ 14th District.

4. In July 2007, Senator Webb introduced an amendment that would have ensured that troops have as much time at home as they have in combat. Would you have supported the Webb amendment?

Yes, but it does not get us out of Iraq.

5. What, if any, current plans do you support for extricating ourselves from the quagmire in Iraq?
The diplomatic steps towards a peaceful, stable Iraq can only be implemented through the Executive Branch, and the order to withdrawal U.S. troops must come from the Commander in Chief. While Democrats have put forward legislation that would micro-manage the war effort, I believe that these efforts are not working. The Congress must exercise the power of the purse and defund the Iraq War if we are going to succeed in future diplomatic efforts that lead towards a peaceful, stable Iraq.

6. Do you support George Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war?
No, I oppose pre-emptive war. Both of my Democratic Primary opponents are on the record for supporting a pre-emptive strike in Iran. Please see the debates that have been posted on YouTube.

Clip.

We posted the exchange between myself and Stein after the DeKalb debate. During an earlier exchange in Kane County, I pushed them to both take a position on Iran and they would not. Here is a clip from the Daily Herald:

Laesch pushed Stein and Bill Foster, a scientist and businessman from Mill Creek, to say whether they’d immediately cut funding for the troops in Iraq and whether they’d authorize going to war with Iran. Laesch pledged, if elected, to cut funding for the Iraq war and to vote against going to war with Iran.

In response, neither Foster nor Stein would commit to vote “no” on going to war with Iran, saying they would need to study the issue further.

Domestic Issues

1. Are you pro-choice?
Yes.

2. What’s your position on the continued funding of abstinence-only sex-education?

I oppose abstinence-only sex-education.

3. Do you support added funding for family-planning programs (including subsidized birth control programs)?
Yes.

4. Do you support federally funded stem-cell research?
Yes.

5. Do you have a position on gay marriage, adoption, and equal rights under the law?

I support equal rights for all Americans; including equal marriage rights. A civil marriage is a civil right.

6. On April 14, 2005, the House passed The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. How would you have voted on this bill?
I would have voted “no” on this bill. I believe that both the lender and borrower have to be responsible when credit is concerned. I oppose the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 because it enables lenders to continue extending limitless credit to people who can never repay those loans. The real answer to the problem is fixing the economy. To rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class, we need to invest heavily into renewable energy initiatives that create jobs. I believe that a 21st century energy policy that invests heavily in solar and wind technologies will create jobs, alleviate the perceived need to be in Iraq, and end global warming. I support the Employee Free Choice Act that empowers workers to collectively bargain for fair wages and defined benefits. I would oppose “free trade” agreements and support fair trade.

7. Do you think we have our tax priorities straight? How would you go about creating a fairer system and protecting future generations from being saddled with crippling debt?
No. I would like to see a more progressive tax system that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share.

8. Do you support a single-payer national health care program that provides universal coverage, a program that requires people to purchase private health insurance (with tax subsidies for the needy), or some other solution? What is your reasoning?
I am a strong supporter of a single-payer national healthcare program, H.R. 676. As an organizer for SEIU’s Illinois’ for Healthcare, I have looked at numerous healthcare financing mechanisms and I am convinced that healthcare financing could be greatly simplified by moving to a single-payer system. Economically and morally, this is the best way to fund healthcare and cover every single American.

Post Election

1. If elected, what committees would you like to sit on?

I would like to sit on the Intelligence Select Committee and the Veterans Affairs committee. My background as an intelligence analyst will be critical on the intelligence committee as Bush prepares for war with Iran. As a veteran I will fight for mandatory funding for the VA budget and strive to fill the shoes of Rep. Lane Evans.

2. If elected, would you join one of the congressional caucuses? Why, or why not?
I would join the Progressive Caucus and work hard to build that coalition. Please note that at least one of my opponents stepped into this race claiming to be a Blue Dog Democrat and announcing that he would join the Blue Dog Caucus. I have attached the Daily Herald article.

Foster said he’d be a Blue Dog Democrat, a coalition of moderate and conservative mostly Southern lawmakers. Rep. Melissa Bean of Barrington is one of them.

“There’s not much they’re pushing for I don’t agree with,” Foster said.

Early on in the race, Foster realized that his Blue Dog tendencies were not playing well and that there was already a strong, grassroots-powered progressive Democrat running in this district. He adjusted his tactics, message and in the last debate went so far as to call himself a “progressive.” Changing horses in the middle of the stream says something about his character.

Ah…the Dennis haters are going to hate this one!  And the sunshine former ‘supporters’ are going to hate it, too!  Good!

Dennis is not going to ask RP to be his VP.  Period.
From the “Mr. K” Germain show on 11/28/2007:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/K

TLK-AM/Mr%20K%20112807_3p.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=LOSANGELES-CA&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=69

5&STATION_ID=KTLK-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=KTLK_AM1150&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=MARC_

It’s also on the KTLK webpage for their podcasts:
http://www.ktlk.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Starting at 33:50 with the answer beginning at 34:26.

Guess what folks!  It’s done.  Now you can go back to bashing Dennis for unfounded reasons!

As for me…

Go Dennis!
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

For a long time I’ve felt that America has been living in a kind of 9/11-induced dream. I lived in that dream for a long time, too. I’d say I woke up sometime in 2003. It’s hard to explain what I mean by ‘I woke up’ but, at its base, it involved a kind of epiphany that reality had no connection to what I was seeing on my television. And, I don’t mean in the sense that this has always been true. I mean something more.

The realization came in drips in drabs until it finally broke like a dam. The government was issuing terror alert warnings that were phony. The vice-president was saying things that were demonstrably untrue. The press was calling the resistance in Iraq ‘Al-Qaeda’. I had never seen, nor thought possible, that the government would lie so brazenly and that the press would go along with it and even catalyze (or catapult) the propaganda.

Suddenly the country was operating along completely fictional lines…our debates were not real debates…our enemies were not real enemies…our victories were not real victories…

There was one person that never fell asleep…never fell for the dream. Writing on September 12, 2001, Hunter S. Thompson knew already what it would take me and most of the nation 2 or more years to learn.

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy. Osama bin Laden may be a primitive “figurehead” — or even dead, for all we know — but whoever put those All-American jet planes loaded with All-American fuel into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did it with chilling precision and accuracy. The second one was a dead-on bullseye. Straight into the middle of the skyscraper.

Nothing — even George Bush’s $350 billion “Star Wars” missile defense system — could have prevented Tuesday’s attack, and it cost next to nothing to pull off. Fewer than 20 unarmed Suicide soldiers from some apparently primitive country somewhere on the other side of the world took out the World Trade Center and half the Pentagon with three quick and costless strikes on one day. The efficiency of it was terrifying.

We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed — for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won’t hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force.

Good luck. He is in for a profoundly difficult job — armed as he is with no credible Military Intelligence, no witnesses and only the ghost of Bin Laden to blame for the tragedy.

OK. It is 24 hours later now, and we are not getting much information about the Five Ws of this thing.

The numbers out of the Pentagon are baffling, as if Military Censorship has already been imposed on the media. It is ominous. The only news on TV comes from weeping victims and ignorant speculators.

The lid is on. Loose Lips Sink Ships. Don’t say anything that might give aid to The Enemy.

If America has been living in a dream, no one personifies that dream more than Rudolf Guiliani. On 9/10 Giuliani’s reign was sputtering to a messy and embarrassing close. The attacks actually canceled the mayoral election to choose his successor. Yet, the events of 9/11 (particularly the scared rabbit behavior of the commander-in-chief) catapulted the mayor of New York into a national hero. And, for the most part, the honor was well deserved. But proving himself under fire didn’t change the basic facts about Rudy Giuliani. He was a thug and a crook and without much dispute…a scoundrel. Watching the nation find that out is part of the larger process of watching the nation awake from its collective dream.

We must conquer the fear.

Weekly Standard on last night’s debate:

America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar.

Mr. Bush doesn’t appear to be worried about the effect the Iraq war will have on his legacy.  In fact, he seems downright determined to ensure his Mesopotamia Mistake never makes the transition from current event to historical case study.  

Monday, during a videoconference, Mr. Bush and Nuri al-Maliki separately signed a “declaration of principles” that calls for one more year of U.S. occupation of Iraq by U.N. mandate to be followed with a more permanent arrangement under sanction of a bilateral treaty.  

Mr. Bush, you’ll recall, is the beleaguered president of the United States.  His second term ends in January of 2009, and rumor has it that he may actually step down then.  If he does, that might well be his first and last constitutional exercise of presidential power.  
Nuri al-Maliki is the beleaguered prime minister of Iraq.  Just over a week before Maliki signed the declaration, not surprisingly, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) threatened to introduce legislature that would provide an “alternative” to Maliki’s government, and he later said that he would be “looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver” if Maliki can’t make more political progress by January.

You know Bush was serious about getting this permanent occupation agreement signed because every time he really, really wants Maliki to do something, he has Huckleberry make scare noise about poop-canning the guy.  

“War Czar” Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said at a White House briefing on Monday that the declaration of principles was an agreement to hold talks next year to determine what missions U.S. forces in Iraq will pursue, whether or not there will be permanent U.S. bases, and what sorts of immunity will be granted to private security firms like Blackwater.  The talks will also explore what kinds of preferential treatment the Iraqi government will give U.S. oil companies like Halliburton.  The goal of the talks will be to have all these issues and more resolved by the end of July 2008, comfortably before Bush leaves office and any Democrat can step in and fend off whatever further cluster bombs Bush manages to drop on us.  

A Tale of Two Constitutions

Not everybody in Iraq is hats and hooters about this new declaration their boy Maliki just signed on to.  As Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar of AlterNet reported on November 7th, Maliki has taken a Bush-like attitude toward his country’s constitution.  In 2006, Maliki requested an extension of the U.N. occupation mandate without getting approval of his parliament as required by his constitution’s article 58, which states that parliament must ratify “international treaties and agreements by a two thirds majority.” (Does any of this sound familiar yet?)  Maliki argued that the U.N. mandate didn’t qualify as an international treaty or agreement.  The U.N. Security Council bought Maliki’s argument and extended the mandate.  

In June of 2007, Iraq’s parliament passed a binding resolution that specifically guaranteed them an opportunity to block any further extensions of the U.N. mandate.  Maliki did not veto the law.  This “principles” deal he just signed on to with Bush will involve yet another end run around his parliament to extend the U.N. mandate, and then another one to establish a two-way treaty with the U.S.

Meanwhile, back at the other constitutional crisis…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was completely out of sorts about the principle pact.  “President Bush’s agreement with the Iraqi government confirms his willingness to leave office with a U.S. Army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy from Iraq,” she said.

Well, that’s true.  In fact, Bush isn’t just out to leave his successor with no exit strategy; he’s determined to seal the exit behind him altogether.  But what’s Pelosi going to do about it? Article II of the U.S. Constitution says that treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, not the House.  And what’s the Senate going to do about blocking whatever deal Bush makes with Maliki?

Nothing, if the White House gets its way.  According to War Czar Lute, the declaration is not a “treaty,” per se.  It’s “a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations.”

Well, yeah, Lute-ster, almost all agreements between nations start out as a set of principles for negotiations.  But eventually, when those negotiations reach their conclusion, they generally need to become a treaty.  The problem for the Bush gang is that if they subject the agreement to the treaty process, that will play into the ix-nay authority of the Democratically controlled Senate, which would negate the whole purpose behind getting the dope deal cut before a Democrat moves into the White House.  

The leaders of the Democratically controlled Senate ought to be yelling, “Bloody hell no, Bush won’t enter us into an international agreement without our approval,” but Hillary Clinton, presently the Senate’s most visible Democratic leader, has let herself get drawn off by a decoy issue.  

On Tuesday, she warned Mr. Bush that a pact with Iraq on extending the troop presence there would be “dangerous,” and “To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage US interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.”

For the love of Mike, Hillary, wake up and smell the airplane glue.  We’ve been hearing news of over a dozen “enduring bases” being built in Iraq since September of 2004.  In 2005 and 2006, Congress–the Congress Hillary was a part of at the time–authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for military construction in Iraq.

The permanent bases are already there, Hillary!.  You need to jump off that horse and start swimming downstream toward July, because if you wait until then to start asserting the Senate’s prerogative to approve or disapprove treaties, you’ll get slapped across the forehead with accusations that you, specifically, are trying to obstruct the good work Mr. Bush is doing to secure Iraq so you can make points with the voters on the lunatic left fringe while all those good and true GOP candidates–including and especially old “the troops want a chance to win” John McCain –are foursquare behind our commander in chief at the moment of his decisive victory in Iraq.

The administration’s Rovewellian propaganda campaign for July victory in the Iraq treaty battle has already commenced.  Uncle Karl himself fired the first salvo the day before Thanksgiving when he told PBS’s Charlie Rose that Congress pushed Bush into invading Iraq.  

You can’t shrug this confrontation off, Democrats, and Atlas isn’t going to come along and do it for you.  

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Jeff’s novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books) will be available April 1, 2008. Visit here to listen to Jeff’s recent conversation with Karen Kwiatkowski on National Forum.

Some thoughts from last night’s CNN/YouTube Debate:

1. Republicans are running on their adherence to and belief in The Bible. I don’t recall if Democrats have been asked to reiterate their firm connections to “the Word of God” as the Republicans were in the debate. And though Huckabee has made the statement that Jesus never ran for office, it should be pointed out that The Bible at no time describes a democracy.
2. Republicans are convinced that we stay in Iraq to keep Al Quaeda and their friends from invading Des Moines or Newark. Again, this is something I haven’t heard the Democrats espousing. And, since the Islamic Terrorist Army hasn’t shown up in my hometown of Shepherdstown, WV, we are supposed to be congratulating George Bush for keeping them away. We haven’t even had to post a guard on the Rumsay Bridge coming into town. Thanks, George.
3. Republicans are running on their tax cutting and limited spending policies, although in offices such as Mayor of New York and Governor of Massachusetts they have raised budgets and spent more money (sometimes on girlfriends in 9/11 firemen’s recovery apartments) than anyone expected – of course they blame Democrat assemblies and councils.
4. Republicans are running against the occupation of our country by illegal aliens… some working in their own houses! If someone has a strange accent, bump them out of the country now! And ignore anything you might have said supporting aliens in your past political life.
5. Republicans are NOT running on platforms about Education, National Health, Jobs, Businesses destroyed by “fair trade”, or any of the issues that directly face the US. Democrats seem caught up in these issues. Time will tell which party is more concerned with the real needs of Americans.

Sure it will.

Under The Lobsterscope

OK, WaPo’s jumped the shark.  Despite the clever and dry chuckle I get from a guy named “Bacon” writing about people attacking Obama for being ZOMG SECRET MUSLIM!!11one!, I can’t help but ask myself who the hell still believes in the liberal media myth after this.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a “Muslim plant” in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.

In campaign appearances, Obama regularly mentions his time living and attending school in Indonesia, and the fact that his paternal grandfather, a Kenyan farmer, was a Muslim. Obama invokes these facts as part of his case that he is prepared to handle foreign policy, despite having been in the Senate for only three years, and that he would literally bring a new face to parts of the world where the United States is not popular.

The son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, Obama was born and spent much of his childhood in Hawaii, and he talks more about his multicultural background than he does about the possibility of being the first African American president, in marked contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who mentions in most of her stump speeches the prospect of her becoming the first woman to serve as president.

“A lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs is not what I just studied in school. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live,” he said earlier this month in Clarion, Iowa.

“The day I’m inaugurated, I think this country looks at itself differently, but the world also looks at America differently,” he told another Iowa crowd. “Because I’ve got a grandmother who lives in a little village in Africa without running water or electricity; because I grew up for part of my formative years in Southeast Asia in the largest Muslim country on Earth.”

While considerable attention during the campaign has focused on the anti-Mormon feelings aroused by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), polls have also shown rising hostility toward Muslims in politics. It is not clear whether that negative sentiment will affect someone who has lived in a Muslim country but does not practice Islam.

Really, ol Perry Bacon Jr. here coulda saved column inches by simply writing “Despite denials, some people say Obama is going to kill all of us in our sleep and replace us with Islamonazihomodhimmiaboriofacist android clones with turbans.”

So, what’s the source, Baconator?

An early rumor about Obama’s faith came from Insight, a conservative online magazine. The Insight article said Obama had “spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.” It attributed this detail to background information the Clinton campaign had been collecting.

After Obama denied the rumor, Jeffrey Kuhner, Insight’s editor, said Obama’s “concealment and deception was to be the issue, not so much his Muslim heritage,” and he suggested that the source of the madrassa rumor was the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign denied the charge.

Human Events, another conservative magazine, published on its Web site a package of articles called “Barack Obama Exposed.” One of them was titled “The First Muslim President?”

Robert Spencer, a conservative activist, wrote in Human Events that “given Obama’s politics, it will not be hard to present him internationally as someone who understands Islam and Muslims, and thus will be able to smooth over the hostility between the Islamic world and the West — our first Muslim President.”

Conservative talk-show hosts have occasionally repeated the rumor, with Michael Savage noting Obama’s “background” in a “Muslim madrassa in Indonesia” in June, and Rush Limbaugh saying in September that he occasionally got “confused” between Obama and Osama bin Laden. Others repeatedly use the senator’s middle name, Hussein.

The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.

Bryan Keelin of Charleston, S.C., who works with an organization of churches there, posted on an Internet board his suspicion that Obama is a Muslim. “I assume his father instructed him on the ways of being a Muslim,” said Keelin, who described himself in an interview as a conservative Republican who will vote for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out,” says one of the e-mails that was posted recently on a blog at BarackObama.com, the campaign’s Web site, by an Obama supporter who warned of an attempt to “Swift Boat” the candidate. “What better way to start than at the highest level, through the President of the United States, one of their own!”

Another e-mail, on a site called Snopes.com that tracks Internet rumors, starts, “Be careful, be very careful.” It notes that “Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim,” and that “since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.”

So…you’re basically writing a news article whose only purpose is that it’s all wingnut rumors just to point out…what?  That the rumors aren’t true?

Except you don’t mention that the rumors are complete batshit nutbar wank fantasies about Barack Obama.  You say that he denies them.  And then you make it sound like there’s a huge army of brave patriots just waiting to expose him as ZOMG SECRET MUSLIM!!11one! and save America from dhimmitude, instead of just, you know, a bunch of purely evil rumors being regurgitated about the Mysterious Mulatto Gentleman For Your Titillating Consumption.

Assholes.  All the way around.  Throwing in Romney’s Mormonism as a dodge is a particularly nice touch.

No seriously.  Assholes.  This column has no place anywhere near the Washington Post.  Even FOX would call this a hatchet job and walk away from it.  But this is what passes for news in the Village…on page A01.

The “fact” that “there are rumors about Obama being a Muslim” and that “it would negatively impact his campaign if he WAS a Muslim” is FRONT FUCKING PAGE NEWS.

I do have a problem with Obama on some policy issues, key word being “policy”.  I do like his stance on other policy issues.  I think he would be a preferable candidate to Hillary because of his anti-war stance, I think Edwards would be a slightly better candidate on other economic and health care POLICY ISSUES.  But why would I expect the WaPo to talk about policy issues when it’s much more fun to make shit up about candidates?