July 2008 archive

I just received, as I’m sure many others have, an E-Mail about a Live Online Broadcast premiering tonight 7-02-08

From ‘Brave New Films’

That I’m going to share with those who may not receive their News Letters.

Follow Me:

Counterpunch is one of my regular stop off points!

As you may know, Netroots For The Troops, a collaborative effort by members of the Daily Kos, IGTNT and Mojo Friday communities,  will be holding a Special Event/Seminar at Netroots Nation on Saturday, July 19th from 2 PM to 4 PM.

We are pleased to announce some special guests with an important and unique perspective on the topic of Troop Care Packages who will be joining us to talk about both the past and the future.

Join us on the flip for more information, plus some new ways that you can help our efforts!

^{Crossposted at The Big Orange and ePluribus Media}

On June 14th, President Bush while discussing a “status of forces” agreement said that he is confident the United States can reach a long term security agreement with Iraq, one that will not establish permanent U.S. bases there.

That is the first step in understanding that Bushie and his neo-con minions are sweating the Security Pact agreement with Iraq that they SO want completed in the very near future.  Prior to June 14, there was no real substantive information from the administration regarding NOT having permanent U.S. Military bases in Iraq via this agreement.  

In Bush’s exact words: “Whatever we agree to, it will not commit future presidents to troop levels, nor will it establish permanent bases.”

The second reason to believe Bush and Company are getting nervous is on that same date, an aide for Iraqi P.M. Al-Malaki said that Iraqi officials are frustrated by the lack of progress in negotiations, so they are contemplating developing legislation to dictate the shape of the American military presence in Iraq.  Al-Malaki himself stated that the first drafts of the agreement that were proposed had reached a deadlock in negotiations.

Again, ol’ never-give-in-never-say-you-were-wrong-never-take-NO-for-an-answer Bushie is giving up something that originally was very important to him (permanent bases) because the Iraqi’s aren’t rolling over and playing dead for him (unlike a certain group of Congressional Democrats who will remain nameless….)

The dualistic mind is enjoying the on-going debate between “purity trolls” and “sell-outs.”  And most people on both sides of the issue appear to be quite certain of their stance.  Feeling somewhat queasy from the shaky ground under me, I’ve been looking in vain for the solid ground others seem to have found.  All I see is a Sophie’s Choice:  which one do you choose to kill–the Constitution of the United States or any chance of participation in the process?  I don’t know.  But I’m here to urge people to accept that we have a tough decision which cries out for meaningful, respectful debate.  And during this debate, may we keep in mind the most important political question we face–what action gives us the best chance of rescuing the constitution from imminent demise.

The recent flurry of controversy over the questioning of McCain’s qualifications for the Presidency reveals a strange transformation in American politics. We no longer argue about the substance of candidates and issues, but about their poses and postures. The defenders of John McCain are not outraged that critics question how John McCain would go about being president. They are outraged because critics question how John McCain goes about being John McCain. It is the coolness, the righteousness, the mojo of the McCain BRAND that was being questioned.

What John McCain’s propaganda machine is trying to sell to the electorate is a posture, a way of acting, an attitude toward the world, not a set of principles or policies. To attack the goodness of his behavioral facade is to strike at the core of a modern political candidate. The electorate has been conditioned to buy the package, not the contents of the package. The taboo that General Clark violated was to attack the attractiveness of McCain’s personality package.

The persona of the “military man” is a powerful brand in American politics. We saw it defended vigorously when General Petraeus was criticized for backing an escalation of the Iraq war. Opponents of the surge were NOT attacked for questioning the surge tactic; they were attacked for questioning the goodness of an American Army officer. Their crime was trying to damage the US military “brand.”

Similarly, McCain’s defenders are defending the “gutsy Navy pilot” brand, not the leadership qualifications of John McCain, who hasn’t flown a jet in decades. The inability to focus on the actual qualifications of political candidates is a sign of a dysfunctional political process. A similar focus on Obama’s magical, mystical persona as an agent of change afflicts the campaign of the Democratic candidate.

Unfortunately, when the voters go to the polls to elect a President in November, they will be choosing between two package designs, not two sets of alternative policies. It is time to pay attention to the package contents, because the challenges facing America in the next decade will not be solved by posturing and packaging.

(Crossposted at DKOS)

In today’s WaPo David Ignatius wrote an important column. Ignatius is probably the best-connected commentator on the subject of the Middle East and reflects official thinking in Washington. When the Neocons were in their glory he wrote admiringly of them; recently he has distanced himself considerably.

First he indicates that the intelligence operations are not run well.

But according to knowledgeable sources, this effort shares the defect of broader U.S. policy toward Iran — it is tentative and ill-coordinated, and it undermines diplomacy without bringing serious pressure on the regime.

AND

Argues a former intelligence official, “It’s a PowerPoint covert-action program. It looks aggressive, but it’s not a tied-together, long-term strategy that would make Iran change its policy.”

The money quote comes at the end of the column:

But so far, that argument for a rollback of Iranian power hasn’t prevailed inside a divided administration.

Finally, he indicates that any change in U.S. policy will wait the next administration:

The Iran question will confront the next administration from Day One, and the basic options probably won’t look very different from the current set: Talk or fight, or do something in between?

This column may be a slender thread but it is realistic to assume, having followed and corresponded (when he wasn’t getting so many Emails) with Ignatius for many years, that he reflects more or less where the dominant forces in the power-elite are. Furthermore, there has been almost no call for attack (outside of the radical right) for an attack on Iran in the MSM. The idea has gotten no traction and is ulikely to because, frankly, there’s too much money to be lost by the power-elite particularly the Financial/Banking community who still rule the roost, they trump AIPAC and the Likud/Neocon alliance.

It is possible that this column is just a ploy to downplay speculation but Ignatius isn’t like that–in the den of thieves that is official Washington he is honest in my view.

Muse in the Morning

It’s a great song.   But times have changed…

State of the Onion XX