Now that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated, directly
or
indirectly abetted by now president Pervez Musharrif, it is time for
President Bush to take a new approach to Pakistan. In his private
conversation with Musharrif, and for public consumption, Bush must
demand that a independent, neutral team be allowed to investigate the
murder with the full cooperation of the government. As it is, too many
suspect that Musharrif had a hand in the killing, an in house report
will have little credibility in a country verging on chaos. It is also
time to make clear to Musharrif and the general in charge that we will
stop supporting the current regime unless we are allowed to go after
terrorist safe havens in that country with the full cooperation of the
Pakistani army. If that demand is refused then we have little to lose
in cutting off funding and putting in place economic and other
sanctions.
The current regime is not rolling back the depraved Islamists, the
reports indicate that the insurgency is gaining strength and coming
down from the northern mountains, even into the cities. Most Pakistanis
do not want the Talibanization of their country. And even at the risk
of overturning that sentiment, we have to hit al-Queda hard.
That would mean making strikes into the western provinces and killing
anyone who resisted. The civilians who get caught in the cross fire
have no one to blame but themselves for associating with these
nihilists. We should make that abundantly clear from the start. The
troops would have to come from Iraq and unnecessary forces stationed
around the world. Even though that would not be enough to do a proper
job, at least we would be playing something besides defense and we
might get lucky and get the al-Queda leadership.
If necessary, we would have to launch a strike force to destroy any
chance that a viable nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of the
deranged. Bombing would cause perhaps massive civilian casualties. That
might mean fighting the Pakistani army. We would be condemned by the
rest of the world, which would quietly breath a sigh of relief.
Is there any Presidential candidate who would be willing to take that
kind of heat? We know that we can't count on the sitting President to
do so even though he is supposed to be hawkish.
The Bhutto assassination can be used to justify a break with past
accommodation with Musharrif who says what we want to hear but can't,
or won't, follow through. And make no mistake, without Bhutto he is
still the strong man of the country for the foreseeable future. He had,
and has the power to move against the monsters. He has the
responsibility to do so. Either he acts now or we put our eggs in
another basket.
December 28, 2007 [This commentary would have been posted
on 28/12 except for an upload computer glitch.]
JBM
On a recent PBS, Tavis Smily interview show, the host
lamented to Times
columnist Frank Rich that the presidential candidates aren't making
time for in-depth interviews with media reporters. However, neither man
brought up the even more deplorable fact that when given the chance,
interviewers don't raise a cornucopia of issues likely to face the next
president. Whether it was Charlie Rose spending a hour with Senator Joe
Biden on his childhood and his oft repeated Iraq solutions or the
questions Hillary Clinton never had to cope with when she swept through
the Sunday talk shows one morning, the mainstream media is not only not
testing the aspirants in the "debates" or otherwise but is contributing
to the public's ignorance.
Consider these subjects that could have been broached:
`What is your judgement of Venezuelan defacto dictator, Hugo Chavez
and his efforts to spread socialism through South America? Do we need
to take action, and if so, what kind?
`Would you change any policies towards Cuba? What about Cubans
"illegally" entering the U.S. through Mexico?
`Should American oil companies have to pay damages for their
environmental pollution in western South America? Should these cases be
brought in American courts?
`Should we be buying up parcels of Amazon jungle to keep it from being
leveled?
`Should we be charging the Mexican government for our expenses in
returning illegal aliens? Why not? And why can't we seem to supply
"legal" Mexicans for our farm workers?
`China is directly or indirectly supporting repressive regimes in
Sudan, North Korea and Burma and has completed the takeover of Tibet
while talking about not interfering with other nations sovereignty. Is
this OK with you and if not what are you going to do about it other
than useless talk? Would you attend the Olympics there?
`Why are we keeping so many military bases in the north pacific region,
particularly when the Japanese are tired of our criminal infractions
and want us to leave? Why are we continuing to stage troops in South
Korea when that country is rich enough to defend itself? Who are we
afraid of? And are you going to disband our missile defense structure
now that North Korea has changed course? We have over 700
military/"security" bases around the world. How do we escape the
impression of being hegemonic imperialists?
`Russia is becoming a Putin dictatorship if it isn't already. He is
becoming increasingly adversarial to our interests. What, if anything,
are you going to do about it?
`Europeans are in demographic decline and Muslims are filling in for
the absence of young people. Is this a concern to you and have you any
proposals to ameliorate this trend?
`Do you intend to join the World Court? If not, why not? Will you
extradite our CIA operatives that Italians want to put on trial for
alleged kidnapping and torture of a Muslim cleric? Will you close our
rendition bases overseas and GITMO?
`Will you join the Kyoto accords and mandate a reduction on carbon
dioxide emissions?
DOMESTICALLY:
`Are you going to mandate higher CAFE standards immediately? Are you
going to initiate a national subsidy for retrofitting insulation in
older homes? Are you going to subsidize solar panel instillation? Are
you going to buy electric cars for federal fleets? Are you going to
renounce ethanol subsidies because it doesn't save energy and drives up
food prices? Are you going to mandate cleaner power plants? What is
your position on building new nuclear power plants? `Including
insurance companies in any universal health plan will only undermine
cost effective, quality care because the insurance industry is all
about maximizing profits for stockholders and overcompensation of top
executives. It is exempt from anti-trust law so no price competition
fostered. Any initial efficacious plan will be pecked away at with
earmarks and hidden legislated benefits for the insurance companies as
time goes on. Why aren't you for a not-for-profit, single payer,
government plan? Are you captive of the insurance industry too?
`Are you going to press for federalizing corporate charters and looking
into the 1886 Supreme Court "decision" that gives corporations
personhood status when they are clearly not people? Why not?
`Are you going to support new regulation of the financial industry to
insure transparency and accountability?
`A major pharma corp. just got hit with a half billion fine for
criminal misconduct. Are you going to press for mandatory prison terms
for corporate executives when the companies are guilty of criminality?
`Are you going to press for legislation, and/or an amendment that would
allow congress to set campaign spending limits?
`Are you going to press congress to pass legislation, and/or an
amendment to set reasonable dates for presidential primaries?
`Are you going to press for an end to the electoral college?
`Are you going to support proportional representation rather than the
misleading winner-take-all election system we have today which
discourages voter turn out? What about instant runoff ballots which
have 1st and 2nd choices?
`what is your Supreme Court selection philosophy? Do we need more
liberals on the court? Would you add 2 more justices?
These are just some of the questions that the candidates haven't had to
face to any extent. Everything is about Iraq. The fact that we don't
know their views on these other important concerns condemns the major
media as complicit in dumbing us down. Remember that when viewing our
network anchors and talk show hosts.
October 8, 2007
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP
The awaited Patraeus and Crocker reports and media
tours are now
over. Now everyone knows that President Bush intends to hand the Iraq
quagmire over to his successor. Many concentrate on this unpopular
outcome and what it means to the Bush historical legacy. They feel that
this will define his presidency. In actuality, the war has acted as a
major distraction to the encompassing, deplorable tenure and aftermath
of his regime.
With so much attention devoted to the Iraq war what gets largely
overlooked is that he will also hand over the policies of rendition,
torture, secrecy, domestic spying, stubborn divisiveness and usurpation
of executive power to the next administration. What is also clear is
that Senator Reid and House leader Palosi have no stomach to challenge
the increased authority and abuse of the executive branch. They would
rather have the "talking points" to use against Republicans in the 2008
election.
Not only do we have the abuse of power by Bush but there will be the
legacy of corruption, mismanagement and neglect from the
administration. The abject pandering to big business, recently
exemplified by green lighting more mountain top coal mining in West
Virginia, has blocked efforts to develop solutions to America's growing
problems, problems that affect the many but not the richest few who
benefit most. For instance, after the initial criticism, Bush has
largely escaped ongoing excoriation for pushing big Pharma prescription
drug pricing that can't be negotiated by Medicare. His unwillingness to
fund this hand out just passes along more debt to future generations on
top of the mountain we can't politically pay back. Comprehensive
medical insurance reform (remember that we pay more for less than any
other advanced nation) has been put off for another 8 years despite the
overwhelming concern of the electorate and future corrective endeavors
face the specter of threats to America's solvency. Even Allen Greenspan
has now condemned Bush's spending policies.
No child left behind has been under funded and is in turmoil. Bush has
even been at odds with his own Republicans over immigration reform,
another major problem that will be kicked to the next president. In
fact, it would take a microscope to find any beneficial domestic
programs he can take credit for. By our preoccupation with the "war on
terror" we have wasted another 2 terms of time to redress even the most
obvious deficiencies. As Greenspan has (reportedly) written,
Republicans did not deserve to be elected in 2004 and presumably don't
in 2008.
But given the unwillingness of Democratic congressional leaders to get
tough with the President, for instance even passing the FISA
circumventing spying bill, let alone demanding formal censure of the
President, let alone initiating impeachment proceedings, there is
little reason to be optimistic about real change if Dems win clear
majorities and the presidency in 2008. Bill Clinton's term as president
isn't reassuring. Eight years of Hillary can't be worse than Bush but
won't likely be sufficiently better either.
All in all, the war in Iraq has provided needed cover for our president
since obviously better alternatives to his persistent war strategy
aren't to be had. Better solutions for our domestic problems are
apparent but get relatively little public attention. Bush wins; and now
he and his cronies can retire to proffer their excuses and rewrite
history.
September 16, 2007
JBM
Last week on PBS' Charlie Rose, conservative
columnist
Robert Novak was a guest for the purpose of promoting his memoir book.
During the conversation he affirmed his belief in the conservative
credo, cut taxes, especially for the investor class (read rich) and
minimize government. This came just after the Minneapolis bridge
collapse and report that to adequately repair and maintain our roads,
bridges, pipe lines, treatment plants, water facilities, schools and
government buildings, airport facilities, etc. would cost over one and
a half trillion dollars. And unlike new construction, maintenance
doesn't generate private sector development because that development is
mostly already in place.
This was just the right moment for Rose to pounce on the Reagan
philosophy (Novak cited Reagan as the greatest president over the last
50 years because of this panacea) which has ruled for over a quarter
century by asking if we should just let the rest of our infrastructure
crumble away until the economy and society disintegrate, just as we
have been doing all these years. Instead, he changed the subject.
Since the private sector hasn't taken up the initiative, we will have
to have government repair and rebuild and that will cost money. The
money to do this will have to come from somewhere. Given that Novak
stated that huge debt is not significant, he might have answered that
continued borrowing would pay for it, part of the borrow to spend
conservative contingent. Most uncoopted economists know that increasing
debt cannot go on indefinitely and the bigger the bill, the more
hardship to come.
When asked roughly the right question at the Republican debate a few
days later, only a couple of candidates chose to respond. Mitt Romney
adopted the Reagan answer to cut taxes further. Following that logic,
virtually eliminating taxes would pay for everything and then some!
However, as we saw, the laughable Laffer curve of the '80's resulted in
turning us into a perpetual debtor country--cutting taxes on the
wealthy didn't generate the revenues to support needed governmental
programs. Many invested their savings overseas or blew it on
conspicuous consumption, in other words on mansions, yachts and brand
name apparel instead of on roads and bridges.
The downgrading of government by underfunding non-pork and/or packing
it with incompetent cronies has supported the mantra of privatization.
Competitive private entities will supposedly provide more efficient
goods and services. And then silence reigns when real competition
disappears in the face of collusion, waves of mergers or business
failures. The companies that survive likely do so by making big
campaign contributions or other inducements to get favorable treatment
from our politicians.
What is equally as troubling is that major media hasn't debunked this
debilitating philosophy designed to reward the rich and powerful at the
expense of everyone else--once and for all. It is atrocious that
liberals, progressives and fair minded people have let the Darwinian
plutocrats get away with so much destruction. The advocates, like
Novak, the true prince of darkness, and Republican candidates, should
be condemned for their selfish greed. Being nice to our enemies, abroad
or domestic, only commands their arrogance and disdain, not respect.
Rose and Stephanopolous failed us again.
8/August/2007
JBM
It is time to call attention to some faulty assumptions
going
around these days, ones that aren't being exposed by mainstream TV
media and ones that are giving us skewed expectations about important
matters.
The first is that we now have a do-little Democratic congress.
Republicans are gaining some points from this canard. In truth, until
there are 61 lock step Dems in the Senate, the left is not in charge of
congress. Republicans can and will block any real reform agenda that
Dems might initiate. For example: just take raising taxes on the rich
or reducing subsidies on big oil in order to begin a return to fiscal
sanity rather than continually passing off growing debt to future
generations. Think Republicans would let that pass, let alone override
a sure fire Presidential veto? Republicans even killed the Bush amnesty
immigration bill that Dems signed on to. IT IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS Tim Russert. Let's stop calling it that.
Another misconception is that we can talk our way out of Iraq by
dealing with our enemies, namely Iran, the country which is waging
covert war against the U.S.. Senator Lugar and Hagel are the most
recent proponents of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. This is
nonsense; Iran is getting just what it wants with the way things are
going. It is giving our forces a beating (read killing our soldiers)
without any military response. It is gaining new adherents every week
as we fail to respond to the propaganda war. It is also becoming
crystal clear that the Maliki government does not want to unite Iraq in
any equitable manner. The Shiite majority is waiting for us to withdraw
so that full scale civil war can break out with the anticipation that
they will crush the Sunis with substantial help from Iran. Ahmadinejad
and company are salivating at the prospect of a greatly enlarged sphere
of influence. Under these circumstances the Iranians have no reason to
cooperate with the American supplicant. Even if they agreed to some
deal, elements of their regime would break it or undermine it. Lying is
a legitimate means to their ends. Our Senators and other well placed
notables should know better. If they don't, they should be so judged at
election time.
A third assumption is that in the upcoming primaries Iowa and New
Hampshire matter as much or more than they did. There is no reason to
believe that voters in more urban states will follow along, lemming
like, with the choices of these rural electorates. The priorities will
be different, at least at the margins. With all the Dem candidates
promising to bring our troops home sooner and all the Republicans
later, other issues will determine the winners. Moving up the primaries
is lengthening the campaign season but at least the choices may be more
relevant to the countries needs.
A fourth assumption is that congress can not do anything in the last
year before a presidential election. It may not but that doesn't mean
the public should be resigned to this failure. Congressmen should be
excoriated by the media for doing nothing-in any year. We certainly
know that major legislative changes need to be made. We know that the
longer we wait the more intractable our problems will become. Giving
congress a year off to point fingers is unacceptable.
Finally, it has been reported, with understandable reason, that
President Bush believes that his 8 year agenda will be vindicated by
historians in the long run. Such convenient thinking is very dangerous
as it unteathers his actions from coercive consensus. Taking unpopular
stands may turn out to be seen as a good later on but they may have
been just as likely judged correctly at the time. It is too easy for
villains like Bush and cohorts to take comfort in this rationalization.
Don't let him get away with it.
July 9, 2007
JBM
This week Israeli Prime Minister Olmert travels to the
U.S. to
meet with the U.N. and President Bush. Topic A will be what to do about
Gaza now that Hamas has taken over by force. Let's hope that the 2
leaders take a strong and appropriate stand.
The result should be as follows: both leaders should announce that Gaza
will not be invaded unless fired upon. Any rocket attacks on Israel
coming from within Gaza will be met with counter strikes that will be
more than compensatory. The border will be closed to all traffic. Where
Gaza borders Egypt; one mile within Gaza will be considered a free fire
zone and anything that moves will be bombed. Hamas gunmen got what they
wanted, total control. Now they can build their new state on their own.
Let's remember that the people voted for Hamas and it is appropriate
that they enjoy the consequences of their decision. Those that didn't
support Hamas have had time to leave before the expulsion of Fatal. Our
leaders should make clear that the people inside have no one to blame
but themselves for whatever befalls them.
There will be a chorus of whiners and rationalizers, aid NGO's and
covert Hamas and Islamic terrorist supporters who will violently object
to letting Gaza residents stew in their own juices. The answer should
be clear and unambiguous: Israel will not provide for those who are
dedicated to killing Jews and eliminating their country. Hamas will
make offers of reconciliation and peace but their true intent is well
known and such offers will be considered for what they are; nothing
more than attempts to get support for carrying out their primary
mission. If Gaza residents truly want reconciliation and incoming aid
then they must first execute all Hamas leadership and gunmen, probably
almost all men between 15 and 50. This demand will be considered
outrageous but any aid or peace talks with Hamas is just as nonsensical
and will only prolong the conflict until Israel is destroyed.
Many living in the West Bank will protest because their loved ones will
be adversely affected. Israeli leadership must stand up to those cries.
Aid should come to those West Bank Palestinians who want a negotiated
settlement and are working towards it. This is not to excuse Sharon and
the settlement incursions which must be returned to their rightful
owners.
The 2 state solution has suddenly turned into a 3 state fait accompli.
Hamas, Hezbolllah, al-Queda, the Taliban, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and
even Saudi Arabia know only how to kill or subjugate. The hope was that
invading Iraq and deposing Hussein would break up that Islamic mind set
but apparently it was naive to think that Muslims could generate a
progressive, healthy society.
Just as letting illegal Mexicans into our country prolongs the
corruption and incompetence of the Mexican government, so too will
allowing aid into Gaza just prolong the life of the depraved thugs of
Hamas. Letting anyone out, with their poisoned philosophy, to infect
rational societies is making it all the harder to uplift.
GW Bush is known for not caring what others think. Here it could be
usefully employed to buck up Israeli leadership under the coming
pressure to he humane to those who, given any opportunity, would kill
or enslave civilized people.
June 18, 2007
JBM
Much of the current talk is, once again, about
excessive gasoline
prices. All time highs are being approached or exceeded. The media has
made it well known that shortage of refining capacity, not crude oil
hikes, are to blame. Yet demand keeps growing.
ABC News presented an interisting report on why we keep buying SUVs and
driving them even when fillups cost so much. It seems they found that
those making over $70,000 a year didn't find the prices onerous but
those that made half that or less were hurting and trying to cut back.
Many have little choice but to drive. Public transportation is meager
and jobs are quite some distance from exurban commuters.
So, one of the fallouts of this gouging is a contribution to the
widening split between the haves and have nots. Overall, the economy is
reportedly taking a 20 billion dollar hit. As if we weren't in the
deep, dark debt chasim already. [A new report came out saying that the
Iraq war will likely cost us a trillion dollars or more over the long
run, not the $300 million Rumsfeld scoffed at.]
What the major media hasn't apparently investigated, or at least
reported on, is the likelyhood that the refinery production "problems"
are being purposedly caused. After all, don't you think that the oil
companies saw what the power companies got away with during the Enron
hayday, when they shut down plants to gouge California (and others)
rate payers? Getting eventually caught and paying slap-on-the-wrist
fines would be well worth the price. And since congress and presidental
administrations have been subserviant for decades, big oil can ram it
to us without much fear. Just look at how unwilling congress has been
to mandate building more refineries even as the capacity, compared to
growing demand, has steadily shrunk. Even now, Reid and Palosi are
content to waste time on war funding (see my previous editorial on the
subject) and bickering about immigration rather than gather to impose a
windfall profits tax which would take the constricted supply incentive
away from the greedy corps..
Having to burn less gas is an environmental benefit and would make us
less dependent on bad regimes. But the best way to do that is to
minimize the suffering by those who have the least. Those who are
already stretched tight. And remember, it isn't just the gas price, it
is the increased prices of all products that have to be transported.
Those taking to their bikes will pay more too.
The highest priority of Bush and Cheney has been to enrich big oil and
the record profits are rolling in. This was evident at least by 2004
but a majority said it was okay with them. Our other problems, mainly
the Iraq war, provides plenty of distracting cover. And it looks like
the congressional Dems have bought in too. They don't want to
antagonize the carmaker unions. But they have to. They won't and that's
another reason why America is circling the drain.
May 23, 2007
JBM
Now that the 15 British sailors, kidnapped by Iran over
a week
ago, have been returned, there is a sense of relief that a major
confrontation has been avoided. But coupled with the Iranian
government's weapons supplies (and insurgents) to Sunni terrorists in
Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers, as well as Iranian
support for Hozbollah in their campaign against Israel, it is clear
that Iran has all but formally declared war on the west. Yet, even with
the threat of nuclear weaponry coming soon, Bush, Blair and company
will not present this reality to the public.
One reason for accepting repeated slaps in the face is military
weakness, which Ahmadinejah is exploiting. The second is the mixed
signals sent by various governing factions in Iran which purposely
confuse us into promoting inaction. A third is the fear of Muslim
uprisings, especially in Pakistan. However, on 3/April/07, Brian Ross,
on ABC's World News,
"exclusively" (according to Charlie Gibson) reported that the U.S. is
partially funding a Pakistani insurgent band that is raiding Iran with
the intent of promoting instability. This is good news for those who
are tired of playing defense with Muslim extremists all the time. [It
should be noted that any such action needs constant oversight by
funding sources to deter unwarranted actions by such a band(s).] Yet
there was no followup the next night on what would seem to be a major
story and neither CBS, NBC nor BBC mentioned it the next night. Could
it be that the U.S. government squashed any further revelations or was
the report factually unsustainable?
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how the British seamen
involved in the hostage taking will be treated back home. Clearly,
anyone responsible for virtually abandoning those little inspection
boats on the high seas should be unceremoniously discharged. But more
attention will (or should) be paid to how easily the 15 played into the
propaganda hands of their captors. It was nauseating. There seemed to
be no torture involved to get these incursion confessions and
thankfulness to the Iranian people for their humane treatment. The
televised interviews were designed to further humiliate the Blair
government and the British people while making the "gracious" return of
the captives seem philanthropical to the Muslim world. Clearly there is
a substantial lack of training and discipline in the British navy.
And there has been much speculation about a behind the scenes deal made
to procure the release of the kidnapped. Was anything given up by the
Brits or was the funding pulled for the Pakistani marauders? Given the
secrecy of the Bush administration, it is unlikely we will ever know.
And in this case it is probably better that way.
Even if the British sailors had strayed into Iranian waters, it wasn't
very far and there couldn't have been a hostile intent. At worst, the
Iranians could have held the rafts in place until someone came and
picked them up and the matter was settled. But that might have exposed
their infringement claim as false, which it probably was. But with the
success of the 40 some hostages taken during the Carter administration,
there seemed little to lose and something to gain. And after this
fiasco, what will try and get away with, and what will we let them get
away with next?
April 5, 2007
JBM
The conventional wisdom is that American voters have
spoken. They
purportedly indicated in the 11/06 election that they wanted changes in
congress. They supposedly wanted altered directions and ways of doing
business in the 1st branch of our federal government. Democrats were
expected to stand up to the president on the war and get on with
passing long needed in house reform, legislation and enforcement. It
was time for the do-so-little for ordinary people, Republican
domination to end.
And indeed, the Nancy Pelosi House, followed by the Harry Reid Senate,
passed legislation in the 1st 100 days that most people wanted but few
remember. Republicans were shut out of the process, and given their
recalcitrance and hindrance Dems may be excused for giving the
elephants a taste of their own bad medicine. However, such exclusions
in the future threaten to continue the partisan bitterness which has
increasingly characterized the last decade at the Capital; a prime
feature the public has criticized.
But now both halves of the democratically controlled congress have gone
right back to "the ends justify the means" legislative tactics the
Republicans were roundly, and rightly, criticized for. In their fervor
to stand up to the president on the Iraq war and increased troop
involvement, they have passed legislation that is fundamentally unsound
from the military standpoint and extremely dangerous to middle east
stability. Early on in the conflict most agreed that passing a deadline
for our engagement gave our enemies valuable intelligence from which to
plan their strategies. Now that the war has dragged on, some, like
Senator Hagel, are caving in. They cite the conversion of the war
against Iraqi terrorists to a sectarian civil war as a major reason for
this position "modification".
But rather than promote redeployment to the borders of Iraq to stem the
flow of insurgents and arms, they advocate bringing the troops home.
And not only did Pelosi and Reid load the bill up with extraneous
additions to get passage, they insist on pursuing this course even
though they know that a Presidential veto will be sustained in the
Senate. So these hightailers are simply wasting time before they go off
on another 2 week vacation. Meanwhile, universal health insurance,
immigration and education etc. issues remain unaddressed.
And the issue of troop funding remains unsettled. Dems will have to
cave here, no one wants to deprive our forces of the supplies they have
been getting. If anything, they should have better equipment. And there
is the valid argument that Bush is wearing out our Army and Marine
Corps. So it is quite proper to start a new regimen of putting "clean"
bills up for a full vote in both House and Senate. One bill for funding
the troops, another for a withdrawal timetable and another for the
domestic "necessities" that states and regions are crying out for. The
funding bill will pass, either way. The timetable won't pass but blame
can be laid on the President and his supporters without incurring
responsibility for the sectarian blood bath that would likely follow a
premature pullout. The spending bill can pass or not on its merits. And
Democratic leadership will be seen as doing the right thing as
individual members defend their votes.
Pelosi and Reid are off to poor starts. Let's hope they won't bring on
a counter backlash with American voters.
March 31, 2007
JBM
Defense Secretary Bob Gates has been applauded for
firing 2 generals and the Secretary of the Army in the wake of
disclosures
about the shabby treatment of our Iraq war veterans. This mis-treatment
has gone on all during the administration of Donald Rumsfeld and indeed
veterans haven't gotten proper care for decades. The wider scope of
this
under funded, bureaucratic disregard is now being explored. VP Cheney
states
that corrective action will be swift. No one should take that to the
bank.
Remember, Republicans only care about the rich and all others are just
fodder to be used to serve them.
This latest exposed episode of federal government
feckless
malfeasance simply follows a copious list of other fed failures from
FEMA
response tho hurricane Katrina to an IRS that can't or won't collect
billions
in unpaid taxes to no bid contracts to military service providers (and
"lost" military outlays) to environmental ripoffs, media giveaways,
pork barrel spending and on and on. And as the perfunctory
congressional
hearings proceed and those in charge are blamed (but rarely punished),
no one should be distracted from the prime culprits--the congressmen
themselves.
They are in charge of oversight, they can confirm or reject
presidential
appointments.
The kinds of firings of generals we just witnessed
shouldn't
be such cause for congratulations, they should be SOP across the entire
federal government when poor performance is encountered. But
particularly
under Republican leadership, holding people accountable contradicts the
policy agenda. The Reagan idea, as espoused by economist Milton
Freidman,
is that government is bad so diminish it and privatize. This provides
an
excuse to cut programs that people need and cut taxes for those not in
need. Especially the very rich. It is the Grover Norquist formula and
with
an appeal to the religious social repressives it has captured public
philosophy.
Occasionally, a discomforting consequence rallies outrage.
But, little by little, we accept lower standards than
necessary. Outrage becomes tolerance, which becomes acceptable, which
becomes
the expected. Meanwhile global warming, monstrous indebtedness and
declining
governmental services etc. become the norm, along with increased public
apathy. There are problems that only the federal government can address
and there are taxes that have to be paid for them. Senator Lieberman
has
suggested raising taxes to pay for Bush's wars and their consequences
for
our fighting men and women. He believes that all of us should have to
sacrifice,
and he is right. Americans have to stop believing in something for
nothing
even as politicians promise just that. We have to start demanding that
our representatives to Washington do their jobs, not just bring home
the
bacon.
Running over the white south, NASCAR mentality is a
necessary
first step. Restoring higher expectations from cabinet officials and
federal
government executives would be a healthy beginning. Just shuffling them
sideways or even demoting them is insufficient. Consider this: imagine
the corrupt, negligent and incompetent bureaucrats hanging high from
local
telephone poles for all the world to see. That would electrify the
obstructionists
into doing their proper jobs or they would get out right quick. The one
finger wrist slaps and revolving door treatment won't suffice.
Senate leader Harry Reid is right when he stated that
historians will judge GW Bush as one of the worst presidents in
America's
history. Bush's screwups, including his irresponsible appointments
(e.g.
Alberto Gonzalez), will be a drag on us for a long while. But Reid
should
look at himself and his colleges first and foremost and come out for
ousting
the worst of his own kind in congress. Maybe Gates should be put in
charge
of firing congressmen.
7/March/2007
JBM
There has been a seeming endless supply of
information
about the war in Iraq, including conjectures by politicians, pundits
and
reporters. Many glaze over when confronted with the latest updates. But
there is a relatively unvarnished National Intelligence Estimate, which
was exposed on 2/2/07, that Americans should pay real attention to.
The findings, and the commentaries on the assessment,
make it pretty clear that no matter what the U.S. does, a blood bath is
coming. Although not confronted by the classic definition of a civil
war,
we are witnessing a multi-dimensional semi-civil war between various
Muslim
factions, including the recent cult that was preparing to kill off
Shiite
clergy. Some kill in the hopes of political power for themselves or
their
leaders. Then there are the murderous gunman, killing for material
gain--or
just for the fun of it. Almost all risk their lives (or commit out
right
suicide) in the belief that they will go to Muslim heaven. Nothing
denotes
depraved, fanatical, fundamentalist, delusion more.
Some are whipped up by the nihilist al-Queda, others
by Iran and Syria, and still others by the Taliban. All the
provocateurs
have safe havens from which to supply arms and dupes to the conflict
zones.
As long as those havens exist, our forces will face an endless battle.
It should be clear by now that indigenous Iraqis
would
have used up their arms and suicide bombers in their fighting so even
if
people don't trust the word of GW Bush, and they shouldn't, it is
perfectly
reasonable to conclude that Iran (and Syria) is supplying bombs and
killers,
in effect waging a covert war with the U.S.. It is unclear, but
probably
unlikely, that the youthful Iranian majority supports such
interference--if
it knew what was going on. Therefor, it is imperative that Iranians be
told, preferably by dropping a blizzard of leaflets on their cities and
towns. These varied messages would include photos and other evidence
with
arguments supporting the accusation and warn them that their government
is inciting a military response. Either stop Ahmadinejad and company or
face destruction. It is time that we stopped playing defense all the
time.
Talking to our Muslim enemies would be an exercise in
foolishness. We cannot give in to their demands and they cannot be
trusted
to live up to any concessions on their part. We would just look weak in
the process.
And we should all understand by this time that the
Muslim
religion has gone rancid in the hands of faction leaders. The good news
in Iraq and Gaza is that Muslim murderers are killing off each other.
Unfortunately,
they are killing rational, innocent civilians too. Escalated killing on
a grand scale will be the probable outcome if we withdraw our troops
from
the region and liberal leaders such as our "withdraw now" Senators
and presidential candidate Edwards should be made to face the public
and
answer for a genocide should their policies be implemented. On the
other
hand this assessment indicates that a surge will, at best, just hold
off
the nightmare for the short term. It notes that the various factions
have
no leaders capable of controlling their hoards and coming to the
compromise
table.
This is the time when people around the world should
start taking a realistic look at our religions and the damage dogma
does.
Clearly, no one who shares the same religious practices and beliefs as
the depraved Islamists can be trusted. They are deranged. But the same
can be said for Christian, Jewish and Hindu followers too. When faith
varies
from observable reality, when followers fight over the distant past,
people
are, or should be considered delusional. In other words, mentally ill.
Just because they comprise the vast majority in the world, and in
America,
shouldn't blind us to that fact.
3/February/2007
JBM
This is the 10 year anniversary of the 1st
new
year predictions on this page and it might be interesting to see what
was
expected and what actually came to pass.
Here are some exerpts from the 1996/1997 commentary:
"As I watched a year end summary on NBC news I was struck by how little
of what happened made any real change in the ongoing trends. What could
have altered the course of history significantly, our presidential
race,
amounted to little or nothing when it was finally over. There was no
3rd
party threat to sway Dole or Clinton into promising to propose
legislation
about campaign finance reform, universal health care, to close the
growing
disparity of wealth, to deter illegal immigration, to rebuild our
public
school system, to lift kids out of poverty, to diminish defense
contract
middle class welfare, to release minor drug offenders to free up prison
space, to redirect corporate goals to consider stakeholders not just
stockholders
and to begin to rebuild a social connectedness that has been lost in
the
pursuit of materialism. Foreign policy and military strength weren't
even
mentioned. As expected, less then half our electorate voted. Our
president
and speaker are mired in ethics charges and possible criminal
infractions.
What else is new? Around the world we saw that the middle east remained
a place of strife, more tribal infighting continued in Africa as people
struggled for diminishing resources, Checznia remains in conflict and
Russia
continues to scrape and bump along the bottom, China continues to
dictate
terms to us while Japan sags, Mexicans still can't earn enough to buy
American
products after NAFTA and the Canadian governmental economic squeeze is
still on. The media hasn't called our attention to much else 'out
there'.
So what else is new? Probably the most positive reports were about drug
combinations that seem to halt the progression of AIDS, and other
medical
advancements, but new research and breakthroughs in this area are not
surprising
anymore. Internet use is exploding, hardly unexpected, given the media
attention and competitive technological advancement. The new
telecommunications
bill won't be for the benefit of customers unless those benefits are
coincidental
bi-products. Life was found to have been on Mars (maybe), so what? No
surprises
here either. Progress shouldn't just be taken for granted but remember
that we don't know the long term effects on us yet. It was sad to have
witnessed the death of certain well known people but no one left us
that
could not be replaced. Surely some people made significant personal
changes,
and some of those changes may come to be seen as setting a new and
positive
course for us all. But for billions of us there is nothing to remember
1996 for particularly. What may be more distressing for billions of us
is that there is nothing on the horizon for 1997 that looks any
different.
3/1/1997
JBM"
Unfortunately, the outlook seems to be pretty accurate and note how
many problems remain unresolved.
In 2005 the abmisal FEMA response to hurricane
Katrina
(which wasn't anticipated) only confirmed just how feckless the Bush
administration
has been when it comes to effective federal governing. Congress, and
its
lack of appropriate oversite, is also to blame for the cronyism that
pervades
Washington.
Now let's look at last January's preview of 2006:
"The only notable question about our supposedly
growing economy (remember, environmental damage generally isn't
calculated)
is why the media won't reveal how come so many people are dissatisfied.
The evidence of increased economic pressure and uncertainty for the
vast
majority is right under their noses but they refuse to properly
identify
it, as that would call into question our corporate controlled
distribution
of income and wealth." This trend continued.
"So let's look ahead. All eyes
are going to be focused on how the Iraqi parliament either brings the
country
together or pulls it apart. Will the Shiite majority pacify the Sunis
sufficiently
to reduce the violence and will they distance themselves from Iranian
influence
and sectarian malitia control? Something in between, like the
sporadically
violent Northern Ireland situation, is likely. We will withdraw a
significant
amount of troops, not because of stability/military considerations but
because of the congressional elections in November--despite cries to
the
contrary by Bush. Meanwhile, Iran will seem to be a growing threat,
Russia
is headed towards pure autocracy and a country like Zimbabwe will
become
notable for degeneration. Nothing will be done about Dafur and the
genocide
will continue to haunt our collective consciences. The North Korean
situation
will drift, with the Bush administration just hoping that our adversary
won't do worse....
"At home, there are going to be several
investigations
and congressional hearings about everything from usurpation of power in
the spying situation to finding and prosecuting leakers to entrenching
more Conservatives on our federal benches to grubby, pay for
legislative,
favors. A couple of the worse bribe takers will be identified as the
rotten
apples but the rotten barrel of apples will be quietly covered up. The
fine line of payments for specific legislation and support for like
minded
politicians won't be explored and done away with by restricting
campaign
contributions to individual insignificance. But the media will have a
lot
to discuss here. Nevertheless, don't expect to see Republicans turned
out
of office in November; remember that voters denounce congress but think
their incumbent is OK (especially when the pork rolls in). This
collective
illogic and the war scare mongering plus the warped priorities of the
pious
will see a continuation of Republican control, especially if the
Democrats
don't come up with a positive agenda of their own. And any such agenda
will be muted because of the liberal-moderate split and the fact that
the
latter are also compromised by big donations."
The Iraq situation turned out differently on 2
counts:
the sectarian violence took off and U.S. troops were not brought home
in
time to insure continued Republican congressional control. And who
could
have anticipated the monumental Bush political blunder of saying he was
going to stick with Rumsfeld when he was actually going to fire him?
And
this past congress accomplished so little that it stood out among many
sorry performances. Add in the unanticipated Mark Foley scandal and too
many got fed up. Not only did they win the House but Dems even
squeezed
out a majority in the Senate despite limited proposals. Any hearings
were
inconsequential, a result of Republican coverups. The so-called
ethics
committees remain a public joke. Now the Dems will get their turn and
any
slacking should be roundly condemned. We shouldn't settle for
anything
less than carloads of officials and bribers going to jail.
"More of the information/entertainment media will
be fractured as increasing numbers take advantage of new and recent
technological
innovations. Quality TV network fair dwindles as movies go to DVD and
cable
stations compete. Internet downloads and pay radio further
individualize
reception. Reading material is out there but fewer read regularly and
those
that do are increasingly drawn to tailored perspectives. All of this
will
further isolate us from those close by. A further fragmented public
will
not be able to come together to bring about needed change. Conflict,
retreat
and apathy are more likely. 2006 will see this quiet macro trend
continue."
Basically accurate. This is an ongoing, long term
slide
away from cohesiveness. Clearly there will be some exceptions as people
come together in the face of growing threats. Some will disagree and
argue
with anicdotal evidence. Precise measurements will be difficult but it
is hard not to see this continuing for the forseeable
future. A
sense of isolation may fuel a growth in fundamentalism but this won't
be
a positive development.
The end of 2006 saw the end of 2 notable figures.
Saddam
Hussein was villified and former president Gerald R. Ford was deified.
Ford is best known for the cold slap in the face of the American
people when he made it crystal clear that there 2 standards of justice
in America, one for the elete, like Nixon, and another for the rest of
us. His administration accomplished nothing tangable and after he
left office his influence was confined to the local golf course.
Contrast
that with the work of Jimmy Carter, and even Bush I and Clinton.
The
capper comes with the revelation that he was dissatisfied with the
Republican
swing to the hard right but he said nothing until his
death! His
legacy was to make it easier for successors to parden more culprits
such
as Weinburger and Clinton's beneficiaries as well as making it more
difficult
to prosecute Bush I for his involvement in the Iran-contra afair.
But
even this egregious pardon is being applauded by media people as if no
damage was ever done. Shame on them. Ford was a second rate
politican who didn't deserve a first rate sendoff.
So what is in store for '07? Two stories would
seem to dominate. Will Bush's "new", more troops, strategy for
Iraq bring the violence under control? And would any supression hold
once
we withdraw? This seems unlikely but timing is important as
it relates to the other media attention dominator--the candidates
campaigns
for the 2008 nominations. Those advocating troop withdrawl will
gain
support or not depending on the Iraqi killers. The field of
candidates
is wide open and it is entirely unclear if Biden or Edwards can emerge
on the Democratic side. McCain will probably win the Republican
nod
if the added troop tactic doesn't blow up in his face.
What we seem to be hushing up is Iranian involvement
in savaging Baghdad with their weapons supplies if not actual fighters.
It is nothing less than covert warfare. But not recognizing the facts
for
what they are is all part of the predicted talk tough but do nothing
policy
about Bush's identified evil twins, Iran and North Korea. If such
involvement is certified and promulgated by the TV networks the public
may demand that military action be taken against Iran and Republicans
don't
want to look like weak liberals. Trouble is that we don't have enough
military
personnel to sustain a war with Iran. Even a draft would not
provide
the necessary additional forces in time. And a draft, even if
supported
by both parties, would be political suicide. Americans have
gotten too used to not making sacrifices for foreign policy objectives.
But this could become a big story if bloggers whip up attention.
Many are optimistic that Republican/Conservative
fundamentalism
is in retreat. But as we (white males particularly) find
comprehension
and authority about and over our lives slipping further away, we will
react
with opposition. This undercurrent should not be discounted and
it
will manifest itself in dictictorial, patriarchal, uncompromising
religious
furver and right wing voting. Liberals are going to have to make
clear that they are going to alleviate "economic oppression"
and mollify social concerns. And there won't be much time to do it.
It
took a horrendous 12 year congressional tenure + an atrocious Bush
administration
to wake people up. A reorganized right wing agenda will have
strong
appeal. 2007 will see the marshalling of support for
candidates and themes for a new administration. In important ways it
will
be more decisive than the actual 2008 election. But many of the crucial
decisions will be made behind the scenes. We are coming ever
closer
to the economic crunch as baby boomers retire and our debt(s) soars
beyond
support. Expect some spark at any time. And any terrorist
attack
will throw these cards up in the air. As with some forms of natural
disasters,
we are due. One thing is certain; it will be an interesting
year.
1/January/2007
JBM