skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Bush Conveniently Decides Corruption in Iraq is ClassifiedCorruption in the Iraqi government--it's classified information. So says the State Department.
In preparation for a September 27 hearing on corruption within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Representative Henry Waxman ¤, who chairs the House government oversight and reform committee, sent a request--and then a subpoeana--to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for documents and witnesses. He wanted the State Department to turn over various documents, including a copy of a secret report prepared by the Baghdad embassy that details rampant corruption within the Iraqi government. He also demanded that the State Department make available to his investigators three officials in the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency who have worked on the issue of Iraqi corruption. [UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed until October 4.]
The State Department refused to turn over the documents and said no to the interview requests. Then it slightly changed its tune. Joel Starr, the deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, notified Waxman that his committee could interview the State Department officials, but anything they had to say about corruption within the Iraqi government would be classified--meaning Waxman could not disclose that information to the public.
From "Support the Troops" to Condemning MoveOn: The Cult of the Military and the Decline of Democratic ValuesIn some ways the Petraeus hearings were just another scene in the pro-war theater of the absurd, recalling Colin Powell's smash hit at the UN and George Tenet's "slam-dunk" exuberance, and playing to those herds of Americans who wrap themselves in the flag and plaster yellow ribbons on their SUVs and Hummers.
But the hearings were also something else. They were ritual-ritual as in an act or verbal expression performed in deference to a higher authority, in this case, the authority of the military.
In a world where most western nations attempt to maintain some balance between military and social spending, Americans alone are the "true believers" in the cult of the military. For over half a century we have fed the military god more than his share of their GDP while watching our infrastructure crumble, and have allowed that god to rampage through much of the world, leaving behind more than 700 overseas temples, from Germany to South Korea, dedicated to militarism.
The roots of our deference to military authority are deep, but more important are the ongoing rituals that entrench the cult of the military firmly within the American psyche. Of these, the most potent and insidious is the incantation, "support the troops." These three words may seem to be a simple statement of support for the men and women in uniform. In reality, they say more about the embedment in the American psyche of the cult of the military than could any presidential war speech or Pentagon defense budget.
In fact, in the absence of a legitimate causis belli, "support the troops" has become the glue that binds the American people to the war, and it is no coincidence that, until recently, the dominant cry from the American public has been "support the troops" rather than "stop the war."
When exposed, "support the troops" is, of course, more rhetoric than a reality. It clashes with every known incidence in which the administration and Congress have ignored the needs of soldiers in battle and at home. From protective armor to veteran health care to humane home leaves, "support the troops" never lives up to its promise. But, then, it's not supposed to. Its job is not to actually do any good for the troops, but rather to block serious debate about the troops-and the military establishment they represent.
The "troops" have become the "human face" of the military-industrial complex and the moral camouflage for the administration's war agenda. For this reason, "support the troops" represents an essential dilemma and denial within American culture. Were we to look beyond these human faces, we would have to confront the reality they stand for: the military as an institution that has grown to monstrous proportions, endangered our security by conducting unjust wars, robbed us of our children, squandered our taxes on obscene war technology, and protected the interests of greed-driven multinational corporations.
As Ira Chernus has recently noted,
`Supporting our troops' is not about helping individual soldiers to live better lives or, for that matter, making their lives safer. It's about supporting a morality play in which the lead actor, "our troops," represents all the virtues that so many believe-or wish they could believe-America possesses, giving us the privilege (and obligation) of directing all that happens on the world stage.
In other words, "support the troops" feeds the cult of the military and allows Americans to be self-righteous about our global interventions. It has absolutely nothing to do with, well, supporting the troops.
Petraeus: A Failure by His Own StandardsLet's start with his track record.
Our basic Iraq policy has been and continues to be: "We'll stand down when they stand up." That is, when Iraq has an army and a police force that functions and can maintain order on its own.
The American occupation, run by Paul Bremer III under the aegis of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) disbanded the Iraqi army and, through de-Baathification, took apart the police. As a result, there was no security at the same time that several hundred thousand armed men of military age, with no jobs, were unleashed on the country. Chaos ensued. The occupation, though legally and ethically required to maintain order, and the only people around able to do so, decided not to. It was then that the insurgents arose, forming militias and gangs, to step into the vacuum.
The occupation set out to rebuild the Iraqi Army and Police. So they could stand up and we could stand down.
The man who was given the job was that rising star, Gen. David Petraeus.
He failed.
The Iraqi Army cannot resist the insurgency. The Iraqi police cannot keep order. Indeed, it's far worse than that. Both forces are infiltrated. Some divisions are actually filled with militia members, insurgents and gangsters, dressed up in uniforms. With access to intelligence, arms and equipment. They have engaged in murder, torture and intimidation.
How can we expect the man who failed at doing just part of the job -- training those forces -- to succeed now that he has the whole job?
Fascist Hate Monger Michael Savage attacks Media MattersOn his radio show, Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters item noting that his website used the following headline in linking to an article: "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS." Savage asserted that "a fascist, gay website named Media Matters has attacked me for pointing out that it was a so-called feminist type who tasered the student who asked [Sen. John] Kerry too many questions."
During his radio broadcast, Savage did not refer to the female police officer as a "bull-dyke." He did, however, characterize two female police officers -- both of whom Savage claimed were involved in the altercation during Kerry's appearance -- as having "extraordinarily large hips and small heads, of the type that you would have seen in a cartoon of Animal Farm."
As of September 19, Savage's website still included the headline "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS," with a link to the same article.
Gen. David Petraeus was less then truthfulOnce again, we have a general repeatedly promising to save Western civilization by turning the corner in yet another intractable and unnecessary foreign war. Back on Sept. 26, 2004, in the weeks before the midterm congressional elections, Petraeus took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post to make sure the voters didn't vote wrong. Despite appearances, he claimed the war in Iraq was going very well: "I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up,"Petraeus wrote. "The institutions that oversee them are being re-established from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously … there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."
So keen, it makes one's heart swell. So keen that three years later, after the expenditure of $450 billion more in taxpayer funds, and more U.S. troopsin proportion to the Iraqi population than, at the height of the Vietnam War, we had in Vietnam, the good general now insists it would be disastrous to even think about bringing any American troops home before next summer.
That's at least another $150 billion and many more Iraqi and U.S. lives wasted. But wait-Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, also testified before Congress this week with Petraeus, and he has more good news about what he still celebrates as the "liberation of Iraq." Remember that Bush administration promise that the oil-rich Iraqis would pick up the check for the cost of their liberation? Well, Crocker is bullish on that front:the Iraqi economy is on schedule to grow by 6 percent, according to his testimony. Perhaps he is referring to the additional money dumped into Iraq's economy by American taxpayers chipping in for the surge.
He certainly wasn't basing his estimate on any improvement in Iraqi oil production or any other economic component. As the International Monetary Fund reported last month in its annual review of Iraq's economy, "Economic growth has been slower than expected at the time of the last (review) mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has failed to materialize."In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in U.S. tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.
Ron Paul tells Bill O'Reilly US policy, not Iran, is the real problemWhen presidential candidate Ron Paul appeared on The O'Reilly Factor Monday, host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly pressed Paul to agree that Iran is a dangerous enemy which will pose an imminent threat if the US leaves Iraq, meanwhile interrupting every one of Paul's attempts to explain his own views on the negative results of US policy in the Middle East.
"Do you fear Iran intruding on the whole Persian Gulf if the United States -- as you asked for in the debate last week -- left the region?" O'Reilly demanded.
"I fear that they might want to do that, but I think our policy is leading to that," Paul replied. "Our policy is doing everything conceivable to enhance Iran. Just the whole invasion of Iraq has helped Iran."
Sean Hannity polluting the air wavesFor narrow-minded conservative hacks like Hannity to suggest that powerful and influential world figures like Gore should travel commercially shows either extreme naivete or pathetic partisan bashing. I feel embarrassed for him. Gore's mission is to educate billions around the globe about climate control and help bring about change. If using extra fuel on a private jet is the price we have to pay for Gore's efforts and what they've yielded in terms of showcasing this very important issue on the world stage, then that's a cost-benefit analysis with a very positive conclusion.
Now if we really want to talk about cutting down on waste, we can start with Hannity's radio and television programs. Talk about polluting the air.
- more at link
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destructionThe next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. "Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
