Monday, May 07, 2007

Why the U.S. is targeting Iran

Published May 5, 2007

Why is Iran increasingly a target of U.S. threats? Who in Iran will be affected if the Pentagon implements plans, already drawn up, to strike more than 10,000 targets in the first hours of a U.S. air barrage on Iran?

What changes in policy is Washington demanding of the Iranian government?

In the face of the debacle U.S. imperialism is facing in Iraq, U.S. threats against Iran are discussed daily. This is not a secret operation. They can’t be considered idle threats.

Two aircraft carriers—USS Eisenhower and USS Stennis—are still off the coast of Iran, each one accompanied by a carrier strike group containing Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, electronic warfare aircraft, anti-submarine and refueler planes, and airborne command-and-control planes. Six guided-missile destroyers are also part of the armada.

Besides this vast array of firepower, the Pentagon has bases throughout the Middle East able to attack Iran with cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes.

In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in a war on Iran. Ever-tightening sanctions, from both the U.S. and U.N., restrict trade and the ordering of equipment, spare parts and supplies.

Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine a year ago that U.S. special operations forces were already opepating inside Iran in preparation for a possible attack. U.S.-backed covert operatives had entered Iran to organize sabotage, car bombings, kidnappings and attacks on civilians, to collect targeting data and to foment anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

News articles have reported in recent months that the Pentagon has drawn up plans for a military blitz that would strike 10,000 targets in the first day of attacks. The aim is to destroy not just military targets but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communication centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals and public buildings.

It is important to understand internal developments in Iran today in order to understand why this country is the focus of such continued hatred by U.S. corporate power.

Every leading U.S. political figure has weighed in on the issue, from George W. Bush, who has the power to order strikes, to Hillary Clinton, who has made her support for an attack on Iran clear, to John McCain, who answered a reporter’s question on policy toward Iran by chanting “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ song, “Barbara Ann.” The media—from the New York Times to the Washington Post to banner headlines in the tabloid press to right-wing radio talk shows—are playing a role in preparing the public for an attack.

The significance of oil production and oil reserves in Iran is well known. Every news article, analysis or politician’s threat makes mention of Iran’s oil. But the impact of Iran’s nationalization of its oil resources is not well known.

The corporate owners in the U.S. want to keep it a secret from the people here. They use all the power of their media to demonize the Iranian leadership and caricature and ridicule the entire population, their culture and religion.

What’s been achieved?

The focus of media coverage here is to describe Iran as medieval, backward and feudal while somehow becoming a nuclear power.

It is never mentioned that more than half the university students in Iran are women, or that more than a third of the doctors, 60 percent of civil servants and 80 percent of all teachers in Iran are women. At the time of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, 90 percent of rural women were illiterate; in towns the figure was over 45 percent.

Also ignored is the stunning achievement of full literacy for Iranian youth.

Even the World Bank, now headed by Bush’s neocon appointee Paul Wolfowitz, in its development report on countries admits that Iran has exceeded the social gains of other countries in the Middle East.

According to that report, Iran has made the most progress in eliminating gender disparities in education. Large numbers of increasingly well-educated women have entered the work force.

Iran’s comprehensive social protection system includes the highest level of pensions, disability insurance, job training programs, unemployment insurance and disaster-relief programs. National subsidies make basic food, housing and energy affordable to all.

An extensive national network going from primary health and preventive care to sophisticated hospital care covers the entire population, both urban and rural. More than 16,000 “health houses” are the cornerstone of the health care system. Using simple technology, they provide vaccines, preventive care, care for respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, family planning and contraceptive information, and pre-natal care. And they monitor children’s nutrition and general health.

Since 1990, Iran nearly halved the infant mortality rate and increased life expectancy by 10 years.

Iran sets record in family planning

A national family planning program, delivered through the primary health care facilities and accompanied by a dramatic increase in contraceptive use, which is approved by Islamic law, has led to a world record demographic change in family size and maternal and child health. All forms of contraception are now available for free.

In addition, promoting women’s education and employment while extending social security and retirement benefits has alleviated the pressure to have many children to protect security as parents grow older. The fertility rate between 1976 and 2000 declined from 8.1 births per woman to 2.4 births in rural areas and 1.8 births in urban areas.

These social programs, which cover the entire population of almost 70 million people, should be compared to conditions in countries in the region that remain under U.S. military and economic domination.

In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, only a tiny part of the population has benefited from the vast profits generated by oil and gas resources. In each of these countries the bulk of the people are not even considered citizens. Millions are immigrant workers, usually the overwhelming majority of the population, who have no rights to any representation, participation or any social, health or educational programs or union protection.

Women in these countries face much more than religious restrictions on clothing. They are barred from jobs, equal education and the right to control their own bodies or their own funds. They cannot vote or even drive a car.

In Iraq, which before U.S. attacks began in 1991 had some of the best conditions in the region for women, plus a high level of education, health, nutrition and social services, the conditions of life have now deteriorated to the level of the very poorest countries in the world. Legislation passed by the U.S.-installed puppet government has stripped women of rights that were guaranteed earlier.

Revolution made it all possible

The social gains of millions of Iranians are based on the upsurge of the Iranian masses in the 1979 revolution. The overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty broke the hold of U.S. corporate power in Iran.

The Iranian Revolution was not a socialist revolution. Bourgeois rights to own businesses, land, wealth and inheritance are still protected by law and by the state apparatus.

But the greatest source of wealth—Iran’s oil and gas—was nationalized. Nationalization means the transfer of privately owned assets and operations into public ownership. The exploration, drilling, maintenance, transport, refining and shipping of oil and gas became the national property of the Iranian people. Formerly this entire process was controlled at every step by Western imperialists, particularly U.S. and British corporations.

Most of the administrators, executives, technicians and engineers who controlled the process used to be from the West. Through hundreds of thousands of contracts and sub-contracts, U.S. and British firms extracted a profit not just through the sale of oil on the world markets but at every step of its extraction and refining. The small portion of profit the Shah’s government received, as in the Gulf States today, was spent on luxury items imported from Western corporations for the small ruling elite and on infrastructure and weapons systems purchased from U.S. military corporations, again at an enormous profit.

The 1979 Iranian revolution, even though it brought a religious group to power, was a profoundly radical and anti-imperialist revolution. Demonstrations of millions openly confronted the brutally repressive police apparatus called the Savak, who protected the small handful of corrupt U.S. collaborators. Religious fervor, demands for social justice and militant anti-imperialism were bound together in opposition to the U.S.-imposed Shah and the Pahlavi royal family, which was hated for its program of a glitzy modernization of the urban infrastructure alongside the growing impoverishment of both urban and rural workers, farmers and much of the middle class.

All classes of society were profoundly shaken as millions of revolutionary workers took to the streets. This was reflected not only in laws passed in Parliament but in the Iranian constitution itself. The constitution states that the government is required to provide every citizen with access to social security for retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, accidents, health and medical treatment—out of public revenue.

Prior to the revolution Iran had a shortage of medical staff and of trained personnel of every kind. During the upheaval of the revolution and the years of the Iran-Iraq war, many physicians, scientific and skilled personnel emigrated.

Having broken free of U.S. corporate domination and control of its resources, Iran was able to develop education, industry and infrastructure with unprecedented speed. By 2004 the number of university students had increased by six times over 1979. There are currently 2.2 million college students. The largest and most prestigious programs encompass 54 state universities and 42 state medical schools where tuition, room and board are totally free. In addition, 289 major private universities also receive substantial funding.

Millions of scientists, engineers, technicians, administrators, military officers, teachers, civil servants and doctors have been trained.

Today Iran boasts modern cities, a large auto industry, and miles of new roads, railroads and subways. Currently 55 Iranian pharmaceutical companies produce 96 percent of the medicines on the market in Iran. This allows a national insurance system to reimburse drug expenses.

Soon to become operational is the largest pharmaceutical complex in southwest Asia, which will produce compound drugs, making Iran a pioneer in biotechnology.

Years of U.S. sanctions and pressure on international financial institutions have had an unexpected result: Iran is free of the crippling debt that has strangled so many developing countries. According to World Bank figures, Iran’s external debt is one of the lowest for its size: $11.9 billion, or 8.8 percent of the GDP. From the point of view of the imperialist world bankers, this means the loss of many billions each year in interest payments to them.

Different approaches

Since 1979 there have been deep struggles inside Iran over how to deal with the unrelenting pressure of the imperialist powers. There are differing approaches on developments plans and who is favored or benefits most from these plans. But all of the present forces are committed to maintaining Iran’s control of its resources.

Iran is not a monolithic state. No state is or could be. There are contending groups even within the Muslim clergy that reflect different economic interests and class forces. This is true also in the Iranian Parliament and among various political parties and leaders.

Under President Mohammed Khatami, from 1997 to 2005, a “Reform Movement” eased religious and social restrictions. But it also allowed the introduction of neo-liberal economic policies, structural reforms and the de-nationalizing or privatizing of some social programs along with the cutting of subsidies. More joint ventures were initiated with European and Japanese capital. Programs that benefited the “private sector” or the wealthy and the middle class grew. This was the core of Khatami’s base.

The current leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s first non-cleric president in 24 years, was elected in 2005 in a landslide victory after promising to extend social security and pensions, improve the subsidies for food and housing, deal with rising unemployment and guarantee a monthly stipend.

The Iranian people are determined to protect the substantial gains they have made since the revolution. They are not interested in any effort that turns the clock back.

A Wall Street Journal Commentary by Francis Fukuyama on Feb. 1 was unusually frank in explaining the growing problem faced by U.S. corporate power on a global scale:

“What is it that leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez have in common that vastly increases their local appeal? A foreign policy built around anti-Americanism is, of course, a core component. But what has allowed them to win elections and build support in their societies is less their foreign-policy stances than their ability to promise, and to a certain extent deliver on, social policy—things like education, health and other social services, particularly for the poor. ...

“The U.S. and the political groups that it tends to support around the world, by contrast, have relatively little to offer in this regard.”

Past and new threats

Iran’s program for nuclear power was actually initiated by the U.S. when the Shah held dictatorial power. Nuclear energy is an important part of modern industrial development. It is important in science, medicine and research. Only after the overthrow of the Shah was Iran’s continued development of the same program branded a threat by Washington.

The U.S. government has made every effort to sabotage all Iranian infrastructure and industrial development, not only nuclear energy. Modern technology—from elevators to cars, ships, jet aircraft and oil refineries—needs constant upkeep. Parts for the re-supply and maintenance of equipment the Iranians had purchased over decades from U.S. corporations were halted.

The most onerous sanctions were imposed in 1995 during the Clinton administration.

The Iranian people, despite many different political currents, are united in their determination not to lose their national sovereignty again. Washington’s past use of sanctions, economic sabotage, political destabilization and regime change is well remembered in Iran today.

Sanctions, the freezing of assets and an embargo on the export of Iranian oil and all trade with Iran were first imposed in March 1951, after Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Iran was the first country in the Middle East to take the bold step of reclaiming its national wealth in the post-colonial era.

In 1953 using internal destabilization and massive external pressure, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh’s popularly elected government and placed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Oil was back under the control of the U.S. and Britain, and 26 years of brutal repression followed.

Ever since the 1979 revolution and the decisive overthrow of the U.S.-supported military dictatorship, Iran has had not a moment of peace from the Pentagon or Wall Street.

As Iran continues to grow and develop, U.S. imperialism is becoming increasingly desperate to reverse this revolutionary process, whether through sanctions, sabotage or bombing. But today it faces a population that is stronger, more conscious and more skilled. On a world scale U.S. imperialism is more isolated. Its hated occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has left it overextended.

But the Pentagon is still capable of massive destruction. Its bases surround Iran and it has sent an armada of ships to the Gulf. U.S. government threats against Iran today must be taken as seriously as their devastating occupation of Iraq.

The forces opposing Washington’s policy of endless war—whether waged through sanctions, coups, invasions, bombings or sabotage—should stand with Iran, recognize its accomplishments, defend its gains and oppose imperialism’s efforts to re-colonize the country.

Sources of information about Iran’s social development include: “Iran’s Family Planning Program: Responding to a Nation’s Needs,” by Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C., June 2002; “Tehran University Official Describes Iran Health Care System to Harvard School of Public Health,” HSPH NOW, Jan. 24, 2003; World Bank.org—Iran—Country Brief; UNICEF—Info by Country; Food & Agriculture Organization of UN—Nutrition—Country Profiles; “Biggest Pharmaceutical Plant to Open Soon,” Iran Daily, Feb. 4.


Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

"Some of those who works forces, are the same that burn crosses."- RATM



LA police enjoying a day at the park with their immigrant and journalist friends

Sunday, May 06, 2007

MSNBC, OWNED BY IRAQ WAR PROFITEER, INSULTS GRAVEL & KUCINICH APPEARANCE AT ITS DEBATE

MSNBC, owned by Iraq war profiteer General Electric, slashed out at the two Democratic candidates who made the most sense during the network's recent debate. Ranking the candidates, MSNBC reported:

"After the first debate, things changed -- and stayed the same. We still have two front-runners, John Edwards is solid and Joe Biden is flourishing, relatively speaking. . . (We're not ranking Mike Gravel... This guy's not just a third-tier long shot, he might be a little, um, off. Seriously, he was downright rude. Why should anyone agree to appear on stage with him? And why should any mainstream Democratic group invite him?). . . 7. Dennis Kucinich Ohio congressman Last Ranking: 67 Thank god for Mike Gravel; he made Kucinich look mainstream. But, Dennis, why did you have to be the one to break the rules? It's silly."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16710815

Saturday, May 05, 2007

It's almost gay!

Romney: I'm pro-choice; no wait, I'm pro-life

By Heather Gehlert
Posted on May 4, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/heather/51478/

There is something hilarious to me about seeing 10 aging white men in suits stumble over their own words as they try but fail to eek out even one intelligent thought about abortion. No, make that hilarious and sad.

Last night as I watched the "values" portion of the Republican presidential debate in California, I laughed and cringed in equal amounts -- struggling to take the candidates' comments seriously.

Asked if the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed would be a good day for America, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said, "It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom." Perhaps Sen. Brownback is not aware that women are -- wait for it -- people too.

Not to be outdone, Rep. Rom Tancredo (R-Col.) said it would "the greatest day in this country's history."

I'm sure Tancredo must have forgotten about other important events like, say, ending slavery.

As appalling as the discussion was, possibly the most unbelievable comments of the night came from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. As I listened to Romney speak, I felt like a parent watching helplessly as a small child in a spelling bee blurts out random letters, hoping they amount to something.

Romney has, in past years, said he is "effectively pro-choice." Now he's saying he's not. Asked about the discrepancy, Romney said, "About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a 'brave new world' mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.

"I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took, and I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life," he continued. "And I'm proud of that, and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life."

I'm sure Romney and the other candidates are not paying attention to this blog, but if they are, maybe I should whisper them some answers -- because it's time that male politicians stop acting as if they are qualified, medically or ethically, to make decisions about what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Compliments of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, here are some of the most basic abortion facts that politicians need to stop ignoring:

  • Abortion rates are higher in countries where women do not have the option of abortion and are not allowed to plan the number and spacing of their children.
  • Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29 percent among poor women while decreasing 20 percent among higher-income women.
  • A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions: 61 percent have one or more children; 7 percent have never married; 57 percent are economically disadvantaged; 78 percent report a religious affiliation.

In fairness, the moderators' softball questions are, in my mind, as unforgivable as the candidates' answers. Boiling everything down to whether the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America does not push these politicians to say anything real.

Yes, it might take an extra 10 minutes of research, but asking tougher questions is possible. Learning about women's health is possible. Understanding the factors that would make the repeal of Roe v. Wade "a bad day for America" is possible.

Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/heather/51478/

Goodbye rights: one step closer to a police state

By Guest Blogger
Posted on May 4, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51467/

Guest post by Jayne Lyn Stahl. Content originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

In the military? Disagree with what your government is doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan? Have something controversial to say about the war, bringing the troops home, the president's veto of the war funding bill? Get the feeling "Big Bully" is breathing down your neck? Well, you're right. Under a new Army "directive," issued last month, you'd better speak with your commander, and/or an officer who handles so-called "operational security," and get their permission before you post to your blog, or send any e-mail to a public Web site, or you may find yourself facing court martial. Yes, that's right, as of April, the Army now reserves the right to review (and edit?) anything you post to the World Wide Web, and permission must first be obtained.

While personal e-mails are exempt from scrutiny by what the Army calls OPSEC, any e-mail posted to a "public forum," under this new rule, isn't. What's more, the new regulation doesn't only apply to active service members, but to all in the military, including those who have returned from combat. When queried about the program, Army officials said they opted not to inspect private electronic communications as that would be "impractical," (Reuters) not unconstitutional, mind you, but impractical.

How does the song go? "So it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?" Surely, somebody seems to have factored the First Amendment out of the equation just as they did on May Day, in Los Angeles, when the LAPD shot golf ball size rubber pellets at protesters and press alike at a legal immigration protest. While a handful were said to have thrown rocks and bottles, surely arbitrarily pelting any of the 25,000 in the crowd, including news anchors, and cameramen, was without justification. LAPD Police Chief, William Bratton, looked duly sober, as well he should. Who'd have thunk the shit would hit the fan and, more importantly, who'd have thunk there'd be video footage when it did. In this city of four million, the police department, like the Army, seems to have forgotten that dissent has nothing to do with descent, and that freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and a free press are First Amendment rights.

What is most alarming about OPSEC, and the Army collision course with the Constitution, is that it is, arguably, precedent setting in its attempt to stifle dissent not merely among the ranks of its active service members, but among those who have already returned from war.

It is equally outrageous that not one candidate for president, of either party, is talking about OPSEC, or the Pentagon's continuing breech of citizen confidentiality inherent in the data mining of anti-war groups including even those most conspicuously innocuous as the American Friends Service Committee, and the Quakers, for their activities.

The Defense Department's nefarious practice of keeping of a classified database has now been condemned by newly appointed Pentagon intelligence undersecretary, James R. Clapper, Jr., who appears to agree that American citizens have the right to disagree with their government's war policy, with impunity, and who calls for shutting down the database. Interesting, isn't it, that at the same time top brass at the Pentagon suggest doing away with a dubious database of dissenters, the Army presents a new regulation which requires the monitoring of all military public online communications a practice which, in itself, is nothing new, but now extends to those who have come home from the war, too. It's fair to say that the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing, or does it?

Again, reading, and redacting, of Web site postings by active members of the military is nothing new, but now the Army has the authority to play peeping tom with those whose service has expired.

Interestingly, those at the Pentagon who call for eliminating the antiwar database suggest that the information they've collected isn't worth the condemnation from Congress, and the media, but where, pray tell, is the coverage, let alone the condemnation, from the media, and the appropriate contempt from Congress, as well as from presidential hopefuls? Where is wide scale, broad based press coverage of this new Army regulation, effective in April, which will, in effect, gag service members both past, present, and future from publicly reporting, or opining on this war, and future wars?

What we have here is a campaign issue of the first order. When service members are officially precluded from publicly posting their thoughts, and experiences with impunity, without review, censure, and/or editing, by so-called "Operational Security," when immigrants, in a major American city, are pelted with rubber bullets for protesting on May Day, and when the names of those who lawfully disagree with what they consider to be an illegal war are stored for nearly a half dozen years under the Threat and Local Observation Notice program, it sure looks like we're not too far away from the day when martial law will be declared, when the national guard will be deployed to physically quell dissent, and American citizens will find themselves held without charge, or access to counsel indefinitely, the way we detain countless in Guantanamo Bay, and secret detention cells around the world. Congress, as well as those who offer to lead this country as their next chief executive, owe each and every one of us an answer as to how they intend to guarantee free elections, as well as what they will do to keep the land of the free, home of the brave from becoming a police state.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51467/

Imus and the HeeHaw Racists

Ho Industry Whores

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Like many of the heehaw racists strewn across the cable dial and AM frequencies, Don Imus must be wondering why this time he got his tongue caught in the wringer. It was suddenly news that Imus shored up his ratings with racist cracks at blacks and Hispanics? Only at the start of April he went too far by insulting the women athletes of Rutgers? Is that when he crossed the Rubicon of racism and the shout went up, At long last, have you no sense of decency? It's like announcing Bluebeard veered into unforgivable moral excess when he knocked off wife number five.

With the full sanction of his employers-primarily CBS and NBC-the man was at it for years, along with his sidekicks, Bernard McGuirk and Sid Rosenberg and his co-host Charles McCord. Ishmael Reed has a brisk resume of choice moments on the Imus Show in a piece in End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate, a very fine new book on the death of the Fourth Estate, mostly written by Jeffrey St. Clair and myself.

"On any day, " Reed wrote, "you might find Bernard McGuirk the man, who, according to 60 Minutes, Imus hired to do 'nigger jokes,' doing a lame imitation of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, using a plantation-type dialect. Blacks, as satirized by McGuirk and others, spend most of their time committing malapropisms. McGuirk and co. refer to black athletes [are referred to] as "knuckle draggers."

"I replay Don Imus as much as I can," the intrepid Reed wrote, "because his putrid racist offerings are said to represent the secret thinking of the cognoscenti. Maybe that's why journalists like Jeff Greenfield and others admire him so much. He says what they think in private." True enough.

Those legions of mostly white men in the Chris Matthews genre, described as "political analysts" or "political strategists" all adored Imus. (And the panels of commentators on the Imus affair were 90 percent men too. I guess women were disqualified because they might be prejudiced.) One such Imus fan, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, made his continuing support an issue of principle, using the pulpit of the Tucker Carlson Show:

ALTER: I will continue to go on the show. I think what he said was racist, not to mention being unfunny and stupid, but if you don't believe he should be fired, then you can't call for a boycott, because a boycott would amount to the same thing as his being fired. If all of his guests, all of those senators in both parties, all the journalists all stopped going on, that would be the end of Imus. It would be. So if you favor boycotting him, you favor the end of Imus in the Morning.

Thus did Alter -- who obviously cherished his sessions with the manly Imus crew -- evolve the position that it is somehow a position of high moral principle, a courageous blow for free speech, to continue to go on Imus. Flaubert couldn't have topped this.

I call Reed "intrepid" because I tried to watch Imus on MSNBC from time to time in recent years and have found the show far more boring than jewelry sales on QVC. Imus himself looked half asleep most of the time, which is probably why he tried to offer his audience a quick snicker about the Rutgers basketball players -- it was just an attempt to wake himself up.

When he realized he was in serious trouble, Imus went full steam into contrition mode. America, far more than other cultures, adores full-bore apologies, leading to a full, low-interest-rate moral re-fi. Not believing in redemption, and schooled by Spinoza and Nietzsche, Europeans tend to take the position that remorse adds to the crime.

Imus's trip to Canossa on the Reverend Al Sharpton's radio program was a particularly rich session, with Imus sniveling that at bottom he is "a good man" and Reverend Al ushering on his daughter as a symbol of black womanhood defiled by Imus's "ho" talk. Imus could have probed the Rev about his explicit statement on CNN a couple of years ago, amid his campaign to get rappers using physical violence to promote records banned from the airwaves for 90-day punitive periods, that these rappers had a perfect(First amendment) right to rap about violence and presumably hos. But Imus passed up the chance, preferring to dwell on his war on sickle cell anemia, a disease he appeared to think he alone had the courage and moral stamina to confront in his ranch in New Mexico. This culminated in another wonderful exchange, this one between Imus and Brian Monroe of Ebony:

MONROE: All right. Let me be clear. My magazine, Ebony magazine, has been writing and covering sickle cell anemia for decades now. Back when you were still doing radio spots for used cars. I cannot let you....

A used car salesman! Amidst his abasement, the worm turned.

IMUS: I'm not going to sit here and let you insult me.Don't talk about me doing used car commercials.Let me tell you what -- I will bet you I have slept in a house with more black children who were not related to me than you have.

In the end it was all to no avail. The execs at MSNBC and at CBS, saw the big advertisers peel away, and instantly threw in the towel. Imus was history - at least until he gets a show on Sirius just down the dial from Howard Stern and Dave Marsh.

And in the larger context of things-of Anne Coulter, of O'Reilly the Loofah King, of Limbaugh, of Howard Stern, of Cynthia Tucker and Juan Williams; of blacks paid by whites to dump on other blacks like Cynthia McKinney, of Chris Rock chanting the F word, of women-dissing rapper? One listens to the fuss about Imus and thinks, okay -- but this is only one tiny square in our dirty national quilt. We live in a racist, profit-driven culture that is getting more degraded by the hour. War is at the apex of that degradation, and indeed these ceremonies of degradation are an integral part of the war machine, which drives the whole show along. Back in February Imus snarled into his mike, "It might be good to start with somebody who is willing to take three big ones and drop one on Mecca, one on Jeddah and one on Saudi-one on Riyadh." No one asked him to apologize for that one. Take that, you towel heads.

On the phone to MTV News Snoopp Dogg dealt brusquely with the finger-pointing at rappers as Imus' instructors in the use of "ho".

"It's a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthafuckas say we in the same league as him. Kick him off the air forever. Ban him like they did 'Pacman' Jones. They kicked him out the [National Football] League for the whole season [for numerous violations of the NFL's personal-conduct policy, including multiple arrests], but this punk gets to get on the air and call black women 'nappy-headed ho's.' "

There are plenty of ironies. Claiming a pivotal role in drawing attention to Imus' remarks about the Rutgers team is Media Matters for America, a watchdog outfit run by David Brock. Before he said he was sorry he'd been a neo-con and made his very successful trip to Canossa by publishing Blinded by the Right, Brock was one of the nastiest of the right-wing hatemongers, particularly against women. His sponsors in that period included the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Rev Sung Myung Moon and Richard Mellon Scaife, probably the prime funder of right-wing slime in the country. Brock wrote The Real Anita Hill, a book stemming from his attacks on Anita Hill in The American Spectator. He coined the phrase about Hill being "a bit nutty and a bit slutty". He then led the charge on "Troopergate", the scandal-mongering series about life in the Clintons' gubernatorial mansion.

After Brock displayed an unseemly obsession with troopers being sent out to buy Tampax for HRC, he was semi-outed by Frank Rich in the New York Times, then finally outed himself as he hopped over the fence into liberal pastures, where he now grazes. Though Brock was re-born in the amniotic fluid of forgivenness, Media Matters did not favor forgiveness for Imus, and demanded that MSNBC and CBS can him permanently.

Media Matters is now beating the drum for further shut-downs of right-wing hatemongers, such as Neal Boortz and Glenn Beck. If the examples of unacceptable hate brandished by Media Matters are anything to go by, it looks as though the blue noses will be taking over. "MSNBC host Tucker Carlson twice referred to Canada as a 'retarded cousin'", Media Matters squawks angrily. Gee. Another Media Matters citation for unacceptable speech is issued to O'Reilly:

"O'Reilly responded to a Jewish caller to his radio show who objected to 'Christmas going into schools' and explained that he 'grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity.' O'Reilly told the caller that America is 'a predominantly Christian nation' and that 'if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel.' O'Reilly labeled the caller's concerns 'an affront to the majority' and insisted that 'the majority can be insulted, too.' During his exchange with the caller, O'Reilly also mistakenly referred to 'the seven candles' of Hanukkah."

So if the liberals have their way, O'Reilly will be fired for this, then indicted by the Justice Department for hate speech for getting it wrong about the seven candles.

Bill Dobbs, formerly of ACT-UP and UPFJ, wrote to me,

"Imus? He's just got a foul mouth, all his pollution is words. Interesting to see the forces that lined up helped to send him to the gallows, even two journalist groups: National Association of Black Journalists, and National Association of Lesbian and Gay Journalists. Those who are in the minority ought to be pushing for more discussion rather than the reflexive shut up. But there's nothing like a heckler's veto. Meanwhile a show that actually wrecks lives, NBC's To Catch a Predator is riding high helping the cops lock up the pervs. Even Jerry Springer causes so many physical confrontations that the show has big beefy bouncers at the ready. The price of Imus and all the other campaigns to shut up unpopular viewpoints may not come due immediately but it will have to be paid."

There's something to this, but the "just words" defense isn't quite enough. As the Good Book says (Proverbs 18, 21) "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." Imus was better than some of the scum who survive him. He was against the war and attacked Bush. But his show throve on the worst kind of slime. Missy Beattie has an example in her fine piece on this site this weekend:

For example, when Jill Carroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter, was released by her kidnappers in Iraq, Bernard McGuirk [producer of the Imus Show] said that Carroll was the kind of woman who'd wear a suicide vest into the Green Zone. Later, he piled on the malice with more smear, suggesting that Carroll was pregnant, carrying the baby of terrorist al-Zarqawi. Charles McCord [Imus' co-host] agreed. Imus attempted to persuade the two to apologize but they refused. Were these three laughing all the way to the bank?

Yes, they were laughing, just like MSNBC and CBS. People finally got mad and the networks blinked. That's good, even though it won't change anything. That would, as JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in her very popular piece two days ago on this site, take real politics.

A final thought. The collective daily audience for the three cable news channels -- MSNBC, CNN and Fox - is somewhere around 3 million. Our CounterPunch site's daily hits run at around 2.3 million, with unique visitors at anywhere from 60,000 to 1000,000 a day. So let's not be too underdogged.

Footnote: a much shorter version of this column ran in the print edition of the Nation that went to press last Wednesday.

Alexander Cockburn's new book, with Jeffrey St. Clair, is End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate.

When the class war goes local

David Sirota
Friday, May 4, 2007
SFGate Article

WHEN MOST non-Montanans think of Montana, they think of "A River Runs Through It" -- they don't think of the central front in the war on anything (except, maybe trout, if you consider fly fishermen "warriors"). But for the last week, this sparsely populated state has been the central front in the war on the middle class, and the onslaught Big Sky country experienced shows that this fight could be coming to a town near you.

Our story begins in the Montana legislature, though it could be anywhere, as this lawmaking body is a microcosm of America's ideological divides. Democrats pushed to boost education spending and give each resident homeowner a $400 property tax rebate. To fund the plan, they proposed closing tax loopholes and strengthening tax enforcement in a state where roughly half of all Fortune 500 companies doing business get away with paying less than $500 a year in taxes.

But such a move offends conservative politicians and the corporate lobbyists who crowd the hallways of state capitols like the one in Helena -- and these types don't take lightly to being offended.

The GOP-controlled Montana House pressed a tax cut for corporations financed by spending cuts, including one eliminating all public-health programs. When last week it came time to negotiate a compromise, Republican class warriors dug in further, offering amendments to kill Democrats' proposal to beef up corporate tax enforcement.

The result? The legislature ended without a budget, and Montana is now on the brink of its own version of the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown. It is a troubling situation for middle-class Montanans, but for anti-government Republican politicians and lobbyists, it is a big victory in their war on the middle class.

Days later, Montana's U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, joined Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in headlining an economic-development summit in Butte, a devastated city that is one of America's all-too-common casualties in this economic war. Once the bustling capital of the copper industry, Butte today is known for its salt-of-the-earth inhabitants and for its canyon-like Superfund site known as the Berkeley Pit -- a defunct open-pit mine that the Anaconda Company abandoned with a pool of deadly chemicals at the bottom.

The captains of global finance attending this summit no doubt saw Butte's boarded-up brick buildings and rusting mine shaft skeletons from the windows of their private jets that crowded the town's airport. Yet, they delivered speeches as if they were attending an executive conference at a Caribbean resort.

Corporate leaders looked out over Butte's wreckage and not only trumpeted the supposedly booming economy, but then berated worker protection laws and lavished praise on the "benefits" of free-trade policies -- policies that have decimated wages and job security by forcing American workers, farmers and small businesses to compete in a global race to the bottom.

Executive Dan Rice of Printing for Less criticized Montana for being "an employee-slanted state;" for considering a bill asking businesses to take into account the environmental and community impact of their decisions; and, thus, for being hostile to job growth. He didn't explain why, if this was true, Montana has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

Similarly, the $20-million-a-year CEO of McGraw-Hill, Harold McGraw III, claimed America's trade policies have "had a net positive impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs." This, despite 3 million manufacturing jobs lost since the China free-trade pact was signed in 2000.

That so many major players trekked to Montana to read the same script proved this event wasn't about local economic development -- it was about making sure Baucus remains a reliable Washington ally in the war on the middle class. The Senate Finance Committee he chairs oversees America's economic and trade policies, and Baucus has been feeling pressure to stand up for his middle-class constituents after the Montana state Senate passed a resolution demanding he oppose more free-trade deals. Such volleys rarely go unanswered by Corporate America in this war, and so the big guns came to Butte to tell the locals to back off.

At a time of growing job insecurity, stagnating wages and Great Depression-level economic inequality, the 2006 election gave us reason to hope for change. But as events in Montana show, change will not come with one election, nor will it come easy. If the war on the middle class can make its wrath felt in a small state's part-time legislature or cheerily propagandize at a decimated town's economic-development meeting, you can bet it can -- and will -- come anywhere.

David Sirota worked for Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's 2004 gubernatorial campaign. He lives in Helena, Mont.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/04/EDGTLOS9JV1.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle

A Eulogy For The NewStandard

Since I've gravitated back to GNN for my main source of information - The NewStandard having closed shop - I couldn't help but notice (and post) this touching eulogy from their front page.--Pete

It’s official, as of Friday April 27th 2007 The Newstandard (TNS) officially ceased operations.
By Steve Anderson
Published: Thursday May 3rd, 2007

This is a significant loss for both the independent media ecology, and for citizens who use independent media to stay informed about current events and social issues.

Living up to its name The Newstandard truly redefined what independent media can be. For several years TNS made good on its’ mission to provide “bold, hard-hitting daily news coverage, providing a vetted forum for the voices and issues often ignored in the establishment news arena…(while) managed by a collective of journalists and published by a reader-funded nonprofit organization”. A closure look at this mission reveals the multifarious ways TNS broke the independent media mold.

Hard News:
The independent media ecology is dominated by commentary, opinion and analysis, much of it from the same well-known figures. The reason for this preponderance of interpretation is quite simple; producing commentary is much cheaper (often free) than producing investigative hard news. It also doesn’t hurt that there is significant demand for these recognized commentators. Recognizing that independent hard news was almost impossible to find, TNS focused exclusively on hard news. In addition to providing a well-rounded news website, and weekly radio show, TNS produced at least one (often several) hard news pieces every weekday. At COA News we try to put emphasis on hard news ourselves, and we found The NewStandard to be an indispensable resource.

Reader Funded:
If focusing on the most labor intensive news production wasn’t enough; TNS also remained 100% reader funded for the entire three years of operation. Considering the quality of journalism they produced coupled with the fact that TNS was run by young people, they would likely have little trouble getting foundation money. For most of us in the independent media world foundation money is highly sought, yet TNS refused to even consider it. The TNS collective members remained defiant until the end, refusing to go after foundation money, as they believed it would take away a degree of their independence. In fact TNS also for most part avoided fundraising through merchandise sales as well. To my knowledge, TNS is the only media organization in North America to have several full time staff (although perhaps underpaid), and receive 100% of their resources through membership dues.

Non-profit Non-Commercial:
Despite financial pressures TNS also remained non-profit non-commercial. Many Independent media organizations have this quality as well, but more than a few have commercialized their websites and other operations when faced with resource shortages. Many independent media organizations (particularly some of the recent start-ups) have gone with a for-profit model. One reason for this trend is that it is easier to marshal capital if you are a for-profit entity. It’s easier to get investors for a for-profit project since there is the possibility of getting a positive financial return investments (whereas non-profits depend on donations). Recognizing how that would impact their organizational and editorial independence TNS steered clear of this option from the begging and never wavered. The recent decision by the OurMedia.org board of directors to transfer (without consulting members) what was a non-profit project into a for-profit private corporation is notable on this point.

Egalitarian:
Despite espousing progressive values some independent media organizations (as well as many NGO’s more generally) are run as highly hierarchal enterprises, with cultural and other forms of capital concentrated at the top. In contrast, at TNS; “All staff participate in ‘balanced job complexes’ which provide a mix of tasks that reflect various levels of empowerment, from managerial to content production to administrative and clerical. All receive equal pay for comparable work and participate fully in collective decisions.”

In our society where hierarchy has been internalized by most, keeping an egalitarian organization going for three years is a success story in itself.

In their announcement to readers, The NewStandard was relatively mute on their reasons for closing down. They simply said they were not satisfied with their level of audience penetration or financial support. TNS has some explaining to do: why not continue to struggle? Why not try accepting a small grant? Why not merge with another project to alleviate some of the administrative work? Are there any future plans for the members of TNS? Any reflections or advice for other independent media makers? TNS did imply that further reflections from the staff would be forthcoming.

As TNS passes into history it is put upon those of us who feel passionately about independent public service media to reflect on how we can avoid further attritions. While we do so lets keep in mind that this is more a trend than an isolated incident. In just the past year two other independent media projects closed their doors; LiP Magazine and Clamour Magazine. Now is the time to analyze this critical situation, and answer important questions; what is causing this trend to occur? How can we advance mechanisms of support for independent media?

These are questions that some have been writing about for some time, most notably Michael Albert, Don Hazen, Jeff Chester, Jessica Clark, and Tracy Van Slyke. We need to widen this discussion, so that we have more voices, more ideas, and more opportunity to find a model that works. After all, this is about saving, reviving and bettering not just our media system, but also our democracy.

I can think of nothing else more deserving of our attention.

Steve Anderson is the publisher at COA News, and founder of The Center For Information Awareness .
http://gnn.tv/articles/3070/A_Eulogy_For_The_NewStandard

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill

ERBIL, Iraq, May 2 — Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation, misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush.

The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. But the new Kurdish concerns have created doubts about the bill even before Parliament is to pick it up for debate.

The issue comes at a delicate moment for Mr. Bush, who on Wednesday began negotiations with Congressional Democrats over a new war-spending measure.

The president vetoed a $124 billion bill on Tuesday because it included timetables for troop withdrawals, and a House vote on Wednesday fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, with 222 voting in favor and 203 opposing the override.

In a speech to a construction industry trade group in Washington, Mr. Bush said he was “confident that with good will on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements” and agree on a new measure.

But he continued to criticize Congress for trying to use the bill to dictate timelines for withdrawal.

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?’ ” Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear — I’m the commander guy.”

In Iraq, the Kurds have taken issue with a new provision that was quietly packaged with the draft oil law by the Shiite-led Oil Ministry last month. The measure would essentially cede control of the management of nearly all known oil fields and related contracts to a state-run oil company to be established after passage of the law, said a spokesman for the Kurdish regional government.

The spokesman, Khalid Salih, said the provision violated a clause in the Constitution that says the central government must work with regional governments to determine management of known fields that have not been developed. The Kurds, who have enjoyed de facto independence in the north since 1991, have been arguing for maximum regional control over oil contracts.

The provision is part of four so-called annexes that are to be debated with the draft oil law in Parliament. Any objection to one or more of the annexes will stall passage of the law.

“We are worried about these ideas put into the annexes,” Mr. Salih said in an interview in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. “It worries us a lot.” If the law and the annexes go to a vote before Parliament, a rejection by the Kurdish bloc alone, which holds 58 of 275 seats, would not doom the law. But Parliament operates by consensus, and members say it is almost certain that no law regarding oil will pass without the approval of the Kurds.

A senior Shiite Arab legislator, Sheik Jalaladin al-Saghir, said the concerns raised by the Kurds amounted to a bargaining tactic. “I think it’s a maneuver,” he said, adding that he believed the Kurds “will move forward to pass the law since everybody needs it.”

Contributing a further layer of complication, a Sunni Arab legislator said Wednesday evening that the main Sunni Arab bloc, which has 44 legislative seats, objected to any discussion of the law in Parliament at this time. “Acceleration in presenting it is inappropriate since the security condition is not encouraging,” said the legislator, Saleem Abdullah. He said Sunni Arabs were also worried that the law would give foreign companies too large a role in the country’s oil industry. Sunni Arab political leaders supported cabinet approval of the draft law, but appear ambivalent now.

White House officials have said passage of the oil law is one of four major benchmarks they would like the Iraqi government to meet before fall.

During a visit to Baghdad last month, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, that Mr. Bush would weigh Iraq’s commitment to meeting the goals when he decided at the end of the summer whether to extend the recent troop increase.

Differences on benchmarks for the Iraqi government are a central issue in the spending-bill talks between Mr. Bush and Democrats. Democrats, conceding they are unable to use the bill to force the withdrawal of troops, hope to write new benchmarks into the legislation, with consequences if the goals are not met.

Speaking to reporters after Wednesday’s meeting, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said Democrats were determined that the bill would include “language in it that has the Iraqis take care of their own country.” But the White House is likely to resist any attempt to punish the Iraqis for failure to reach certain goals, and Republicans say the president would consider benchmarks only if they are nonbinding.

“I think Republicans and the president are amenable to some benchmarks,” said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the No. 2 Republican, “provided that they don’t slop over into trying to dictate to the commander in chief or the commanders on the ground.”

The draft oil law provides for the distribution of revenues from all current and future oil fields to regions or provinces based on population. That agreement was meant to assuage the fears of the Sunnis, who suspect that the Shiites and Kurds are conspiring to hoard oil wealth, which is concentrated in the areas they dominate.

The minority Sunni Arabs are at the heart of the insurgency against the Shiite-led government, and hold swaths of land in western and northern Iraq that produce little oil, though geologists believe there are substantial untapped reserves there.

The Sunnis have been pushing for centralized control of the oil industry to assure equitable distribution of the revenues, while the Kurds have favored strong regional control. The Shiites have fallen somewhere in between.

The Kurds held up cabinet approval of the draft law for months, seeking to ensure that it guaranteed maximum regional autonomy to sign oil contracts. They fear that the central government might steer exploration and development contracts toward the Shiite-dominated south, at the expense of other regions.

The Kurds recently discovered two fields in northern Iraq, after signing contracts with a Norwegian and a Turkish company. But on Wednesday the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite, said at a conference in Saudi Arabia that any contracts signed by the Kurds before passage of the oil law were considered invalid and illegal, news agencies reported.

In Erbil, Mr. Salih, the Kurdish spokesman, said the Kurdish contracts were legal and “had been prepared according to international standards and norms.”

The draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet says regions may enter into contracts, but a powerful new central body called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would have the power to “prevent” the contracts from going forward if they did not meet certain standards. A panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq would advise the federal council on the contracts.

Oil industry analysts estimate the country’s proven oil reserves at 115 billion barrels. Iraqi oil production peaked at 3.7 million barrels a day in 1979, according to the United States Department of Energy. Production stood at 2.6 million barrels a day before the 2003 invasion, but has dropped since. Passage of the draft law is seen as critical for encouraging the foreign investment needed to lift production levels.

The draft oil law would allow regions to enter into production-sharing agreements with foreign companies, which some Iraqis and critics of the Bush administration say could lead to foreigners reaping too much of the country’s oil wealth.

Iraqi officials say all contracts will be subjected to a fair bidding process, but there are fears that American companies could be favored.

In March, Mr. Shahristani said at an industry conference in Austria that 27 fields currently producing oil would be managed by the Iraq National Oil Company, which was shut down by Saddam Hussein in 1987 but would be re-established once the draft oil law was passed. Another 65 known fields would be offered for exploration and development contracts through rounds of bidding.

Edward Wong reported from Erbil, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.

Forever Iran

On the Fortuitous Poverty of Memory
By Renato Redentor Constantino

An opening benediction:

Hallowed Homeland, great Fatherland,
Bless the star-spangled armada massing today in the Persian Gulf.
Bless the gallant, nuclear-powered cavalry.
They have come once more near the place of the malefactors called Iranians to punish purveyors of fell deeds.

Glorious, indispensable nation,
Bless your cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.
Part the sea for the steel raiment of the USS Nimitz, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier battle groups.
Purify your soldiers so they may do the bidding of the red, white and Bush.
Bring them to temptation but lead them away from the epiphany of remembrance.
The men do not care to remember,
And the women would rather forget,
And the innocent bombs, they know not what they do.

Twenty stark years ago, on May 17, 1987, a double act of Exocet missiles skimmed through the air and slammed into the American Perry-class frigate the USS Stark.

The first Exocet antiship missile punched into the warship "at 600 miles per hour and exploded in the forward crew's quarters." The warhead failed to detonate but managed to smash through seven bulkheads and spit 120 pounds of blazing rocket fuel into the ship's bunks.

Half a minute later, the second missile exploded, creating a 3,500-degree fireball that turned most of the 37 American victims of the attack into ash. The ship burned for two days, according to the celebrated British war reporter Robert Fisk, who replowed the soil of the incident in his fine memoir, The Great War for Civilization. "Even after she was taken in tow," wrote Fisk, "the fires kept reigniting."

"Memory is a complicated thing," says Barbara Kingsolver in her novel Animal Dreams. "It's a relative of truth but not its twin."

The deadly missile attack on the USS Stark was unleashed by a Mirage F-1 jet -- flown by an Iraqi pilot who mistook the U.S. warship for an Iranian vessel. At that moment, Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran were in the seventh year of a war that had begun in 1980 with a surprise Iraqi invasion.

The act of aggression that claimed the lives of the Stark's precious men and women in uniform elicited a fierce barrage of angry denunciation from the United States. The assault was despicable, villainous, and depraved. These were the words of a bellicose U.S. establishment and they were aimed -- at Iran.

Glory to the gospel of perpetual dividends. This was the 1980s, after all; a time when the Reagan administration was still busy fondling Saddam Hussein.

There would be no counter-strike at Iraq, of course. Not then. And the angriest criticism would come from Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger, who described the attack as "indiscriminate." "Apparently," said Weinberger, the Iraqi pilot "didn't care enough to find out what ship he was shooting at."

"We've never considered them hostile at all," was the way President Ronald Reagan described Saddam's military. "They've never been in any way hostile... And the villain in the piece is Iran."

The Iraqi attack on the USS Stark and the loss of American lives proved an opportunity, which America's high and mighty, Democrats as well as Republicans, immediately seized upon. Responding to the great loss of lives "in a spasm of rage at the one country that had nothing to do with the American deaths," Republican Senator and ex-Secretary of the Navy John Warner denounced Iran as "a belligerent that knows no rules, no morals." In language that hinted of military action, Democratic Senator John Glenn slammed Iran as "the sponsor of terrorism and the hijacker of airliners."

It was the first and only successful cruise missile attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Iraqi officials determined that the American frigate was inside their "forbidden zone" and never produced the plane's pilot. The captain of the USS Stark was relieved of his command and his executive officer was disciplined for "dereliction of duty."

A little over a year after the attack, on July 3, 1988, two surface-to-air missiles are fired by the USS Vincennes, an Aegis-class cruiser, reportedly inside Iranian territorial waters at the time, at Iran Air flight 655. The first missile cut the civilian airliner in half. All 290 passengers and crew aboard the Iranian airbus were killed.

In her coffin, reported Fisk, who, at the time, was in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas where the human remains of flight 655 were collected, Leila Behbahani was still in the same garments and bracelets that she had worn when she was fished out of the water minutes after the Vincennes brought down the passenger plane -- a green dress and white pinafore, two bright gold bangles on each wrist, white socks, and tiny black shoes. Leila was three-years old. There were 66 children on board the aircraft.

The Pentagon claimed that the Vincennes shot down the Iranian plane because it appeared the pilot was attempting to fly it into the warship -- even though the USS Sides, a frigate in the area, recorded the airliner climbing, not diving.

Glory to the Homeland.

When the Vincennes returned to San Diego, its homeport, the ship was given a hero's welcome, while the members of the crew were "all awarded combat action ribbons." The air warfare coordinator of the ship won the Navy's Commendation Medal "for heroic achievement" for the "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire." Citizens in Vincennes, Indiana, raised money to build a monument -- not to the dead Iranians but to the ship that shot them down.

Renato Redentor Constantino is a writer and painter based in Quezon City in the Philippines. He is the author of The Poverty of Memory: Essays on History and Empire. He can be reached via his website.

[Note: All the accounts of the missile attack on the USS Stark and the downing of Iranian flight 655 are from Robert Fisk's harrowing book The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. A memorable quote resulting from the act of terror came from George H.W. Bush, who was then Ronald Reagan's vice president: "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are," said Bush in response to the atrocity. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher weighed in to support the U.S. The destruction of the passenger plane, she said, was "understandable."]

Copyright 2007 Renato Redentor Constantino

Please Lord, not the bees

Everything you didn't want to know about Colony Collapse Disorder
By Peter Dearman
Published: Wednesday May 2nd, 2007
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3063/Please_Lord_not_the_bees

It sounds like the start of a Kurt Vonnegut novel:

Nobody worried all that much about the loss of a few animal species here and there until one day the bees came to their senses and decided to quit producing an unnaturally large surplus of honey for our benefit. One by one, they went on strike and flew off to parts unknown.

Among the various mythologies of the apocalypse, fear of insect plagues has always loomed larger than fear of species loss. But this may change, as a strange new plague is wiping out our honey bees one hive at a time. It has been named Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, by the apiculturalists and apiarists who are scrambling to understand and hopefully stop it. First reported last autumn in the U.S., the list of afflicted countries has now expanded to include several in Europe, as well as Brazil, Taiwan, and possibly Canada. (1)(24)(29)

Apparently unknown before this year, CCD is said to follow a unique pattern with several strange characteristics. Bees seem to desert their hive or forget to return home from their foraging runs. The hive population dwindles and then collapses once there are too few bees to maintain it. Typically, no dead bee carcasses lie in or around the afflicted hive, although the queen and a few attendants may remain.

The defect, whatever it is, afflicts the adult bee. Larvae continue to develop normally, even as a hive is in the midst of collapse. Stricken colonies may appear normal, as seen from the outside, but when beekeepers look inside the hive box, they find a small number of mature bees caring for a large number of younger and developing bees that remain. Normally, only the oldest bees go out foraging for nectar and pollen, while younger workers act as nurse bees caring for the larvae and cleaning the comb. A healthy hive in mid-summer has between 40,000 and 80,000 bees.

Perhaps the most ominous thing about CCD, and one of its most distinguishing characteristics, is that bees and other animals living nearby refrain from raiding the honey and pollen stored away in the dead hive. In previously observed cases of hive collapse (and it is certainly not a rare occurrence) these energy stores are quickly stolen. But with CCD the invasion of hive pests such as the wax moth and small hive beetle is noticeably delayed. (2)

Among the possible culprits behind CCD are: a fungus, a virus, a bacterium, a pesticide (or combination of pesticides), GMO crops bearing pesticide genes, erratic weather, or even cell phone radiation. “The odds are some neurotoxin is what’s causing it,” said David VanderDussen, a Canadian beekeeper who recently won an award for developing an environmentally friendly mite repellent. Then again, according to Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the top bee specialist with the Pennsylvania State Department of Agriculture, “We are pretty sure, but not certain, that it is a contagious disease.” Their comments notwithstanding, most scientists are unwilling to say they understand the problem beyond describing its outward appearance. Perhaps a government or UN task force would be a good idea right about now. (3)(25)

According to an FAQ published on March 9, 2007 by the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group based primarily at Penn State University, the first report of CCD was made in mid-November 2006 by Dave Hackenberg, a Pennsylvania beekeeper overwintering his 2900 hives in Florida. Only 1000 survived. Soon other migratory beekeepers reported similar heavy losses. Subsequent reports from beekeepers painted a picture of a marked increase in die-offs, which led to the present concern among bee experts. (2)

Much More...

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

FOUR YEARS SINCE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: A REPORT ON THE POST WAR ERA

NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK - It has been four years since the President declared victory in the battle of Iraq. Since that time, more than 3,000 American troops have been killed. The cost to the American taxpayer is approaching $500 billion – ten times what the White House estimated before the war began. Insurgent attacks in Iraq doubled between 2005 and 2006, while estimates of civilian casualties are in the hundreds of thousands. Four years into the war, the Iraqi economy is going backwards with oil production and electricity below prewar levels. Meanwhile, as the U.S. military continues to suffer under the strain of repeated deployments, Iraqi politicians have made little progress on meeting the benchmarks that are so critical for political reconciliation. . . .

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that . . . It won't be a World War III." - Donald Rumsfeld, 11/15/02

America has been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II. It has been 50 months since military operations in Iraq began. As of May 1, 2007, American troops have been in Iraq for 1,504 days the equivalent of 214 weeks. [NPR, 11/27/06]

Four years after "Mission Accomplished," American troop levels in Iraq are where they were in May 2003. There were 150,000 American troops in Iraq in May 2003. Today there are 146,000 troops in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, 4/23/07]

"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost." - Donald Rumsfeld, 1/19/03

The actual cost of the war in Iraq is almost 10 times the Bush Administration’s initial estimates. Roughly $450 billion have been allocated to fight the war in Iraq, with little to show for it. Once the FY 2008 funding process is complete, the cost could reach nearly $600 billion. [Congressional Research Service, 3/14/2007]

Even the White House’s most realistic analysis was far lower than the costs of the war. White House Economic Adviser Lawrence Lindsay’s "aggressive pre-war estimate, stated that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. He was asked to resign. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Annual costs have risen every year since the war began. FY 2007 appropriations for the Iraq War are almost twice as much as what they were three years ago (FY 2004) and 2.5 times more than the costs in FY 2003. [Congressional Research Service, 3/14/2007]

A study by a Noble Prize winning economist found that factoring in the indirect costs of the war could raise the final bill to more than $2 trillion. Estimating the cost of the war ignores the value of losses in military readiness, increased recruitment costs, the cost of medical treatment for returning veterans, and even declining profits for American businesses in the region due to rising anti-Americanism. These factors suggest that the real cost of invading Iraq has been somewhere between $750 billion and $1.2 trillion and could ultimately cost as much as $2 trillion. [Boston Globe, 1/8/2006]

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Vice President Cheney, 06/05

American troop fatalities are up 33 percent. Since the escalation was announced on January 10, 2007, American troop fatalities have risen by 33%, averaging 3 per day as opposed to 2.25 per day during 2006. [Iraq Coalition Casualty Count]

Civilian casualties are in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. The United Nations estimates that 35,000 civilians were killed in Iraq during 2006 alone. No one really knows how many people have died. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]

As of the end of 2006, the rate of insurgent attacks had hit record highs. By the end of 2006, average insurgent attacks had skyrocketed to 185 per day, almost two and a half times the number of attacks at the end of 2005. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]

Despite more than four years of nearly constant combat, the estimated size of the Iraqi insurgency has actually grown. It is believed that there were between 3,000 and 5,000 insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq at the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004. That estimate has grown to more than 20,000 by the end of 2004, and has remained constant ever since. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]

Gary Hart to Giuliani: "I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism"

By Guest Blogger
Posted on April 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51275/

Editor's note: This originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

An Open Letter to Mayor Giuliani

Dear Mayor Giuliani:

Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.

You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

Gary Hart

(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)

P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51275/

Why David Broder Doesn't Deserve His Position at the Top of the Media Food Chain

By Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America
Posted on May 1, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51271/

Washington Post reporter and columnist David Broder is widely known as the "dean" of political journalists. According to his Washington Week biography, Broder "has been called 'the high priest of political journalism' by author Timothy Crouse, 'the unchallenged "dean" of what many political reporters like to think is their "priesthood" ' by U.S. News, and 'probably the most respected and influential political journalist in the country' by columnist Richard Reeves. Esquire said Broder 'has few challengers as the most influential political journalist in the country.'

NBC's Tim Russert -- himself often described as the nation's most influential journalist -- calls Broder "the most objective and respected reporter I know in this town." In 2005, Russert praised Broder's "superb" analysis and noted that he had appeared more often on Meet the Press than any other guest -- nearly 400 times in all.

It's clear what political journalists say about Broder. But what does Broder's exalted position atop the media food chain say about the state of political journalism?

***

Broder's assault this week on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid touched off a new round of criticism of Broder's work. Twice this week, Broder lashed out at Reid over Reid's comments about the Iraq war. On Monday, Broder suggested that Senate Democrats might dump Reid as their leader, telling XM Radio listeners that "the Democrats are gonna have to have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid," accusing Reid of a "bumbling performance" and saying Reid is an embarrassment to the party. Broder went on to claim that "every six weeks or so there's another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case."

As Think Progress noted, "It's apparently irrelevant [to Broder] that Reid's views are shared by President Bush's regular military adviser Henry Kissinger, or senior U.S. military officials, or the majority of the American people."

And Greg Sargent reported, "[I]t looks as if Broder completely butchered his facts in asserting that Reid has had to apologize 'every six weeks.' I just checked with Reid's office, and they told me in no uncertain terms that Reid has not apologized for any of his remarks during his first four months or so as majority leader. He certainly hasn't apologized for the 'war is lost' comment."

But Broder was just getting started. In his April 26 Post column, Broder compared Reid to embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, claiming that Reid, like Gonzales, is "a continuing embarrassment, thanks to his amateurish performance" and asserting that there is a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end."

But Broder didn't name a single senator of either party to support his contention. Indeed, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus responded by sending a letter to the Post in which they praised Reid as an "extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb."

In claiming that Reid is as much an embarrassment as Gonzales, Broder cheated a bit: He not only distorted Reid's comments, he glossed over Gonzales' failings -- a complete description of which would have made the comparison laughable. Broder made only passing mention of Gonzales, downplaying his involvement in the scandal surrounding the Bush administration's purge of federal prosecutors, and omitting any mention of other Gonzales controversies.

In fact, Broder has written nearly nothing about Gonzales since he became attorney general, despite his involvement in several high-profile controversies. In his March 29 column, Broder wrote that Gonzales "has given his president plenty of reasons to fire him," noting "the Justice Department … has been reduced in stature and has lost the trust of both the public and its career employees under Gonzales." But Broder didn't bother to explain what Gonzales has done to reduce the DOJ's stature and erode public trust in the department. Instead, he took a stroll down memory lane, devoting the bulk of the column to Ronald Reagan's decision not to fire his budget director.

And that was the first column Broder had written that so much as mentioned Gonzales in more than a year.

This "dean" of the Washington Press corps, this "titan[] of journalism," this "superb" analyst, this "most influential political journalist in the country," this "superman" thinks that the attorney general of the United States should be fired; that he has reduced the Justice Department in stature and caused both the public and career DOJ employees to lose trust in the department.

But this superman won't tell you why. He believes the attorney general -- one of the most important public officials in the nation -- has violated the public trust and should be fired. But he won't use his influence and credibility to explain his case. He won't tell his readers what one of their most powerful government officials is doing wrong. Not even a hint.

***

On Oct. 7, 1969, the Washington Post published a lament by David Broder that the nasty anti-war activists were out to "break" an unfairly maligned president named Nixon:

The likelihood is great that they will succeed again, for breaking a president is, like most feats, easier to accomplish the second time around. Once learned, the techniques can readily be applied as often as desired -- even when the circumstances seem less than propitious. No matter that this president is pulling troops out of Vietnam, while the last one was sending them in; no matter that in 1969 the casualties and violence are declining, while in 1968 they were on the rise. Men have learned to break a president, and, like any discovery that imparts power to its possessors, the mere availability of this knowledge guarantees that it will be used.

It may seem unfair to take advantage of the benefit of hindsight to note the absurdity of defending Richard Nixon from unfair attacks. But that probably wasn't the first time Broder displayed highly questionable judgment, and it certainly wasn't the last.

One of the most revealing statements Broder -- or, perhaps, any political journalist -- has ever made came in 1998. In November 1998, after nearly a year of public opinion polls showing, basically, that people liked Bill Clinton and wanted the Lewinsky investigation to just go away, and of the Washington journalist/pundit crowd vehemently disagreeing, the Post published an article by Sally Quinn attempting to explain the disconnect (which lives on to this day).

Quinn famously quoted Broder explaining why the "Washington Establishment" -- which under anybody's definition includes both Broder and Quinn -- was so angry at Clinton: "He came in here, and he trashed the place … and it's not his place."

Broder's implication -- that Washington was his place, not the president's -- is arrogant enough. But Broder's other comment speaks volumes: "The judgment is harsher in Washington. We don't like being lied to."

Try to imagine what would happen if, say, John Kerry made a comment like that. Just try. Try to imagine what the nation's pundit class and political reporters would say about John Kerry if he said that, unlike those immoral rubes out in the rest of the country, Washingtonians don't like being lied to. He would be relentlessly flayed as an arrogant elitist. And Broder would likely lead the charge, declaring that Kerry's "arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself."

But John Kerry didn't say it. David Broder did. That's what Broder thinks: He and his Beltway buddies, unlike the rest of you chumps, don't like being lied to. Keep that in mind the next time Broder criticizes a politician for being "arrogant" or "elitist."

You won't have to wait long. Broder can't seem to resist portraying progressives as arrogant elitists. Last year, for example, he described anti-war Democrats as "elitist" -- despite a majority of Americans agreeing with the stance. Being against a war that a majority of your fellow citizens also oppose isn't "elitist." Suggesting that you and your Beltway pals are uniquely offended by lying -- that's elitist.

***

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Broder used his perch at the Washington Post to heckle Al Gore for telling the American people, in detail, what he would do as president. No, we are not making this up. Broder described Gore's convention speech as "a request to step inside a seminar room, listen closely and take notes," adding, "Never has a candidate provided more detailed information on his autobiography and the program initiatives he plans. One more paragraph and he would have been onto the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. … [M]y, how he went on about what he wants to do as president. … For all his Washington experience, Gore does not seem to have grasped Bush's point that a chief executive is smart to focus on a few key reforms, rather than dissipating his leadership on a crammed agenda. Or perhaps Gore just felt it necessary to throw a bone to every one of the constituency groups in the Democratic Party."

Broder did write of his "hunch" that Gore's "approach was highly effective -- for what Gore wanted to do." (Indeed, as Bob Somerby has noted, the speech was a success, and Gore's standing in the polls improved afterward.) But Broder also made clear his lack of interest in Gore's details and plans: "I have to confess, my attention wandered as he went on through page after page of other swell ideas, and somewhere between hate crimes legislation and a crime victim's constitutional amendment, I almost nodded off." Even the headline on Broder's column -- "Gore tells all" -- seemed to be a shot at the vice president.

By contrast, Broder had nothing but praise for George W. Bush's 2000 convention speech:

Lifted by an acceptance speech of exceptional eloquence and powered by a party enjoying unusual unity, Texas Gov. George W. Bush embarks on the final stage of his quest for the White House with prospects that almost measure up to his brimming self-confidence. […]
[T]he acceptance speech he delivered Thursday night was a success.
It contained almost everything good political rhetoric can provide -- humor, personal warmth, effective jibes at the opposition and glimpses of what his father, the former president, used to call "the vision thing." And Bush had rehearsed it enough to make it his own.

Reading Broder's reaction to Bush's speech, you wouldn't have known whether Bush made mention of a single policy, proposal, or issue in his speech. You would, however, have learned that "Bush is seen by the public as a stronger leader -- and, by almost any measure, a man more likely to help cure the poisonous partisanship of the capital city."

With a superman like David Broder leading the fight for less substance and fewer details, nobody should have been surprised by Thursday night's Democratic debate, in which moderator Brian Williams asked candidates about haircuts and horse-race polls, and repeatedly dumbed down the debate with questions instructing the candidates to raise their hands in response, or to "say a name or to pass." No details, please -- our titans of journalism might nod off. Just raise your hand and move on.

For those (progressives, at least) who do dare offer details and facts, Broder is quick to deride them as know-it-alls. "Gore tells all," Broder mocked in 2000. Then, in 2006, he wrote, "Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself." That same year, he similarly took Hillary Clinton to task:

For those who remember the former first lady's effort at comprehensive healthcare reform in 1993-94, the scope of her energy initiative is a throwback to those days. She called for the creation of a Strategic Energy Fund, financed in part by taxes on oil company profits, and a National Institute of Energy, with a multibillion-dollar bankroll for financing innovative conservation and efficiency plans.
She offered her proposal with the same self-assurance that she had brought to the healthcare debate -- a tone that suggested that "if you just listen carefully to all the things I can tell you on the basis of the study I have given this subject, you will know exactly what to do."

Well, at least Broder is consistent: he doesn't like "know-it-alls"; too many details, and he's bound to fall asleep.

Well, maybe "consistent" isn't the word. Earlier this month, he wrote:

Obama's soaring rhetoric has left some of his audiences hungry for more substance from the senator. That was the case at a March 24 healthcare forum in Las Vegas, where Obama promised to achieve universal coverage as president but had to admit that -- unlike former senator John Edwards of North Carolina -- he had not yet formulated a plan for getting there. And it was the case again Wednesday, when he was one of seven candidates addressing several thousand members of the Building and Construction Trades, AFL-CIO, at their convention in Washington.

Got that? Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton? Know-it-alls. Barack Obama? Light on substance. George Bush? Just right.

***

Like Brian Williams, we're running short on time, so we'll move to the lightning round:

  • In 1998, Broder suggested President Clinton should resign, apparently because he "he may well have lied to a federal grand jury." Read that again: Broder wasn't even sure if he thought Clinton lied to a federal grand jury, but thought he should resign. Because maybe he lied. About an affair.

    But in 2006, Broder wrote that President Bush "has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution." Did he think this "lawless and reckless" president who "repeatedly defied the Constitution" should resign? If he thought so, he did not tell us. Broder believes his president is a lawless man who repeatedly defies the Constitution -- yet this superman, this titan, this great and influential man will not say it is time for the president to step down. Now, if Bush "may well have lied" about sex … then, perhaps this titan would be stirred to speak out a little more boldly.

  • Broder has repeatedly and disingenuously defended his window-peering coverage of the Clintons' marriage, despite having previously denounced such journalism. He hasn't entirely abandoned his earlier stance, though: when asked if he would write a similar article about Republican candidates, Broder replied: "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that." He is, however, "the most objective and respected reporter" Tim Russert knows.
  • In 2002, when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a prominent leader in the Republican Party, was forced to step down from his leadership position after suggesting the country would have been better off had we elected a segregationist president in 1948, David Broder explained that the "losers" in the matter were … Democrats, because four years earlier, they hadn't impeached President Clinton.
  • In 2005, Broder blamed Democrats -- who were in the minority in both the House and the Senate -- for Congress' failure to conduct oversight hearings. Which, of course, they didn't have the power to do, being in the minority and all. Then, in March 2007 -- just two months into Democratic control of Congress -- Broder complained that the House had "slowed to a crawl," doing little other than "filling time with investigations." Later that month, Broder claimed "Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. … Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives." In yet another March column, Broder warned, "It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves … with more investigations … At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for. People already know what they're against -- the Republicans."

    So, when Democrats didn't control Congress, David Broder thought that oversight hearings were good, and blamed Democrats -- who lacked the authority to conduct such hearings -- for their absence. Now that Democrats control Congress, Broder warns Democrats not to conduct oversight investigations.

  • In 2005, Broder actually touted President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. 'Nuff said.
  • In December 2006, Broder praised Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as "stalwarts of economic and national security policy." No, really.
  • In 2006, he called on journalists to apologize to Karl Rove for suggesting he was part of the campaign to out Valerie Plame, despite the fact that … Karl Rove was part of the campaign to out Valerie Plame.
  • In August 2006, Broder warned that if Joe Lieberman was defeated in the Connecticut Senate primary, it would portend general election disaster for the Democrats. Lieberman lost that primary, and yet the Democrats thoroughly trounced the GOP in the fall.
  • In June 2006, Broder criticized Hillary Clinton for her "shortsightedness" after she had criticized the media for kowtowing to the Bush administration. In arguing that Clinton was off base, Broder noted a "front-page story" in that morning's Post about the Downing Street Memos, concluding, "Who does she think is doing this work if not investigative reporters? Give us a break." Broder's invocation of a Washington Post article about the Downing Street Memos as evidence that the Post has aggressively reported stories that are bad for Bush seems disingenuous given that even Post Ombudsman Michael Getler and reporters Howard Kurtz and Jefferson Morley acknowledged that the paper was slow to cover the Memo story.
  • Last September, Broder wrote a column ostensibly about the "moral scale" of the debate over torture that somehow managed to avoid his own newspaper's report, three days earlier, that the United States had "secretly whisked" an innocent Canadian citizen to Syria, where he was beaten, forced to make a false confession, and "kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months." Instead, as we explained at the time, "while paying lip service to the 'moral scale,' Broder suggested to the reader that he is kept awake at night by the 'loud' and 'vituperative' statements of bloggers and Democratic congressmen -- rather than by the thought that the Bush administration's pro-torture stance not only results in inhumane treatment of those we torture, but increases the risk of our own troops facing similar treatment from foreign regimes." In that column, as he so often does, Broder expressed confidence that the likes of Joe Lieberman and John McCain -- "these are not ordinary men," Broder stressed -- would step in and put an end to U.S. torture.
  • Earlier this year, Broder claimed that the New York Times is "not normally solicitous of Republicans' feelings." Broder's attack on the Times was not only a pitch-perfect rendition of a common GOP talking point, it was also clearly false: The Times actually has a "conservative beat" … but no "progressive beat." That's small change, however, compared to Broder's recent slur that Democrats have little "sympathy for" the military. If this whole "dean of political reporters" thing doesn't work out, Broder can always start a new career as a speechwriter for Vice President Dick Cheney.
  • Earlier this month, the Post was criticized for running an op-ed by Liz* Cheney in which she echoed attacks on Nancy Pelosi made by her father, the vice president, without disclosing the relationship between the two. Despite the fact that the lack of disclosure was apparently a violation of Post policy, Broder declared that it would have been "gratuitous" to include such a disclosure.
  • In mid-February, Broder predicted a political comeback by President Bush, declaring "he is demonstrating political smarts that even his critics have to acknowledge." Instead, Bush's poll ratings (28 percent approval in the latest Harris poll) remain so dismal that conservative columnists have taken to arguing that the fact that Bush has spent a year in the mid-30s is a good thing, as it demonstrates consistency. No, really. On March 30, Broder was asked about that prediction during an online discussion:

Bush remains as popular as a kick in the head, but rather than revising his absurd prediction, as promised, Broder declares Harry Reid a political incompetent.

Think about where the Democrats were when Harry Reid became their leader in the Senate. Think about where they are now. Think about David Broder's recent prediction of a Bush comeback; his touting of Bush's response to Katrina; his praise for Cheney and Rumsfeld; his claims that journalists should apologize to Karl Rove for saying he did something he did; his call for fewer details and less discussion of policy from candidates; his defense of Richard Nixon; his prediction that if Joe Lieberman lost his primary, Democrats would perform poorly in the general election; his double standards in his coverage of candidates personal lives; his suggestion that Bill Clinton should have resigned because he "may well have lied" about sex; his unwillingness to say that a "lawless" president who "repeatedly defied the Constitution" should step down; his elitist and arrogant statement that he and his pals care more about being lied to than you do; his hypocritical statement that Kerry's and Gore's "arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself."

Think about all that, and ask yourself: If you were David Broder, wouldn't you -- just maybe -- think twice before accusing someone else of "bumbling" and "ineptitude"?

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51271/

Abstinence Education Doesn't Work

A government report ordered by Congress shows that abstinence-only education is ineffective. What do you think?

Young Man

Xander Griffey,
Construction Worker
"I find it astonishing that our public schools were unable to beat out the most basic human instinct that perpetuates our species."

Young Woman

Penelope Schaal,
Tailor
"That's it. From now on my kids will learn about sex the way I did–from a grabby uncle."

Asian Man

Kurt Dobler,
Dog Trainer
"To give the course some credit, it is by far the easiest to teach."


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/61206


NORML Responds To White House's 'Potent Pot' Scare Campaign

April 26, 2007 - Washington, DC, USA


Washington, DC: Data published this week by the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project indicating an increase in the strength of cannabis' primary psychoactive ingredient THC is further evidence of the failure of criminal pot prohibition, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said today.

"The federal government spends billions of dollars each year enforcing criminal marijuana laws and what does it have to show for it: more marijuana users, greater marijuana availability, and stronger pot," he said.

St. Pierre added, however, that more potent marijuana is not necessarily more dangerous. "Marijuana poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of THC content," he said. "In addition, studies indicate that cannabis consumers readily distinguish between high and low potency marijuana and moderate their use accordingly,
just as an alcohol consumer would drink fewer ounces of (high potency) bourbon than they would ounces of (low potency) beer."

St. Pierre also denied claims that the availability of stronger cannabis was responsible for the rise in so-called "marijuana treatment" admissions. "The overwhelming majority of young people in the US referred to 'treatment' for marijuana are there because they violated state pot laws, not because they or their loved ones believed they were suffering ill effects from cannabis," he said. "In reality, this surge in treatment admissions
is an outgrowth of enhanced marijuana law enforcement, not enhanced marijuana potency."

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at
paul@norml.org.

Related:


Arrests Drive Spike In "Marijuana Treatment" Admissions, Study Says

June 30, 2005 - Rockville, MD, USA

Rockville, MD: The majority of individuals admitted to drug rehabilitation for marijuana are referred there by the criminal justice system, according to a new report published by the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS).

Fifty-eight percent of those entering drug treatment for marijuana in 2002 were referred by the criminal justice system, the report found, up from 48 percent in 1992. Referrals from schools and health care/drug abuse care providers comprised another 15 percent of all admissions. By comparison, only 38 percent of those admitted to treatment for alcohol and only 29 percent of those admitted to treatment for cocaine were referred by the criminal justice system.

"Contrary to the Bush Administration's claims, it is marijuana prohibition - not the use of marijuana itself - that is driving up rates of marijuana 'treatment' admissions," NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano said. "The record increase in the number of individuals now seeking 'treatment' for cannabis is due to a proportional increase in the number of those arrested by law enforcement for marijuana violations and subsequently referred to drug treatment by the criminal justice system. Primarily, these are young people arrested for minor pot possession offenses, brought before a criminal judge or drug court, and ordered to drug rehabilitation in lieu of jail or juvenile detention."

According to a previous 2002 DASIS report, since 1995 the proportion of marijuana treatment admissions from all sources other than the criminal justice system has actually declined, Armentano said. "At a time when tens of thousands of Americans are being denied access to drug treatment due to a lack of bed space or federal funding, it is unconscionable that these clinics are bursting at the seams needlessly housing marijuana smokers," he said.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500. The DASIS report, "Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral: 2002," is available at:
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/MJreferrals.htm