If any president deserved to be impeached its the current occupant of the bunker at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In what is probably an unprecedented and widespread effort from below, petitions to the U.S. House demanding impeachment proceedings against George W. Bushwack have been introduced in these states: California, Hawaii, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont. Maine is the latest to join this distinction.
As the body count from the ridiculous 'surge' escalates in Iraq, and a delusional Commander in Chief utters inflammatory nonsense everyday, it is became increasingly hard for the House leadership to prevent a vote on the issue. Call the sympathetic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and demand, "Impeachment now."
Weekend Update: The leaders of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus have signed on to Rep. Dennis Kucinich's HB 333 instigating impeachment proceedings against Vice President 'Darth' Cheney. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, Democrats from California have personally endorsed the measure. Four other progressive legislators have also endorsed. There is some political and legal sense in trying to bring Cheney to account first, although I continue to think that the President as head of government is responsible for his Cabinet officer's actions as well as his own. Cheney headed up the rogue intelligence operation located in the Pentagon that provided dubious data so the war could be justified to Congress. However, Cheney certainly did not develope this irregular procedure on his own authority. Call it sedition? I call it real patriotism, and we have company too. Fifteen state Democratic parties and 77 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for impeachement. Take your government back by contacting your representatives in Congress and Chairman Conyers and demand, "Impeachment now."
Saturday, June 09, 2007
An Oldie But Goodie: The Cold War
President Putin's statement that the current U.S. government is attempting to return to the Cold War has a ring of veracity. The GWOT is a wash out as a way of generating revenue for the military industrial complex. Its difficult to justify buying multibillion dollar weapon systems when your enemy drives a camel and carries a surplus AK. Taxpayers are completely fed up with the Iraq adventure, but they meekly payed for fleets of B-52s,nuclear subs and Minuteman missiles when the Soviet Union was the official, godless enemy of a righteous America for four decades. So a return to a nuclear standoff in Europe is as good a way as any to keep the government in expensive guns. Since the beginning of the decade defense spending has nearly doubled not counting spending on the current wars. Twenty eight big ticket weapon systems alone will account for $44 billion in 2008.The rationale for putting unproven anti-ballistic missiles in Poland to defend against a non- existent Iranian ICBM is, as Putin said, laughable if were not so sad. What is left unexplained by the militarists is why the rich Europeans are not capable of providing for their own defence against the alleged threat. Apparently, the Europeans are not impressed by Iran as a security threat. The reason the Russians are so upset about the plan is that the system could just as easily be used against Russian missiles on there way to strike U.S. military bases in Europe should the unthinkable conflict ever become a reality. Russia has been dealt setbacks in prestige and influence since the end of the Cold War. It has watched nervously as it's Cold War adversary, NATO, advanced to the European border. The U.S. desire to place anti-ballistic missiles on it's doorstep and thereby dilute the deterrence effect of it's nuclear arsenal is one shove to many. Can anyone blame President Putin for not taking the Charlatan's word as a security guarantee, given his unilateral and unprovoked attack on Iraq? America's arrogance is sometimes frightening to behold.
Weekend Update: Blowing hot and cold on the Baltic coast the U.S. regime got it nervous Nelly ally, Poland, to restate its commitment to resuming of the Cold War. Within 24 hours it rejected an offer of a common approach to possible ballistic missile threats put forward by President Putin. He suggested basing a joint missile shield in Azerbaijan. Caught of guard by the suggestion, U.S. officials labeled it "interesting". But when meeting with the reflexively anti-Russian Poles, the Charlatan apparently rejected the friendly offer. Secretary 'Condo' Rice
chimed in with an obvious remark that basing missile systems is "all about geometry". Duh, look at the map Ms. Secretary. Its clear the the triangulation of Flyingdales and the proposed site in Czech Republic is pointed directly at European Russia. The battery location on the Baltic coast of Poland at Gorsko is ideal for intercepting Russian ICBMs on course for U.S. nuclear bases in UK. A battery located in Azerbaijan would be closer to missiles leaving Iran, but less effective against missiles headed toward U.S. bases in Europe. Did Tony Blair get more than a medal for being a lap dog on Iraq? I think he got a commitment from the U.S. to shield Britain with an anti-ballistic missile system.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Election Special Tart
The Edwards campaign is offering a "slice of the pie" if you contribute to his campaign. I thought you might like my recipe for a strawberry-rhubarb tart, no contribution required:
Crust: 2 cups flour
1 stick butter (8tbls)
2 tbls sugar
2 tbls shortening
pinch salt
ice water
Filling: 2 cups cored & sliced strawberries
2 cups 1/2in diced rhubarb
3-4 tbls minute tapioca
1/4 cup sugar
lemon juice to taste
Preheat oven at 375F. Put dry ingredients into food processor, pulse until mixed well. Add cubes of butter and shortening while pulsing until mix is just crumbly. Slowly add ice water while processing until dough begins to pull away from sides of bowl. Pour out and knead by hand for about a minute. Do over knead or dough will be tough. Form ball and refrigerate while making filling. Mix fruit together in large bowl with sugar. Add tapioca depending on how firm you want your tart. (I like my firm.) Add a little lemon juice to taste. A few drops of vanilla extract is optional. Allow fruit to macerate for 15 minutes. Roll out dough into 10" tart pan with removable bottom. Fill crust evenly with fruit mixture. Bake approximately 45-50 minutes until filling is set and crust is gbd (golden brown and delicious). Cool on rack and serve a la mode.
Crust: 2 cups flour
1 stick butter (8tbls)
2 tbls sugar
2 tbls shortening
pinch salt
ice water
Filling: 2 cups cored & sliced strawberries
2 cups 1/2in diced rhubarb
3-4 tbls minute tapioca
1/4 cup sugar
lemon juice to taste
Preheat oven at 375F. Put dry ingredients into food processor, pulse until mixed well. Add cubes of butter and shortening while pulsing until mix is just crumbly. Slowly add ice water while processing until dough begins to pull away from sides of bowl. Pour out and knead by hand for about a minute. Do over knead or dough will be tough. Form ball and refrigerate while making filling. Mix fruit together in large bowl with sugar. Add tapioca depending on how firm you want your tart. (I like my firm.) Add a little lemon juice to taste. A few drops of vanilla extract is optional. Allow fruit to macerate for 15 minutes. Roll out dough into 10" tart pan with removable bottom. Fill crust evenly with fruit mixture. Bake approximately 45-50 minutes until filling is set and crust is gbd (golden brown and delicious). Cool on rack and serve a la mode.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Wolf Blitzer for President?
This chart from ChrisDodd.com confirms my major impression of the Democratic candidate debate of last night. Moderator Wolf Blitzer was getting in the way. He gave himself more air time than six of the eight candidates. His schoolroom requests for a "show of hands" was condescending and his hypothetical questions were loaded. In short, his bias was showing. If CNN is attempting to fulfill its FCC mandate and perform a public service by devoting air time to the issues of life and death that face our nation, it should do viewers a favor and tell Blitzer to put a cork in it or have him declare his candidacy. Of the real candidates, I thought Gov. Bill Richardson gained the most from his participation.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Why We Cannot Win in Iraq
Another prominent British military officer, General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of U.N. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and SAS officer made a recent public comment that there is no way coalition forces can win the war, and that forces should withdraw from Iraq. This is a view reaching consensus outside of official Washington because there is a belated realization among professional military men that military forces were deployed to Iraq without an achievable political goal. Military planners in the UK are preparing a one year withdrawal schedule to present to new Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The stated goals for the invasion have varied over time. "Regime change" toppled a secular dictator creating a power vacuum that has not been filled by an effective democratic government. Establishing a liberal, western style democracy in Iraq by free election was one of the stated reasons for the invasion. Such an outcome was highly unlikely given the historical pattern in the Middle East. Islamist parties won in Algeria in the 1990's and in Palestine in the 2000s. In place in Iraq is a popular theocracy whose limited national power is underwritten by Shia militia. Their goal is to oust the foreign occupation and eliminate from power their former oppressors, the Sunnis. Their goal is not national reconciliation. Despite U.S. requests, the Maliki government can do little to control them. By eliminating the Baathist regime, the U.S. guaranteed the rise of radical Islamic forces. The only functioning government within Iraq's boundaries is that of Kurdistan which has accomplished a de facto secession. The possibility of a fully independent Kurdistan is alarming Turkey because it has a large and restive Kurdish minority living in its eastern border region. The situation in northern Iraq is so tense that Secretary of Defense Gates felt it necessary to warn Turkey not to attack Kurdish forces. Making Iraq a front in the 'global war on terror' has been counterproductive. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed radical elements in Iraq and refused to entertain overtures by the master terrorist, Bin Laden. Iraq post Saddam is one of the main recruitment and training sites for terrorists, and they use the foreign occupation as an effective propaganda tool. Critics, including myself, think the invasion was largely driven by strategic geopolitical considerations. But controlling Iraq's significant oil reserves has not been accomplished due to the anarchy that reins in Iraq's southern oil region and the corrupt, disorganized reconstruction program. The central government still cannot reach agreement on the method of sharing oil revenue between it's three major factions.
To stay in Iraq for as long as the U.S. has maintained forces in South Korea is not a viable political or military solution. There is no guarantee that Iraq would not dissolve even with significant U.S. forces occupying their "Lilly pads" or the fortified permanent bases currently being built. American military analysts think that the U.S. military is suffering a slow melt down similar to what was experienced during the defeat in Vietnam. The pace of redeployments to the war zone is consuming men and material at a rapid rate. It may take many years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover their readiness ratings. British military thinker and former NATO deputy commander in the successful Kosovo campaign, General Sir Rupert Smith, says the true aim of military force in counterinsurgencies is to influence the intentions of the people. Thus, the battle for hearts and minds is not a complementary activity to the use of force, it is the main purpose of modern warfare. This is an inversion of what was war where the objective was to break the enemy's will to fight. In his view the use of force in Iraq is pointless, insofar as it never had achievable political goals.
This is not to say there are no effective counterinsurgency strategies. There are a few success stories. Over a period of thirty years, British governments conducted a two prong strategy against Irish terrorists. British officials treated the acts of terror, including an attempt to decapitate the government at Brighton in 1981, as criminal acts, not acts of war to be dealt with exclusively by the army. While protecting the government of Northern Ireland, Britain began a political process intended to engage sectarian factions so that a cease fire and power sharing arrangement could eventually be reached. Such a political process is impossible in Iraq now that regime change has effectively dismantled the state. Its equally clear that America's current position in the middle of a sectarian civil war is untenable. The recent increase in troop strength is not quelling violence but underlining the reality of failure. The U.S. succeeded in suppressing the Philippine Insurrection at the beginning of the last century. Famine, disease and a poorly equipped enemy aided our harsh efforts. The 'Injun Fighting' used then would be morally unacceptable and constitute war crimes now.
There is no easy exit from Iraq. Its not like Vietnam in this respect. There was an effective government in the north waiting to take over the south and unify the country after the Americans departed. Vietnam had a largely agrarian economy of small global significance. Iraq has no unifying government, and its oil resources are critical to global commerce. When Americans leave Iraq there will be a struggle for control of resources that may draw in proxy forces from Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Whatever the outcome of that struggle is, we will have to accept it as part of our own doing.
The stated goals for the invasion have varied over time. "Regime change" toppled a secular dictator creating a power vacuum that has not been filled by an effective democratic government. Establishing a liberal, western style democracy in Iraq by free election was one of the stated reasons for the invasion. Such an outcome was highly unlikely given the historical pattern in the Middle East. Islamist parties won in Algeria in the 1990's and in Palestine in the 2000s. In place in Iraq is a popular theocracy whose limited national power is underwritten by Shia militia. Their goal is to oust the foreign occupation and eliminate from power their former oppressors, the Sunnis. Their goal is not national reconciliation. Despite U.S. requests, the Maliki government can do little to control them. By eliminating the Baathist regime, the U.S. guaranteed the rise of radical Islamic forces. The only functioning government within Iraq's boundaries is that of Kurdistan which has accomplished a de facto secession. The possibility of a fully independent Kurdistan is alarming Turkey because it has a large and restive Kurdish minority living in its eastern border region. The situation in northern Iraq is so tense that Secretary of Defense Gates felt it necessary to warn Turkey not to attack Kurdish forces. Making Iraq a front in the 'global war on terror' has been counterproductive. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed radical elements in Iraq and refused to entertain overtures by the master terrorist, Bin Laden. Iraq post Saddam is one of the main recruitment and training sites for terrorists, and they use the foreign occupation as an effective propaganda tool. Critics, including myself, think the invasion was largely driven by strategic geopolitical considerations. But controlling Iraq's significant oil reserves has not been accomplished due to the anarchy that reins in Iraq's southern oil region and the corrupt, disorganized reconstruction program. The central government still cannot reach agreement on the method of sharing oil revenue between it's three major factions.
To stay in Iraq for as long as the U.S. has maintained forces in South Korea is not a viable political or military solution. There is no guarantee that Iraq would not dissolve even with significant U.S. forces occupying their "Lilly pads" or the fortified permanent bases currently being built. American military analysts think that the U.S. military is suffering a slow melt down similar to what was experienced during the defeat in Vietnam. The pace of redeployments to the war zone is consuming men and material at a rapid rate. It may take many years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover their readiness ratings. British military thinker and former NATO deputy commander in the successful Kosovo campaign, General Sir Rupert Smith, says the true aim of military force in counterinsurgencies is to influence the intentions of the people. Thus, the battle for hearts and minds is not a complementary activity to the use of force, it is the main purpose of modern warfare. This is an inversion of what was war where the objective was to break the enemy's will to fight. In his view the use of force in Iraq is pointless, insofar as it never had achievable political goals.
This is not to say there are no effective counterinsurgency strategies. There are a few success stories. Over a period of thirty years, British governments conducted a two prong strategy against Irish terrorists. British officials treated the acts of terror, including an attempt to decapitate the government at Brighton in 1981, as criminal acts, not acts of war to be dealt with exclusively by the army. While protecting the government of Northern Ireland, Britain began a political process intended to engage sectarian factions so that a cease fire and power sharing arrangement could eventually be reached. Such a political process is impossible in Iraq now that regime change has effectively dismantled the state. Its equally clear that America's current position in the middle of a sectarian civil war is untenable. The recent increase in troop strength is not quelling violence but underlining the reality of failure. The U.S. succeeded in suppressing the Philippine Insurrection at the beginning of the last century. Famine, disease and a poorly equipped enemy aided our harsh efforts. The 'Injun Fighting' used then would be morally unacceptable and constitute war crimes now.
There is no easy exit from Iraq. Its not like Vietnam in this respect. There was an effective government in the north waiting to take over the south and unify the country after the Americans departed. Vietnam had a largely agrarian economy of small global significance. Iraq has no unifying government, and its oil resources are critical to global commerce. When Americans leave Iraq there will be a struggle for control of resources that may draw in proxy forces from Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Whatever the outcome of that struggle is, we will have to accept it as part of our own doing.
Friday, June 01, 2007
The Invisible Hand Revealed
James Cramer is a Wall Street type I could like. He tells it straight. A former hedge fund whiz, he now comments on the Street of Broken Dreams at his financial news site, TheStreet.com and is host of CNN's Mad Money where he waves his arms and paces manically as he touts stock picks. This quote is from a video feature on the web site:
Who cares about fundamentals? Look at what people can do. The great thing about the market is that it has nothing to do with the actual stocks. Now look, maybe two weeks from now buyers will come to their senses and realize everything they heard was a lie...It's just fiction and fiction and fiction. I think its important that people recognize that the way the market really works is to have that nexus: hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that push it down, then leak it to the press...It's a pretty good game, and it can pay for a percent or two.
District of Bizzaro XV: We Have Become Them
US and Russia relations have hit a new low reminiscent of the Cold War. Disputes over the future of Kosovo and the U.S. plan to install anti-missile systems in Poland and Czech Republic have soured the love affair between the Charlatan and Comrade Putin. Putin is accusing the U.S. of reigniting the arms race. It will take more than an invite to the Maine dacha to settle the differences to the satisfaction of a resurgent Russian bear.
Something else in the news reminds us of the terrible days of the Cold War. If its true that you end up secretly emulating your worse enemy, then the U.S. is no exception. Soviet interrogation techniques were closely studied by our armed forces so that they could train our captured pilots and other personnel to resist the techniques. Those methods of Soviet torture have been put to use in the so-called 'war on terror' against detainees at Guantanamo. According to a recently declassified report by the DoD Inspector General, SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) instructors were requested and sent to the gulag for training detainee interrogators. Several intelligence officers objected to the extreme methods, but their objections were ignored. The report says the techniques then "migrated" (the Pentagon has a way with words) to Iraq where they were also used to extract cooperation. In September 2003, a SERE team was sent to Iraq to evaluate interrogation techniques there. A government research panel recently found that torture does not produce reliable information, and one expert characterized the current efforts as "amateurish" compared to the more sophisticated psychological interrogation techniques used during WWII. Somebody should send the 325 page report to the Republican presidential candidates.
Something else in the news reminds us of the terrible days of the Cold War. If its true that you end up secretly emulating your worse enemy, then the U.S. is no exception. Soviet interrogation techniques were closely studied by our armed forces so that they could train our captured pilots and other personnel to resist the techniques. Those methods of Soviet torture have been put to use in the so-called 'war on terror' against detainees at Guantanamo. According to a recently declassified report by the DoD Inspector General, SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) instructors were requested and sent to the gulag for training detainee interrogators. Several intelligence officers objected to the extreme methods, but their objections were ignored. The report says the techniques then "migrated" (the Pentagon has a way with words) to Iraq where they were also used to extract cooperation. In September 2003, a SERE team was sent to Iraq to evaluate interrogation techniques there. A government research panel recently found that torture does not produce reliable information, and one expert characterized the current efforts as "amateurish" compared to the more sophisticated psychological interrogation techniques used during WWII. Somebody should send the 325 page report to the Republican presidential candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)