What some people call ‘victory in Iraq’ often looks alot more like a slap in the face.
According to this news item from Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, the Iraqi government has decided - at Iran’s urging - to give the rights to one of Iraq’s largest oil fields to China’s state-owned oil firm, according to the article, making it ‘harder for American companies to exploit Iraqi oil.’
“A source in the Oil Ministry said that the deal is worth about $3 billion and would generate $6 billion over the next ten years. The source went on to say that the cost to retrieve each barrel [from the field] would be about $6. Well-informed Iraqi sources revealed that the decision to allow China to exploit the field comes in the context of Iranian government pressure and mediation, urging Iraq to grant oil exploitation rights to Chinese and Russian companies and to deny U.S. companies access to Iraqi oil and energy.”
Republicans may not like the type of questioning that the American media is subjecting McCain’s shock VP pick to, but it isn’t only American journalists asking ‘personal questions’ about Governor Sarah Palin, who could soon be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
“Even if she tries to smile it away and to make it look pretty: The pregnancy of her daughter - in contrast to other pregnant U.S. teenagers in a financially comfortable situation - can be directly attributed to the twisted sex education policies of Sarah Palin and other conservative Christians, which still assert (despite clear statistics to the contrary) that vows of celibacy keep teenagers from having sex.”
It’s the question that’s been on almost every political junky’s lips: Why has Obama failed to connect to parts of the electorate his candidacy promises to help the most?
“Obama proposes tax cuts that would benefit more people, but his message hasn’t ‘reached’ the middle class. Obama proposes public works and a federal investment program that harkens back to the time of Roosevelt, but workers that have lost jobs recently due to the emergence of new technologies still haven’t ‘heard’ the message. … The problem here in electoral terms, is that Obama’s detailed and well-formulated proposals don’t have the obvious ideological appeal that, perhaps, must be more easily understandable and acceptable to the electorate he has to win over. Ironically (or tragically, if you wish), what seems like a rationally crafted proposal lacks the easy “appeal” that the Republicans know how to exploit so well.”
Is the narrative of the Bush Administration about how it has brought Libyan Despot Muammar Qadhafi to heel credible? Furthermore, as the White House claims, is the Libyan model a good one for Iran to follow?
“The Americans have already dubbed all that’s going on in Libya, the “Libyan model,” and never fail to recommend that Libya is a good example for Iran. This is an attempt to demonstrate that Iran can obtain all the benefits that Libya has (the lifting of sanctions, investment, technical assistance, etc.) if it satisfies U.S. demands that that it suspend its nuclear program. … As often happens in diplomacy, particularly American diplomacy, almost all of these claims are misleading. In fact, the reality of the situation is just the opposite. Paradoxical though it may seem, Qaddafi’s miraculous transformation was made possible only as a result of direct talks between the White House and his emissaries. This is precisely the course of action that Washington has refused to follow in the case of Iran.”
“The fact is that Qaddafi’s 2003 decision to denounce terrorism and shut down Libyan development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has been portrayed as a sudden conversion, although negotiations with the Americans had begun under President Clinton (1993-2001). And the reason is almost too cynical and embarrassing to tell. By Clinton’s second term, his administration was coming under strong pressure from American oil firms because in defiance of U.N. and E.U. sanctions, Italy’s ENI, France’s Total, and Spain’s Pepsol already had large-scale operations in Libya. … Western experts estimate that the cost of production of high-quality Libyan crude is just $1 per barrel!”
“John McCain is one who proudly boasts (like many other politicians) of his ignorance about the Internet and e-mail. Its likely that McCain has never seen the videos produced by his staff on a computer monitor - but rather on a video tape sent to his home which he popped into his vintage Magnavox-VHS recorder to watch on his trusty Zenith TV … McCain shows by far the greatest weakness in terms of his connection to the real world. At a time when cyber-terrorism, espionage and crime are an even greater threat; when countries like China recruit whole armies of hackers to work against the West and plot the collapse of its IT-infrastructure - which could cost billions of dollars and millions of lives - it wouldn’t be bad if the President of the United States had at least a rudimentary knowledge of what’s at stake.”
THE HISTORIC PETERS HOUSE WOULD BE SAVED AND REHABBED
The ghosts of the Tocks Island disaster of the early 1970s when hundreds of homes, barns, a church and other structures were destroyed to make way for a dam that was never built are about to write another sad chapter in the saga of the Minisink Valley with the resumption of destruction in the historic area straddling the scenic Delaware River in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The Tocks project was a lightning rod for the nascent American environmental movement. It destroyed the careers of some politicians and brought unexpected success to others. It was the cause of suicides, arson fires and violence in the Minisink. It exposed deep tears in the social fabric of the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, unleashing a deep bitterness against the Army Corps of Engineers and the dam’s powerful, politically connected backers that seems just as intense today as it was three decades ago.
Tocks Island itself is a negligible spit of sand covered with oak, sycamore and scrub brush that sits midstream about six miles above Delaware Water Gap just out of the sight of motorists crossing the Interstate 80 toll bridge that links Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Under the Corps’ plan, a reinforced concrete dam – by far the largest east of the Mississippi – would be built at the site, but the proposal was shelved in the 1930s because money to undertake such a huge project simply was not available during those lean times.
The plan was dusted off after hurricanes Connie and Diane ravaged the region in August 1955, dumping 20 inches of rain in less than a week. Some 78 people died in the Poconos, most of them from flood surges that turned babbling brooks into raging torrents. Tocks advocates argued that such disasters would be avoided in the future if a dam were built although the deadliest flooding from the twin storms was on tributaries and not the Delaware itself.
In 1962, Congress authorized the appropriation of $122 million to build a huge earth and rock-fill dam at Tocks, submerging the Minisink and creating a 37-mile-long, 140-foot deep lake extending nearly to Port Jervis, New York. Surrounding this monstrosity would be an 80-square-mile park to be called Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a long and checkered history as the custodian of America’s rivers, harbors and wetlands. As was the case with Tocks, it often has been an intermediary between powerful political and private interests. As was the case with Tocks, it manipulated its own engineering and economic analyses to suit its needs. As was the case with Tocks, its tactics could be brutal.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for other Tocks Island-related media.
By now we’ve all heard how the surge strategy in Iraq has been a great success. Which raises the question whether the things that have made this “success” possible can be applied to problems in our own country. Here are a few tips in that regard.
So-called “Awakening Councils” in Sunni areas of Iraq where we used to encounter fierce resistance have been largely pacified. How? We simply put the guys who were killing our soldiers and marines on the American payroll. We pay them regular salaries, arm them, and train them.
So why not apply the same principle to street gangs in places like Los Angeles? We could pay gang members with public funds, arm them and train them in advanced fighting techniques. And all we would ask in return is that they stop shooting up their neighborhoods and be less public about dealing drugs. A great deal all around, no?
To lessen the damages done by exploding truck bombs in Iraq, we have built blast walls that separate ethnic neighborhoods, and placed armed guards at the only entrances and exits through these walls. This has worked wonders in cutting down civilian casualties.
Why not do the same thing to separate ethnic neighborhoods in American cities like Washington? Officials there are already stopping and searching vehicles going into some neighborhoods. And heaven knows, there are literally thousands of gated communities around the country that separate the well-off from those who are less financially desirable. Blast walls are thus a natural extension of what we’ve been doing in this country for some time—with the added benefit that constructing them would provide infrastructure jobs for the wall builders.
And then, of course, is the glorious success that we’ve had in Iraq by hiring mercenaries (oops, contractors) to do the work of regular military personnel. Sure, these hirelings cost six figure salaries each and seem surprisingly detached from ordinary rules governing the regular military. But their deaths don’t make the papers and they stretch a regular military that doesn’t attract enough men and women to do the jobs they are currently assigned because these jobs have so little popular support.
We could easily create a variant of this approach in our own homeland. Armed, highly trained and paid vigilantes who do the dirty crime-stopping jobs and aren’t held back by silly legal piccadillos.
If this transference of ideas and approaches from our Iraq venture strikes you as a good way to go, let your Congress person know. After all, what could be fairer than doing unto ourselves what we have so egregiously done unto Iraqi others?
Experts are having a hard time pinning a label on the present American economy. It still has a few too many positive elements to fall into the traditional recession category. But it’s far too weak to be just a very mild expansion. And it doesn’t have the requisite combination of recessionary and inflationary markers to be tagged stagflation.
Perhaps we need a new name for this strange beast. Perhaps when all the factors are considered, it might best be called “a regression.”
What’s happening to our national economy today isn’t just another one of those inevitable economic dips in the business cycle that always come along after an expansion that has gone on too long, a recession. What’s happening now is a symptom of something far more fundamental and worrisome—an expression of genuine economic decline. A regression.
We’re regressing vis-a-vis the rest of the world in many crucial respects. These include infrastructure growth and maintenance regressions compared to countries such as Japan, and the development and implementation of new technologies such as solar compared to a country such as Germany.
Compared to the dragons of Asia, we’re also regressing in terms of education. And when it comes to the best-health-care-for-dollars-spent, we’re regressing compared to dozens of other countries around the world. Our national debt situation makes us ever more dependent on foreign lenders. While our currency, long foolishly manipulated to increase exports, is regressing in value compared with sounder currencies, and this in turn has led to a regression in our influence with petroleum suppliers such as the Saudis.
Respect for our Federal Reserve is regressing compared to other central banks because of the Fed’s short-sighted policies to promote economic growth at the expense of long-term fiscal responsibility. The reputation of our private banking institutions is similarly regressing because they have come to be viewed as slick peddlers of derivative products that their foreign customers now regard as little better than shell games.
We’re not only regressing vis-a-vis the rest of the world in economic terms, we’re rapidly regressing in terms of our own economic past. Our people owe more and pay more on old debts than ever before. We work longer and harder than any other people on the planet and still have seen an overall slide in average standards of living in recent decades. The benefits of added productivity haven’t trickled down, they’ve flooded up, generating an enormous equity regression.
You can grow out of a recession with interest rate cuts and one-time government giveaways. You can only begin to redirect a regression with fundamental policy changes at the government level that reflect a better understanding of economic realities among Americans generally.
Are such changes possible in today’s America? Yes, but they will take time to take hold. And until then, the great slide, our national economic regression, will continue.
When and if Barack Obama takes the oath of office as President of the United States, who most will he owe that high privilege to?
According to Alexandre Adler, one of France’s leading historians, journalists - and according to many - a neocon, that person would be George W. Bush. Read the rest of this entry »
Ask someone who works for either Barack Obama (Ill.) or John McCain (Ariz.) about the search for a vice presidential nominee and, to a person, the response you get goes something like this: “It’s way too early to even be thinking about specific names.”
Bring up potential VP’s with people outside the direct orbit of the campaigns, however, and you get a panoply of names, discussions of running mate strategy, and handicapping of strengths and weaknesses.
Welcome to the veepstakes — where those who know the most are saying the least and, unfortunately, vice versa.
The Fix, as always, navigates these tricky waters for the good of our readers. Conversations with a variety of operatives who are in a position to have a general sense of the veepstakes have produced the lists you will find below. When it comes to picking a vice presidential candidate, we acknowledge it is something of a moving target — so if your preferred guy (or gal) didn’t make the list never fear, they could show up next time.
Also, since McCain and Obama appear to have the nominations locked up, we are, for the first time, ranking the five most likely veep picks. The number one slot on the Line is the candidate with the best chance — right now — of being picked.
Agree or disagree? Have a favorite of your own? Or even a full list? The comments section awaits.
First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy. Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail. I am not sanguine. People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot. We’ll see.
But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through. Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her. She is indomitable. I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats. Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.
Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.
Regular gas was $3.55 a gallon here in southeastern Ohio yesterday.
Many people I know are curbing their summer travel plans. They’re even doing more planning when it comes to everyday errands, combining them so as not to waste gas.
This, of course, as average fuel prices climb, is happening across the country and the three leading presidential candidates have noticed. They’ve also noticed that the big oil companies are reporting record profits.
Obama has, in effect, put himself in the position of opposing a tax reduction.
That can be a dangerous stance to take. Early in the administration of George W. Bush, the President proposed tax cuts. Supply side economics insisted that if the federal government reduced Americans’ tax burdens, the economy would be stimulated and overall federal revenues would increase as a result of increased investment in the economy and greater personal income. The Bush tax cuts went into effect, but in the Senate, two members of the President’s Republican party opposed the plan: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and John McCain of Arizona. At the time, McCain argued that reductions in taxes ought to be matched by reductions in spending.
McCain’s classic conservative position didn’t match the new conservative orthodoxy however, an orthodoxy which I think, results from a misreading of the Reagan years. Reagan, you’ll remember, got Congress to pass tax cuts as well. At the same time, Congress went along with massive increases in Defense Department outlays, endorsing the Reagan policy of trying to bring down “the evil empire” by forcing the Soviet Union into an arms and spending race that, it was thought, would bring the Soviets to their senses or to their knees. The Soviet Union collapsed, I believe, under the weight of the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of communism and because of a combination of the policy of containment in place from 1945 on in the US and the stupid decisions of the Moscow regime, the stupidest of which being the war in Afghanistan, where Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden fought a guerilla war of attrititon designed to bleed the Soviets of people and money.
But Reagan insiders and apologists like Peter Robinson–whose book, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life is excellent, by the way–conclude that in the end, budget deficits don’t matter. I doubt that Reagan himself, a stalwart opponent of deficits for decades, would draw the same conclusion, seeing the deficits his administration ran as temporary, and regrettable, expedients, necessary in the face-off with the Soviet Union, essential to causing the Soviets to reduce their nuclear stockpile.
McCain’s initial refusal to support the Bush tax cuts has won him a world of hostility from believers in the new conservative orthodoxy. Read the rest of this entry »
It’s been nearly seven months since the bridge collapse here in Minnesota. Right or wrong, it has become a symbol of our crumbling transportation infastructure.
For several years, transportation has been a burning issue. We were slow to light rail transit, and our freeways, built when the Twin Cities was a much smaller metro area, are full. Governor Tim Pawlenty (a potential VP candidate for John McCain), has taken a strong “no new taxes” pledge to the delight of hard core conservatives. Of course, a government has to do things like maintain roads, so Mr. Pawlenty has decided to use bonding bills to pay for some improvements, which is basically putting things on a credit card to pay someday. The Democrats, with the help of a few Republicans, crafted a bill that would raise the gas tax by five cents (something that hasn’t been done in twenty years) , add to the sales tax in the metro area to pay for transit and raise license fees for new cars. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but was overidden by the House.
The result for the dissident Republicans was that they were punished, losing leading leadership positions and quite possibily facing intra-party challenges.
I share this because it is part of the problem with the Republican party these days: it can’t tolerate independence. The party of the man that once said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor,” seems more interested in making sure everyone toes the line to what they think is party orthodoxy. Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve written before about the federal government’s experimentation with blogging. It’s a “let’s wait and see” thing for me but mostly, I’d have to be convinced that it’s not all about spin.
A little over a week ago, Democratic presidential candidate and Senator (D-NY), Hillary Clinton indicated a desire to employ bloggers throughout the federal government. From Wired:
“We should even have a government blogging team where people in the agencies are constantly telling all of you, the taxpayers, the citizens of America, everything that’s going on so that you have up-to-the-minute information about what your government is doing, so that you too can be informed, and hold the government accountable,” Clinton said.
Clinton made the remark during a packed evening rally held at a health and sports center in Manchester, New Hampshire, Monday night — just hours before voters there began casting votes in the nation’s first primary.
I love blogging and I love live-blogging so the idea that we could watch As The Government Churns on our computers, cellphones and PDAs is seductive at first.
In politics, more information is generally a good thing, and that’s what Web 2.0 helps to provide. The best everyone can hope for, not only during but also after the election, is that new tech tools provide citizens with better ways to understand and watch government. The more transparent government becomes, the less likely it is to be corrupt, and that’s something everyone would like to see.
If it’s government accountability she wants, Sen. Clinton might do well to check out what White House press secretary Dana Perino had to say from Abu Dhabi on her Trip Notes blog:
“Dinner consisted of a lot of food–and it was all cooked in a traditional way, in large metal boxes with very hot coals. The food cooks for a long time–my favorite was the Sea Bream . . . and then for dessert I enjoyed the dates.”
Who knew that our leading government officials are, in their hearts, really repressed food bloggers?
Now just so you don’t think I pulled out the one silly line from Perino’s blog, consider that she also dishes up this observation: “Conversations ranged from educational student exchanges, renewable energy, foreign investment, sustainable development and . . . Seinfeld. Yes, Seinfeld.”
Thus, my blogging friends, the first government blog truly about nothing.
If Clinton gets her way, we’ll probably have many more.
As for me, I tend to put blogs into an RSS feed, and then, that gets full and I only take time to read the ones that really matter to me on any particular day. And then, I realize just how few I follow, of the several hundred I like.
Would Clinton create a Nielson rating system? Would there be new award categories for government blogs in the proliferating blog awards available? Could the citizen users control the employment future, depending on our reviews of each blogger?
But what really struck me is how many federal government jobs would be created if Clinton’s suggestion was implemented. And how would the bloggers be vetted? What background information would be relevant to have to have and to screen out? Would their blogs be eligible for Technorati? Sheesh - that would really throw off those rankings.
And would you trust the government bloggers? I mean, how much do you trust government workers right now? I’ve had excellent interactions with IRS folks around the country for different needs and even the TSA people in the airports aren’t so bad. Most career government employees are probably as trustworthy as anyone else in the U.S.
But government bloggers? Would they be political, presidential or civil service appointments?
Sigh. Blogging. Not as simple as you think, Senator Clinton.
In 1948, Harry Truman got to the White House by railing against a Republican “do-nothing” Congress, and George W. Bush is using the tactic in an effort to stay “relevant” as he prepares to leave the Oval Office.
“Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by,” he complained at his last press conference, a bizarre charge for a President who has vetoed Iraq appropriations bills, S-CHIP health insurance and this week is threatening to send back a water projects bill with enough bipartisan support to override his veto.
There is a kind of spoiled-rich-kid intransigence to the new Bush that is consistent with his behavior for six years when Republicans controlled both Houses and rubber-stamped whatever he wanted. Now, in the face of opposition, he is stamping his feet and threatening to hold his breath if he doesn’t get his way.
“He may decide that all he wants to do is veto and stop progress,” says Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus. “But everybody will know who wants to change things, and who wants to keep them just the way they are.”
But if Congressional Democrats are confident that voters will make that distinction next year, they should look closely at their approval ratings, which are lower than the President’s.
To dramatize his claims about a do-nothing Congress, Harry Truman had called a special session on what was known as “Turnip Planting Day” in Missouri. His opponents obliged with inaction and made his point.
If today’s Democrats want to avoid looking like turnips in ‘08, they had better start moving now.
If the United States pulls out of Iraq without repairing the damage that has been done by the war, what would be the consequences? According to this op-ed from Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, if America fails to “come through” in this regard, Washington can forget achieving what it claims its goal has been: Creating a strong ally at the heart of the troubled Middle East.
“There is a dire need for a rapid restoration of basic services like water and electricity … and unless the American side comes through, they shouldn’t expect Iraqis to seek close ties with them in the future.”
By Fatih Abdulsalam
Translated By James Jacobson
October 24, 2007
Iraq - Azzaman - Original Article (Arabic
Any observer can see that over the past five years, Washington has tried to ally itself with all parties in Iraq. At the height of hostilities, the U.S entered into alliances with every possible faction in order to put itself in a position to escape its predicament.
Although at one point, through its former civil administrator Paul Bremer and over Iraq objections, America preferred some factions at the expense of others [Shiites over Sunni Baathists], believing that this policy would rapidly restore safety and security to parts of Iraq, but also knowing that other areas of Iraq would be set ablaze [Al Anbar, for example].
Then came American attempts to correct this abnormality, which created yet another problem … Factions of the armed resistance agreed to negotiate as a single unit - but only on the condition that in matters of concern, it would be Washington that they would deal with rather than the Iraqi government [Again, Al Anbar is a perfect example].
This reinforced the fact that Washington had become the common political denominator for all sides, just as it had become the common military denominator when government factions had to stabilize the situation on the ground. Since the resistance believes that the government forces they confront are controlled by the occupier, the best option for both sides is to meet with Washington.
During the transition toward a U.S. withdrawal, the question is this: How can Iraqis turn the huge numbers of military forces that occupy the country to their advantage, and then make use of American assistance to rebuild the country afterwards? And by rebuilding, we do not refer to the recent embezzlement of $20 billion [in U.S. aid], but the actual rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure …
Please click here for some musings on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and here to read about an especially noteworthy disaster-related charitable organization.
In response to criticism that I’m picking on President Bush, I’d like to praise him in providing these morsels from his pre-vacation news conference today:
* In a gesture of empathy to the residents of Minneapolis where a major interstate highway bridge collapsed last week, he dismissed dealing with the nation’s 70,000 structurally deficient bridges until Congress changes the way it spends highway money.
* In a gesture of empathy to middle-class homeowners hit with foreclosures in an historic housing market crack-up, he ruled out any direct federal assistance like the enormous tax breaks given the nation’s wealthiest homeowners since he took office.
* Said he is confident in the ability of Pervez Musharraf to crack down on Al Qaeda terrorists at the Afghan border even though the Pakistani strongman has shown no inclination to do so and has been more interested of late in flaming Barack Obama.
* Said the best way to honor former NFL player Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death while serving in Afghanistan “is to find the truth” while failing to note that as commander and chief he has been notably uncurious about the ongoing scandal, including not telling a congressional committee about when he first learned of the Army’s cover-up.
* Described Iran as “a destabilizing influence in the Middle East,” while failing to note the biggest destabilizing influence.
* Said that Guantánamo Bay, the flagship resort in the Rumsfeld Gulag, cannot be closed until other countries agree to take the more than 350 people still there.
* Bristling at a question over whether Attorney General Gonzalez should be held accountable, said “Why would I hold somebody accountable who’s done nothing wrong?”
* Ignoring repeated Republican efforts to block Democratic-sponsored legislation, said he hoped Congress would deliver more legislation “rather than being the investigative body.”
Hurry back to Washington, Mr. President, hurry back.
