September 11, 2008

Random, But Insightful Thoughts*

 

  • The "threats" against us






  • We always hear how powerful the United States is, especially from Republicans. "We have the best military in the word," they say, "the most productive workforce in the world, the best economy in the world and the best country in the world."

    But if we're so strong and so powerful, economically and militarily, why are we obsessed with "threats" from al-Qaeda? Granted, the 9/11 attacks were horrific and al-Qaeda has to be taken seriously and monitored very closely. But they don't have an army and don't have an economy. Heck, they don't even have a country!

    Why was Bush so obsessed with Saddam Hussein? With the U.N. Sanctions and no-fly zones, he was practically a prisoner in his own palaces. And as far as WMD's were concerned, the guy could barely light his oven.

    And why is Bush so frightened of Iran? Their army and economy is a fraction of what our is.

    Here's some perspective:

    Paul Krugman


  • The "threats" against us

    We always hear how powerful the United States is, especially from Republicans. "We have the best military in the word," they say, "the most productive workforce in the world, the best economy in the world and the best country in the world."

    But if we're so strong and so powerful, economically and militarily, why are we obsessed with "threats" from al-Qaeda? Granted, the 9/11 attacks were horrific and al-Qaeda has to be taken seriously and monitored very closely. But they don't have an army and don't have an economy. Heck, they don't even have a country!

    Why was Bush so obsessed with Saddam Hussein? With the U.N. Sanctions and no-fly zones, he was practically a prisoner in his own palaces. And as far as WMD's were concerned, the guy could barely light his oven.

    And why is Bush so frightened of Iran? Their army and economy is a fraction of what our is.

    Here's some perspective:

    Paul Krugman

    ...the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s."

    Fareed Zakaria

    Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

    Krugman and Zakaira both make a great point. Bush fearing al-Qaeda, Iraq and now Iran would be like Mike Tyson fearing a 140 lb. geometry teacher, with the "Coke bottle" glasses to match.

    Yes, protect the country. Be diligent and keep an eye on our adversaries, North Korea included. But obsessing about the "threats" from Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Bush put into office, has actually emboldened Iran and the terrorists and made them stronger and us weaker.

    Heck of a job, Georgie.

    The fact that Bush uses only bluster, intimidation, force and torture to deal with - for lack of a better word - pipsqueaks like al-Qaeda, Iran and Iraq, gives us great insight into his level of intellect (or lack thereof). Because with so much at his disposal - diplomatically, economically and financially (in terms of trade, freezing assets and barring countries from conducting any banking in the U.S.) and our satellite intelligence - Bush could have protected the country without his pugnacious and bellicose temperament, without invading Iraq and without picking a fight with Iran; and gained credibility and
    good will around the world in the process. In fact, our powerful military could have been used as a threat of our own by making it clear to our advisories, their neighbors and their friends, that their country would be annihilated and their regimes toppled if they were directly or indirectly responsible for an attack on the Unites States.

    But Bush didn't use his brain or any of the resources available to him because:

    1) He's mentally ill (I'm serious).
    2) As a typical conservative, he's unable think intelligently or pragmatically.
    3) Conservatives only know how to act like immature school yard bullies.
    4) Conservatives have to act like school yard bullies to keep their base angry. Not at terrorists and not at Iran. Angry at liberals.

    As this blog has shown over and over again, the GOP needs enemies for the same reason a dog owner needs a leash. For 30 years it was the the Soviet Union, a.k. a. the "Evil Empire." And when it dissolved, "liberals" became the enemy. Since then they've added Bill and Hillary Clinton, the so called "liberal" media," Hollywood, France, environmentalists, (big) government, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann and anyone else that has the nerve to prove Republicans wrong.
    They're used to keep the Republican base perpetually foaming at the mouth. So by invading Iraq, torturing prisoners, taking on Iran and now Russia - while invoking patriotism, "freedom" and "democracy" every step of the way - the party leaders can yank that leash to get their base followers to attack liberals.

    So despite their tough talk on terrorism, Bush and the Republican Party don't want to end it because that would leave them without an enemy to accuse "liberals" of being "soft" on. Therefore, it's in their politically selfish interests, twisted as they are, to have the Iranian "threat" and all the "threats" we face reverberating on Fox "News" because Republicans ultimately need confrontation. Not with terrorists and not with Iran. With liberals.

    Ironically, as Iran is being made out to be the next threat we must eradicate before it's too late:

    ...(In Iraq) the administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Badr militia against Muqtada al-Sadr, when, as Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, the ISCI “was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards.” The historian Gareth Porter writes that the Badr militia is the "most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq." ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim "met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation." (here)

    Why does George Bush love the Iranians?

  • The White House: Waterboarding isn't torture

    If waterboarding isn't "torture" then what's its purpose, to give prisoners a bath? Another words, if the objective is to "get information" why would a prisoner "give it up" if waterboarding isn't so bad?

    I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!

    But let me see if I have this straight: it's alright when Bush tortures terrorists, but if terrorists torture American soldiers....

    I guess it's okay when Republicans do it because after World War II several Japanese soldiers were convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war (two wrongs make a right only in the immature, illogical hypocritical Republican world).

    Of course, conservatives have their knee-jerk talking points all prepared: "If a terrorist had knowledge of an imminent attack, liberals wouldn't torture him to stop it and save lives!"

    First, when has something like that happened? A vast majority of the "terrorists" we've captured are either innocent (one-third to one-half of the prisoners at Guantanamo were) or just foot soldiers and know nothing of an "imminent attack." In fact, they would know about as much as our soldiers would know about Bush's plans to bomb Iran. So again, if it's alright for Bush to torture prisoners "enemy combatants" anyone he wants to get information on an "imminent terrorist attack" they wouldn't know about, would it be alright for say an Iranian-backed Shiite group in Iraq to torture an American solider so they can find out when Bush's "imminent attack" on Iran is going to be?

    Second, by the end of 1944 the Allies had captured thousands of German soldiers. Were any of them tortured to find out what Hitler's plans were or to get information as to when and where he'd start an offensive in Europe (the "Battle of the Bulge")?

    Third, for arguments sake, let's say we do capture a terrorist days or even hours before an "imminent attack." Does any conservative really think he'd talk just so he can stay alive? Heck, these guys want to die. If anything, they'd give false information just to send us on a wild goose chase.

    I told you using facts, logic and hypocrisy to make Republicans look foolish was easy.

    P.S. At the same time we're torturing prisoners, George Bush keeps telling us that the terrorists "hate us because of our values."
    (Credit Robert Scheer for that one.)

    December, 2008 insert:

    ...I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new (interrogation) techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

    Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

    I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans...(bold mine)

    - Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym for security reasons), interrogation leader in Iraq in 2006.
  • "Learn from economic history or you'll be doomed to repeat it"

    When Ronald Regan took office he cut taxes and it increased the deficit. Despite raising taxes later on we had a recession in the early 1990s.

    When Bill Clinton took office he raised taxes without a vote from a single Republican because they basically said the economic sky was going to fall in. As usual, they weren't just wrong, they couldn't have been more wrong. We ran a surplus in the 1990s, Clinton paid down the debt and it turned out to be one of the best economic decades in American history.

    Joe Conason:

    ...Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator whose proud authorship of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 was immediately followed by severe recession...Among Gramm’s final speeches in the Senate was an impassioned rant warning that the Clinton economic program would lead to unemployment, inflation and higher deficits. He could not have been more wrong, of course—an embarrassing historical footnote that is significant only because he now serves as chief economic counselor to the McCain campaign.

    When George W. Bush took office he cut taxes and kept cutting them despite 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and New Orleans was lost to a Hurricane. As a result, the deficit and debt exploded and the economy during his seven years in office has been somewhere between recession and decent.

    Does anyone see a pattern here? Cutting taxes is what gets the country into economic trouble and tax increases are needed to get us out of it.

    And yet, Republicans still call for tax cuts, in a time of war no less. And it's disappointing that Barak Obama is calling for them as well (more on that below).

  • Republicans and the economy

    Conservative columnist Clive Crook:

    It is worth remembering where the blame for this neutering of fiscal policy lies: squarely with the Bush administration. At the start of this decade, the budget stood in surplus to the tune of 2.4 per cent of GDP. On unchanged policy, this was expected to grow to a surplus of 4.5 per cent of GDP by 2008. This year's actual deficit of 3 per cent of GDP therefore represents a worsening of more than 7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $1,000bn. Almost all of this deterioration is due to policy: to tax cuts, spending increases, and their associated debt-service costs.

    That projected surplus was a priceless gift to the White House. It offered the Bush administration ample scope for outlays on homeland security and other unforeseen priorities, and moderate tax cuts as well, all within a budget balanced over the course of the business cycle. Instead, the administration knowingly opted for outrageous fiscal excess - adding insult to injury with its phony tax-cut sunset provisions, designed for no other purpose than to disguise the long-term fiscal implications. Eight years on, this startling record of fiscal irresponsibility has all but taken fiscal policy off the table as an available response to the slowdown.

    If Republicans are such economic whizzes, why do wages remain flat, job losses mount, family debt hitting record highs and more and more people are losing their pensions and health insurance? Why are the housing and mortgage markets collapsing, grocery and energy prices rising, the deficit and debt exploding and the dollar devalued?

    Oh, right. It's the Democrat's fault.

    Also, why are Republicans considered to be such econmic whizzes at all when they have such a horrible record in and out of government?

    P.S. According to conservatives, President Carter was a total failure and the worst President ever. President Reagan was a God and the best President ever. However...

    Paul Krugman:

    Jimmy Carter’s overall economic record was much better than most people realize — the average economic growth rate under his administration was 3.4 percent per year, slightly higher than the growth rate under Ronald Reagan and far better than growth under either Bush.
    Take that conservatives!

  • They're wrong, but I wish they were right

    At times, Republican talking points are so twisted and convoluted that what they say isn't true. But I wish it was. For instance:

    1) Every Republican during their campaigns: "Obama (and the Democrats) will raise taxes."

    Yea, so? What's wrong with that? President Clinton raised taxes and look what happened. But Republicans always say "Democrats will raise taxes" (they have to because they can't run on their record).

    As far Obama is concerned, for the most part it's not true.

    While he's called for repealing Bush's tax cuts - viewed as a "tax increase" for Republicans - and closing corporate loopholes, he's also called for tax cuts where the middle class would benefit most.

    If Obama and the Democrats raised taxes across the board, including gas taxes (which should have been raised years ago), it would play right into the Republican's hands. And that's not happening, unfortunately.

    Of course, no one likes higher taxes, but since the GOP has no intention of governing responsibly it's easy for them to campaign on tax cuts and promising to "never to vote for any tax increase." What we need are adults who won't tell the country what it wants to hear and will raise taxes when they're needed; now especially. We are a country at war, you know.

    So I hope the Republicans are right. But with Obama pandering to the voters himself with his own round of tax cuts, they're not.

    P.S. If Republicans wouldn't raise taxes when we're running a surplus, wouldn't raise them after the country was attacked, wouldn't raise them while we're fighting two wars and wouldn't raise them when we lose a city to a hurricane, when would they?

    2) Republicans for the next four months: "Obama's a liberal!"

    Yea, so? What's so bad about being "liberal" (other then the Republican Party turning it into a dirty word)? It's not as if conservatism has had such a wonderful track record over the years decades.

    But Republicans are wrong because if Obama's a liberal, he wouldn't be liberal enough.

    The country and our government is in shambles. That's what happens when you lie the country into an unnecessary war that turns into a colossal disaster, cut taxes in wartime, cut government for the last 30 years, "let the free market decide" and your only priorities are to create diversions from your disastrous record and to keep your base in a perpetual state of anger at liberals, the so called "liberal media," Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, France, environmentalists,(big) government, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann. And liberalism is the only way to rebuild our country. And I'm not talking about affirmative action liberalism or union pandering liberalism. Not at all. What I mean is strong federal leadership that sets a course and implements long term plans (without influence from lobbyists and the special interests) on health care, energy, transportation, the country's infrastructure, power grids and water systems, the environment and even banking and finance. But to do that we must rebuild the government's infrastructure first - its departments, its agencies, its regulations and its oversight - all of which has been dismantled by the Republican Party over the last three decades (on behalf of the extremely wealthy and the extremely powerful).

    So yes, we need Franklin Roosevelt's "tax and spend, big government" liberalism desperately. Therefore, I hope Barack Obama wins and is as liberal that the Republicans say he is. But they're wrong because he won't be. Not in the least.

    July, 2009 insert: With health care moving through Congress, Republicans (naturally) have brought out their usual, repetitive shouting points: "socialized medicine" (how come these Republicans don't and won't forgo Medicare?), "rationing" (as if that's not happening now), "big government" (as if the "free market" has done such a great job running the country's health care system over the last 200 years) and "the liberals want government to get between you and your doctor" (as if there aren't any insurance bureaucrats who stand "between you and your doctor" and deny coverage).

    What Republicans really want to block is the "public option," where any American can buy into a public not for profit insurance plan (Republicans oppose "competition!" Go figure.). They see that as the first step towards "the government taking over the health care system," another shouting point designed to scare, enrage and rile up their base against those evil "big government" liberals.

    But "the government" will never take over the system entirely; or even partly. So Republicans are wrong (what else is new?). But I wish they were right. Because one way or another, the government has to get involved. (End of July, 2009 insert.)

    3) Rudy Giuliani during his Presidential campaign on the war on terrorism:

    ...the Democrats want to put us back on defense" (John McCain, Sarah Palin and the rest of the GOP congressional candidates, I'm sure, will tell us how we must "remain on the offensive" against terrorism).

    Guiliani was wrong, but I wish he was right.

    He's wrong because the Democrats believe that the public believes in the myth perpetuated by the GOP (and so called "liberal" media) that Democrats are "soft on terrorism." So should Barak Obama win, he'll have to be a hawk just to appear tough to convince the public that he's not "soft on terrorism."

    I wish Guliani is proven to be right though because fighting this war offensively for the last seven years hasn't exactly made us safer. In fact, it's had the opposite effect.

    Due to the Iraq war and Bush's incompetence, al-Qaeda is stronger then it was since 9/11 and stronger in Pakistan. The Middle East is in disarray, Hamas and Hezbullah have gained political power and Bush has become the poster child for terrorist recruitment and fundraising, while wrecking the military in the process.

    Another heck of a job, Georgie.

    Since al-Qaeda, at least, doesn't have a regime to protect, a country to defend and nothing to lose (Hamas and Hezbullah didn't have those things until Bush came along), the "war on terror" is a war that for all practical purposes has to be fought passively, preventively, practically, and defensively, like this, and not like this.

    Obviously, there's times when military action is necessary such as bombing training camps, covert missions to kill terrorists and their leaders, to disrupt weapons and drug trafficking and knocking down doors, whether they're in Karachi, London or Paterson, NJ. But it would play a small role against al-Qaeda and terrorism in general.

    So I hope Guliani's right. But unfortunately, he's not.

    Note: As I said above, it's not in the GOP's interest to actually "win" the "war on terror." And we never will fighting it as impractically and recklessly as they are (for the most part Israel's been fighting terrorism offensively for 60 years). But it's still a win-win for them. Talk tough, threaten wars, start wars and fight wars that never end. That will not only create more terrorists and more terrorist threats that we'll have to send troops after, but it'll give Republicans more opportunities to "talk tough" on terrorism, wrap themselves in the flag and blast Democrats. Their base will take it from there by screaming insults at liberals. So it's a moronic cycle that will keep repeating itself. But that's exactly how the GOP wants it. And needs it.

    What a way to govern on matters of national security, huh? But this is why...

  • Bush uses the "terrorist threat" for political gain

    In an era when politicians bend over backwards to take credit for good news (they had nothing to do with) and totally ignore bad news, Bush has brought attention the horrible job he's done on terrorism by publicizing it repeatedly (and here and here, just to link to a few).

    With politicians and especially this White House in a perpetual state of spin, this is remarkable because no politician, let alone a President, will ever go anywhere near anything negative because it would reflect poorly on themselves. But Bush brings up the terrorist threats - exaggerating them or just making them up - to install fear and divert attention from the "bad news" he and his ruthless party are responsible for.

    The New York Times Bob Herbert also sees the Republican Party's excellence in creating diversions:

    Here’s the deal: (Vice Presidential nominee) Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She’s meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign — the awful state of the nation after eight years of Republican rule. The Republicans are brilliant at distractions. Willie Horton was a distraction. The chatter about gays, guns and God has been a long-running distraction. And we all remember the Swift-boat campaign.

    But most important, by highlighting the (bogus) terrorist threats and the fear that comes with it - with some patriotism sprinkled in, of course - and then talking tough on terrorism ("bomb, bomb, bomb"), gets the Republican Party base so angry at the "soft on terrorism" liberals who "hate America" (October, 2008 insert: here), that they won't hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for the horrible job they've done on terrorism in the first place.

    But there's more to this.

    From the other side of their mouth, the Bush Administration has the nerve to pat themselves on the back for the (cough, cough) great job they've done on terrorism because we haven't "haven't been attacked in seven years." So they're giving themselves free pass on 9/11 and the rest of the attacks around the world since then.

    How can Bush possibly have done such a good job on terrorism if there's still so many "terrorists" out there that "are plotting against us?" So either Bush's "threats" are made up (for political reasons) or he's really done a lousy job. Hey Republicans, which is it?

    I said using logic to make Repubublicans look foolish was easy. The scary part is they don't care.

  • Friedman: "Swift-boat" Osama bin Laden

    When John Kerry ran for President and Sen. Max Cleland ran for re-election in Georgia, the Republican party "swift-boated" them by ridiculing their service to their country - imagine that, Republicans ridiculing military service! - to rile up their base during election time.

    Kerry and Clelend were no match for the GOP propaganda machine (the voters should take much of the blame too for believing that crap). But give credit to the New York Time's Tom Friedman for pointing out that Bush did not "swift-boat" Osama bin Laden.

    While we had the world's sympathy and support after 9/11, even from the Arab world, Bush didn't have Karl Rove turn bin Laden into the worlds worst villain even though the opportunity was there to do so. Instead, his priority was to have Rove turn two Vietnam veterans into traitors. And in the meantime, bin Laden's popularity was allowed to grow.

    Why does George Bush hate Americans and love bin Laden?

  • The Gen. Petraeus MoveOn ad

    I don't know what the big deal was. Everyone knew that Gen. Patreaus was going into those hearings spinning like a top for the White House. So what was so bad about MoveOn trying to get our government to hold his feet to the fire?

    The ad wasn't disrespectful and it wasn't out of line. Not in the least. So what was the big deal?

    Of course Republicans who always need diversions from themselves, and this hearing especially, made it one with help of a complicit "liberal" media. And the Democrats being the wimps they are, went along with it.

    A disgrace all around...except from MoveOn.

    P.S.: Nine U.S. Soldiers were killed in Iraq the same day that the ad appeared in the New York Times.

    The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the soldiers within the week: 2
    The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the ad within the week: over 500

    If there's a "liberal" media, I'd love to know where it is.

  • Bush all political, all the time

    In his seven years as President of the United States, has he ever acted like one? I mean, has he ever given a non-political, non-partisan speech in front of a non-handpicked audience? I'm serious.

    And that says a lot. Because no matter what he's done to the country, he's supposed to be President of the United States, not a conservative radio talk show host.

    +/- show/hide this post


  • << Home