skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Iraq Poised to Explode by Robert DreyfussWhile everyone’s looking at Iraq’s effect on American politics — and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force — let’s take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn’t pretty.
Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq’s political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq — mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves — or it can make things a lot more violent.
There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin’ Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq’s Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the US-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa (”Awakening”) movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
Perhaps the issue of Kirkuk and the Kurds is most dangerous. Last week, the Kurds walked out of parliament to protest a law passed by parliament to govern the provincial elections. The law passed 127-13, but it was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says : “The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen.” He cites Al-Hayat, an Iraqi newspaper, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq’s north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That’s not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds’ ability to press their gains there.
The election law was supported by Sadr’s bloc and backed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraq National List. Another nationalist party, the National Dialogue Council, has demanded the ouster of President Talabani over his veto of the law. Other Iraqi parties are backing the now-vetoed law, too, which also restricts the use of Islamic religious symbols by political parties seeking to corral illiterate, religious voters.
Because of all this, it now looks like there won’t be provincial elections this year at all. The ruling bloc of Shiite religious parties and Kurdish warlords is split over the crisis, weakening Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the ruling coalition are trying to patch things up. I don’t think they’ll succeed. Many Shiites in the ruling bloc, including ISCI, have criticized the law as divisive, but as Arabs it’s hard for them to endorse a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk. ISCI and the Badr Brigade, its armed wing, are holding parlays to decide what to do. Interestingly, all three members of the ruling presidential council, including Talabani, the IIP’s Hashemi, and ISCI’s Adel Abdel Mahdi, voted to veto the law, putting ISCI and the IIP on record as supporting the Kurds. Bad for them politically.
Madman McCain's New Tactic Savage Obama's CharacterThe Politico reports that, having tried unsuccessfully to paint Barack Obama as a liberal flip-flopper, John McCain is getting personal:
As Senator Barack Obama traveled overseas, the campaign against him appeared to take a decisive new turn with Senator John McCain zeroing in on his Democratic opponent's character.
In a year when polls show an easy victory for a generic Democratic candidate, McCain has until now been loathe to employ the tack many strategists see as essential and which anonymous e-mailers and commenters with no apparent links to his campaign have been practicing since last summer: hitting Obama not on his record or his platform, but on his values and person.
The Democrat's Achilles' heel in this model is an inchoate sense among some voters that the new arrival on the national stage with the unusual biography--and who's the first black nominee from either party--isn't American enough.
...
Whatever his motives, McCain's new hit on his foe's patriotism hints at two years of whispered, viral rumors and myths about Obama centered on his patriotism and American values, or, more to the point, his lack thereof. The emails --cataloged in snopes.com's lengthy Obama section and Obama's own "fight the smears" page --often have contradictory particulars, but the thrust is clear: Obama, various false emails claim, is not really a natural-born American citizen; is not really a Christian, and refuses to pledge allegiance to the American flag.
Not all Republicans think this is a good idea. Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that McCain is on "thin ground," and the Washington Post quotes a strategist questioning the new tactics:
One GOP strategist with close ties to McCain's campaign said the new line of attack reflected the operation's "schizophrenic" nature. He said that tendency was also on display last week, as McCain spoke at length about media coverage of Obama rather than sticking with his plan to focus on the economy.
"They couldn't help themselves," the strategist said, adding that the ad over the hospital visit is "churlish and unlike McCain, and hardly will resonate with the swing voters who are going to decide this election." The strategist continued: "They're doing it because the candidate, and the campaign, is not happy with where they are and they're lashing out."
If McCain hopes to win the election, the strategist added, "he needs to be a happy warrior."
Who in the Bush administration broke the law, and who could be prosecuted? The recent release of Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side revealed that a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross determined "categorically" that the CIA used torture, as defined by American and international law, in questioning al-Qaida suspect Abu Zubaydah. The question of criminal liability for Bush-administration officials has since been in the news. It's also getting play because retired Gen. Antonio Taguba, lead Army investigator of the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, wrote in a recent report, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes." (Update: And today, the ACLU released three new memos from the Department of Justice and the CIA, which for the first time show DoJ explicitly authorizing "enhanced" interrogation tactics for use on specific detainees. One of the memos states, in this context, that "interrogation techniques, including the waterboard, do not violate the Torture Statute.")
MSNBC's Witt did not note McCain falsehoods in Anbar statement or in later campaign statement purporting to defend it
MSNBC Live anchor Alex Witt uncritically repeated a July 23 statement made by McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds in response to criticism Sen. John McCain has received for a false statement he made during a July 22 interview on CBS, the video clip of which CBS edited to expunge the falsehood. In his statement defending McCain's comments from the previous day, Bounds misrepresented the controversy, falsely suggesting that McCain said something different from what he actually said, which itself was false. Witt neither noted that Bounds did not accurately represent McCain's original statement, nor that McCain's statement was false.
Media outlets uncritically reported McCain's false assertion that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan"The Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com's The Trail both quoted Sen. John McCain's false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." McClatchy Newspapers -- apparently quoting from the prepared text of McCain's January 19 speech -- reported that McCain said Obama "once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan." In fact, in an August 2007 speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Mother’s Milk of Politics Turns SourOnce again we’re closing the barn door after the horse is out and gone. In Washington, the Federal Reserve has finally acted to stop some of the predatory lending that exploited people’s need for money. And like Rip Van Winkle, Congress is finally waking up from a long doze under the warm sun of laissez faire economics. That’s French for turning off the alarm until the burglars have made their getaway.
Philosophy is one reason we do this to ourselves; when you worship market forces as if they were the gods of Olympus, then the gods can do no wrong — until, of course, they prove to be human. Then we realize we should have listened to our inner agnostic and not been so reverent in the first place.
But we also get into these terrible dilemmas — where the big guys step all over everyone else and the victims are required to pay the hospital bills — because we refuse to recognize the connection between money and politics. This is the great denial in democracy that may ultimately mean our ruin. We just don’t seem able to see or accept the fact that money drives policy. It’s no wonder that Congress and the White House have been looking the other way as the predators picked the pockets of unsuspecting debtors. Mega banking and investment firms have been some of the biggest providers of the cash vital to keeping incumbents in office. There isn’t much appetite for biting — or regulating — the manicured hand that feeds them.
Guess who gave the most money to candidates in this 2007-08 federal election cycle? That’s right, the financial services and real estate industries. They stuffed nearly $250 million dollars into the candidate coffers. The about-to-be-bailed-out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together are responsible for about half the country’s $12 trillion mortgage debt. Lisa Lerer of Politico.com reports that over the past decade, the two financial giants with the down home names have spent nearly $200 million on campaign contributions and lobbying. According to Lerer, “They’ve stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama’s original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House.”
Last Sunday’s New York Times put it as bluntly as anyone ever has: “In Washington, Fannie and Freddie’s sprawling lobbying machine hired family and friends of politicians in their efforts to quickly sideline any regulations that might slow their growth or invite greater oversight of their business practices. Indeed, their rapid expansion was, at least in part, the result of such artful lobbying over the years.”
What a beautiful term: “artful lobbying.” It means honest graft.
Look at any of the important issues bogged down in the swampland along the Potomac and you don’t have to scrape away the muck too deeply to find that campaign cash is at the core of virtually every impasse. We’re spending more than six percent of our salaries on gasoline, and global warming keeps temperatures rising but the climate bill was killed last month and President Bush just got rid of his daddy’s longtime ban on offshore drilling. Only in a fairy tale would anyone believe it’s just coincidence that the oil and gas industries have donated more than $18 million to federal candidates this year, three-quarters of it going to Republicans. They’ve spent more than $26 million lobbying this year — that’s seven times more than environmental groups have spent.
Follow the money — it goes from your gas tank to the wine bars and steak houses of DC, where the payoffs happen. Or ponder that FISA surveillance legislation that just passed the Senate. It let the big telecommunications companies off the hook for helping the government wiretap our phones and laptops without warrants. Over the years those telecom companies have given Republicans in the House and Senate $63 million dollars and Democrats $49 million. No wonder that when their lobbyists reach out and place a call to Congress, they never get a busy signal. Do the same without making a big contribution, and you’ll be put on “hold” until the embalmer shows up to claim your cold corpse.
The late journalist Meg Greenfield once wrote that trying to get money out of politics is akin to the quest for a squirrel-proof birdfeeder. No matter how clever and ingenious the design, the squirrels are always one mouthful ahead of you.
Here’s an example. Corporations are limited in how much they can contribute to candidate’s campaigns, right? But someone’s always figuring out how to open another back door. So Democrats have turned to Steve Farber. He’s using the resources of his big K Street law and lobbying factory to help raise $40 million for the Democratic National Convention. Half a dozen of his clients have signed up, including AT&T, Comcast, Western Union and Google. Their presence at the convention will offer lots of opportunities to curry favors at private parties while ordinary delegates wander Denver looking for the nearest Wendy’s. By the way, just as you pay at the gas pump for those energy lobbyists to wine and dine your representatives in Washington, you’ll pay on April 15 for Denver — corporations can deduct their contributions.
Another back door — one quite familiar to Steve Farber and his ilk — leads to presidential libraries. Bill Clinton’s in Arkansas required serious political bucks, and we’re not talking penny ante fines for overdue books. Again, there’s no limit to the amount a donor can give and no obligation to reveal their names. Clinton’s cost $165 million and we still don’t know the identities of everyone who put up the dough, even though four years ago a reporter stumbled on a list that included Arab businessmen, Saudi royals, Hollywood celebs and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Taiwan. Hmmm….
Once George W. is out of the White House, he, too, plans what one newspaper described as a “legacy polishing” institute — a presidential library and think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas costing half a billion dollars. Last Sunday, The Times of London released a remarkable video of one of the president’s buddies and fund raisers — Stephen Payne, a political appointee named to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
The Times set him up in a video sting, and taped a conversation in which Payne offers an exiled leader of Kyrgyzstan meetings with such White House luminaries as Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice — provided he makes a whopping contribution to the Bush Library, and an even bigger payment to Payne’s lobbying firm. Payne tells him, “It will be somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush Library… That’s gonna be a show of ‘we’re interested, we’re your friends, we’re still your friends.’”
The White House denies any connection between library contributions and access to officials and harrumphed at the preposterous idea that Payne had a close relationship with the President. Unfortunately, there’s at least one photo of Payne with the President cutting brush at his Crawford ranch. There’s also one of Payne demonstrating more guts than common sense, on a rifle range with Deadeye Dick Cheney.
Meet Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) Oklahoma's Biggest Assclown Currently, “Coburn has holds on about 80 bills” which are “non-controversial, bipartisan bills that he just doesn’t like.” Here is a small sampling:
- Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act (S.911): The bill, named “in memory of Caroline Pryce Walker, daughter of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce (R-OH), who succumbed to neuroblastoma in 1999 at age nine,” authorizes $30 million over five years, “to significantly increase federal investment into childhood cancer research.”
- The ALS Registry Act of 2007 (S.1382): Creates a single nationwide patient registry for incidences of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, to improve ALS research, disease management and the development of standards of care.
- The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act (S.1183): The bill coordinates and collaborates paralysis research, prevents research redundancies and hastens the discovery of better treatments and cures.
- Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2008 (S.999): Amends the Public Health Service Act “to improve stroke prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.”
