Staff Editorial from truthout.org, 20 March 2010:

We are still shocked. We were never awed. We have not adjusted. The senseless waste of our blood and treasure, our honor and our reputation continue. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom – the latter unleashed seven years ago today – have morphed into a singleOperation Enduring Occupation, set to bankrupt this country financially as well as morally, to destroy our own security as it has that of the over 31 million people who populate Iraq and 32 million people of Afghanistan.

The Price of Freedom

Operations sold to the American people as protecting our freedoms have been used as part of a corrupt apparatus – like every other protection racket since the beginning of time – to restrict, reduce and infringe on those freedoms, not only the civil liberties enshrined in the early English common law (habeas corpus, trial by jury ) and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (free speech, free association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), but also our so-called freedom to shop (the “ultimate repudiation of terrorism” dixit George Bush), undermined not only by the financial collapse and ensuing economic crisis, but also by the inviolability of the federal military budget. Our language has been deformed (“Homeland,” “preventative war,” “enemy combatant,” “enhanced interrogation,” “freedom,” “security”); our society, militarized and privatized – with the legitimate government monopoly on violence outsourced to military contractors.

Just as heavily-armed Blackwater troops were immediately deployed to Katrina-devastated New Orleans, and the San Diego police department deployed the same long range acoustic devices used for crowd control in Iraq at recent town hall forum there, we expect it will only be a matter of time before other innovations tested against the Iraqis, such as predator drones, are used in operations against US citizens in our homes and cities.

And as Benjamin Franklin might have agreed (“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” {notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1775}), perhaps we deserve what has happened to us for allowing ourselves to be cowed into colluding in the ultimate crime against humanity, one which the Nuremberg tribunal powerfully condemned: “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Justifying Destruction

The Netherlands’ Davids Commission was set up by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende in order to avoid a full parliamentary inquiry into the Dutch role in the invasion of Iraq – the sole independent assessment of the war in Iraq’s legality – “the authoritative view of seven commissioners, including the former president of the Dutch Supreme Court, a former judge of the European Court of justice, and two legal academics” - “entirely rejects the central argument used to justify the … claim that there was a legal basis for the invasion”:

The [UN] Security Council Resolutions on Iraq passed during the 1990s did not constitute a mandate for the US-British military intervention in 2003. Despite the existence of certain ambiguities, the wording of Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the government did) as authorizing individual Member States to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions, without authorization from the Security Council.

The Dutch government’s often repeated view that a second resolution was “politically desirable, but not legally indispensable” is not easy to uphold. The wording and scope of Resolution 1441 cannot be interpreted as such a second resolution. Hence, the military action had no sound mandate under international law.

“The rule of law,” something George Bush himself promoted as one of those freedoms requiring “protection,” has been wholly distorted as lawyers, security agencies and the press focused on how to abet the executive in getting whatever he wants, including – most shamefully – torture (“Americans were indeed frightened after Sept. 11, and the Bush administration was in a great rush to torture prisoners.”) Any idea we may have entertained that no one is above the law, the very concept that lawbreaking should be punished, has been wholly shattered by the conduct of this war and the current administration’s near blanket refusal to investigate, let alone prosecute war crimes – due in part, perhaps, to the complicity of its Democratic allies in Congress.

Of course, the loss of our troops (over 4,200 dead and 30,000 wounded) and treasure (three trillion dollars according to economics Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz), the perversion of our language, the mangling of our laws, the broken bodies and tortured brains of our veterans really bear no comparison with the suffering we have inflicted on the citizens of Iraq.

The Folly of War

We don’t know how many Iraqi civilians have died, but, in 2006, The Lancet estimated 655,000 Iraqi deaths imputable to the war and Opinion Research Business – a UK polling firm – estimated 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths, these on top of the 500,000 “excess deaths” occasioned by the previous US sanction regime. Over two million Iraqis have been displaced. Iraqi professionals of all kinds have been disproportionately targeted by killers and kidnappers<please link this phrase to the Lieven De Cauter submission whenever we publish it>, Iraq’s infrastructure smashed; no amount of “reconstruction” funds – unknown quantities of which were siphoned off by corrupt American and Iraqi officials, military and businesspeople – have succeeded in restoring potable water, reliable power or any real security to ordinary Iraqi citizens. World heritage archaeological sites have been destroyed and plundered. The outcome of the latest Iraqi elections is not yet clear, but no outcome can return nine-year-old Ali Kinani – the youngest victim in Blackwater’s unprovoked Nisour Square assault on civilians - to the parents who loved him, and apparently no outcome is foreseen that will halt Iran’s burgeoning political, military and economic influence, suggesting that on purely geopolitical, strategic grounds, the Iraq war has served as a giant Iranian tar baby.

Surely, the Iraq war’s only obvious “successes” – the enrichment of the military industrial complex at the expense of ordinary citizens, the implementation of an ever more pervasive and intrusive “security” regime at home and the insurance of a second Bush term – could have been achieved without dragging the long-suffering people of Iraq into it. People – it may still need to be pointed out – who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and harbored no weapons of mass destruction.

To reprise our founder Franklin again, “All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones.”

The American is not the first empire to have been corrupted from within and exhausted from without by foreign wars. And unless we wind down the war machine now, we shall surely – and presently – not be the last.

Crossposted at Care2.com ~ Originally published 6 March 2010

President Barack Obama outlined his administration’s proposal Wednesday, seeking to bring reform of the American health care system to a successful conclusion.  Considering  the recent spurious criticisms from reform opponents, it appears that, indeed, the arduous process of steering health care reform through Congress may well be nearing its end.

It’s really only become apparent in the last week or so.  Leading up to and during the White House bipartisan health care summit, Republican politicians have repeatedly acknowledged the need for reform, but that Democrats should scrap their health care bills and “start over.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats began to show some spine leading up to the summit, signaling their willingness to use the budget reconciliation process to pass reform, if necessary.  Consequently, Republicans’ concerns over the use of reconciliation became more prominent within their media talking points, and at the Blair House summit where the issue was frequently raised. Since the summit’s conclusion, however, GOP concerns over reconciliation have evolved into what appears to be panic.

Republicans are decrying the potential use of the parliamentary measure, attempting to gloss over the GOP’s historical record, having happily employed the measure when it suited them.

Further, in their attempts to rationalize their hypocrisy — insisting that the pending health care legislation is beyond the parameters of reconciliation — they have engaged in a campaign of historical revisionism.  Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) wrote an op-ed, published Mar. 2 in the increasingly subjective Washington Post, is a prime example of how Republicans are falsely framing the historical use of reconciliation.

Regarding Hatch’s opinion piece, Steve Benen of The Washington Monthlywrites, “Hatch is simply and unambiguously wrong.  And the Post published his demonstrably false arguments anyway…” From Benen’s Political Animal blog, Mar. 2:

The whole pitch is absurd to the point of being insulting. Hatch has repeatedly supported up-or-down votes on legislation large and small. Indeed, he thought it was a great idea for delivering massive tax breaks for the rich — packages that cost far more than health care reform now — but whines incessantly when Dems consider the same procedure to pass a modest fix related to health care.

Hatch really ought to be embarrassed.

But Hatch, and those who mimic his intellectually dishonest argument, aren’t embarrassed, as Rachel Maddow deftly explains in this clip from her Mar. 2 MSNBC broadcast:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Adding emphasis to his lack of shame, Hatch tweeted his response to Maddow’s damning assessment.  Here’s his tweet by way of PoliticusUSA:

@maddow ran me down on her show last night over my views on health care reform. Wonderful badge of honor.

However, if you watched the above clip you’d know that Maddow’s assessment had nothing to do with his “views.”  Rather, as Maddow indicated in her response tweet, it was Hatch’s misstating of the facts which were at issue.

Sadly, no matter how plainly the GOP’s efforts to falsely frame reconciliation are laid out, they’ll continue beyond the bill’s passage.  And, as Maddow put it in the above clip, “It’s going to pass.”

What I’m struggling with is, how could Republicans expect anything different from the Democrats?  It seems to me that consistently obstructing Democratic efforts on health care — and everything else, for that matter, guaranteed that reconciliation would be used.

They’ve already telegraphed their intentions to use health reform’s passage as a campaign issue in the 2010 midterms, asserting that using reconciliation will cost the Democrats votes.  However, wouldn’t a failure by the Democrats to use any means at their disposal to conclude a year’s worth of work cost them more?

Frankly, the GOP needs to get over it.  I think is was Jon Stewart who put it best.  Following Obama’s 2008 election to the presidency, Stewart reminded the already whining congressional Repbulicans of what their electoral losses meant.  “You’re in the minority,” Stewart said.  “It’s supposed to taste like a s#!t sandwich.”

See Also:

• Igor Volsky, “Republicans ‘Agree On About 80% Of the Issues,’ But Want to ‘Start Over’ on Health Reform.“  ThinkProgress.org, 26 February 2010.
• Watch Rachel Maddow’s March 3 follow up segment regarding her tiff with Sen. Hatch at MSNBC‘s site.

Frank Rich made an interesting observation about Sarah Palin’s crib notes incident at the Tea Party Convention ~

You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.

If so, mission accomplished. Her sleight of hand gave the anti-Palin chorus another prod to deride her as an empty-headed, subliterate clown, and her fans another cue to rally…

Read More–> Frank Rich, “Palin’s Cunning Sleight of Hand.” NYTimes.com, 13 Feb. 2010

While my take on this matter is nowhere near as well written as Rich’s , I suggested similarly on Feb. 11… and took bunch of crap for it.  (Just sayin’)

Originally Published at Care2.com‘s Political Causes Blog, 4 September 2009:

I was sitting on a train, head buried in my laptop, minding my own business when an oddly dressed man burst in from the next car.  Nobody else seemed to take notice, which was peculiar because he appeared to be wearing an early nineteenth century costume as if he were some kind of museum tour guide.  The man looked about the train car, eventually focusing his gaze directly upon me!  He glanced down at my computer, then at me again.  He sat in the empty seat next to me and said, “My name is Francis Scott Key, are you a journalist?”

Of course my initial reaction was incredulous.  The absurdity of it:  Key, author of the poem that eventually became the “Star Spangled Banner,” National Anthem of the U.S., was long dead.  Unsure what to make of this character, I proceeded to lie, telling him that I was a journalist.  He could have asked me if I was an astronaut, and I would have done the same.

“I need to get something off my chest, and I’d like you to write it down,” he said.

“Certainly, Mr. Key. Pleased to make your acquaintance,” I told him, having decided to humor the guy.  I was bored, and I was stuck on a train for the next hour, at least.  He was dressed like a dandy and appeared to be harmless.

“I assume you know who I am, and that I died long ago,” he began.  I nodded, and he continued, “You should know that we watch the living.  We see everything.”

He proceeded to describe the present political drama in America with particular emphasis on the irrational fear of Barack Obama, “displayed in disparate, but decidedly loud segments of America’s politically motivated,” as he put it.  He spoke of his observances like someone describing “Reality TV” to a person who had no idea what a television was.

With an eyebrow raised, I inquired, “What do you mean, you see everything?”

He tacitly acknowledged my skepticism and said, “Just bear with me.  Yes, we watch you.  There is very little else for the dead to do. Get over it.”

Key explained that afterlife viewership had fallen off somewhat during George W. Bush’s first term, but had dropped precipitously following the 2004 presidential election.  “It got to be frustrating to watch, ” he said.  “Your nation had clearly, jumped the shark, electing Bush to a second term.”  He paused to inquire if he had used the entertainment industry phrase properly, and he was quite pleased with himself after I informed him that he had.

“We started watching again during the 2008 campaign,” he reassured me as if I were concerned about our ratings.  He didn’t have to tell me it was entertaining.  I saw it live!

He lowered his voice, “I happened to be in the company of Karl Marx, whose interest in the election was piqued following the primaries.  It was about the time people started throwing Marx’s name around when referring to Obama.  Honestly, I don’t understand it.  At least when McCarthy did it, he had an external entity in the Soviet Union, to which he could, and did, attribute potential domestic subversion.”

“Marx was irritated at first,” Key explained.  “Once Karl figured out that there was no real comparison between his predictive political philosophy and the proposed policies of Senator Obama, he just thought it was hilarious.”  Key confessed, he didn’t think much of it at the time, but when the irrational comparisons continued past Obama’s election he became frustrated.

He wrung his hands as he went on, “You were just starting to get interesting again.  You elected a clearly empathetic and erudite individual to the presidency.  You celebrated well, deservedly so, but a malevolent undercurrent of fear-inspired hate persisted, and persists, which brings me to why I’m here, talking to you.”

He was visibly agitated, but at that point I was totally into it.  “Go on,” I encouraged.

Key settled himself and continued, “I apologize for my candor, but the events of the present week provoked my action.  Seeing a wheelchair bound woman heckled as she attempted to describe her health care plight was despicable.  It was like a punch in the gut. Then I read about the Florida GOP chairman’s profound display of ignorance:  proclaiming that a motivational speech from Obama to the nation’s children was somehow akin to socialist indoctrination.  It’s preposterous!”

At this point, I informed him that he was preaching to the choir on this issue.  I made an effort to calm him, explaining, “though it’s not rational, many are genuinely scared and..”  Abruptly, he cut me off.

“But that’s just it,” he said.  “The needless, pointless fear, don’t you get it?  The man is the President of the United States, for heaven’s sake.  Out of cowardice, some have decided to overtly disrespect and slander your constitutionally elected leader.  It’s tantamount to heresy!  Further, it is insulting to those who voted for Obama; perhaps, it’s insulting to anyone who has ever voted, EVER!”

Key took a deep breath and went on, “It is because this behavior is fear-inspired that I have come back.  I’ve returned to take back my poem.  ‘The Home of the Brave,’ sadly, is no longer applicable to a country capable of such a display.”

I sat in a state of shock, mouth agape, as the train approached the station.

Again, Key composed himself and went on, “I’m not doing this on a whim.  Far from it.  For weeks, I’ve heard the word ‘tyranny’ bandied about by people who have absolutely no concept of what the word actually means.”

“And, don’t think for a moment that demanding this comes without a sense of deep personal loss.  Until recently, I had taken great pride that my poem was selected for your national anthem.  When president Hoover signed the congressional resolution in 1931, making my remembrance of the defense of Fort McHenry a symbol of national pride, I was so excited I nearly forgot that I was dead!”

“Further, my story is not unique,” Key continued.  “Take the first American president, George Washington, for example.  Though he’d be the first to tell you he’s somewhat confused and embarrassed by the phallic nature of his monument on the national mall, he remains humbled by how the nation he helped guide through its infancy remembers him.  Indeed, all of us whom history has chosen to smile upon following our deaths live on symbolically because living Americans honor us by remembering us and what we fought for.  The poisonous political climate of the present has led to the perversion of that honor.  It makes me feel dirty, to be honest.  By taking back my poem, I’m symbolically washing myself.”

The train came to a stop as he finished.  I followed him across the platform, begging him to reconsider.  I told him that going through with his plan could only exacerbate the issue, preventing any chance for Obama to turn it around.

“Give him a chance,” I said.  “With more time the displays of ignorance could subside.  Give us a chance to come to our senses, to awaken to the fact that there is nothing to be afraid of,” I pleaded.

With that, the man who portended to be Francis Scott Key, paused, turned to me, and smiled.

“Alright,” he said.  “If you haven’t given up, then neither will I.  You’ve got until the next presidential contest in 2012.”

I barely had time to outwardly display my relief when Key turned to leave.  As he parted, he issued a warning:

“Just know that if you haven’t sorted it out by then, I’ll return with others.  Indeed, tell Glenn Beck if he misquotes Teddy Roosevelt again, he’ll have a lot more to worry about than losing his sponsors.  The OP (Original Progressive, I’m guessing) is about ready to go ‘Rough Rider’ on his sociopathic backside.”

Following this bizarre encounter, I took some time to gather my notes and set to writing them down.  Was it actually Francis Scott Key, back from the grave to reclaim his legacy?  Probably not, but that’s beside the point.  The perpetrators of the Obama-as-tyrant meme, and those who repeat it out of fear, or otherwise, are spitting on the very institutions they claim to hold most dear.  Key, or not Key, his assessment was spot on in my opinion.  I’d rather not disappoint him by giving up.

To that end, I encourage you to sign the following petition:  Boycott Fox News Advertisers.  Though Fox is not the exclusive purveyor of the above described fear, they are the most visible; and, for reasons I cannot begin to explain, they are the most watched.

Weber Writes Obituary for the Republican Party

Posted 11 April 2009 @ The Huffington Post:

…The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with. How else to account for their desperation to resurrect the wraith of Joseph McCarthy; the hammy and baffling utterances from high level party officials like Boehner and McConnell; the blatant desire on their part to let the country fail out of sheer resentment; the wanton sedition of Conservative shit-stirrers ranging from the quasi Madame Defarge Michele Bachmann to the porcine, pill-popping porcine propagandist Rush Limbaugh?

read more | digg story