We're ALL Trayvon Martin...

There's a lot of bullshit being spouted about the cold-blooded murder of Trayvon Martin; specifically, that it was not racially motivated. Americans are too busy either patting themselves on the back for electing an African-American President, or hating that President for being a Muslim, Socialist, Kenyan who planned a coup de etat in utero and unconstitutionally stole the presidency, to admit to themselves that we live in a society where racism not only survives, but thrives. And white progressives can't see their own racism; and white conservatives think that the only racists left in America are black.

Geraldo Rivera, in a classic example of "blame the victim," reduced the crime to a morality play about fashion:

You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a 'gangsta' … You're gonna be a gangsta wannabe? Well, people are going to perceive you as a menace. That's what happens. It is an instant reflexive action...

The President has become a contortionist trying to avoid saying...well...anything that someone on the right might construe to be "playing the race card." He made s imple statement of sympathy for Trayvon Martin's parents, noting that if he had a son, he'd look like their son. The right-wing extremists who call themselves "conservatives" responded as expected. They called the President a "race baiter."

Newt Gingrich insisted beyond the boundaries of reality that race did not and should not play an issue in this case, and took a slap at President Obama:

Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?

Meanwhile, at a pistol range in Louisiana where Rick Santorum was burnishing his right-wing bona fides by firing off a couple of dozen rounds, a woman in the crowd watching the candidate to him to "pretend it's Obama." And I suppose that's not racist, either.

While I appreciate the sentiment that envisions a "post-racial society" and says "this is not a black/white issue," I also think that there's a self-consciousness about racism that too many people are vulnerable to. We are, of course, the worst judges of our own faults. Most Americans refuse to believe that their purchasing decisions are influenced by advertisements. Yet advertising is a $400 billion industry in the US alone. Like my right-wing friend in New York, constantly reminding the world that "I am not a racist," Americans -- particularly white Americans -- simply don't want to admit that racism is alive and well and living right smack dab in the center of their hearts. I happen to agree with Howie (no, really) that there's such a thing as "reverse racism." What he (and most of America) refuses to admit is that the dominant racism (white racism) is based on deeply-seated feelings of privilege and cultural superiority, and "reverse racism" (black racism) is based mostly on resentment and fear -- fear of someday, for no reason, becoming a target -- or worse: having one of your children become a target, of some hate-filled asshole like George Zimmerman. And then having the authority of the state essentially endorse that hatred by failing (or refusing) to bring that person to justice.

I happen to understand black racism a lot more than white racism.

The point is that we have to stop all of it. George Zimmerman didn't hate Travon Martin. He didn't even know him. He hated some *image* that Travon looked like in Zimmerman's ignorant, hate-addled brain. He didn't kill an innocent kid; he killed a stereotype. And that stereotyped thinking has to stop. The responsibility is white America's. When white people FINALLY see people who don't look like them as equal, when they stop looking at the Trayvon Martins of the world as "thugs" and "gangstas" and treat each individual human being as a person (as, by the way, Christ taught us to do), then people of color, immigrants, Muslims, and other groups suffering discrimination will be able to see white people as people too, and not as dangers to their safety.

Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians." Well, I love America. But there are too many hateful Americans.

The way I see it, we're all either Trayvon Martin or we're George Zimmerman. The choice is ours. There's no in-between.

Shoe Karma

Righties -- like Howie -- still maintain, beyond all reason, that our disastrous foray into "nation building" in Iraq was the right thing to do.

Not surprisingly, Iraqis don't necessarily agree with Howie and his ilk.

On the heels (sorry) of yesterday's shoe-throwing incident, Iraqis -- and Arabs throughout the middle east -- have come out in support of Muntader al-Zaidi, the 29-year-old journalist with a major-league throwing arm who came this close to beaning soon-to-be-former President George W. Bush at a press conference in Baghdad.

From the New York Times:

In Saudi Arabia, a newspaper reported that a man had offered $10 million to buy just one of what has almost certainly become the world’s most famous pair of black dress shoes.

A daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, reportedly awarded the shoe thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi, a 29-year-old journalist, a medal of courage.

In the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, people calling for an immediate American withdrawal removed their footwear and placed the shoes and sandals at the end of long poles, waving them high in the air. And in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, people threw their shoes at a passing American convoy.

In street-corner conversations, on television and in Internet chat rooms, the subject of shoes was inescapable throughout much of the Middle East on Monday, as was the defiant act that inspired the interest: a huge and spontaneous eruption of anger at
President Bush on Sunday in his final visit here.

Shoe Karma. Not exactly greeting the liberators with showers of candy and flowers, is it? Did anybody really believe that would happen?

As the Buddha said, "What goes around, comes around."

US Secret Service Blames Sarah Palin for Obama Death Threats

From the "What Was McCain Thinking" department, another reason to be grateful that Barack Obama was elected to be the 44th President of the United States.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

No kidding. Ya think?

Howie won't buy this, of course. He's sold on the idea that the Secret Service has already made a finding that no one called out "Kill him!" at Palin's rallies, when, in fact, news stories of that time say they were still investigating.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

Too little, too late, Senator McCain. That's closing the kennel door after the pitbull is alaready out. So are you glad that you picked Palin?

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs. Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

That claim is part of a campaign of targeted leaks designed to torpedo her ambitions, with claims that she did not know that Africawas a continent rather than a country.

The advisers have branded her a "diva" and a "whack job" and claimed that she did not know which other countries are in the North American Free Trade Area, (Canada and Mexico). They say she spent more than $150,000 on designer clothes, including $40,000 on her husband Todd and that she refused to prepare for the disastrous series of interviews with CBS's Katie Couric.

Yeah. Country First. And all that....

Why I voted for Obama

I first registered to vote four years ago, 11 years after I was eligible. Until that point, I hadn't cared much about politics. I thought politics was booooring. But then I had this wild idea to go to law school and went back to college to get my bachelor's degree in political science. I wasn't sure how I'd like majoring in political science, but I needed a bachelor's degree for law school and was told political science was the way to go. A funny thing happened, though. I started to like politics. I realized it was interesting. And more than that, it was important. I couldn't believe I had gone all this time just not caring. That was when I registered to vote.

I never went to law school, because I realized that wasn't my passion. Instead, after I graduated with my bachelor's in political science, I went back to get my master's in journalism. And that is how I got here, to this blog. I gathered my political science background wouldn't be wasted in journalism, and I was right. It has served me well over the years, at least in understanding certain things.

So why all this background? Because this is the first year that I was actually excited to vote. That I saw other people excited to vote. Willing to wait in line hours to do so. Before, it was a duty, a duty that I was proud to have once I realized how important it was, but it was never exciting. While I always supported the candidates I voted for, I was never terribly attached to them. However, Sen. Barack Obama is someone I am thrilled to support.

I'm not going to tell you how I like his tax or healthcare plans. Or how I think he has the right idea with regard to our foreign policy. Because if you support Obama, you probably feel the same way. And if you don't (Howie!), you won't care. What I like about Obama -- no, what gives me great hope -- is what I've seen over the past few months. Not the negative ads. Not the cries of terrorist or false stories that Obama was born in Kenya. Certainly not the direct or indirect racism. What has given me hope is that, despite those things, people support Obama. I see people with Obama buttons and bumper stickers, signs on the lawns. I see college-age kids with Obama shirts, volunteering for the campaign. We've come to accept that racism is a part of the U.S. I know that it may always be, sadly. But here are examples of people who are supporting a candidate, regardless of race, religion, etc. The equality we have always hoped for is happening right here. I grew up with racist relatives, and it has always disgusted me that people could talk that way, as if they are better than someone else because of race. I know of relatives that will not be voting for Obama because of his color. They don't care what he stands for, probably don't even know anything about his plans. They just won't vote for a black guy. What gives me hope is that people like THAT haven't stopped people like Obama, or his supporters.

Republicans will say it's media bias that has led to this phenomenon. That the media has made Obama into some celebrity or God, or that his supporters have done so. But you can't MAKE someone into something he isn't. People can be naive, can even be tricked sometimes, but most of us know when a turd is a turd (see Bush, George W.). Some people missed the boat on President Bush the second time around, but I think after these past eight years, we can spot the turd. If Obama was just some second-rate political hack who had tricked the country into supporting him, Americans would have realized it by now. We've had 18 months to watch him, waiting for some indication that he wasn't fit for the presidency. Instead, we've seen Sen. John McCain flounder and look like the candidate who isn't ready for the presidency. Seen him look like the turd.

What gives me hope is not only what I believe Obama can do for our country in areas where we usually expect a president to lead, like the economy, foreign policy, etc., but also what Obama can do for us as Americans. Prove to us that race really doesn't matter. Prove to us that it doesn't matter if you have a funny name, or that your father was Kenyan. Prove to us that we were all created equal, and if we all try hard enough, there is no telling where we can end up. Prove to us that we can come together and say, "We're not a white America. We're not a black America. We're the United States of America."

A Primer on John McCain's Role in "The Keating Five" Scandal

Howie (and those of his ilk) want to move the discussion off our current economic meltdown and shift the focus to the past. I say, "Good. Let's do it!" Yes, let's talk about the past for a while. But rather than talking about what Bill Ayers did when Barack Obama was in grammar school, let's talk about what John McCain did when he was (presumably) an adult "serving" in the US Senate.

An E-Mail Exchange With Howie, My (Far) Right-Wing Friend in NY: Is There, or Is There Not, a "Bush Doctrine?"

Howie: Basically, the term "Bush Doctrine" was coined by Charles Krauthammer, and I sent you his article that "suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine."

Me: Howie, you're killing me with this. There are so many more important things I ought to be doing with my time than trying to persuade you that a pit-bull is not a pig and that a horse is not a house and that fantasy is not reality. It is, I believe, a powerful testimony of my unfailing love for you that I go to all this trouble. I only wish you had any respect for me -- and for yourself -- and took the world more seriously.

I did a Lexis-Nexis search (it is a subscription database of, among other things, US and world newspapers, newsmagazines, and radio and television news transcripts which I have access to through Roosevelt's library) of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" for all the time between June 2002 and August 15, 2008. In other words, it does NOT search anything AFTER the Palin interview. I got over 1000 results. Please read them carefully. Here's my disclaimer, though: I'm only copying the essential parts of each story, where the term "Bush Doctrine" is used specifically. And, since this is a subscription service, I can't give you any hyperlinks. I urge you to go to a library and get a copy of each if you want to read the whole article.

Here's the very first one, from the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald:

• Kill first, ask questions later

BYLINE: Robert Manne. Robert Manne is associate professor of politics at La Trobe University.
SECTION: NEWS AND FEATURES; Opinion; Pg. 13 LENGTH: 966 words
September 30, 2002
Monday Late Edition

The black holes in Bush's logic might suck us all in.TEN days ago, George Bush handed to the Congress a document of fundamental importance, outlining a new military doctrine for the United States.

The new doctrine argues that in the 10 years following the Soviet collapse, the US failed to grasp the nature of the threats posed by the post-Cold War world. With the terrible events of September 11, America awoke.

At first, the US characterised the new enemy it faced as "terrorism". Later, it refined the idea of the new enemy to "terrorism with a global range", a euphemism for the
kind of terrorism with the capacity to inflict harm on the civilian populations in America or the West.

Since the shock of September 11, the new enemy has expanded to include what have been called "rogue states". In the Bush doctrine, a rogue state is a regime which brutalises its own people, seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction and expresses hatred for the US...We arrive here at the heart of the new Bush military doctrine. The US, it is claimed, presently faces the prospect of
attack either from one of the rogue states or from a terrorist group supplied by
them with weapons of mass destruction. Before this kind of threat, Cold War
ideas about deterrence and containment are obsolete. The only rational military strategy is the "pre-emptive strike".

Here's one from the Straits Times (Singapore) from October of 2002 (first two paragraphs):

• Dubya's dangerous and divisive doctrine

October 16, 2002 Wednesday
AMITAV ACHARYA

THE new American strategic doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, enunciated a year after Sept 11, provokes more discord internationally than it catalyses accord domestically.

Past presidential doctrines helped American leaders mobilise domestic support and organise international coalitions. The Bush Doctrine is the most divisive post-war pronouncement.

From the Washington Post, October 2003 (I'm copying the entire article, as it directly references the Bush Doctrine several times, and even quotes Richard Perle -- one of the neo-cons who created it through his work at PNAC -- directly referring to the Bush Doctrine as preemptive first strike):

• The 'Bush Doctrine' Experiences Shining Moments

December 21, 2003 Sunday Final Edition

BYLINE: Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

SECTION: A Section; A26LENGTH: 1041 words

It has been a week of sweet vindication for those who promulgated what they call the Bush Doctrine.

Beginning with the capture of Saddam Hussein a week ago and ending Friday with an agreement by Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to surrender his unconventional weapons, one after another international problem has eased.

On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany set aside their long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq and agreed to forgive an unspecified amount of that country's debt. On Thursday, Iran signed an agreement allowing surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities after European governments applied intense pressure on the U.S. foe. On Friday, Libya agreed to disarm under the watch of international inspectors, just as administration officials were learning that Syria had seized $23.5
million believed to be for al Qaeda.

To foreign policy hard-liners inside and outside the administration, the gestures by Libya, Iran and Syria, and the softening by France and Germany, all have the same cause: a show of American might.

Those who developed the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats -- predicted that an impressive U.S. victory in Iraq would intimidate allies and foes alike, making them yield to U.S. interests in other areas.

Though that notion floundered with the occupation in Iraq, the capture of Hussein may have served as the decisive blow needed to make others respect U.S. wishes, they say. "It's always been at the heart of the Bush Doctrine that a more robust policy would permit us to elicit greater cooperation from adversaries than we'd had in the past when we acquiesced," said Richard Perle, an influential adviser to the
administration. "With the capture of Saddam, the sense that momentum may be with us is very important."

Perle had provoked much criticism for saying a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq would signal to other foes that "you're next." But he said the actions by Libya and Iran prove that the threat alone was sufficient to produce action. "Gaddafi surely had to take more seriously that we would not allow him to get away with the programs he was embarked," he said.

Perle and the other "neo-conservative" hawks whose views dominate the Bush administration know better than to claim victory. Gaddafi or the Iranians may still cheat despite admitting inspectors. And other potential foes, notably North Korea and China, have shown little susceptibility to the threat implicit in the Bush Doctrine.

Still, Perle allowed, "it's nice to have a good week every once in a while."

Bush's domestic adversaries have had some trouble responding to the administration's diplomatic successes. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, portrayed the success with Libya as an exception to the Bush Doctrine. "Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush administration's overall foreign policy," he said in a statement Saturday. "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy."

But Bush's supporters say it is precisely his willingness to go it alone and take preemptive action that has encouraged other countries to seek diplomatic solutions before the United States launches a military attack. The Libya and Iran concessions "show the peripheral benefit of preemption," said Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms control official who now serves on a Pentagon advisory panel. "Most of all it scares the bejesus out of rogue dictators." As for stubborn allies such as Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, "they pay more attention when there's a forceful U.S. policy," Adelman said.

It is unlikely, of course, that France or Germany would acknowledge that they are reacting to U.S. strength. Yet it is noteworthy that they were conciliatory on the issue of Iraqi debt forgiveness after Hussein was captured -- even though they were complaining bitterly just a week before about a Bush plan to exclude them from U.S.-funded Iraq reconstruction projects.

And it is inarguable that Germany and France have taken a more active role in winning Iranian compliance with weapons inspections since the United States invaded Iraq. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain visited Iran in
October, overcoming Iran's longtime resistance to signing a monitoring agreement.
"The Europeans never would have taken these steps [in Iran] without Bush taking the steps he took in Iraq," said Gary Schmitt, who directs the hard-line Project for the New American Century. "The Europeans don't want us to do another Iraq there, so they're rushing in to get a deal. Bush gets an immense amount of credit for laying out what the agenda is and making others step up to the plate."

Bush still has some inconsistencies to work out with his doctrine. Earlier this month, he drew rebukes from conservatives for undermining democratic Taiwan to win favor with totalitarian China. And, as Bush's domestic opponents point out, he has been contradictory in his views of international organizations. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said the administration's support for International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in Libya and Iran "is difficult to reconcile with the administration's previous ridicule of IAEA inspectors in Iraq."

But such complaints, at least for now, have been overshadowed by the results achieved with Iran and Libya. That was the clear message Bush delivered in his unusual appearance late Friday in the White House briefing room. Mentioning the fate of Hussein, Bush said, "These actions by the United States and our allies have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction."

If Bush was oblique, a senior aide who briefed reporters after the president's statement, was quicker to take credit. "The outcome today is a response [to] the policies that we have pursued," he said. The official said the secret discussions with Libya began in March -- when the invasion of Iraq started. "I can't imagine that Iraq went unnoticed by the Libyan leadership," the aide said.

And -- WOW!!! -- I actually found a reference to the phrase "Bush Doctrine" that links it directly to the White House and the Bush administration, and dates it as far back as October 2001.

• 'Bush Doctrine' sets up rules of engagement

USA TODAY
October 9, 2001, Tuesday, FIRST EDITION
BYLINE: Laurence McQuillanSECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A LENGTH: 526 words DATELINE: WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON -- White House officials gave a name Monday to the rules of engagement driving the U.S. war on terrorism -- the "Bush Doctrine." The policy makes any nation or group that tolerates terrorists a potential target.

From the Toronto (Canada) Globe and Mail:

• Monroe, Truman and Bush?; U.S. leader aims to become only the third; chief to lay a foreign-policy cornerstone

The Globe and Mail (Canada)
October 20, 2001 Saturday
BYLINE: JOHN IBBITSON SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS; The War on Terror: THE BATTLE OF IDEAS; Pg. A10 LENGTH: 751 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

There was the Monroe Doctrine. There was the Truman Doctrine. Now, there is the Bush Doctrine.

In his Sept. 20 speech to Congress, U.S. President George W. Bush declared that all nations must either join the United States in combatting terrorism, or be its enemy. He said the government would act against any individual, organization or state "of global reach" that supports terrorism.

In the weeks since, Mr. Bush has referred to "the doctrine I spelled out to the American people." Vice-President Dick Cheney invoked "the Bush Doctrine" in a rousing call to arms Thursday evening.

Coalition forces are attacking Afghanistan in the air and now on the ground in the name of the Bush Doctrine. A growing chorus of politicians demands that the United States attack Iraq in the name of the Bush Doctrine.

From the Boston Globe and the Australian Financial Review on the global political implications of the Bush Doctrine, from October and December of 2001, respectively:

• A DOUBLE STANDARD IN WAR ON TERRORISM?

The Boston Globe
October 24, 2001, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION
BYLINE: By Scot Lehigh, Globe Staff SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. D7 LENGTH: 699 words

IF YOU WISH to converse with me, Voltaire said, define your terms.

In speaking to the world, President Bush needs to do just that, for his zero-tolerance antiterrorism doctrine is one that both friends and rivals clearly hope to appropriate for their own purposes.

Consider our newfound comrade Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. Noting that the Kremlin considers the Chechen separatists to be terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden, he has declared that the United States and Russia share a common foe.

Or Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, who called Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat Israel's Osama bin Laden. Why, with America drawing a line in the sand against terrorism, should Israel be pressured to negotiate with a man who has sponsored and encouraged terrorists, he asked?

A bit less vocal was India, which faces attacks by Islamic militants hoping to pry all of disputed Kashmir away. "If the US can strike Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks ... why can't we take similar action against terrorists harbored by Pakistan?" wondered Farooq Abdullah, Kashmir's chief minister. Orwellian China would just as clearly like the world to view Tibet through the lens of the Bush doctrine, while Malaysia has used it to justify a suppression of peaceful dissent. And that's just for starters.

• Bush Doctrine suddenly crystallises

The Australian Financial Review
December 10, 2001 Monday
BYLINE: Peter Hartcher SECTION: Pg. 1/11. LENGTH: 99 words

The US President, George W Bush, has won huge support for his stand against terrorism. Bush has established a doctrine that holds all countries that harbourterrorists as being accountable to the US. Bush has declared that for every country that support terrorists there will be a "day of reckoning". Governments around the world have received a warning from what has happened in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan having almost reached a conclusion, the US Government must decide in which country its forces will seek terrorists next. An attack on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq appears imminent.

Howie (and all my other right wing friends out there), I know you. I don't expect any of this to change your (for lack of a better word) "mind." But you are wrong about this, you are being deceived by post-game spin, and nothing you say or do or believe can EVER change history. There is a Bush Doctrine, it was promulgated by the White House, it has been debated and discussed in terms of its implications for foreign policy and for global politics, and neither Sarah Palin nor you seems ever to have heard of it.

The GOP and right-wing spinmeisters might indeed be successful persuading those American people who choose ignorance over information, and who choose to be led around on a leash by the right-wing media that there are "several Bush Doctrines," but history has already recognized one.

And that's really all there is to it. A century from now people will be studying the Bush Doctrine, and what they'll be studying is this dangerous principle of the preemptive first strike.

There's nothing you can do to change that.

Democratic National Convention, Night Four

I am on record in this blog for the high regard in which I hold former Vice President Al Gore. Even so, I will not dwell on his address this afternoon at he DNC in Mile High Stadium, Denver. The fact is that, as brilliant and principled as this man is, he is not an inspiring speaker. Nor is his writing (if his speeches are self-written) particularly literary. He should have been President the last eight years. He wasn't. And I'm moving on, although I will give you the option of listening to his speech and making your own judgments.


The story of the day, of course, is Barack Obama's acceptance speech. Suffice it to say that it was one of the best examples -- probably THE best example -- of political oratory of my lifetime -- that's 54 years for anyone who is curious.

Before I go any further, let me say that I love my right-wing friend Howie. I love him with everything in me. He is my oldest friend, and my most steadfast friend. When a great deal of poop hit the fan in my life and other people who I had known for twenty or thirty or forty years walked away or simply disappeared, Howie was there. And there were no questions, there was no need for explanations. Howie was there.

I need to say this because I am about to beat up and bloody Howie (in a political, philosophical way) in much the same way that Barack Obama beat up and bloodied John McCain tonight.

First, some predictions: the following right-wing memes are now obsolete, totally politically useless, and will not be heard any further, from this day forward, from the official GOP or McCain campaigns (which is not to say that Howie and his ilk will not keep harping on these adolescent themes) -- Obama doesn't have the stomach to fight a Presidential campaign, Obama is nothing more than a "celebrity," Obama is "unpatriotic" or doesn't put his "country first," Obama is a lightweight, Obama doesn't have the experience (or "the stuff") to be President, Obama has no real plan (both this speech and the recent New York Times Magazine article on Obama's economic plans should put that one to rest), Obama is a "socialist," Obama will raise your taxes ("your" referring to the majority of Americans, the middle class), and that Democrats are "soft" on terrorism. After tonight, I honestly don't think any of these will fly anymore (as Bill Clinton would say, "that dog won't hunt") with the American people, or at least all but the most jaded, cynical, hard-core, neo-conservative, right wing Republicans like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Howie.

Barack Obama stood up to all of this, and called it what it was -- BULLSHIT -- although he said it more gently than that. But the message was clear, as was its meaning.

Of the last eight years, he had a one word summary:

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough!

Of John McCain's public relations campaign to portray himself as a "maverick":

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

On the overall GOP ideology of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency:

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

On Obama's supposed "celebrity":

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

Obama went on to outline more than two dozen specific policies he will try to put into place when he becomes President. I will not post them here. There is literally not enough space, nor do I have the time (nor, with these new technologies, is it even necessary -- you can listen to his speech yourself) for me to go into that much detail.

But I just wanted to point out that there was literally not one single McCain campaign issue (McCain's campaign so far has been frighteningly short of serious issues) that Barack Obama did not both address and defuse. If I were a Republican, or their nominee for President, I'd be worried -- because all my ammunition is spent.

Oh, and I see this headline from FOX as I'm finishing up this post:

Gustav May Postpone Dates of Republican National Convention
Forecasters warn it's 'too soon to tell'

God does indeed sometimes move in mysterious ways...

Democratic National Convention, Night Two

Hillary: "No way, no how, no McCain."

Tonight was Hillary's night at DNC '08 -- her night to shine, but also her night to be put to the test of Party loyalty. As a Hillary Clinton fan, but not a supporter, as someone who had the privilege to vote for her as my Senator when I lived in NY in 2000, but at first supported Edwards, and then Obama, I have to say she acquitted herself tonight well, if not perfectly.

This was her night for "catharsis" -- letting her supporters grieve for their dream deferred -- but also for proving herself a Democrat. She certainly allowed for the grief, and thanked her supporters for their fierce, intense, and, perhaps, fanatic loyalty. But then she pushed them to the edge and demanded that they prove their loyalty to her by falling in line behind the inevitable Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

She posed the question to her supporters as a personal challenge:

I want you -- I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?

Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage?

Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges, leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in
America.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, this will not be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat back into the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

We need to elect Barack Obama, because we need a president who understands that America can't compete in the global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We need a president who understands we can't solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in the new technologies that will build a green economy. We need a president who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class.

Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down.

(APPLAUSE)

And he knows that government must be about "we the people," not "we the favored few."

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he'll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our times.

Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we do our part, we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats.

(APPLAUSE)

She then confronted the irrational notion that Hillary Supporters might strike a blow in her name, and in the name of feminism, by not voting for Barack Obama, but for John McCain, while at the same time undergutting the Republican candidate's tendency to exploit Clinton's primary season attacks on the presumptive Democratic nominee:

Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years of the last eight years...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more economic stagnation and less affordable health care...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more high gas prices and less alternative energy...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more jobs getting shipped overseas and fewer jobs created here at home...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more skyrocketing debt, and home foreclosures, and mounting bills that are crushing middle-class families...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more war and less diplomacy...

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: ... more of a government where the privileged few come first and everyone else comes last.

AUDIENCE: No!

Senator Clinton: Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

(APPLAUSE)

She ended with a stirring exhortation which could be read in two ways: 1] as a call to action for the 2008 Presidential campaign, and 2] as a call to her supporters to "keep the powder dry" for either 2012 or 2016:

I'm a United States senator because, in 1848, a group of courageous women, and a few brave men, gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights...

(APPLAUSE)

... to participate in the first convention on women's rights in our history. And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter, and a few sons and grandsons along the way.
These women and men looked into their daughters' eyes and imagined a fairer and freer world and found the strength to fight, to rally, to picket, to endure ridicule and harassment, and brave violence and jail.

And after so many decades, 88 years ago on this very day, the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, became enshrined in our Constitution.

(APPLAUSE)

My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president. This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.

So how do we give this country back to them? By following the example of a brave New Yorker, a woman who risked her lives to bring slaves to freedom along the Underground Railroad.

On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice: "If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If there's shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going."

(APPLAUSE)

And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going.

I have seen it. I have seen it in our teachers and our firefighters, our police officers, our nurses, our small-business owners, and our union workers. I've seen it in the men and women of our military.

In America, you always keep going. We're Americans. We're not big on quitting.

And, remember, before we can keep going, we've got to get going by electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare. Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance. (my emphasis)

Was that clear and unambiguous enough for you, Howie?

It was an interesting night and, I think, a great speech. I feel like it went a long way toward unifying the Democratic Party (which is to say pacifying the anger of her most extreme supporters) and bringing it solidly behind Barack Obama. John McCain should have such solid support from Republicans (he doesn't).

As I was when I voted for her to become my Senator in 2000, I was proud of Hillary Clinton tonight.

God Bless America.

Democratic National Convention, Night One

Howie will most certainly disagree with my description (he still believes that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that the Iraqi government, contrary to the history of the Ba'athist Party, was alled with al Qa'ida), but night one of the DNC convention was an emotional evening celebrating some typical, down-to-earth American family values.

Caroline Kennedy started it off by introducing a tribute to her uncle, Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In honoring her uncle, the 47-year veteran of the United States Senate, she also paid tribute to the Senator from Illinois and presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States. She said of Obama, "I've never had someone inspire me the way people tell me my father (the late President of the United States John Fitzgerald Kennedy) inspired them. But I do now!"

Caroline Kennedy's introduction was followed by a filmed tribute to her Uncle produced by the documentary filmmaker Ken Burns:

Following the filmed tribute the 76-year-old Massachusetts Democrat, undergoing treatment for a malignant brain tumor that was discovered only last May, gave a rousing speech where he declared, "I pledge to you that I will be there next January on the floor of the United States Senate when we begin the great battle (over a national system of health care)."

But the evening belonged to Michelle Obama, wife of the presumptive nominee and Senator from Illinois. With this speech she should have dispelled, for all but the most cynical (are you listening, Howie?), the GOP-inspired notion that she and her husband are somehow different, alien, bitter, or "hate their country," but, rather, want to improve it. As she put it in her speech, "All of us (are) driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do -- that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

As I watched the convention this evening, I was struck that what has really captured Americans' imaginations is not that Barack Obama is "the One," or "the Messiah," or "a celebrity," but that he is one of us. Looking at this assembled group of conventioneers, old, young, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian, well-heeled and all shades of middle class, watching the tears stream from their eyes, not for Teddy Kennedy's wealthy family, but for his life-long commitment to keeping "the dream" alive, not for Michelle Obama's beauty or brains but for her working-class roots, I could see evidence that the American Dream is not dead. Not yet.

This was not a phony Texan raised in New Haven, Connecticut, and educated (barely) at Yale. These were my "homeys," without regard to their origins -- a wealthy scion of a world-renowned Massachusetts family committed to public service and the principles of human rights and equality, and a girl from Chicago's South Side who worked hard and did well for herself and for others.

God Bless America.

Some (Not So) Random Thoughts About the Democratic Primaries

Picking up on an idea I talked about earlier, and even earlier still, I wanted to point out some trends in voting patterns this year that have not been apparent in the recent past. And they have been barely apparent this year, if the mainstream media (what Howie calls the "liberal media") are your guide.

In Indiana this week 1,254,136 Democratic votes were cast. 409,816 Republican votes were cast. That’s about a 3-to-1 margin.

10% of Indiana GOP voters voted for Mike Huckabee. 8% voted for Ron Paul. 5% voted for Mitt Romney, a man who dropped out of the race two months ago.

What was supposed to be a decisive win for Hillary Clinton was in fact a horse race. About 23,000 votes out of 1.2 million separated them.

In North Carolina 1,571,337 Democratic votes were cast. 504,636 votes were cast for all GOP candidates. That’s a margin of more than 3-to-1.

12% of NC voters chose Mike Huckabee. 7% voted for Ron Paul. 4% voted for “none of the above.”

Obama won NC by a margin of about 230,000 votes.

Democrats won more votes than Republicans in North Carolina in 2000. But eight years ago, the margin was much closer. Democrats won 544,922 votes, and Republicans won 322,517. This year it was 1,571,337 Democratic votes to 504,636 GOP votes. Republicans improved their totals over 2000 by about 70%. Democrats improved their totals by about 250%.

In Indiana eight years ago, only 293,172 Democratic votes were cast, against 406,664 for the GOP candidates. This year it was 1,254,136 votes cast for Democrats and 409,816 for GOP candidates. The GOP raw vote total stayed essentially the same. The Democratic increase was more than 300%.

Democrats have been outvoting Republicans two-to-one consistently this entire primary season -- sometimes the margin has been three-to-one. This is a bad sign for the GOP over-all, and a bad sign for John McCain specifically. Here's more to consider:

A recent CBS News/New York Times Poll (April 25-29, 2008) asked Americans "Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq? Would you prefer the next president try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what, or continue to fight the Iraq war as long as they felt it was necessary?" 62% said end it immediately; 34% said to continue it as long as necessary. They asked "Which is more important to you in a presidential candidate: someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, or someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?" Only 19% said wait for success; 77% said "be flexible." This does not bode well for John McCain.

Howie, it is time to read the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, Verse 7.

"I Can't Believe It's Not a Dictatorship!!!"

More Right-Wing Rant^TM from Howie:

Glad to see the people of Venezuela smartened up, and realized that Chavez is loco..........until Chavez declares that the voting machines were vandalized, and he really won, and declares his dictatorship for life............Seig Heil.......

Yes, Howie, that's exactly what happened. Anyway...

Venezuelans did narrowly reject the referendum that would have eliminated term limits (by the way, that's all the referendum called for, the elimination of term limits -- he would not have been put in power indefinitely, he would still have had to run for re-election at the end of each term, like in the United States for the first 180-plus years of its existence). And that's the end of the story.

"From this moment on, let's be calm," Chavez declared. "There is no dictatorship here."

There is no dictatorship that disrupted the elections, and there would have been no dictatorship had the vote gone the other way. It's a thing right-wingers like Howie don't understand: it's called democracy.

Of course, spinmeisters in the US State Department make the result of this referendum look like the hope of all future democracy in Venezuela:

"Clearly this is a message from the Venezuelan people that they do not want any further erosion in their democracy and their democratic institutions," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington.

...conveniently forgetting that Chavez has been twice elected, once returned by popular support after surviving a (US supported) coup, and won a recall election. In other words, it has been the triumph of democracy, like it or not, that got Chavez to the place where he could lose even lose a referendum to eliminate term limits and be re-elected as many times as Franklin D. Roosevelt (who we could use right now).

In the meantime, Chavez still enjoys broad powers that the voters gave him in previous referenda (unlike the broad powers that the Bush administration have assumed unconstitutionally and without so much as a "MayI?").

So, Howie, and all your right-wing friends:

STOP WHINING!!!

UPDATE: Renegade Eye has an excellent analysis of the referendum and its outcome. Even if I were not still working on my book, I couldn't have been more thorough. Check it out.

Thanksgiving Eve, 2005: An E-mail Exchange With a Right-Wing Friend in NY

May you and your family have an enjoyable Thanksgiving, and remember to keep the troops in your prayers. -- Howie

Howie--I am sincerely thankful that we have a strong military, and that there are thousands and thousands of Americans, young and not-so-young, who are willing to give their lives for what they believe in. I am sincerely thankful that we are a nation founded on Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, sovereignty vested in the PEOPLE, and religious freedom. I am sincerely thankful that we have a tradition--a very Christian tradition, by the way--of sacrifice for the sake of the "tired, poor, and huddled masses" who yearn to be free. I am thankful for so many things, not just at this time of year, but always, and these things are constantly in my prayers of thanks to God.

I hold in utter contempt, however, "leaders" who abuse the sacred trust given them by the PEOPLE to use military force only when it is necessary to protect American values. I hold in utter contempt "leaders" who distort and in some cases ignore those very values in the name of "security." I hold in utter contempt leaders who put the needs--in reality, in most cases, the wants--of corporations and the wealthy over the overwhelming needs of the PEOPLE. I hold in utter contempt leaders who lie, manipulate, and break laws--yes, even international laws--to further the goals of global capitalism.

I am thankful, though, that I see evidence that my faith in America and my hope for its future is not "mere" naive idealism. I am thankful that my belief that the PEOPLE, fully informed about what is going on in the world, will choose the right course, that they may be persuaded, in contempt of their sacred trust, by lies, but that once in possession of truth, they will not maintain a rigid orthodoxy. I am thankful not so much for being an American (although I am indeed thankful for that), but for being a member of the human race, blessed by God, for no good reason, with human intelligence and critical reasoning abilities, and thankful that more and more human beings are ackowledging and using these gifts.

I am thankful, too, to God for the awesome gift of your friendship, and you and Maria and your family will be in my prayers of thanksgiving this year, as always.

But my prayers of thanksgiving this year, as always, will be tempered not by false patriotism, but by a clear view of reality. There is no free lunch--EVER. If we have inordinate gifts in America--and we do--it cannot be without the sacrificies of others, voluntary or involuntary. If Americans hold and control a disproportionate share of the world's wealth--and we do--this is an injustice that we should not be thankful for, and for which, if we leave the situation untouched, we will have to answer for to that same God we will thank tomorrow. It is sacrilegious, I think, to thank God for gifts won unjustly. Read John Paul II's 1987 encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis. Please read it. I also urge you to buy and read Jacques Ellul's The Presence of the Kingdom. I have used this text in classes many times. The students, after four weeks of reading, discussing, and arguing over this book, are always exhausted and down-hearted. They enter a state of utter denial. They are threatened, and feel the effects of disrupted and subverted cultural assumptions. This is the first step to real learning.

And I will say once again this Thanksgiving a prayer I say every day--many times every day--which comes from the Gospel of Luke (chapter 18, verses 9-14). Here is the passage. See if you can find the prayer:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men -- robbers, evildoers, adulterers -- or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I pray that you will be as good as your word (for you believe that America is a "Christian" nation) and take Jesus's words to heart. Read it. Think about it. Really think about it. We have a long way to go before we can ever legitimately call ourselves a "Christian nation."

I love you, Howie. Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace,
Peter

Pentagon Chief : To Fight Terrorism, Fight Poverty

For some time now, right-winger have been telling me (here and here) that it is nonsense to think that terrorism has anything to do with poverty or social/economic injustice. And the only way to fight terrorism, they say, is with military force. Do I have that right, Howie?

Well, the United States Department of Defense, also known as the Pentagon, disagrees with you, right-wingers. Speaking at an Asian security conference in Singapore today, Robert Gates said that military action alone is not sufficient to end terrorism.

Gates declined to say who was winning the U.S.-led war on terror when asked during a question-and-answer session at an Asian security conference in Singapore.

But he said it was crucial to do more to address the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and the rule by despotic regimes, which often leads those affected to turn to extremist groups.

Is reality finally seeping into Pentagon thinking? Will the Bush administration be moved by the force of logic? Will Dick Cheney's heart be thawed by his daughter and daughter-in-law's new baby?

Nah.

It is, perhaps, Bob Gates's "momentary lapse of reason."

Senate Report : CIA Told White House Before US Invasion That Iraq War Would Go Bad, Create a Haven for Al Qa'ida, and Embolden Iran

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

According to a report released Friday (that hole-in-the-newscycle when no one is paying any attention) by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA warned the White House as early as January 2003 that a US invasion would ignite sectarian violence, give al Qa'ida an opportunity to gain a foothold in Iraq, and embolden Iran to assert its influence further in the middle east.

Are you listening, Howie?

So let me get this straight: the White House knew beforehand, according to the Pentagon, that there was no evidence of WMDs, no evidence that al Qa'ida was operating in Iraq, and that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11; we also knew that an invasion would break Iraq into pieces, spread terrorism, and widen Iran's influence. Do I have that correctly?

So I have two questions:

1] What are we doing there?
2] When are we going to have the courage to IMPEACH BUSH???

A Clearer View of Iraq

An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"^TM

Our mainstream mass media are serving us poorly, and it doesn't really matter if your politics makes you see them as "corporate media" or as "liberal media" (an idea, I must admit, that I've found laughable and unsupported for a quarter of a century, during which time I spent nearly two decades working at NBC News -- vapid, shallow, obnoxiously self-righteous, yes. Liberal, no). What everyone seems to agree upon, however, is just what a terrible job our mainstream mass media are doing informing us about the world.

That's a start. I hope we can accelerate this process a bit, because people are dying, and we need to know about it so we can do something about it.

To that end I will tell you about a new report, Accepting Realities in Iraq by Gareth Stansfield of Britain's Chatham House (one of the world's leading organizations for the analysis of international issues) and the University of Exeter.

The report argues that US policy in Iraq must change to face a number of realities to which the Bush administration has been blind up until now. Among these realities, the report claims that(emphases mine):

• There is not ‘a’ civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power. The surge is not curbing the high level of violence, and improvements in security cannot happen in a matter of months.
• The conflicts have become internalized between Iraqis as the polarization of sectarian and ethnic identities reaches ever deeper into Iraqi society and causes the breakdown of social cohesion.
• Critical destabilizing issues will come to the fore in 2007–8. Federalism, the control of oil and control of disputed territories need to be resolved.
• Each of Iraq’s three major neighbouring states, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, has different reasons for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments.
• These current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq. A political solution will require engagement with organizations possessing popular legitimacy and needs to be an Iraqi accommodation, rather than a regional or US-imposed approach.

This all jibes pretty closely with a recent Speigel interview with Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, former Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, and respected military historian.

Biddle told der Speigel that the war we're fighting in Iraq is not an insurgency at all:

...the classical strategy for waging counter insurgency is oriented around winning hearts and minds. You engage in a process of political reform in which you introduce democracy to make the government's ideas legitimate. You engage in a campaign of economic development assistance. And you try and train an indigenous military to wage the war. All those strategies are what the Bush Administration's approach to Iraq has been. They make some sense, if the problem you are trying to solve is a classical ideological insurgency. Except, Iraq is not.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is then?

Biddle: It's a communal civil war in which the war is not fought over a set of ideas. Rather, it is about the survival and self interest of communal groups within the nominal state. Sunnis are not fighting for an idea of what's best for all Iraqis; they are not trying to persuade Shiites that a Sunni government would be good for them. They are fighting for the self interest of Sunnis against the self interest of Shiites -- and vice versa. Because it is not a war of ideas you cannot expect to win it by changing people's minds. It's a war of identity. Identities can't change in the way minds can.

You know, you have to fight the war you've got, not the war you wish you had. And we should be fighting a real war on terror, not doing our part to further Al Qa'ida's goals. To wit: Michael Jacobson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out that while the Bush administration's "Iraq policy" (if it can be called that) in the past has conformed to the classic insurgency approach, resulting in a 25% increase in casualties between 2005 and 2006, a new approach might be presenting itself> Citing the State Department's annual report on global terrorism developments, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006, Jacobson observes that (my emphases):

While the United States still must eliminate the leadership of terrorist organizations, the report notes that "incarcerating or killing terrorists will not achieve an end to terrorism." According to the report, one of the most important and challenging aspects of combating terrorism is "addressing the underlying conditions that terrorists exploit," which include "geo-political issues, lack of economic opportunity and political participation, ethnic conflict, ungoverned space, or political injustice."

Sounds like a good idea to me. It ought to, since those of you who read this blog know I've been saying this for years. Those of you who know me even longer than I've been blogging know that this is something I've been saying since the late 1990s.

As for that "ungoverned space" mention in the State Department's report, has anyone been looking at Pakistan lately? As I've mentioned to Howie, when we are hit again by terrorists, the attack is more likely to come from Pakistan than anywhere else.

Kenyan Security Minister : Poverty Fueling Terror in Africa

Howie and his ilk on the right don't want to hear this. But more and more people are coming to the realization that poverty and terrorism are intimately connected.

Are we fighting a war on terror or not? If so, we've got to fight the root causes of terrorism, including poverty, malnutrition, inequality, and exploitation. If we have the nerve to call ourselves a "Chritian nation," we damned well ought to behave like one.

Jury : Libby the "Fall Guy" for Cheney

The jury is in and (righties like Howie will never agree) they have found Vice President Dick Cheney and Special Assistant to the President Carl Rove guilty of leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- Valerie Plame -- to the press.

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

You don't say? Wow. What a shock that piece of news is. The fall guy, though, for whom?

During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.

More than three years ago, President Bush promised not to allow this type of leaking to go on in his White House.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Ilinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. "

Here's your chance, Mr. President. For once, make your words mean something.

Chavez : Jesus is Socialist

An update on the "New Axis of Evil"^TM

Christians have been debating this contention for a while -- it's nothing new. But from the mouth of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, during the week that George W. Bush is visiting Latin America, "Jesus is a Socialist" is, well, "fightin' words...."

President Hugo Chavez calls Jesus a guiding light for his self-styled socialist revolution. But his relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is complicated and sometimes strained. Even as the leftist leader has invited Catholic priests to share their ideas on transforming Venezuela into a socialist state, he has clashed with some priests who are critical of him - and in one case declared that a Venezuelan archbishop is bound for hell.

So far, it doesn't sound so controversial. At the risk of sounding heretical (but not blasphemous), I've felt that way about certain priests and Bishops myself during my lifetime. Chavez made his particular remark about Monsignor Roberto Luckert, an archbishop who recently said that Venezuela was headed down the road to Communism, a charge Chavez rejects. His idea of "21st Century Socialism" is, to hear him tell it, true Christianity.

But many in the Church disagree with Chavez that Jesus's mission on earth was to rid the world of poverty and injustice. In a recent interview, Luis Ugalde, president of Andrés Bello Catholic University said the idea that Christ was a Socialist was "absolute nonsense."

Jesus Christ was not a socialist because socialism, if embraced seriously, is not a mere denunciation against man's oppression (this is a Christian denunciation), but the search of a fairer society in which equal opportunities reign supreme.

But many Catholics agree with Chavez, at least to the point of seeing that government has a role to play in protecting citizens from the gratuitous inequities of free-market capitalism, and to giving Chavez's motivations the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, some priests have increasingly been speaking up in favor of Chavez’s ideals.

Monsignor Edgar Doria said he thinks Chavez shares Christian principles like social justice and equality, and that the church can be a key ally in social programs for the poor.

Bishop Mario Moronta wrote in a recent letter, widely published in Venezuelan media, that the church has a role to play in discussing the "21st Century Socialism" espoused by Chavez. "We are called to participate in just efforts to overcome poverty," Moronta wrote. "Every Catholic and person of good will has much to contribute."

Meanwhile, US President George W. Bush is in Colombia -- our only real ally in Latin America -- to show his concern for the poor. Most likely, he will do this by promising more money to fight Colombia's "war on drugs," which will actually go to fight left-wing guerillas, who are themselves fighting right-wing drug lords. You call this foreign policy, Howie?

At the same time, McClatchey Newspapers just published report -- based on US Census data -- that indicates poverty in America is reaching epidemic proportions.

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty...

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period.

Okay. Fine. So Jesus was not a Socialist. I can accept that, and in fact I always have. No problem, and no argument. His mission was the forgiveness of our sins and the redemption of our souls, not to rid the world of poverty.

But Jesus was not a free-market capitalist, either. And redemption is not cheap. Our souls are not saved by empty words -- "I accept Jesus as my personal Savior" -- we have to save our souls ourselves, by our actions. We are not saved if we turn our heads at the sight of homelessness, hunger, inequality, and poverty. No matter what we tell ourselves.

Lying Your Way Into War

Last week, on that hole-in-the-news-cycle they call Friday, the Pentagon released a report that admits -- finally -- that the intelligence they released was not the same as the intelligence that they had regarding the Pentagon's "justifications" (if lies can ever be called justifications) for invading Iraq.

The report said the team headed by Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, developed "alternative" assessments of intelligence on Iraq that contradicted the intelligence community and drew conclusions "that were not supported by the available intelligence."

The report says, in part (my emphases):

While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community and were, in some cases, shown as intelligence products.

In other words, the "products" were the opinion of Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, approved by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, and passed off as "intelligence." In words even more direct, clear, and understandable, they lied to us.

Howie (and his ilk -- all 25% of them) still won't believe that there were no links between Iraq and al Qa'ida. Whatever the Bush administration says must be true.

But that's a problem. It is a problem because this entire affair -- the six year history of the Bush administration -- has weakened rather than strengthened the US Intelligence Community and our national security. As reported earlier here, here, here, here, and here, the CIA under the Bush administration is in danger of being emasculated, turned into an instrument of politics rather than objective intelligence gathering. The DoD Report does nothing to quell this fear. Feith's activities, with Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's knowledge and approval,

undercuts the Intelligence Community by indicating to the recipient of the briefing that there are "fundamental problems" with the way that the Intelligence Community was assessing information.

In other words, the objective truth didn't suit their desires: the invasion of Iraq. So alternative stories had do be manufactured. The US Intelligence community, in doing its job, wasn't doing the job the Bush administration wanted: justifying an invasion of Iraq. So it was time to make the CIA irrelevant.

It is time for us, the American people, to write an alternative ending to the Iraq war, and to the dismal accomplishments of the Bush administration: IMPEACHMENT.