DYING FOR OIL


One of the presidential candidates made a very important comment last week, something that should open up a national debate about the Iraq War.

But I’ve got a strong hunch that, given the state of our somnambulant corporate media, not much will come of it.

John McCain, who has at least an even chance of being the next president, admitted that the U.S. invaded Iraq to grab that country’s considerable oil reserves. “My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East, and will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” he told an audience in Denver.

When some commentators (to their credit) such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, jumped on this “gaffe” and said that it showed that oil, and not fighting terrorism, was the true reason behind the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, McCain tried to weasel out of his comment. Over the next few days, he came up with the excuse that what he meant was, the U.S. wouldn’t have to go into the Middle East as it did in the first Gulf War, to protect Kuwaiti oil from Iraq. He didn’t mean the present war.

Well, if you believe that one, I have a bridge I want to sell you. The first Gulf War, which lasted a few days, was 17 years ago. There’s a lot of young people walking around now that probably don’t even know it took place. However, they, and the rest of the country, are fully aware of the current war, which is now in its fifth year and cost 4,000 American lives and more than 1 million Iraqi lives.

No, McCain was talking about the current war when he made his comment in Denver. The fact is, the Iraq War is a resource war, and has been from Day One. If Iraq’s chief export was apricots we certainly wouldn’t be there. It does have the second largest reserve of oil in the world, however.

Everyone in power knows this war is about oil, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They just don’t want to admit it, because to make clear we are sending young men and women to die in a foreign land just to allow oil companies to grab cheap oil and fatten their already bloated profit line, is not something the American people would stand for. The message has to be put out that we are fighting for a higher purpose --- defeating terrorism or creating democracy. Fighting for oil? Don’t be absurd!

There has been a bi-partisan consensus for decades among elite political and economic leaders that the U.S. has to dominate and control the oil reserves of the Middle East. Once in a while, the truth about this will emerge, either through a slip-up like McCain’s or in a comment that won’t be widely reported by a leader in the elite group. For instance, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and supposed economic guru, said that oil was behind the Iraq War in a book he wrote.

But instead of the corporate press jumping on these occasional comments and trying to get to the bottom of the issue, they keep accepting (with a few exceptions such as Olbermann) the administration’s line about other, loftier goals being the reason for the war. First, Bush and his people said the U.S. was in Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. When the troops couldn’t find any, that reason went out the window. Then it was to get back at Saddam for his links to 911. When the links couldn’t be proven, that reason was discarded. Now they say we’re there to fight terrorists, such as Al-Queda, from taking over Iraq. But that reason doesn’t hold water either, since the Iraqis don’t see al-Queda as a threat and a full 70 percent of all Iraqis want us to leave.

When people on the left and in the alternative media said as far back as 2002 that a war in Iraq would be about oil, they were attacked as loonies or even traitors. I remember Bill O’Reilly on his show one night scoffing at the oil argument, saying that “everyone knows that’s bogus.”

The American press has done nothing, as far was I know, to follow up on reports by investigative journalist Greg Palast of the BBC, who wrote in his book “Armed Madhouse” in 2006, that the administration had two plans afoot -- prior to 911 – to launch an invasion of Iraq and take control of the oil. It’s a scandal that Palast’s findings weren’t banner headlines on the cable news shows and in the papers.

It would be refreshing if members of the press came to their senses and decided to pin McCain down on why we’re in Iraq and demand that he explain his comment, without the BS about the “first Gulf War.” But since many in the media are cozy with McCain, that’s not likely.

Maybe Barack Obama, the likely nominee for president among Democrats, will make an issue of the comment. I’ve got my doubts.

It’s probable that most of the media and Congress will continue to peddle the lie that we have to stay in Iraq for years to come, at least on some level, to stop terrorism and build democracy.

And don’t forget, we have to keep an eye on Iran. They’re no good.

Iran has the third largest reserve of oil in the world.

The American people need to know the truth.

Body of War Part II
and Iguanas Fall from Trees in Cold Snap Part III

Body of War Part II

I last wrote about "Body of War," a documentary on a paralyzed Iraq veteran, which I saw at the New York City opening on April 9. Riding home on the train, I asked, what can I do? All I felt was that, aside from trying to spread word about this film, I could help people tell and share their stories about what matters to them most in life, if only it could stop the war and other suffering that can be avoided. That example was coming from this young man, who could only try to help his healing and give meaning to his life by traveling the country and taking his antiwar message to others.

That night, I dreamt I was on a bucolic Midwestern farm with rolling, sprawling meadows; it was a warm, spring-like day, not too hot, with wide, clear blue skies you could see for miles. I was with my family -- my brother and sisters, their families and kids -- and we were working outside of a barn. Something wasn't going right, but we were fixing it and it wasn't serious. The barn was full of animals, healthy and strong. Things were idyllic, the colors so vivid, they seemed unreal (as dreams usually do). But then, I heard the strange sound of an oncoming train, and I looked up, knowing there were no trains nearby.

I looked in the distance, and saw that there was not just one tornado, but SIX bearing down on us in various stages of formation! I ran into the house, headed into the basement beneath the staircase and that's the moment I woke up, realizing nothing was stored there ... no gallons of water or canned food if everything was destroyed ... WE WEREN'T PREPARED.

You may ask,
What does a dream of SIX TORNADOES have to do with a movie I just saw on the effects of war upon a young man and his family?

This, too, was my question. I used to have recurring nightmares of dreams as a child. But there was always just one tornado ... and now there were SIX! What did it all mean?

But as usual, caught up in my daily life of trying to make a living, I forgot about that dream for awhile until now, as I reread an unfinished blog piece from February ... and it's starting to make sense.


#############################


Iguanas Fall from Trees in Cold Snap Part III

I first wrote Iguanas Fall from Trees in Cold Snap based on an odd piece of news that caught my attention in January. Oil was then at $100 a barrel, and I was alarmed. Today it hovers around $119 a barrel, just three months later. People should be in the streets! I then wrote a second part, and started a third, but never finished it. This weekend was Earth Day, and several things have happened since I first wrote on this topic, compelling me to write now.

I continue to be surprised at how sudden and how dramatic the effects of global climate change are upon us. I was struck by how the unusual cold weather in Florida was causing iguanas to lose their grip and fall from trees when the temperature dipped below 40 degrees. If the cold lasts longer than 24 hours, instead of awakening from their cold-blooded protective slumber, they simply die. It struck me as an analogy for the survival of a species ... either they learn to adapt quickly to changes in their environment, or they simply die when they're caught by surprise and fail to awaken from their "slumber."

Could the sleeping iguana be an analogy for us warm-blooded humans in a slumber about the state of our world? Have we become anesthesized -- watching too much TV, caught up in making a living just so we can buy new things, eat, drink or diet too much, looking only for short-lived pleasures and for the moment -- all things that put us into a protective slumber from the uncomfortable tribulations of our workday when the real, long-term survival of our species is at stake?

Throughout the winter, I'd been even more amazed by the news -- seemingly every week -- of tornadoes striking several Midwestern states! The first time I heard of a tornado in the South at the beginning of January, I called my sister in Missouri, a bit shocked to hear of JUST ONE tornado. Tornadoes do happen in the South in the winter, I was assured. But then, I saw a few days after that, I saw that the weather service had received reports of 37 tornadoes sweeping through Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Wisconsin. Two women were reported killed by the storms in Missouri. When I looked this up on Wikipedia today, I learned there were actually 72 confirmed tornadoes between January 7-10! I'm from a tornado alley state in the Midwest--and in all my life, I'd never heard of tornadoes, ever, in the winter.

In February, I heard that 57 people were killed as dozens of tornadoes hit five states in the South. Today, as I write this, I learned from Wikipedia that there were 82 confirmed tornadoes on Feb. 5-6!!


But, shockingly, it's been a very active year so far for tornadoes, with 607 as of April 14, compared with 1,267 total in 2005.


When I was child, I was haunted every six months by nightmares of tornadoes ... but ironically, I never had experienced the devastating effects of a tornado until I moved to New Haven, Conn. when one struck in the very neighborhood I was living in -- the last time one had hit that area was some 150 years earlier.

At the time, that shock compelled me to change my life, to seek out new things I'd never done before, including visiting my parents' homeland, where, for many years now, the rainy seasons have failed to come. My aunt writes to me every year, telling me of her hope that the many hectares of mango trees she inherited from my mother's estate will begin to finally reproduce.

Global climate change is turning nature inside out.

Recently, one of BTL's producers, Melinda Tuhus, interviewed a professor who was coordinating a global warming teach-in on college campuses across the nation. One thing caught my attention: He said that the UN's chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said there was really only a window of two years where we have to make dramatic changes to our output of greenhouse gas emissions.

With oil, electricity and gas prices taking up larger proportions of our household budgets, and the future of our planet at stake for the next generations, it seems we all need to focus our efforts not only on conserving energy, but making bold, innovative choices to our lifestyles.

I cringe at the thought of $200 billion annually being spent for a war over the control of greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels, when all that money could be spent on research for alternative fuel and promoting ways for homeowners and businesses to not only conserve, but to make truly sustainable buildings and communities. Not to mention all the unnecessary wars and conflict that climate change and environment also provoke -- as they have done over the millennia with our ancestors. Wars have always been fought over scarce resources.

Rajendra Pachauri, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman, said during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize Award in December 2007:

"Peace can be defined as security and the secure access to resources that are essential for living. A disruption in such access could prove disruptive of peace. In this regard, climate change will have several implications, as numerous adverse impacts are expected for some populations in terms of:
- access to clean water,
- access to sufficient food,
- stable health conditions,
- ecosystem resources,
- security of settlements"

I see now where climate change and peace and security converge ... somehow I have kept the two ideas separate. Even though I have always sympathized with the environmental movement, I have never linked that my peace activism could also include direct action on environmental change ... from small daily habits to working with businesses and political groups and governments to affect policy changes. And there are so many ways to make a difference, if only it's not too late. (More on that later.)

I want my childhood nightmares of tornadoes to end, not to become reality.

I want a new dream, a new vision of affordable housing and communities that are environmentally sustainable, where families can live without fear of violence or war or economic hardship.

I want us all to awaken from our slumber and get busy working on what's really important in life ... not only the survival of our species, but to thrive in a life and a world we and and our ancestors have always wanted, so that we may enjoy an abundant life free of unnecessary strife.

And I want iguanas to keep on hanging to the trees, awakening from their slumber to the rich, warm sunshine where they belong.

ELECTION DEBATE: A DISGRACE



Broadcast journalism hit a new low Wednesday night with the ABC telecast of the Democratic Party presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If you missed it, you’re lucky – you saved yourself a headache.

There’s a ton of important issues out there to be tackled in a debate --- such as how to end the Iraq War; the housing and economic crisis; the health care crisis; global warming; and the erosion of civil liberties.

But moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had other priorities. For the first half of the debate, the subject matter was nothing but junk, with pointed and frankly unfair questions directed at Senator Obama. Even though the matter has been taken up endlessly already on the cable TV shows, Gibson had to once again ask Obama about his so-called gaffe saying that Pennsylvanians are “bitter” about their economic plight.

He also queried Obama about his relationship with his pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made controversial remarks disparaging America in a sermon. That’s about the millionth time someone from the media has brought that subject up. Through a viewer on live video, Obama was asked why he didn’t wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Then Stephanopoulos asked Obama why he was friends with a ‘60s radical who four decades ago got in trouble for bombing a federal building in protest of the Vietnam War. The man is now a professor.

To his credit, Obama answered all the questions in an even tone, and didn’t get flustered.

Clinton largely escaped the barrage of nonsense, except when she was asked about her embellishment of her trip to Bosnia years ago, in which she had claimed she arrived under sniper fire, which wasn’t the case. This subject has also been covered for weeks on cable and network news. In the debate, she admitted she made a mistake.

After an hour of this trash, I shut off the TV. What a disservice to the American people. Kids are dying in Iraq, homeowners are losing their life savings, the Constitution is going in the tank, the planet is burning up, but ABC wants to know whether Obama is still friendly with a ‘60s radical and why he doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel.

It’s no wonder that Americans elect nincompoops to be president. The media is determined to NOT present any issues that matter and to NOT help inform people to make reasoned decisions on Election Day.

Instead, it’s an obsession on a candidate's gaffe, the tone of their voice, who they were friendly with at one time in their life, a remark their wife made, or the price of their haircut.

Not only is this dwelling on trivialities a disservice to the country, it demonstrates again that right-wing pundits on radio and TV are having a major influence on the course of political coverage on network television and in mainstream papers. It came out after the debate that right-wing nuthead Sean Hannity of FOX “News” had urged Stephanopoulos last week to ask Obama about William Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader who had participated in the 1970 bombing incident. As part of FOX’s “fair and balanced” political coverage, Hannity has been running nightly reports on the “links” between Ayers and Obama on the “Hannity and Colmes” show. No one else saw any news value in this matter – until now.

As Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher said in a blog he posted with the Huffington Post, ABC’s performance in the debate was “perhaps the most embarrassing by the media in a major presidential debate in years.”

Don’t count on media coverage to improve.

Body of War, Part I


"BODY OF WAR" -- produced by Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro

I never cried so hard at any movie until I saw this documentary, "Body of War."

I consider myself a peace activist at heart. But I was skeptical and reluctant at first to see this film, even though I knew it fit in with the realm of my "must-sees," as someone strongly against all wars and unnecessary violence. I was hesitant because it would be painful to watch -- and like many -- I'd lately been caught up in the daily grind of making a living, and didn't want to lose my "focus."

Only when Scott (BTL's producer) did an interview with the film's director and producer, Phil Donahue, did I suddenly jump at the opportunity to see the film. Phil Donahue invited Scott and guests to the opening at the IFC Center in New York last night. I was especially moved by Scott's admission during his interview, that he was broken up by a scene where Tomas Young, a 25-year-old Iraq War veteran who returned home paralyzed -- is in a march and stops to talk to a group of women who lost their loved ones. A few touched his face -- including one woman with a large sign of her husband in uniform with their daughter, who kissed Tomas on the cheek -- as if by touching him, they were able to grasp a glimmer of their own lost, beloved soldier. I have not lost anyone to the war, but I can relate all too well -- seeing that scene and others -- I could not stop crying and I heard of others who cried as well.

It's a well done, powerful film with everyday scenes in Tomas' life interspersed with clips of Capitol Hill speeches by the nation's powerbrokers who led the country into war in Iraq. Tomas signed up to fight in Afghanistan just 2 days after Sept. 11, and after only 5 days in Iraq, was struck by a bullet beneath the collarbone, which passed through his spine. He came home several weeks later, paralyzed from the chest down. Contrast the scenes of daily life -- his awkward attempts to dress himself, his fears of uncontrollable bodily functions that could embarrass him at his wedding, the ice packs he must wear on hot days to control his temperature as he speaks at antiwar rallies, the efforts of his loving mother and wife to ease his pain, and his sense of humor -- with the parroting of Bush's speeches by other members of Congress in their drumbeat for war.

After the film, I realized that I, who made it my life's purpose to do what I can to help end conflict and war -- including through media activism such as BTL -- had been getting a bit settled into the daily grind of making a living. I was losing touch with the core issues and values about life's meaning until this film.

It's very disheartening to see the stark contrast between those who control the lives of many with their political decisions -- so separate from the pain of millions of people whose lives they affect out of sight from their gilded offices. Tomas's story is just one of thousands of U.S. soldiers and who've been affected so traumatically by this war and whose pain has been hidden from the public for too long. Let's not forget their families and the communities...or the millions of Iraqi families destroyed and displaced. Or the next generation of young people, whose lives will be affected by the policies being made today -- not just about the war, but about economics, the environment, health care, education. Underneath the daily grind of just trying to make a living, our core purpose in life demands a more serious commitment to the reasons for our existence. We cannot forget those things which are left unexpressed and unheard, the deeper values that make life worth living and why we must fight for them.

Riding home in the subways and the train, looking at the vast diversity of people and communities of New York City, deluged by hundreds and hundreds of faces, and remembering the gutted and burned out four-story buildings of Harlem 15 years ago that have since been renovated -- I wished I could be more in touch with people, helping them share their stories, across neighborhoods, towns and cities, lands, and nations. ... If we, and especially our political and businesses leaders were all more in tune with the human condition and improving life for others, if that were our sole purpose in life, would we not be have a better world?

Would we be able to avoid the worst of our man-made trauma upon one another and achieve the peaceful world for ourselves and our loved ones that we and our ancestors have longed for since time began?

ECONOMY IN PERIL; PRESS SLEEPS




There are rumblings of a collapse in the American economy, but you would barely know it from the way the national press is acting.
As the media rolls from one tabloid story to another --- from Eliot Spitzer’s dalliance with a prostitute to endless video footage of the emotional outbursts of Barack Obama’s pastor --- there’s increasing signs of an economic meltdown.
Just as Spitzer, the governor of New York, was resigning after disclosures of his using a prostitute, the Federal Reserve Bank did a most unusual thing: they extended a $200 billion bailout to investment banks which have been reeling from losses in the subprime mortgage industry. This is the first time in history that this has been done, and it reflects the deep concern the Fed and the Bush administration have about the U.S. economy, despite the outward bravado that “everything is fine.”
But that massive bailout wasn’t all. Over last weekend, when it was clear that one of Wall Street’s biggest players, Bear Stearns, was about to collapse, the Fed came to the rescue. They put up a $30 billion line of credit to back up JP Morgan Chase’s buyout of Bear Stearns.
This week the Fed cut the discount rate, hoping to spur investment and pump up the economy.
It’s still not clear whether all these steps will work; many skeptics think the problems with the credit market are deep-seated and more banks are due to fail. If that should happen, it will send shockwaves throughout the economy, resulting in a severe recession, possibly a depression.
Much of this could have been avoided. When the housing market was going wild and banks and other lenders were engaging in risky and in some cases predatory lending practices with prospective homebuyers, there were calls by many state officials throughout the nation to tighten up on regulation. But the Bush administration, with the “let the market rule” approach, told states to lay off.
Hundreds of thousands of people, many low-income, were given home mortgages with high interest rates, though they could have qualified for lower interest rates. Many got suckered into this, because they longed to achieve the American dream of homeownership, and believed that the market would keep going up, and even if they had to stetch to make payments, it would all be worth it.
But like all bubbles, the housing bubble burst. Prices flattened, and in some cases, values went down. Lower-income homeowners were suddenly stuck with higher-rate mortgages and a house that had lost value and they couldn’t sell.
A wave of foreclosures has resulted, triggering the huge losses for banks and lenders, not to mention millions in losses for ordinary people.
The latest estimates are that 2 million people will lose their homes.
Interestingly, it was Eliot Spitzer who was leading the charge to investigate predatory lending practices by the big banks, including the pattern of racial steering in mortgage lending.
And, according to Greg Palast, the outstanding investigative reporter who works for BBC and has a show on Air America, Spitzer’s takedown by the feds (in this case law enforcement officials) in the prostitution case is directly related to his drive to uncover the dirty dealing by the big banks and investment houses on the mortgage business.
The same week in February that Spitzer was penning a piece in The Washington Post blasting the Bush administration for being a “partner in crime” with predatory lenders, that’s when he was having his tryst with a call girl.
The feds, who had a wiretap on Spitzer’s phone in connection with their probe of a prostitution ring, caught the governor on tape soliciting the service. After the news broke about the governor’s link to the probe, Spitzer was widely criticized and forced to resign.
Palast writes that the “very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called the ‘Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.
“Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works,” writes Palast. “But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party.”
There’s no absolute proof that the feds tried to nail Spitzer due to his raising hell about the subprime scandal. But I have to agree with Palast, that there’s too much of a coincidence here.
Did anyone in the mainstream press bring up the possible connection between Spitzer’s takedown and his rabble rousing on Wall Street? No one that I know of.
Will anyone be held to account for the boneheaded and often illegal lending practices that have now triggered a massive financial crisis, one that threatens to bring down the economy? Probably no one, at least right now.
Is there anyone in the media calling for an accounting? No. They’re too busy talking about a black pastor and Obama supporter denouncing the U.S. for mistreating blacks. As if he doesn’t have a right.
Meanwhile, as usual, the American people will be left to pick up the pieces for the Wall Street disaster. There will be new bailouts, worth hundreds of billons more, to help prop up the big financial institutions.
Jim and Mary Taxpayer will be left with the bill.

OBAMA: CHANGE OR MIRAGE?



This is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

But I do want to raise a few concerns about Barack Obama.

Obama, only on the national scene a few years, has had meteoric success in his presidential campaign, picking up primary and caucus wins all over the country in recent weeks, not to mention key endorsements. The media are calling him a “phenomenon,” a person who could “transform” the nation if he reaches the Oval Office.

It appears his surge of popularity will drive him past Hillary Clinton in the remaining Democratic Party primaries, and he will probably win the party’s nomination for president this summer.

In the general election, Obama would likely top the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, John McCain, who will be vulnerable due to his enthusiastic support for the unpopular Iraq War and by a lack of support from conservatives.

So who is Barack Obama, the man who could be leading our country this time next year?

For one, he’s a great speaker. His oratory rivals that of Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy. He talks of the need for change, bringing people together, of helping those in need and uniting the country. There’s no question, he’s an inspiring person.

Some of the specific changes Obama calls for are also admirable. He wants to strengthen early childhood education and increase teachers’ pay. He wants to raise the minimum wage. Unlike the Bush administration, he has a program for attacking global warming. He also wants to promote renewable energy sources.

And he thinks the Iraq War was a mistake, and advocates a troop pullout.

That’s all fine, as far as it goes. But, as they say, I’ve got a few issues.

Much of my concern centers on the area of foreign policy, and just how different an Obama administration would be from what we’ve had the last 25 years – a period marked by continual American intervention in other countries.

Let’s take Iraq. Obama frequently points out that he, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, took a stand against the idea of war with Iraq in 2002, long before the conflict began. He did so while serving as a state senator in Illinois. Obama implies that this shows he has better judgment than Clinton on issues of war and peace.

Here’s the problem: since his election in 2004 to the U.S. Senate --- where his actions carry far more weight than in the Illinois state senate --- he has voted to continue funding for the war and failed to support a key measure that would get us out of Iraq.

On Dec. 18, Senator Russell Feingold, D-Wisc. proposed a bill that called for the redeployment of American troops out of Iraq in 2008. A number of senators, such as Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy, voted for the measure.

But Obama didn’t bother to interrupt his presidential campaign to go back to Washington, D.C. and vote for this breakthrough proposal. The Republicans and their blue-dog Democratic allies carried the day and turned back the bill.

So how serious is Obama about ending the war? Well, apparently not serious enough to stick his neck out during a presidential campaign and risk being called “cut and run.” That’s too bad, because his help, and Clinton’s, are sorely needed to end the Iraq quagmire, which has cost 4,000 American lives, 1 million Iraqi lives and $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars.

Now let’s look at Iran, a country which the Bush administration has been spoiling to start a fight with. Is Obama’s position on Iran markedly different than the administration’s? I don’t think so.

Last year, Obama wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs Quarterly, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, which laid out his position in a number of areas. It should be noted that the CFR has long had a key influence in the direction of American foreign policy. Leaders of CFR enthusiastically supported President Bush’s plan to attack Iraq in 2003.

In the article, Obama said Bush’s reliance on threats and use of intermediaries to curb Iran’s “sponsorship of terrorism” and “regional aggression” had failed. Exactly where Iran’s “regional aggression” has taken place is not explained.

Then, while saying he would encourage direct talks with Iran over that country’s nuclear development program, Obama said he would not rule out use of military force to deal with Iran.

So, while Obama’s policy on Iran would rely more on diplomacy than the Bush has, the essence of Obama’s message to Iran is the same as Bush’s: shape up or we’ll bomb you.

This is coming from a senator in a nation that already has nuclear weapons itself, and is conducting a war of aggression against Iran’s neighbor.

Obama has also taken a hawkish position on Pakistan. Last August, Obama said if he is president and Pakistan didn’t take action against known al-Qaeda strongholds in the northwest hills of that country, he would consider authorizing a military strike to take out the camps, even without permission from the Pakistani government.

A unilateral action of this sort, without Pakistani or United Nations approval, would be an act of war and illegal under international law.

Obama’s comment sounded an awful lot like the bellicose talk by Bush advocating the need for taking “preemptive” action against terrorists wherever they show up around the world.

Sounding again like a Republican, Obama also said in the same Foreign Affairs Quarterly article that he wanted to “revitalize the military.” He called for increasing the size of the Army by 65,000 soliders and the Marines by 27,000, so the U.S. could better face “missions in the future.”

Here we are in a nation that outspends any other country many times over on “defense,” has the capability to wipe out any number of nations with our nuclear arsenal, and Obama wants to increase the size of the military.

Another concern about Obama arises from his continual talk about bridging the political divide. I don’t know whether this is simply a political ploy to woo independents and moderate Republicans in the general election or whether he will really try to work with Republicans when he becomes president. I would have no problem with him working with Republicans on legislation say, for dealing with health care and the environment, if the ultimate product is a good one. But if you have to water down the legislation in the process simply to bring Republicans on board, then it’s not worth it.

On a related note, Obama’s praise of conservative icon Ronald Reagan during the Nevada primary was troubling. Obama said Reagan changed the nation’s “trajectory” and gave the government accountability “after all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.”

Let’s see, Ronald Reagan. Set the labor movement back 50 years with his firing of the air traffic controllers; conducted a slash and burn policy of dismantling vital social programs; gave the green light for illegal and highly-destructive wars in Central America.

Nice guy.

What did Obama mean by the “excesses of the 1960s and 1970s”?

****************


Enough said. There are some things to like about Obama. He does want to push ahead with a broad health care plan, which will bring millions more Americans into coverage. As noted, he has a plan for fighting global warming, improving education and boosting wages. While he’s vacillated in the Senate on the war, presumably once he’s president, he would extricate the U.S. from Iraq.
Having a black person as president would also be positive for this country, and help to unify America, which still has serious racial problems.

Obama is clearly superior to McCain, whose conservative stance on domestic issues and talk of a hundred years war in Iraq are unacceptable.

If Obama is elected, it will be important for his advisors, Congress and the American people to steer him in a progressive direction, demand a humanitarian foreign policy and not allow the country to get involved again in another disastrous war.

Telecom Immunity Battle Again

Debate has started again on reauthorizing the broad Bush program for spying without warrants. Bush/Cheney and the GOP are demanding that the Democrats give them not only a reauthorization of this broad authority—which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights—but also blanket immunity for giant telecommunications corporations who carried out Bush's illegal spying program. Such blanket telecom immunity would stop lawsuits regarding this program dead in their tracks. These lawsuits are our only hope for finding out the true extent of the surveillance undertaken by the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Bush/Cheney have key Democrats on their side in this latest atempt to run roughshod over liberty and accountability. Most notably, it is the two craven whores—recipients of buckets of telecom cash—Sen. Jay Rockefeller (chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and Majority Leader Harry Reid. Rockefeller's Committee produced a bill that includes telecom immunity; the Justice Committee produced a bill without the immunity provision. Reid, having the discretion to prioritize one bill over the other, chose the Intelligence Committee bill as the primary bill around which debate would revolve. Effectively, that put the onus on telecom immunity opponents to get the votes to strip the provision out of the bill.

Or, filibuster it. Last fall, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) threatened and began a filibuster that prompted Reid to pull the bill. Dodd is committing to filibustering the bill again. Netroots activists are calling on the three sitting Senators running for President (Obama, Clinton, McCain) to return to Washington to back Dodd. While that is obviously unlikely in McCain's case, both Clinton and Obama are on record, rhetorically at least, as opposing telecom immunity. It is put up or shut up time.

Unlike how Harry Reid has dealt with GOP threats of filibusters—by basically caving without forcing them to carry out their threats in the light of day—Reid has said:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

This despite the fact that Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, claims Reid opposes telecom immunity. Manley is lying.

CREDO Action, a new activist tool from socially conscious Working Assets folks, is hosting a page to enable folks to send a message to Obama, Clinton and McCain urging them to "Get Back to D.C. and Protect our Civil Liberties."

Time is of the essence here as debate has already started. For more information, check out the invaluable posts at Glenn Greenwald's Salon blog (particularly here, here and here) and over at Firedoglake, where they will be live-blogging this issue. Greenwald's posts, in particular, offer plentiful links to further information on what's at stake in this fight.