Quagmire

Well guess what? Iraq is a quagmire. For the Republicans it is an ugly situation like the Bay of Pigs plans or Somalia. It's time to figure out how to saddle the naive Democrats with it the way they did Pigs and Somalis.

So what really happens if the Gringos suddenly retreated to Kuwait? Probably ever Iraqi who ever smiled at an American would be killed. Civil war seems inevitable. The devolution of the state or Iraq seems inevitable. A huge mess seems inevitable.

If all this comes to pass because of the Democrats they will have eggs on their faces worse than the Pigs or downed Black Hawks. Who remembers that JFK inherited the pigs from Eisenhower and his naive trust in the CIA? Somalia started with the first Emperor Bush but it hurt Clinton and the Dems.

The Iraq conquest was idiocy. I saw it from the beginning. The moment the invasion began I proclaimed that at least Bush would therefore be defeated in 2004. Sadly I was also supremely naive. It took the American people much longer to become aware of the Bush/Cheney/Neocon folly. I hadn't allowed for the billions spent on pro-occupation propaganda/disinformation spread around the mass media.

So here we are. No way forward, no way backward. Gulliver's screwed.

I recently wrote John McCain who publicly supports and increase in the effort to subdue the Iraqi militants.

> Dear Senator McCain
> You may be right that America cannot up and leave Iraq precipitously.
> But why should the American people have any more trust in you, your
> Republican friends in the White House or the Pentagon to manage the
> future any better than they have the past five years?

The problem is that the operation has been so grossly mismanaged by the very people who ask the world to be patient while they fix it. What an absurd proposition. They believe in the corporate model. Successful CEOs are handsomely rewarded and the failed CEO goes. But America is led on all levels by failed CEOs in both parties. The Democrats are equally incompetent to fix the world's problems. The K St. project is alive and well. Money and influence trump logic, science, public service, compassion, and good judgment.


Senators who had the good sense to vote against the invasion resolution should be rewarded. (Sadly the only Republican dissenter was defeated in 2006.)

• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Robert Byrd (D-WV)
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

• Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Mark Dayton (D-MN)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Bob Graham (D-FL)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

• Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
• Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

One alternative is to just leave the ungrateful Iraqis to their own fate. The image is rather horrendous. But at least the Europeans would be forced to intervene in what would become a hot-house of fundamentalist insurgency. Or would they until the results were knocking at their door? Presuming our leaders did all this to secure a predominate position in the Iraqi oil patch. Europeans were dissuaded from supporting the war because they wouldn't get a piece of the oil action. To back off now and let anyone else exploit Iraqi oil would be the real lose. America spent all those billions building the Oily Casino. Folding the Gringo's cards and dumping it all now won't happen.

But what about all those poor soldiers and marines dying there? On the real-world geo-political stage, 10-20,000 fighters is chump change. Fixing the world after WWI and the depression cost over 60 million lives. During "peacetime" since 1945, an equal number of people have died in (mostly stupid) conflicts from Korea to Vietnam to Biafra to Darfur. It won't end. As the world's resources run out those with the power to do so will take what they need from the well first. In a way this is the root of the Iraq situation. Water will be the next big one eventually.

IRAQ STUDY GROUP

The almost laughably oxymoronic

AP Poll: Few expect victory in Iraq

Padrino's Rant...........

Did ANYONE ever expect more? They're idiots! Americans are such gullible idiots. Now they're really stuck in another stupid shit hole brought to you be the whiz kids at the Pentagon. Idiots! When will gringos ever learn not to trust government propaganda, generals...or Rush? Leaving Iraq soon sucks - any Iraqi who ever smiled at an American will be liquidated. An America-hating terrorist state with big oil reserves. Staying sucks even more. Pentafools! They never gave it a thought.

What happened to the Powell Doctrine (of 1990) and the premise of being able to fight two major wars simultaneously? Where was the exit strategy?

And this Iraq Study Group. What total and complete bullshit! 5 Democans and 5 Republicrats. Like all truth can only exist within 10 assholes who never met an Iraqi w/o a Swiss bank account. I mighta trusted it more if they'd included Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. But no flamers were allowed on the group. What happens if the Palestinians refuse any solution that includes an Israeli State. It goes on forever. What happens if the new Iraqi army and regime are just as bad as Saddam's. And what happens if the Iraqis fight the Christian occupiers 'til the Crusader's rear guard has fought it's way back to Kuwait? What happens if the rest of the world (continues to) says "OK, America, you dug the hole going for oil - now get yourself out of it." A lot more gringo treasure is going down the tubes before this is over. Oil prices went up because the play for Iraq's reserves was/is failing and someone had to pay for Their fuck-up.

Do you realize most of the big corps - like Cheneyburton - have already pulled out of the quagmire? They took their big bucks early while the takin' was easy and hot. When it got really dangerous they went home.

In a perverted sort of way I really enjoy seeing SuperPowers squirm. I even enjoy seeing Tony B. crash and burn in the Bushes.

It's called Tony Blair.

War Debts & Taxes, Oh My!

This article reflects Padrino's thinking exactly...............

September 27, 2006
by Michael Boldin

Recently, an Associated Press report reaffirmed to me that the leadership of the two major political parties in America are totally in favor of continuing war in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Senate agreed to spend an additional $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as lawmakers passed a massive bill that funds the Pentagon.

The bill sailed through by a vote of 98-0

I was immediately reminded of a common sense observation by Thomas Paine:

"In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes."

Interestingly enough, that doesn't sound much different than what we experience today!

A TWO-HEADED MONSTER

There are only a few politicians that are truly opposed to war. Some people are amazed or even angry when I state my position; that war is not the fault of just Bush and the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well; they are equally responsible for starting, fueling, and funding the war machine.

If my memory hasn't failed yet, it wasn't just the Republican Party that got us into this horrible mess. The Democrats voted for it as well, promoted it as a necessity, and even bombed Iraq on a regular basis throughout the 1990s; all the while aggressively supporting UN sanctions that resulted in over one million innocents dead.

Not only did both parties authorize the invasion en masse, they continue to join together to overwhelmingly approve billions more dollars to continue the killing.

So, even though Bush will someday leave office and cease being a "war president," we must start facing the fact that it's not just him or his neo-conned Republican party that are guilty of war crimes; it's the American political machine, fronted by both the Republicans and Democrats, that is completely addicted to the power and profits of warfare. It's the American political machine that we must resist.

The only way to improve America's image is to end our wars immediately. We must also bring home all our troops, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from the more than 100 other countries where the U.S. government interferes with its so-called military presence. Of course, once we achieve this, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.

But, such a "withdrawal" will never happen as long as the Republican and Democratic parties are ruling over us.

By now, it's become rather clear to those of us "not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest" that even when the People want peace, the two major parties pursue war.

Another 98-0 vote should make that quite obvious.

BACK TO BASICS

The standard belief is that all American wars have been fought to "protect freedom." On the contrary, these wars have been the primary impetus for the growth of centralized power in the federal government. Wars have eaten away at our liberty, crippled our economy, intensified our national debt and shamed our image as the "land of the free." We have lost freedom because of these wars; not secured it as the politicians have told us.

Simply stated, the Constitution allows for the commencement of war only after a declaration of war from the Congress. By waging wars without the constitutionally required declaration of war, the president has blatantly violated the Constitution.

Some people have tried to tell me that a declaration of war wasn't necessary after Congress delegated this power to president in late 2002. They claim that this was a legal substitute for the Constitutionally-required Congressional declaration of war.

This is utter nonsense.

First of all, the power to "declare war" was given to Congress by the Framers so that the legislature - the branch most closely tied to the People, whose money and lives would be put at risk - would be making the decision of whether or not war would commence. The commander-in-chief only has the power to wage war once war has been declared. It's the representatives of the People who have the power to declare war. Such power is clearly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and I encourage you to read it for yourself.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has long held it to be illegal for any branch of the federal government to delegate or transfer its constitutional powers to any other person or branch of government.

Simply put, unless a direct attack is being repelled, Congress is where war starts. Period.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that We the People have instituted to limit the actions of federal officials. Like it or not, politicians must abide by its restrictions on power. If they don't like a particular part of the Constitution, or even if they think it's outdated, the only appropriate action is to call for a Constitutional Amendment, not just ignore the law.

By waging wars without a Congressional declaration, the Executive branch has repeatedly violated the Constitution. By delegating its power to declare war to the president, the Congress has repeatedly violated the Constitution as well.

DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY

Beginning with Harry Truman and the Korean War, Democrat and Republican presidents alike have taken the position that it's no longer necessary for Congress to declare war. Presidents send armed forces to fight wars all over the world without Congressional declarations.

The sad reality, though, is that Congress can stop or even prevent such foreign entanglements at any time by simply refusing to finance them. Such power is not insubstantial. The current war in Iraq has now been going on for over 15 years, has spanned the administration of three presidents, and multiple congresses under the control of both political parties. This proves that Congress is just as responsible as the Executive for this unconstitutional war.

So, in Iraq, we see yet another failure of our vaunted Constitutional Republic to maintain a peaceful America.

Thus, the Constitution has become little more than a glorified sham, as Congress and the Executive have habitually succeeded in using it as a cover to violate our inalienable rights. Since our current wars were started on unconstitutional grounds, any further funding and continuation of them is illegal and unconstitutional. In this sense, any funding bills approved by the Congress are illegitimate.

So, unfortunately, unless we do something ourselves, we're stuck waiting for an unconstitutional Congress to take the lead. With yet another war funding bill "sailing through the Senate," the prospects for peace don't look too good.

The painful truth is that Democrats and Republicans aren't going to end this war. We will, by refusing to play by their rules.

WHAT THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT

As the founders stated so often, the greatest threat to our liberty is our own government. This is the only reason we even have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If our government wasn't dangerous to freedom, these documents wouldn't even be necessary.

Historically, what is the number one way that governments take away freedoms from the People? The founders knew quite well; through its military. This is why many of the founders vehemently opposed a standing army; a professional military force. They knew that such an institution would grow into a beast, and be used to involve the country in dangerous, costly, destructive and foolish wars. Even more so, they warned that politicians would eventually use the troops to ensure a subservient citizenry at home.

There is only one solution to these threats to our liberty and safety. We must finally act on the warnings of the Founders against standing armies. If we would have dismantled the massive American military empire years ago, the federal government wouldn't have had the power to create the catastrophe we face today. They wouldn't have had the ability to set up a massive military presence throughout the Middle East. Thus, they would never have been able to kill over a million in Iraq with unconstitutional wars, sanctions, and invasions. Without all this death, we wouldn't have had terrorist attacks on our country, and therefore, we wouldn't have had a "war on terrorism." Without the war on terror, we never would have experienced the Patriot Act, warrantless spying, secret courts, military tribunals, rendition flights, and other attacks on our rights.

None of this would have been surprising to the founders. James Madison gave us ample warning, "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

STOPPING WAR NOW

As stated so clearly in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have every right to write a new declaration of independence from the illegitimate, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts of their rulers. Such rights are inalienable and absolute in all people. Rights cannot be altered or abolished; governments can.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, felt that governments should be abolished periodically just to keep political leaders in check. Shortly before the Constitution was ratified, he wrote to Abigail Adams, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

My hope is that such a spirit of resistance will rise once again before too many more innocent lives are lost.

Michael Boldin [send him email], an outspoken critic of the American political system, is a senior editor and contributing writer for PopulistAmerica.com.

Muslims Killing Muslims

When one looks at the history of inter Islamic conflict they will be amazed at the numbers of Muslims who have been killed by fellow Muslims. The numbers must surely far exceed any deaths in conflicts inflicted with non-Muslims from Crusaders to Jews.

Randomly one can list:

The troubles in Algeria in recent years.
The Iran-Iraq war.
Darfur where so-called Arab Sudanese are currently killing African Muslims in droves.
The seemingly constant bombing of Sunni or Shia mosques by each other.
The civil war in South Yemen.
The Taliban's massacre of the Shia (esp. Hazara) in Afghanistan.
The Frelimo-Morrocan conflict over Western Sahara.
The Javanese assault on Ache.
The draconian rule of the Ottoman Empire in the Arab lands.
Surely, today's fundelmentalists would kill the half of Islam which just wants to get along if they could.

Digesting

I've been trying to digest all the events these past weeks. In Lebanon nobody won anything. Hizbollah is still there handing out Iranian cash and trying to explain what was lost and gained by pricking Israel to hard. Israel is wondering where there captives are. Oil slicks foul the lovely Mediteranean. People continue to be maimed by American cluster bombs. The IDF juggernaut proved to be less surgical than advertised.

Closer to home, what really alarms this naive boy is the 36% of the US population which still thinks Bush is doing a good job. Many of them are so-called Christians who have been hoodwinked into thinking Bushco is a Christian organization. But what about the non-religious who continue to believe in Bush. How could they? With the election coming the Republicans want all the focus on the so-called phony War on Terrorism. The irony of the argument that Bushco has done a good job on the phony war is that if someone else had been President they might have done a much better job of it. They could hardly have done worse. The mistakes have been cataclysmic.

Bushco's soldiers claim that America has terror free for 5 years and that proves their prowess. What bull! America and Americans have suffered the after effects of 9/11 continuously. The terrorists didn't have to do anything. The beast has injured itself...and I'm not talking about the Great Democratic Oil War in Mesopotamia. That had nothing to do with terrorism. That was a Texas neo-colonial business promoted by neo-con jingoists that turned out to be a big fire ant colony. Fools. Anyone who'd lived in Iraq as I have would have told the Bushies they were going into a cesspool.

Saddam was clearly no saint. Iraq cannot be administered by saints. Up to July of 1990, he was America's boy. The 8 year war Saddam inflicted on Iran made Lebanon look like a spat. Hundreds of thousands died. The Marsh Arab culture died. The environmental consequences were horrendous. And Saddam's megalomania went over-the-top. And America supported Saddam in weapons (incl. of mass destruction), realtime satellite imagery, oil shipments (Iraqi tankers reflagged with the stars & stripes), and, undoubtedly, numerous other ways unknown to mere mortals. Then he got uppity and threatened the corrupt Kingdoms which America owns. April Glaspie...talk to us. Please, tell us what was really going on.

WINNERS?

It is interesting to see how suggestible world opinion can be. Hassan Nasrallah says that Hezbollah "won" the one-month war it started with Israel and the world affects to believe it. Even the Lebanese pretend to believe it, though their economy was wrecked in the process.

What interests me a little more is the absence of any sense of cause and effect among the Lebanese leaders. They allow Hezbollah to operate as a surrogate military within their state, and then they complain when Hezbollah's military transgressions are answered by an Israeli military response against the host state. And now the Lebanese have to pretend to celebrate Hezbollah's victory -- while tourists quietly decide to go anywhere in the Mediterranean except Beirut.

Another body of opinion, exemplified by George Friedman at Stratfors, says that by failing to eliminate Hezbollah's hardened positions in south Lebanon, Israel has lost its aura of military invincibility -- the invisible shield that for thirty-odd years made the leaders of Muslim states think twice before starting a rumble. This might be true for the moment. But it doesn't include the additional reality that sometimes failure is a salutary prompt to rethink one's tactics and strategy. The likelihood now is that Israel will find ways around Hezbollah's (and Iran's) tactic of conducting rocket war from fortified bunkers and Israel will not advertise it when they do.

Israel's current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert may be viewed as a loser by Israel's Knesset or parliament, and they may replace him with Bibi Netanyahu, who was PM in the 1990s and went through his own years of loserdom, and now might return to power with a more refined tragic sense of politics and circumstance, as Churchill did in England in 1939.

World opinion seems to regard Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the current "winner" in the region. He says he aims to kick Israel's ass and sends his goons to show the world how it's done. They're like little kids who go to a neighbor's house, set a paper bag full of dog shit on fire on the door step, ring the doorbell, and hide in the bushes to watch the response. Eventually the police show up.

We hate you!

It's really pathetic that some in the arab community are saying "if israel doesn't quit we'll hate them forever!!!" It's long been apparent that the non-jewish semites were going to hate the jewish ones to the max regardless. There's is no reservoir of possible good intentions for the Israelis worry about losing it. The is nothing left for Israel to do but create a free-fire zone around it when a free-trade zone would benefit the neighborhood much more. Arab hatred has been pumped for 60 or more years. What's another bloody nose in a long losing tradition? All who die have the honor of being martyrs and it's all the will of Allah anyway. So why's everyone so uptight?? Every time their god says they've got it all wrong they get in a state of denial once again.