| |
 |
Monday, May 8, 2006 |
Michelle Pilecki: Iraq WMD Doubter Scott Ritter Sees Pattern Repeated With Iran. Remember Scott Ritter? The former Marine intelligence officer was a senior weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, and is the living contradiction to the oft-repeated claim that "everybody thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" before the US invasion more than three years ago. Ritter kept insisting there were no WMDs. "My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact," the BBC reported in September 2002. Ritter's address to the Iraqi National Assembly's Arab and Foreign Relations Committee was broadcast in the Arab world, covered extensively in Europe and virtually ignored here.
The truth of the matter is that Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on 11 September, and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterises those who attacked the United States on that horrible day.....
The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction, either in terms of having retained prohibited capability from the past, or by seeking to re-acquire such capability today.
Ritter managed to persuade the Iraqi government to allow the unconditional return of inspectors in an attempt to avert war, but war came anyway. This week, in an interview by David Rolland, editor of the San Diego City Beat, and running in several other alternative newspapers, it's deja vu time, but with Iran.
[W]hen I speak of Iran, I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have a policy of disarmament vis-á-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change.....
We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn't matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.
How realistic is the fear that, even with current situation in Iraq, the US would invade Iran? "You'd be surprised what kind of plans are being hatched up right now," Ritter tells Rolland.
And if you go to the School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as I have several times, you'll see the maps on the wall clearly indicate an American interest in pushing forces into Azerbaijan. Why? It neighbors Iran. Why is that important? The shortest route to Tehran is down the Caspian Sea coast, [where] the Army is planning an incursion right now.
We civilians may say there's not enough troops. We don't count. The military believes they can do this mission, and they are planning to do this mission because they have received the political guidance from their commander-in-chief to accomplish this mission. That's the only reality that counts. None of the pundits that appear on TV, none of the ill-informed people writing op-eds, have a vote in this matter. The only votes that count are those who have the authority to order military action and implement those orders, and that's the president, his inner circle and the military, and they are preparing for war with Iran as we speak.
I usually dislike Q&A pieces, but this one is definitely worth reading. Oh, and Ritter is a bipartisan basher. He doesn't like the Clinton administration any more than the current one, knocks the "peace movement," and thinks that Americans aren't fulfilling their patriotic duty of protecting the Constitution.
[R]epresentative democracy isn't a one-phase process, where you vote, and then -- boom -- somebody gets elected and now that's it, you back off. There's a thing called accountability. They're still accountable to you, and you have to hold them accountable for what they do in your name. It's a constant process. We have to supervise, because, remember, they work for us.
The other aspect of citizenship is to empower oneself with knowledge and information so that in the conduct of supervision of those whom we elect, we do so based on knowledge and information, on facts, as opposed to rhetoric, fiction and bald-faced misrepresentation of fact. It's the citizen's responsibility for this empowerment -- no one else's.
Thanks to The Unknown Candidate for the tip.
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
12:57:39 PM 
|
|
Arianna Huffington: On John McCain, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Bettie Page, and WWJRD (What Would Jesus Really Do?). A sure sign of the coming GOP apocalypse: the party faithful are starting to play the God card.
Yes, when all else fails -- with Iraq a debacle, your domestic agenda a nonstarter, and your lame-duck leader pronouncing the catching of a big fish the high point of his presidency -- it's time to look heavenward for political redemption.
The Republicans have had their Come to Jesus Moment and, as usual, decided... well, to come to Jesus. Again.
It's Page One of the Karl Rove electoral playbook: Go with God. Make him your Election Day chauffeur, driving the holy-rolling, gay-marriage-fearing, family-values crowd to the polls.
It's not by accident that Republican Party pinup girl Ann Coulter (a Bettie Page for those into intellectual B & D) has a new, timed-for-2006 book that accuses liberals and Democrats of being... that's right: "Godless."
Even John McCain has hopped on board the Straight-to-Heaven Talk Express, granting absolution to Jerry Falwell and preparing hit the political pulpit at Liberty U. this coming Saturday.
We've seen this movie before -- and the ending has all too frequently resulted in Democrats being Left Behind on Election Day.
For some reason, they just haven't figured out how to talk about God, and faith, and WWJRD (What Jesus Would Really Do?) in a way that feels real and authentic.
Here's a helpful hint: take a page from Bradley Whitford, who was absolutely spot on during his appearance on the latest Real Time with Bill Maher. Whitford went toe-to-toe with former Virgina Governor Jim Gilmore on issues of faith and won hands-down.
The Democrats should follow Whitford's lead and refuse to give an inch when Republicans trot out the holier than thou routine.
For a deeper look at God and the role of spirituality in our lives, here is an excerpt from the chapter in my new book dealing with fearlessness in the face of God and death. (As always, please send me any stories you have about fear and fearlessness.)
----
Our conventional way of thinking about the world remains profoundly dualistic. The physical and the rational in a supposedly eternal and inexorable battle against the spiritual. In fact, the barriers between the two -- built by the narrow rationalism of the Enlightenment -- are now being dismantled by modern science and a growing chorus of personal experiences. What we're seeing - at least those of us willing to look - is that we are not alone in an indifferent universe. As Goethe put it, "this life, gentlemen, is much too short for our souls." If this life were sufficient for our souls we would not go through it consumed with fear and fanatical denial.
Reintegrating the two worlds of the spiritual and the everyday is the key to fearlessness. But ending this division is not easy when we've stopped even acknowledging that we live caught between these two worlds. When we're consumed with climbing the career ladder or just making a living, the spiritual seems very unreal and far away. So we either keep it conveniently penciled in one day a week, we seek it out only in moments of crisis, or we deny spirit altogether while trying to convince ourselves that we can overcome all fears and obstacles on our own.
Which is not to say we're not religious. Seventy percent of Americans belong to a religious organization and 40 percent of adults attend services once a week. "The downside to all this," wrote Jeffrey Kluger in his Time article 'Is God in Our Genes?' "is that often religious groups gather not into congregations but into camps -- and sometimes they're armed camps...Why then do we so often let the sweetness of religion curdle into combat? The simple answer might be that just because we're given a gift, we don't necessarily always use it wisely."
Here's the bottom line: If you believe in a God who only judges and punishes others (or you) or if you believe that there is nothing but an accidental, indifferent universe, it's going to be incredibly hard - perhaps impossible - to move from fear to fearlessness, because, after all, the essential characteristic of fearlessness is trust. The trust that there is purpose and meaning in our lives and in the universe, even when our limited minds are unable to see it. It's the trust that's captured in one of my favorite verses in the Bible: "Not a sparrow falls but that God is behind it."
The alternative is a pessimism and an impatience which despairs of life and seeks man's hope either in the end of the world or in worldly panaceas.
* * *
When we tap into the truth that we are spiritual as well as material beings, then we are able to distinguish between our transient concerns and never-ending problems, and what is eternal and immutable. Understanding which is which will help us overcome our fears, not just our fears of God and dying but our fears of loss.
What form this takes is up to you. Though I was raised Greek Orthodox, it was the distaff spirit of the Virgin Mary that moved and comforted me when I was a girl. Whenever I felt alone and afraid, I prayed to Mary. When schoolyard squabbles broke out, when my sister grew quiet and sick, when my father moved away and didn't come home, I prayed to Mary.
She went with me to England and into adulthood. From the tumult of the debating chamber at Cambridge to the quiet of my first apartment in London, she was there. When I moved to a new homeland in New York, when I miscarried, when I divorced, at every fearful, difficult moment in my life I have looked to Mary as a spiritual guide. As Will Durant put it, "the worship of Mary transformed Catholicism from a religion of terror - perhaps necessary in the Dark Ages - into a religion of mercy and love."
But I also looked to the powerful archetypes in my beloved Greek mythology for guidance in my life, especially to the goddess Hestia, as their symbolism is full of wisdom and universal insights.
Hestia is the goddess of hearth and spiritis, which is an eternal center to which life returns to be replenished -- a gathering point that's always there providing security in a chaotic world. She embodies the place where the soul that's gone astray can reconnect. Her name means "the essence of things," and since she is the essence of everything that moves and flows and has life, she was worshipped in ancient Greece as the center -- of the city, of the house, of the world.
But even more than comfort and centeredness, Hestia represents the bedrock of our being. She is not about striving and straining, competing and succeeding; she is all about "being." As Carl Jung put it, Hestia manifests "the almost irresistible compulsion and urge to become what one is, just as every organism is driven to assume the form that is characteristic of its nature." With gods like this, how did Greek mythology lose out? (At least our invention of democracy took off.)
Then there is my favorite god: Hermes. Winged messenger in perpetual motion, as an old man, or a fixed stone, Hermes embodies both action and serendipity, and that which never changes. He is the guide of our voyage and the guardian-spirit of our adventure.
Whenever things seem fixed, rigid, "stuck," Hermes introduces fluidity, motion, new beginnings. He is the primordial divine child -- the child who, if we're lucky, we never outgrow. Hermes' world is a magical world full of signs and significance. He was the god who first gave me, as a child, a sense of the miraculous all around me. His spirit is fluid, trusting, open. Introducing the element of the unexpected into our lives is one of the means he uses to spur us out of our complacency, to break through the inertia and confinement of habit and convention.
Hermes clearly represents a very important key to fearlessness: the freedom of not having to be in control all the time, of not always being the one who has to make things happen. His dual nature also helps us accept life's paradoxes - that the only constant is change. Which is why he is the god of connections, bridging realms and dissolving frontiers between earth and the Underworld, men and gods, life and death.
You don't have to be Greek to enjoy the benefits of the Greek gods. Nor do you have to wait until you get to the other side to experience Hestia's essence. Bridging the gap between ourselves and that something greater than ourselves is available to us all the time. It's the bridge between what we know and what we dimly perceive, between what we are and what we are not, between what we are now and what we can become.
As we make that connection, we gain perspective on our lives. When I studies comparative religion at Shantaniketan University outside Calcutta (founded by Rabidianath Tagore) I learned a lot from my study of the Shinto form of Buddhism centered on mindfulness. Through the simple act of paying careful attention -- whether to what we eat, how we move, or where our thoughts wander -- we become aware of the significance our minds attach to things. And in that awareness, we recognize how interconnected everything is. All religions have similar practices that can free us from the fear that results from not feeling in control. As Hermes teaches us, it is so freeing to let go and trust.
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
11:42:23 AM
|
|
Steve Anderson: John McCain: but a tower of strength is somethin' I'll never be. In his latest and greatest ankle-grabbing act for GWBush, McCain says of Gen. Michael Hayden:
"In all due respect to my colleagues -- and I obviously respect their views -- General Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I think that we should also remember that there had been other former military people who have been directors of the CIA."
As AP's Nedra Pickler points out:
If Hayden were nominated and confirmed, military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
This thought should have government hating Conservatarians and black helicopter wingers absolutely wetting themselves in frustrated fury. Heck, listen to Saxby Chambliss (R-Swift Boaters)
who said Hayden's military background would be a "major problem,"
Even Arlen Specter, who has never seen an issue that he can't take both sides on, is drumming his tiny fingers on his desk in, well, deep seated concern:
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would use a Hayden nomination to raise questions about the legality of the program and did not rule out holding it up until he gets answers. "I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand until I see how the facts evolve," Specter said on Fox.
Of course, since he said it on Fox, it's really just code words for "I'm really a Republican stooge, I just play a Senator on TV. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more." So it doesn't count one bit.
But ol' Straight Talk McCain, you'd think he would grow some stones. Instead they shrivel up smaller everytime he basks in Der Leader's radioactive glow.
But I'll ask the same question here that I asked Sen. Russ Feingold at the blogger's lunch a few weeks ago:
With GWBush's numbers well into the lower 30s, with Rove looking like a probable indictee sometime soon, with the Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Libby, Burns, Doolittle, Scanlon, Goss et al scandals continuing to develop, exactly what 'juice' did (/Rove) Bush have? What could he threaten (/Democrats) Republicans with that carried any weight?
Why doesn't McCain, who clearly has given up all his hard earned prisoner of war credibility, just tell GWBush to shove it, and take control of the Republican Party? Hell, that would be the Left's nightmare. McCain is the only Republican that could arouse any interest from the Left, however misguided it might be. But as GWBush's lifeboat continues to take on water, McCain is bravely trying to catch a ride, not realizing that it's sinking.
Go Johnny go!
Steve regularly blogs at SteveAudio.blogspot.com.
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
11:02:17 AM
|
|
Asking 'Who's Crazy Now?', Paul Krugman says the inability of right wing pundits to "admit that they built a personality cult around a man who has proved almost pathetically unequal to the job" leads them to invent "a vast conspiracy of America-haters in the media ... hiding the good news from the public." [Cursor.org]
10:59:46 AM
|
|
Raymond J. Learsy: Straight Talk About Oil From Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has surely been a thorn in the side of the Bush administration and western oil companies. But there's this to be said in his favor: However hostile he may be, what he says is honest; at least we know where he stands. Compared to the suave, hypocritical double-talk we hear from our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, Chavez's billingsgate is oddly refreshing.
With oil selling at well over $70 a barrel, thanks to the manipulations of the world oil cartel and its oil patch cronies, both Venezuela and the Saudis are sitting comfortably in what Red Barber used to call the catbird seat. In fact, Venezuela may be taking the lead in the OPEC cartel. It has vast reserves of "heavy oil" -- deposits so thick and tarry that the crude oil needs extensive processing before it can be refined -- and, at these prices, that oil can now be counted in the country's proved reserves. Added to 80 billion barrels of conventional oil, that brings Venezuela's total reserves to 316 billion barrels (greater than the purported reserves of Saudi Arabia's 261 billion barrels). And Venezuela is gulping in oil income of more than $200 million a day, half of it from exports to the United States.
Characteristically, Chavez has been putting his mouth where his money is. He warns that he will cut off oil supplies to the States unless we stop undermining him, and that if we try to invade Venezuela, Americans will die, and we still won't get any oil. He spews contempt for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whom he calls an "imperial lady." In a press interview not long ago, he sent a street-lingo blast he has not -- so far -- uttered to her face: "Don't mess with me, girl."
Chavez is also forcing Western companies in Venezuela to tear up their old concession contracts and accept new terms far more favorable to Venezuela. Most recently, in a move that oilmen see as a step toward outright nationalization of the industry, he proposed to seize majority control of four huge heavy-oil projects, and added insult to injury by nearly doubling royalties on heavy oil and raising taxes on whatever profit remains. Conoco-Phillips alone estimated that Chavez's new rules would cost it $4 billion over the life of its contract. But the companies don't have much choice; not long ago, Chavez seized oil fields outright from France's Total and Italy's Eni when they refused to play by his new rules -- and he won't pay any compensation.
In sharp contrast, the Saudis are always affable and soothing. King Abdullah assures us repeatedly that his country wants nothing more than world prosperity and stable oil prices, and stands "willing and ready" to pump any amount of oil "needed to stabilize the world oil market" even as prices leap forward. The long-time Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, reaffirms that the kingdom is "keen to ensure a balance between supply and demand . . . so that producers benefit and consumers do not lose." If prices keep rising, Naimi asserts, it's never OPEC's doing. He blames speculators, the fear factor, or consumers for not building enough refineries.
But all this is bullderdash. Over the past two years, the Saudis' vaunted "stability" has meant more than doubling the crude-oil price -- and at nearly every step, the Saudi soothing syrup has proved to be snake oil. In December of 2004, for instance, with the price at $42/bbl, Naimi assured reporters that OPEC's "target range" of $22 to $28 a barrel was still in force. Then, instead of pushing for an increase in the cartel's output that would have driven the price down to the targeted ceiling, Naimi called for an outright cut in production of 1 million barrels a day -- an action that could only force still higher prices.
Sure enough, in fits and starts, the price kept rising. And when Chavez and other OPEC leaders called for a target price range of $50 to $60, only the most muted objections were heard from the Saudis. It was good public relations and nothing much more given the clout they could have brought to bear.
It's worth repeating that Naimi himself has said it costs only $1.50 a barrel (and probably less) to pump Saudi Arabia's oil. Every nickel we pay above that is pure gravy -- money extorted from us that we could be spending for other needs, and in poorer countries for the staples of life itself. I know they are entitled to a reasonable profit, but margins over 4,500 percent at today's prices for crude -- yes, more than four thousand five hundred percent!.
Sure, Hugo Chavez is a menace and a royal pain. But at least he's open about it. With friends like the Saudis
.............!?
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:47:33 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
