Deans and the 'roots are first

Scary Stuff

http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/Zadehs.html

Bush's recent behavior provides more evidence to justify Professor Hossein-Zadeh's fear that he's the type of person "capable of blowing up the world and calling it good."

But Professor Hossein-Zadeh believes that the United States suffers from a more enduring affliction, "parasitic militarism" -- which might cause the ultimate collapse of America's empire. Moreover, he thinks parasitic militarism is more responsible for the war in Iraq than four other factors commonly cited: (1) the influence of America's neoconservative militarists, (2) President Bush's "intellectual inadequacies," (3) the influence of the Zionist lobby or (4) the need to "gain access to more and cheaper sources of gas and oil." [p. 3]

Parasitic militarism is the extreme militarism that afflicts a country, usually after "a prolonged reliance on military power for economic, territorial, or geopolitical gains." Such extended reliance "gradually creates a dynamic out of which evolves a large standing military apparatus that tends to perpetuate itself - and develop into a bureaucratic empire." [p. 3] It's commonly known as the military-industrial complex, but it also includes the U.S. Congress, the mainstream news media and major research universities.

What makes the U. S. militarism unique, asserts Hossein-Zadeh, is its unprecedented reliance on the predatory market forces and profit incentives that drive commercial defense contractors. Earlier empires were forced to rely largely upon arms supplied by comparatively benign state-run arsenals.

Thus, in past military empires, "arms production was dictated by war requirements, not the market or profit imperatives of arms manufacturers." [p. 18] Today, U.S. defense contractors not only market their newly proposed weapons, they also market (if not invent) the threat that their newly proposed weapons will combat. They also make political contributions (bribes) to congressmen who vote for their weapons programs, fund militaristic think tanks and employ workers, most of whom have a vested interest -- and, thus, vote accordingly -- in the job security that even unnecessary arms production provides them.

Yes, the military/industrial economy is a refutation of the free market economy. Its premise is rather simple: "if you're not willing to buy or sell what's on offer, we'll use force." That's the crux of the message to Iran.

WAR-FUNDING BILL PORTRAYED BY MSM AS DEMOCRATIC DEFEAT!

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1494

Well, America's stellar Bush-shilling media is at it again. Playing the pack-mule for Bush and Republicans. House Democrats passed a WAR-FUNDING BILL that included a date for withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq and, too, included much more money than the President had actually requested. The press immediately repeated the White House talking points claiming the WAR-FUNDING BILL didn't fund the troops and painted the Democratic legislative victory as a loss. How's that for great journalism?

On Tuesday, the plus-one Democratic majority in the Senate passed a similar WAR-FUNDING BILL. For America's press, another Democratic defeat!

If the White House or Republicans force something through -- margin of passage irrelevant -- it is considered a victory. If the Democrats force something through -- margin of passage irrelevant -- it is also considered a victory...for the White House and Republicans. Thanks, to America's stellar media the President and Republicans can't ever lose and the Democrats just can't win!

It is also why we haven't kept our end of the bargin with North Korea to free the frozen $25 million.

can you imagine going to war over $25 million?

no

but you might get $10 billion in contracts if you furnish boost phase intercept rocket engines if you can keep the threat real

now that makes $25 million worth fighting over

Serve at the pleasure of the president

if Bush actually vetoes a bill to fund the troops we have him in quite a box

the war is over unless he agrees to what Democrats want

http://www.slate.com/id/2162775?nav=tap3

As clichés go, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup" is a pretty useful one. And it's particularly apt in the train wreck that is the Bush administration's U.S. attorney purge. Sure, the underlying act that's alleged—firing only those U.S. attorneys who didn't measure up as "loyal Bushies"—was a bad one. But what seems to have undone the once-leviathan Bush administration is the fact that everyone's lying about it. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty apparently admitted both too little and too much in one brief briefing. And those admissions have triggered the kind of scrambling and finger-pointing we've never seen from this administration.

Had McNulty not claimed before the Senate on Feb. 6 that six of the fired U.S. attorneys had been let go for "performance-related" issues, he would not have infuriated those lawyers into defending their performance. And had he not had one dumb moment of pure honesty—admitting that a seventh was fired just to make room for a former Rove aide—he might not have illuminated more than the White House cared to reveal. And without these assertions (bear in mind that Harriet Miers advised him to deny, deny, deny), McNulty might not have implicated his colleagues at the Justice Department and the White House and turned them into liars and finger-pointers as well.

Phil wrote: the war is over unless he agrees to what Democrats want

~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil. Sound bite but totally illogical.

I wish that were true but wishing doesn't make it true. The facts are that the Democrats started with a weak position are now in a bargaiining position to further weaken by turning deadlines into goals. When have you ever STARTED negotiations and worked backward to stronger positions.

If Bush vetoes, there are many Conservative Dems (three in Indiana alone) who will agree to stripping the supplemental of any meaningful deadlines. They are on record saying that....unfortunately, this all ends poorly. Perhaps you score some political points against Bush but the Democrats have already agreed to fund the war AND the escalation.

I hope I'm wrong.

6.

If you have written a post at this link, you have to publish it for it to be accessible to others. Otherwise it says that comments are closed and there's nothing there.

Regarding the pending Bush veto: he may veto, but I think that this is a tactic to soften the deadlines in the Bill, either in the Senate version (the deadlines are NONBINDING), or in Conference. I can see Bush actually signing the Bill. After all, he gets even more funding for the war and his escalation, it uses BUSH's own bencharks, and he can "live" with unenforceable goals/timelines.

So, will we then be in a position of "declaring victory" when we all know the war and the killing continues indefinitely?  Too many progressives have agreed to this Devil's bargain to avoid criticisizing Pelosi, Murtha and Dems for poor negotiations.

Indy ~~ at least it's the first time they haven't said "Yes, Master, whatever you want, Master". . . . Not much, I agree, but *something.*

puddle
Thu, 03/29/07
11:01 am

Yes, at least it doesn't give Bush exactly what he wants. To me, that's a short-lived and rather hollow victory.

But in the process, the Out of Iraq Caucus, the largest caucus in the House, was forced to heel to the Conservative Blue Dogs. They were NOT allowed to even offer an amendment. All aided and abetted by organizations like Moveon, which are supposedly anti-war. It has split the peace movement. And it completely funds the war and the escalation for another 18 months.

I think Bush will accept it all, not veto, and tie up the deadlines/goals in court. Does anyone here think the Supreme Court will side with Congress against the President over managing the "war"? I don't....

Kyle Sampson and AG scandal on cspan 3. What a fine liar....ooops, lawyer!

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

Kyle Sampson is a slimy type. Lots of I don't recall, to the best of my knowledge. He claims that none of the firings were due to political cases....unbelievable. But he did contradict AG on the statement that AG wasn't involved in the discussions.

These time limits are ridiculous.....they are hamstringing themselves.

Harold Ford was out giving speeches yesterday in his role as DLC chair, setting policy, trying to draq the candidates on board.  When I see him I can't forget how he talked about Dean on Imus a couple of years ago.    He's a vice chair of Merrill Lynch,  a Fox News commentator.   But remember another DLC leader who right after the election called us "noisy activists."  Al From.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1227

They need to make peace with activists.  We were right, they were wrong.

Indy wrote "Does anyone here think the Supreme Court will side with Congress against the President over managing the 'war'?"

You really need to brush up a little on the Constitution

Monica, thanks, I don't know what happened, lets try again.

 


Serve at the pleasure of the president

Tom Bearse
Thu, 03/29/07
11:37 am

Tom, do you have a different copy than I do? In a conflict with the Congress vs. the President as C-in-chief, do you think the Supremes as currently constituted will side with the Congress that they can put restrictions on prosecuting a war? Although I'd like to believe they would, I don't think they will. But my point is that Bush will tie it up in Court, and any deadlines (I think they will be goals anyway) will be suspended.

As Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey have stated many times. The current House Bill has no way of enforcing the "timelines" with the exception of cutting off funds. Will that happen in Sept. 08 in the middle of a hot electon? That is laughable since they (the Dems) won't even do that now...

If people think this is good legislation and will actually end the war before Bush leaves office, please make your case here. One liners don't do much for intelligent discussion.

Indy wrote "In a conflict with the Congress vs. the President as C-in-chief, do you think the Supremes as currently constituted will side with the Congress that they can put restrictions on prosecuting a war?"

I think they'll use their power of judicial review to rule on the constitutionality of the act.

Tom Bearse
Thu, 03/29/07
11:51 am

And???? Your statement just refers to whether they'll hear the case or not?

I'll even go so far as to say that short of denying Bush the funds to prosecute the war, I'm not convinced that Congress should be able to dictate how the war is conducted. If the tables were turned, would you accept a rethug Congress dictating terms to a Democratic President.

The Dems have gone down this wrong fork in the road and as the Bills are constructed, they continue funding the war and the escalation.

i'm with indy steve on this,.  first, it's nonbinding andsecond putz is famous for his signing statements which i think he'll use.   the dem effed up and should have closed the purse and started impeachment hearings.  people here can't understand why we allow him to stay in office when we now have some power,

and `HC has no intention of leaving the ME.  

Whoever bucks AIPAC and talks of  the palestinian plight will get my vote . jmo

Senate OKs war bill with Iraq timeline By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

------

There are an awful lot of nation-building republicans that are still blind to the fact that Iraq war is a lost cause. That is unfortunate considering an overwhelming number of Americans emphatically rejected the open-ended Iraqi committment of the Bush administration in the 2006 congressional elections to keep us bogged down there policing a Civil War.

Indy wrote "Your statement just refers to whether they'll hear the case or not?"

I don't think it does.  I think it's a reference to the fact that the President's role as Commander in Chief,  the Congress's pwer of the purse, the manner in which laws are created, and the Court's role in determining whether a law conflicts with the Constitution, are provided for in the Constitution and by rather well-established judicial precedent.

Morning,

 2. Huron John, thanks for the posting.  I've copied it and will send it to friends. 

Indy Steve, I hope you are incorrect.  I simply don't know.  It's a struggle.  I've come to think that Nancy Pelosi is a very bright woman indeed and can strategize as well as lead.  Frankly, there are a variety of ways that this could go.  But up to now, there's been no challenge.

The avenues to power are so entrenched in our country that while the grassroots can bring forth information, express opinions, organize, and elect candidates, we are not making the decisions.  For that, we have to depend on people like Nancy Pelosi, Pat Leahy, etc.  I think they have integrity and strength of character, and I'm hoping against hope that they will prevail.

 I wonder if we war babies and baby boomers have not lived off the prosperity of weapons production and wars and that there won't be a terrible cost to all of this.  Our lives have been on the whole extroardinarily good with shelter, clothing, medicine, food, education, job opportunities, mobility, a voice in the poltical process etc.  But, and Huron John's article is important here, what has paid for all of that, and if it has been all the industries and institutions connected to weapons and conflict, is there a hope that we can change that?

Al Gore, for me, is the only legitimate candidate.  HIllary appalls me; Obama doesn't ring particularly true for me; Edwards, hmm, not much impressed with his leadership capabilities, and so it goes.  

Six inches of snow here, still snowing. 

Tom Bearse
Thu, 03/29/07
12:02 pm

Well, that really says little more than they will review it!

But I'll spring off of that. The Congress has the constitutional power to fund the war or not. When it sets conditions on that funding and deadlines, it ultimately will come to making a decision to NOT fund it. Our best hope for shifting the funding is now. As the 08 elections approach, it will be LESS likely to use the power of the purse.

The Supremes can just say to Congress, use the power of the purse. Deny the President the funding. But don't tell him how to prosecute the war. Meanwhile, another 2000 Americans die and 10,000 are injured.

One sidenote here... during the heated 2004 election, daughter suggested to me to stop buying Faith Hill's records because she said, "I know she's a rethug because she's from Mississippi". Boy, were we wrong. Who knew!?!

Tim McGraw said he writes plenty of songs, but doesn't like most of them enough to record.

And then there's politics. He's raised money for Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen and blasted the Bush administration's cleanup efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Last September, he sang at a birthday party for former President Clinton.

McGraw, who describes himself as a Southern populist Democrat, grew up in Start, La., about 60 miles from the birthplace of Huey "The Kingfish" Long, the flamboyant populist of the 1920s and '30s.

To hear McGraw tell it, politics is virtually encoded in his DNA. Folks in Louisiana have four primary interests, he said: politics, football, food and drinking. "I grew up around it. It's always been a big interest of mine."

While McGraw insists he has no immediate plans to seek office — he wants to see how he feels and what's available when his three young daughters get older — he's expressed a desire to be a governor or senator in his adopted state of Tennessee.

It's clear McGraw is looking beyond music.

"When you have the time, and you're as successful as my wife and I have been, you should take that opportunity to help people," he said.

Indy wrote "The Supremes can just say to Congress, use the power of the purse. Deny the President the funding. But don't tell him how to prosecute the war. Meanwhile, another 2000 Americans die and 10,000 are injured."

They can and may well.  All of these actors are democratically elected representatives, with powers limited by the Constitution.  If you find these too liberal in constraining government action, you could look into some European monarchies where they have very benevolent and peace-loving rulers.  Then, if you don't like the national party you're getting, just kill the head of government and replace him or her with someone preferable.

Pat in Colorado
Thu, 03/29/07
12:06 pm

Pelosi is bright and knows her stuff....but her hands were tied by the Blue dog Democrats. WE, the peace movement, failed to stand strong against this Devil's bargain. Moveon deserves much of the blame for this. If we don't stand up for the Out of Iraq caucus, who will?

It is as much a struggle within the Democratic party and between the various camps, and we should stop selling out for the half loaf so early. Now we're going to get about a quarter loaf...and score a few political points. It doesn't end the war, the violence or suffering however.

You can get a great turnaround time by ousting the supreme ruler by fiat.  Of course, nonviolent means should always be employed if possible but, for something as serious as a disagreement with defense policy, do what you have to do.

Tom Bearse
Thu, 03/29/07
12:16 pm

Well, the constitution is open to interpretation when applied to various cases, so it isn't quite as cut and dried as that. Since it is clear that Congress has the power to fund or not, that should have been the approach. Fund only an orderly and safe redeployment, not the escalation.

This notion that nonbinding timelines will result in an end to the war is pure political fodder. The war will go on, more bodybags will return and we'll pass the 4000 mark by Christmas.

Tom Bearse
Thu, 03/29/07
12:25 pm

Feeling ok? usually your posts are lucid, although we disagree often enough, but this has my head shaking!

Indy wrote "Feeling ok? usually your posts are lucid, although we disagree often enough, but this has my head shaking!"

I appreciate your concern.  I just wanted to add a little encouragement for those of us who find the democratic process such an unresponsive inconvenience.

False encouragement pacifies people. This Senate bill is met with a whimper indicating that people know it is far too little given the emergency that is Iraq. Progressives and progressive orgs have "rolled over" in order to avoid criticizing center-right Dems.

I hope bush vetoes the iraq funding bil.

no money, nothing for the war. shut it down.

off with their heads. Oh I forgot, they already did that in iraq.

Another similarity with Vietnam is the splitting of the peace movement when some peace orgs then thought that Nixon could be negotiated with in 1969. The war continued for six more years and resulted in 20,000 more deaths. Why are we going down the same path?

Crocuses and snowdrops yesterday at Grand Bend, Ontario

27 & 29

Indy wrote "The Supremes can just say to Congress, use the power of the purse.

I'm picturing 'The Supremes', the Motown version, on stage in judicial robes singing 'Stop in the Name of Love' to Congress.

Lynn in Cincinnati.

18

Well, that was refreshing. The spouse, hearing me laughing, wanted to be entertained (pleasured) as well. LOL

We need to stick together and confront Bush

• This is not 1994
• Bush is no Clinton
• Pelosi is not Gingrich
• It's what the people want

Indy wrote "Why are we going down the same path?"

You can see the similarity with that time period where a Republican executive was in office.  These are immovable objects opposed to irresistable forces.

The gravity of this prompts me to reiterate that the tragedy of invading Iraq was the horrible difficulty of extiricating ourselves once we were there.  The decision to overthrow a foreign sovereign is morally offensive on a number of levels but, in this case, the fact that we would become mired in the center of ensuing sectarian violence made the decision reprehensible, demonstrating again how little the legislators who voted for this fiasco understood the enormity of their actions.

False encouragement pacifies people. This Senate bill is met with a whimper indicating that people know it is far too little given the emergency that is Iraq. Progressives and progressive orgs have "rolled over" in order to avoid criticizing center-right Dems.

 indy, all the dems voted for it.

if bush vetoes it, no money for nothing. bring them home.

linda b
Thu, 03/29/07
12:49 pm

Lindab,

A veto doesn't result in not funding. That is a myth. It goes back to the Congress to be reworked. And my bet is it will be further weakened. I know for a fact that the three Indiana Dems will not support stregthening and actually want the deadlines stripped out. So that is what will happen. A supplemental will be passed and it's downhill from here.

Sad but true. You're setting yourself up for a fall.

Lynn Worpenberg
Thu, 03/29/07
12:42 pm

LOL!! Great image. Clarence Thomas as Diana Ross!!

32

I think the point was that, if all the conditions for deployment are met, the escallation isn't possible. Which is why Bush is objecting.
And then there are the hundred thousand technicians, missile managers, and radar specialists who are sitting on the "enduring bases" where they cannot remain if they have to count on the Iraqi military to protect or secure their perimeter from bombardment.

Redeploying the hundred thousand is going to be expensive. While the missile batteries from Germany aren't going to be redeployed from there and the families of those troops won't need to be relocated home, the cost of continuing to maintain these troops in Europe was not in the budget. After all, the whole rationale for moving troops out of Europe and repatriating thie families was to save money. That the missiles in Germany haven't been necessary for a long time is another matter. Even if they're not used, fancy weapons need to be maintained and trained on.

Hi again,

30. Indy  Steve, your assessment may be right, but I think things are still in play.  I'm not sure who posted the information last night that the Republicans are counting on this to split the democrats and cause them to fall into disarray.  

Each day, the news on Iraq is bad; the Civil War is getting worse; and there are more and more veterans and their families who are dissatisfied with the support from the Administration.  Furthermore,  Saudi Arabia's comment about an illegitimate occupation, and Iran's provocation all are adding to the instability.  

Last night there was a strident woman on Hardball who insisted that veterans were still furious with John Kerry because he had maligned them in speech to Congress about the atrocities committed by our troops in Vietnam.  I think there's truth in that.  I've read Tom Bissell's The Father of All Things, wherein he gives a retrospective of the Vietnam War, and Song Mai or Mai Lai wasn't that unusual.  Again, a foreign culture and terrain, a guerrilla war, ignorance as to language, culture, what to do other than kill, a top down directive (commanders were rotated out every year and thus no continutiy of leadership, tactics, or knowledge),  we weren't going to win Vietnam unless we killed everyone there.  But, there are people of a particularly aggressive, proud, and militaristic frame of mind that will never forgive John Kerry or the peace activists because they think we caused them to lose. It's a mindset that seems to me unchangeable and ultimately a blindness.

 Trying to deal with that and trying to logically address a situation that is ultimately destructive to the troops, the country, and the fight on terrorism means that our elected rerpesentatives do have a complex issue in front of them.  I'm hoping they are intelligent enough to deal with it.

Monica Smith
Thu, 03/29/07
12:54 pm

Bush has a waiver under the Bill that allows deployment if necessary. And he'll use it. Read the bill, folks, it is full of waivers and exceptions.

44.
I think that "setting yourself up for a fall" is an unfelicitous comment. It's possible that we are all going to be deceived by our representatives, but that is not our doing. We are not doing anything to ourselves.
If three Indiana reps did not vote in good faith and are going to back down when it really counts, then that should be remembered. People voting for things that they ultimately expect to fail is despicable.

John, I'm not seeing your images on IE.

By the way, there was almost no punishment for the massacre of Mai Lai.  Calley served less than a year, I believe, in federal prison.  The military ultimately white washed it.

Monica Smith
Thu, 03/29/07
12:58 pm

People believing this Senate Bill ends the war (or the one coming out of Conference will) are setting themselves up for a fall. False hope does that...and we're being fed this by those we trust when they pretty much know they have taken us down a weak path.

This will not end the war but will fund it. It may prove to be politically beneficial to democrats but at the cost of more death and violence. That is too high a price to pay in my mind.

Indy wrote "Bush has a waiver under the Bill that allows deployment if necessary. And he'll use it. Read the bill, folks, it is full of waivers and exceptions."

There's a pretty obvious reason for this.  Congressional Democrats are already taking heavy fire for trying to cut off troop funding and setting a deadline for withdrawal, what Sen. McCain calls "a date certain for surrender."  You would have to be literally out of your mind to legislatively manage a military conflict without incorporating contingency arrangements in the bill.

There's a new thread

why won't putz simply use his signing statements, crossing out what he doesn't like.  it's his ace in the hole.  i agree that taking it back to congress will weaken the bill.

i've distrusted pelosi's ability from the start tho she means well.  taking impeachment and closing the purse off the table gave putz the signal to do as he pleases.   she made a huge mistake and i don't know why but am very suspicious...,.she's  not stupid so something else is going on...perhaps she's afraid of being a strong female leader. none of this smells right or clean.

48.

Ah, yes. But a waiver is based on an explanation. If anything is to be salvaged from this Administration, then the first thing that has to be accomplished is getting an explanation of its purpose, on anything.
There's another arena where this comes into play. Bush changed the classification rules by executive order. It includes a provision that, if information is declassified prior to the normal expiration of the classification, it's supposed to be explained. So far, nobody seems to have demanded an explanation for anything. Without an explanation there's no way to judge whether actions and decisions make sense.
It seems clear, so far, that there were no adequate explanations of the firings of the U.S. attorneys. Both Republicans and Democrats are getting exercised about the apparent propensity to do things as a matter of whim or folly.
When Sessions of Alabama gets out of his accommodation mode, you can be pretty sure that the jig is up. Sessions, I'm sure, still feels that he was unfairly denied a seat on the Supreme Court. When Clarence Thomas was put forth he was promised the next slot and then Bush One was replaced by Clinton. Bush Two obviously doesn't honor any familial commitments.

37.

Indy Steve
Thu, 03/29/07
12:36 pm


Another similarity with Vietnam... Why are we going down the same path?
---------

Because there are no reasons not to...
Because social-economical interests of THOSE WHO HAVE POWER are still the same...
Because YOU DO NOT HAVE POWER...yet...., imo.

INSANE MCCAIN

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/885

John McCain made a complete fool of himself on CNN's "Situation Room" on Tuesday. Pressed by Wolf Blitzer, McCain stood by his statement the previous day that Baghdad is now safe enough to take a casual neighborhood walk.

Following the interview with McCain, CNN's Baghdad correspondent reported, with gunfire in th