Attention Tea Party Nuts - Where Were You During The Bush Administrations Financial Mismanagement?

Source: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The New Republic has a great commentary on the Tea Party budget myth. The above chart puts debt and deficit in clearer context. Stated here a million times...

They Are Who We Thought They Were

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Civil liberties critics of the last Administration were labeled paranoid in an attempt to marginalize them. Seems as if these folks weren't so paranoid after all.

Say Hello To Your Next President

An unmitigated nightmare...

Bush Administration Attempting To Provoke Conflict With Russia

The U.S. is reportedly sending a Coast Guard ship to the Georgian Port city of Poti, which is under the control of the Russian armed forces. This appears to be a clear attempt on the part of the Bush Administration to provoke a military confrontation with Russia. The U. S. knows full well that Russia has numerous ships in the Black Sea, in and around Georgia as part of their ongoing military operations there. This effort by the Bush Administration appears to be designed to create the environment for a “Gulf of Tonkin” or German U-Boat style incident. The Bush administration is using the guise of a “humanitarian mission” to send the ships into the Black Sea. There are also other NATO ships in the Black Sea conducting operations.

The Russians are already responding militarily and they have indicated that they will attempt to confront and search any Western ships entering the conflict zone. (This is the scenario that I was referring to last week).

Two other ships, including a Navy Destroyer, were earlier assigned to a different Georgian port- The port of Batumi- where no Russian troops are stationed. But one Destroyer, the McFaul, and possibly others may now head for Poti, a port that was not believed to be under consideration prior to today. The McFaul has been assigned to the Black Sea to conduct military operations after its “humanitarian mission”.

So why is the Coast Guard ship (and possibly more to follow) being sent to Poti, when other ports are available? Why use ships at all, when humanitarian aid can be moved into Georgia through a variety of other means, including by land and air? The U.S. has the greatest airlift capacity of any nation in the World. Why use a U.S. Navy Destroyer (the most powerful combat ship in the U.S. Navy’s arsenal) to ship humanitarian aid, when the U.S. military has access (contracts) to private merchant ships and its own Navy cargo vessels? This is the most bizarre fact of this whole thing. Why even use the military at all for this? The EU, UN, and NGO’s had been handling the real humanitarian effort and they have the know-how and expertise to best distribute any such aid.

This is an effort by the U.S. to flex its military might in what has become the biggest flashpoint on earth. U.S. & NATO warships in the Black Sea is provocation enough. But the use of a port that is part of ongoing military operations of another nation is a clear attempt by the White House to try to insert the U.S. directly into the conflict. There is no logical reason to use the Poti port or any other zone under Russian control, especially when other options are available. And it reveals the entire “humanitarian mission” as the fraud that it really is.

Contact peace advocates, diplomats, UN representatives, NGO’s/Peace Groups, and government representatives to put a halt to this reckless irresponsible schoolyard brinksmanship, before a new conflict and a new much larger crisis erupts.

I predicted this problem in my posting from last week, and suggested that the U.S. was using "humanitarian aid" as a way to get involved in the conflict.

Discussion Of Last Weeks Events

Hear a great discussion of last weeks events from On Point Radio.

The main topic of discussion was the Russia-Georgia conflict, and the insane U.S. policy that has instigated the crisis. Unfortunately the debate was 2 against 1 (2 Neocons vs. 1 Progressive, Mr. Jack Beatty). Usually the panels on this program are more balanced.

Fighting Breaks Out In Georgia

The U.S. and the Russians Are Once Again In A Standoff in Europe - Thanks to the Bush Administration

Conflict has erupted in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Georgian troops have attempted to reclaim the breakaway territory of South Ossetia. South Ossetia is a small enclave of about 70,000 people that is culturally & economically connected more with Russia. The breakaway region, backed by Russia, wants independence. Abkhazia is another region that wants to break from the Georgian government.

On the other side is Georgia, backed by the United States. The Georgian government does not want to give up control of the South Ossetia region. The U.S. has been ignoring warning signs of a conflict for months. In fact, the U.S. has been an instigator, escalating tensions. Ironically, this is all taking place as the Olympic Games are starting in Beijing. Leave it up to Bush and the United States to screw up the Olympics. Almost everywhere the U.S. goes, it brings nothing but war, chaos and trouble. This is why the U.S. is a growing pariah in the World. The U.S. couldn't even agree to call an end to the fighting at the UN. And it's ironic that Bush lectures the Chinese and other Countries about Democracy, freedom and allowing self determination, yet at the very moment that the U.S. is giving these lectures, it does not support self determination for the people of South Ossetia. This is despite pushing for Kosovo Independence. It is clear that U.S. political leaders only support freedom and self determination when it is convenient.

I have warned several times before that this was one of the biggest hotspots in the World. It is more volatile than the Korean DMZ in terms its likelihood for conflict...and it could have global consequences. Russian troops patrol the disputed region and thousands of U.S. troops are in Georgia. This could get as ugly as Berlin.... maybe worse. In Berlin, conflict was averted. We seem to be already past that threshold in Georgia. It's amazing how a tiny region of just 70,000 people could have the potential to create a regional conflict that could impact so many others. Remember WWI began over nonsense and it ended up being one of the most costly wars in human history, killing millions upon millions of people. And nations ended up in a stalemate.... gaining very little if anything that was worth the cost.

The Georgian conflict is another example of the U.S. being asleep at the wheel. The incompetence and recklessness of the Bush Administration exacerbates these conflicts, and has wasted so many lives already. Will we survive the next 6 months of this administration? Will we survive the policies of the next President? Who knows. My confidence that we will come out o.k. keeps eroding from one week to the next. But U.S. foreign policy has to change. In the Georgian conflict, the U.S. has allowed the Georgians to dictate policy, potentially at our expense, and even when it is not in our interests. It's another case of U.S. foreign policy decisions being made by foreign Presidents and Prime Ministers...and we simply follow along.

This latest conflict centers around oil and oil transit routes. The U.S. and Russia are competing for defacto control of the region so that they can control the flow of the regions natural resources. Another reason why the U.S. needs to end its dependence on foreign energy. The U.S. has few compelling, overriding interests in Georgia. Yet we sent a few thousand U.S. troops there after 9/11 under the guise of terrorism. The U.S. promised the Russians and other nations that U.S. troops would be out by now, but the Bush Administration did not keep its word. As a result, we have a situation that some analysts had feared...a new Cold War front.

See More Information About Georgia and the Roots of the Current Conflict

Americans Better Off Today Than 8 Years Ago

That's according to Conservative political pundit George Will. This is the kind of nonsense that makes me scratch my head, confused as to how these talking heads are able to obtain and keep their positions. Clearly they are completely untethered from the rest of America.... completely out of touch with the American people and with all reality. These rich pundits don't have a clue about what Middle Class and Working Class/poor Americans are feeling. Yet they are considered authorities on the economy, and other subjects for which they have no clue.

An Interview With Ahmed Rashid - On U.S. Failures In Afghanistan

Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid talks about his book Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. Hear how U.S. taxpayer dollars are being diverted to the Taliban, and how Pakistan has become an obstacle to progress.

The U.S. failed to follow through with promised economic development and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Therefore, efforts to get farmers to stop using their land to grow opium failed. The money that the farmers were being offered did not come close to the amount of money that they could get from growing the poppy plant. And since there were no jobs being created, farmers resumed growing their old crop. Much of the revenue from the opium trade goes toward funding the Taliban.

Hear/Watch Interview

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

Previous Related Blog Entries

Return of the Taliban

Chaos in Afghanistan

Progress slipping in Afghanistan

Pakistan assisting anti-U.S. militias in Afghanistan

An Interview With Scott McClellan

Source Page w/ transcript

McClellan agrees to testify before House Judiciary Committee regarding the Plame leak.

War Drums Beating Again For Iran Attack?

Did Israel let the Cat out of the bag about the Bush Administrations plans for Iran?

I hope this is just more fluff, designed to get Irans attention. I believe that the window of opportunity for an attack against Iran has passed. The latest optimal time would have been late last year or earlier this year. It just doesn't make sense to launch an attack at this point. We are well into an election year. Such a move would have unclear, but serious consequences, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it could either harm the Republican candidate, or increase Republican support (which tends to happen for the office holders Party in wartime). But an increase in support for Bush or McCain is very unlikely in this case.

In addition, the U.S., being tied up in Iraq, does not have enough troops on standby to blunt an aggressive Iranian counter-attack, once airstrikes commence. So an attack under these conditions would be a case of outright recklessness and stupidity. But that's nothing new for Bush and the Republicans. The U.S. can't hold ground in Iraq with 150,000 troops, and the neocons want to attack a Country that is three times the size and population of Iraq? The U.S. would need 200,000 to perhaps 250,000 troops just to contain a counter-attack and push the Iranians back (That's on a good day).

Internationally, the consequences could be grave. Iran would almost certainly use Iraq and Lebanon as fronts in any confrontation. It would put U.S. troops and allies at serious risk. Any conflict could also draw in regional powers like Russia, Israel, etc. Such a conflict could spread quickly like a wildfire....with no one being able to control it. This is a very bad environment to fight a war in because there are so many flashpoints.... no clear red lines anywhere....all the red lines are blurred.

This would also be a stupid time for an attack considering that the Iranian government is domestically unpopular right now. Attacking Iran would be a gift for the Iranian leadership because it would rally their people to support them (and they will do so by the millions). It would be a lot better to talk to Iran, re-establish UN monitoring of nuclear facilities, provide a boost to nuclear negotiations (with UN leadership) and quietly work with the people of Iran. The same revolution that brought the Mullahs to power is the same revolution that could remove them. Why anger the Iranian people (many of whom are pro-Western....not so much in terms of politics, but in terms of culture). Ordinary Iranians are this Country's greatest asset.

Lastly, I see no signs of any immediate confrontation. There are no Aircraft Carriers steaming towards the Persian Gulf in unusually large numbers. A serious attack would require at least 3-4 Carrier battle groups, considering that Iran has a considerable military capability (as compared to other countries in the region). Keep in mind that the U.S. used 6 Carrier battle groups against Iraq in 1991...and Iran is a nation 3 times the size of Iraq, in land and in population size...and has a military capability that is larger than what Saddam Hussein had at that time.
It should also be noted that few Countries, if any, will be willing to help the U.S. in any kind of Bush neocon military adventure in Iran.

The problem with the above is that it is a common sense assessment. The Bush administration doesn't operate under any common sense assumptions. Bush & Co. has always done things that simply don't make sense in the real world. We are not dealing with normal people. That's what is scary.

The New America - How Bush & Co. Created A Climate of Intolerance

The following story highlights the importance of Church and State separation, and what can happen in a climate of cultural and religious intolerance. It also shows how profoundly 9/11 and the subsequent socio-political and religious climate (allowed by the Bush Administration) changed the Nation.

The following audio was taken from the public radio program, This American Life. It originally aired a year ago, but I caught a re-airing of the program over the weekend and it shook me. It made me ask the question - What Has Happened to This Country? The same question that many other Americans have asked over the past several years. I basically know the answer...but stories like this one make you ask anyway... in disbelief at how bad the problems have been allowed to get. Is the U.S. allowing the terrorists to win?

(fast forward to the 6:20 mark to get to the main story)

See page from This American Life

Homeowners Get Little More Than "Hope" From Bush & Co.

In response to the mortgage crisis, Bush tells homeowners in trouble to call for "Hope". UNREAL! I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I was listening to the report over the radio about his "solution". But later that evening I listened a second time to the portion of his news conference where he discussed his plan. I had to make sure that I wasn't hearing things.

``The best you can do for your family is to call 1-800-995- HOPE,'' Bush said. ``That is 1-800-995-H-O-P-E".

And the above "Hope" line turned out the be the wrong number.
His puppet masters had to quickly correct the error.

John Edwards slammed the Bush Administrations' minimal plan to freeze interest rates for a few borrowers, saying that it did not go far enough. Many economists agree that the plan would only offer moderate relief to a small percentage of the borrowers who are at risk of losing their homes. See more information about who the plan covers and what it will do.

It's ironic that American borrowers are in over their heads and Bush is offering little to help them... Because he has been overextending the whole Country with too much borrowing. See Youtube videos here and here.
China and other foreign financial systems are holding more and more U.S. debt, giving other nations increased leverage over our economy. And the falling value of the U.S. dollar is increasing what we owe to other nations, and it is leading some Countries to consider switching to an alternative currency for their international business transactions.

Iran and the new NIE

First, I applaud NBC Nightly News for trying to place the newest National Intelligence Estimate into context. I have spliced yesterday's Nightly News together with tonight's. I think that the picture of what's going begins to come into focus.

Secondly, so, what happened? How did this happen? Didn't we hear World War III rhetoric just recently? I find it very interesting that the intelligence community put this report out. You know that the Bush administration had to have fought to keep it under wraps.

I would like to add since Hillary Clinton was getting beaten up in an NPR debate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. We have known this for more than 10 years (Read Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies.) So, that isn't the question. The question is why do we label this organization now. It is fact that the IRG has supported several terrorist groups in the region. Why does the Senate in concert with the White House vote on this now? If it isn't to support Bush's case for "strong, aggressive" action then what was the purpose?

Finally, it is time to pull in the reigns on the Bush administration. Yes, there are problems in Iran. Yes, they have a leader who is crazy and playing to his base (the Iranian leader...who did you think that I was talking about). We, the American people, has an opportunity to get our foreign policy right. I think that the Intelligence Community has no desire to be the scapegoat again. This is why they forced the issue and wouldn't cave under pressure.

Update: There are those on the other side of the political spectrum who claim that Progressives are dancing in the streets. Stating that Progressives believe that Iran poses no threat to the region or to anyone. Wrong. There are those that hear whatever they want to hear. The key is we need diplomacy. Real diplomacy to get Iran to open its borders so that we can see what's inside. With the crazy man at the helm we have to assume that he means some of what he is saying. Hopefully, through engagement we can convince Iran that being a rouge nation is only fun on TV.

---------

From WaPo:

President Bush asserted today that Iran's nuclear program remains a danger to international security despite an assessment in a new U.S. intelligence report that the Tehran government stopped work four years ago on a suspected effort to build nuclear weapons.

In a White House news conference, Bush argued that Iran continues to develop the capability to enrich uranium and that this know-how ultimately could be transferred to a new clandestine weapons program.

"Look, Iran was dangerous," Bush said. "Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." (more...)

Video

New National Intelligence Estimate Contradicts Bush & Co.

A New National Intelligence Estimate Contradicts the Bush Administration's view of Iran.

According to BBC

The unclassified version of a new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, released on Monday, said that Iran was "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005".

In May 2005, the intelligence community had said "with high confidence" that Iran was "determined" to build nuclear weapons.

The new NIE confirms that Iran did, indeed, have an illicit nuclear weapons programme.

But it says that programme ceased operating in 2003 and, as of mid-2007, had probably not started up again. The NIE asserts that the weapons programme was dropped because of international pressure.

I fully expect Bush & Co. to attempt to twist the facts and intimidate the intelligence community to provide manipulated information on Iran so that they can continue their tough stance. But this new information will complicate the pro-war advisors in the Bush administration.

I have always believed that if we reached 2008 that it would be less likely that the neo-conservatives would launch an attack on Iran, despite Cheney's promise that they would decide to attack before the next President enters office. This report makes an attack even less likely.

However, Hillary Clinton has indicated that she would carry on with the Bush Administrations threat of war with Iran if she became President. So with Clinton, there probably won't be much of a change in U.S. foreign policy towards Iran.

Bush & Cheney Were Behind The CIA Leak

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClennon drops a bombshell in his forthcoming book- He admits that Bush and Cheney were in fact involved in the leaking of Classified information for political purposes. In the process, they not only ruined the career of a CIA officer, but they put her safety at risk, as well as the safety of her foreign contacts. They also damaged national security, since the ability of the CIA to continue using the sources that Mrs. Plame developed had been destroyed by her outing.

Both Scooter Libby & the White House have already admitted that there was involvement at higher levels of government. But Bush & Co. would never respond to detailed questioning. McClennon's statement provides further confirmation and the first good look at what was happening from the perspective of someone who was on the inside. He admits that they used him to spin the Plame story in order to take the heat off. He now says that his claims of no White House involvement were all lies.

Congress should have pursued this matter much more aggressively. Instead, it has been swept under the rug....like so many other crimes by Bush & Co.

These are in fact impeachable offenses, even though a President can declassify just about whatever he wants. However, political leaders cannot use sensitive information in such a malicious, threatening, bullying and irresponsible way, for political purposes.

I am disappointed with Patrick Fitzgerald for not being more aggressive. I guess he just didn't have the courage. But this highlights another problem. The fact that Federal Prosecutors are political appointees, is one of the fundamental problems with Washington D.C. The same goes for the Attorney General being chosen by politicians. The Federal justice system is not independent, and can never be independent, until this is changed (which will never happen). Because of this fundamental flaw in the U.S. system, Washington D.C. has been allowed to become a cesspool, full of corruption.

I have mentioned before that the Attorney General should be an elected position, protected from the influence of the White House, or Congress. Anyone running for the position must be independent.... not affiliated with any political party. In fact, political affiliation of a candidate should be disqualifying. Attorney Generals should be elected every 4-6 years in a national election (just like the election for President). U.S. Attorneys should be appointed by the elected Attorney General.

The Attorney General and Justice Department should be overseen by a special panel of Federal Judges, by the Supreme Court, and by the U.S. Congress. It should be an independent organization, rather than the inherently political one that it is today.

This political conflict of interest likely made Fitzgerald back down, although he knew he had a huge conspiracy case against the White House (in fact he hinted at that several times). In the end, he knew that he could only take it so far due to political considerations.

This should also help to vindicate Valerie Plame, who was branded a liar, traitor, unpatriotic and all sorts of other nonsense by the Right Wing Republican commentators.

Related Posts

Valerie Plame Comes Out Swinging With New Book

Dick Cheney Implicated in CIA Leak

Libby points to Bush & Cheney

Libby sentenced to 30 months in Prison

Plame makes first official comments since the outing

New Documentary - Cheney's Law

Amy Goodman Discusses The Gutting of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Amy Goodman reports on continued Bush Administration efforts to gut the Commission on Civil Rights. We know that Bush & Co. decided to gut the organization years ago, but new information shows how they did it. Ironically, many of these events took place in 2004, right around the time of the phony Republican campaign to reach out to Black voters. Alberto "Gone-zales" (former Attorney General & the perhaps soon to be indicted Bush crony) was apparently in on the effort to stack the Commission.

Watch/Listen Here

A Roundup of the Weeks Events

Hear discussion and analysis of the past weeks political events from On Point Radio.

Listen To Program

Cartoon Roundup

Bush Talking Armageddon

Bush has begun talking Armageddon again. Stating that Iran will cause him to set off World War III. This nut wants to hold us all hostage... telling the World that if another sovereign Nation does not do exactly what he says, he is willing to start a 3rd World War. In essence...he wants to hold us at gun point.

And of course the rest of the Country is sleeping on his comments (too busy watching football and driving their SUV's...of which they won't be able to gas up pretty soon because prices will be too damn high. But until then... people will remain in La La Land). Even during the Cold War, American Presidents generally refrained from such talk.

Bush's comments were in direct response to Vladimir Putins warning to the U.S., not to attack Iran. The message was intended for Russian ears, just as much as it was intended for Iran. Of course any war with Iran risks drawing in Russia, Israel and other countries in the region.