Greenspan has plenty to answer for, too.
Like the fantasy housing bush economy prop job.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 16, 2007 06:53 AMAmerican imperialism will only cease upon the entire ramshackle structure collapsing in economic catastrophe. That will end the imperial "tribute" (excess profits/capital of the globalizing world elites) which flows from the rest of the world's wealthy into our financial "markets".
This flight of foreign capital may be occurring as we "speak". It will signal the effective end of the Empire, whatever our worthless, heedless moneyed elites and "two-party" leaders think.
Have you read "After the Empire" by French economic researcher and demographer Emmanuel Todd, SD? It was recently translated into english. You would probably find it useful and interesting.
My only quibbles today are to remember that it wasn't so much letting China "get" Iraq's oil someday that was the problem, it was that our oil "team" wouldn't have had a stake in the massive Iraqi fields. And that in the age of peak oil, the second largest oil reserves on Earth could not be lying fallow in the hands of the "madman" Saddam and family.
Iraq's oil simply had/has to start flowing into constricting world oil markets to keep gas guzzling SUV/Monster Trucking Murica happily gas-pigging along. Hence the invasion. Short term insanity, as usual for our brain dead country.
As for Iran, there is absolutely no chance of regime change whatever---we simply do not have the military capacity for that, which would require the use of massive ground forces. Ours are blown and effectively detroyed for offensive operations for some time. Absent a massive, time-consuming, expensive force buildup, (which both imperial parties now support) we can never invade and "change" the regime of Iran, a nation of 70-plus million.
All we can (and will) do is lay aerial waste to the military/industrial strength of the country (for little Israel's "benefit"), galvanize the Iranians behind their clerical regime and inflame the entire population of Iran against us for another couple of generations. Bully!
Posted by euzoius at September 16, 2007 06:57 AMthanks for another excellent post, soccerdad.
the obscentity of what we have become under dick-tater cheney is simply too much to take in, day after grinding day. nobody can or will stop him. I try to remember to enjoy every day and all I have, because cheney is going to Iraq me too eventually. he's already got it started. I wonder what conversation I'll have with my blackwater prison guard. we'll both shake our heads and talk about the America we grew up in. perhaps.
I am reading a book called The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman. I think it's the best book I've ever read. It makes me calm in the face of this world-destroying fascism.
Posted by Sharkbabe at September 16, 2007 08:00 AMit has always been the oil..terrorism was the ticket to steal it...they knew something was coming..it was why their neglect let 9/11 occur
Posted by dennis at September 16, 2007 08:23 AMWe have become truly despicable, ruled by war criminals.
Interesting that Sen. Dodd has released his father's letters to his mother. The elder Dodd was a prosecutor at Nuremburg.
I see no American version of the Nuremburg trials in the near future. Our monsters will die comfortibly in their beds. God damn their rotten souls to hell.
And yes, many of the Democrats are imperialists too, but for them an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Posted by gay veteran at September 16, 2007 08:41 AMI agree with euzoius: "American imperialism will only cease upon the entire ramshackle structure collapsing in economic catastrophe."
Unfortunately for us regular folk, that catastrophe may soon be upon us.
PAY DOWN YOUR DEBT!
Posted by gay veteran at September 16, 2007 08:44 AMApparently Iraqi has started to flow:
Sep. 04, 2007
Iraqi crude oil flowing through Turkey
The Associated Press
http://www.thestate.com/372/story/163527.html
May 11, 2006
Israel and Turkey plan energy pipeline
Plus, we know Hunt Oil is also there.
"if it was really about oil we would have invaded Saudi Arabia".
If it was really about 9/11 and Al Qaeda we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.
The source of 3/4 of the hijackers, the home of Bin Laden, the major financier of AQ to this day.
But Saudi is full of Bush cronies, so they're excusedfor everything, and we attack their neighbor who had nothing to do with 9/11 because they were an unpopular, easy target.
Posted by Kyle at September 16, 2007 10:19 AMI love all these people who failed to stand up and tell the truth when it could have done some good, maybe. Add Greenspan's name to the long list of people like Powell. It's like a mass confession, absolving themselves by speaking the truth now. What a joke. Hey Greenspan, go Cheney yourself.
Posted by Judith at September 16, 2007 10:32 AMThis is what I have been saying all along....If you know American foreign policy history, then the events in Iraq are pretty much predictable.
The game book of American foreign policy does not change much, just those particulars that fit the selected "enemy" at the moment.
The American establishment has always been for this and past wars. Whatever the surface political climate or the president d'jour, imperialistic American foreign policy rarely varies. That is why the Democrats are for this war…..they only object to the messy way it has been conducted but not for the underlying reasons. I don’t hear anyone talking about foreign policy history…even the blogs that I frequent avoid talking about it. This is the core argument…then everything follows.
And, all this talk about the removal of troops...It is total bullshit and everyone knows it. It's not just the troops that need to be remove, it's the entire imperialist apparatus....contractors, spies, businessmen, who knows what else. And of course we’re staying in Iraq……it’s not friggin surprise. Do you expect the Establishment to endure the pain, cost and ridicule of this operation for nothing?
The war has been a great success….We are in the Middle East, we got a shitfull of oil in the ground, we got a nearby foothold into Asia and on top of all of that….the veil that has always shielded the American public from the dirty deeds of American governance has been finally lifted…..and we don’t like it. All the pesky civil right laws that always got in the way have been trampled.
So what now?
What now? Now it's time to round-up all the dissenters.
Posted by Judith at September 16, 2007 12:13 PMI have said the same as you soccerdad in the comment threads, maybe not as well, but I've said it.
When it gets down to the lesser of evils we have to take that approach. We will not be able to accomplish anything under continued republi-con control. Our time is taken just to repel their accomplishments.
This isn't going to be an overnight accomplisment. It's going to take years to combat this two party rule. But we must have a Democratic Party in charge of all branches to institute the long range goals for a new Progressive Party.
Anybody not voting Democratic will be turning their backs on the long term interest of this country.
With the Dems in charge, Progressives can continue to eliminate the coporate sell outs. It will take years but the Dino's must go.
At the same time we must have moderate Dems take republi-con seats.
Unfortunately, it's going to take time. I can't just give up all hope on this once great Nation.
Posted by Seven of Six at September 16, 2007 12:30 PMI agree with six-of-seven. It matters a lot whether it's a Democrat in office, not because Hillary won't back keeping troops in Iraq just as Guiliani would, but because progressives can organize and have an impact within the Democratic party just the way evangelicals have in the Republican.It's going to take some time, but other countries like Venezuela and Brazil and South Africa have overcome far worse odds than we face. However bad you think it is here, there are NO death squads who are going to kill your family for organizing as they routinely do in Latin America.
Secondly, stating that Iraq has been a "success" is flat wrong. The oil grab clearly is NOT going to work, not because Americans were willing to stand up and stop the war, but because the Iraqis just won't cooperate and all the military power in the world can't make them.
The puppet congress can pass an "oil law" to permit PSA's (production sharing agreements) to allow huge oil company profits and plan a pipeline through Turkey to Israel, but they can't guarantee security.
That pipeline will never be built, ever and if built, it would never be able to operate. It would instantly become the top terrorist target in the world.
This war was supposed to be over by now and Iraq was supposed to be peacefully occupied by about 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops while we went on to bigger and better things by invading Syria and Iran. Well, the people of Iraq will never stop fighting until all U.S. troops are out of the country.
U.S. troops are going to have to leave sooner or later, because they aren't going to "win" the war. Any government that eventually emerges from the civil war when U.S. troops are finally forced out will simply repudiate all those "oil laws" and they know it.
The best they can hope for is to have the Kurds become independent and allow the oil companies in. But most of the oil is in the Shiite controlled areas to the south, and the U.S. will never control those areas.
Posted by Cugel at September 16, 2007 12:51 PMMight makes Reich...
Posted by james k. sayre at September 16, 2007 01:32 PMAnyone planning to vote Dem in the next election "will be turning their backs on the long term interest of this country."
because progressives can organize and have an impact within the Democratic party just the way evangelicals have in the Republican.
yea, that worked so well w/ the last Clinton - attacks on the working class & setting the institutional stage (like AEDPA) for the diminishment of our civil rights accomlished by Bush II.
I don't think so. Never again from me . . .
Posted by Arcturus at September 16, 2007 01:43 PMI agree with six-of-seven. It matters a lot whether it's a Democrat in office,
This is the most dangerous delusion. You can organize until the cows come home, it doesn't matter. Its who weilds the power. Dont forget the Dems have had little problem with the legislation aimed at reducing our rights. You dont see them complaining about the way Padilla was treated. They will have no problem labelling progressives as enemies. If you don't understand that, then you are in for a rude awakening some day when they come to your door. These are not your father's democrats and really have never been.
Time is short, change will only be possible until the Democratic party as it exists today is dead. And the people organize an alternative. Change will come as a result of major domestic problems. The progressives would be well advised to remember the 2nd ammendment.
Posted by soccerdad at September 16, 2007 01:45 PMWell go ahead, don't vote for a Dem or vote for a third party candidate, in fact, just go ahead, vote for a republi-con. That will get us ahead fast!
Posted by Seven of Six at September 16, 2007 02:10 PMGrow up, the Dems dont care about you or me. They get their money from the same people the Repub do.
Posted by soccerdad at September 16, 2007 02:12 PMI love all these people who failed to stand up and tell the truth when it could have done some good, maybe.
The past six years of the Cheney regime has exposed how dangerously lacking in integrity are the huge majority of our 'respected' high officials that the mass media keep pumping up as wonderful examples of intelligence, character and analytical decision-making abilities that we should all respect.
Faced with massive criminality and ruinous decisions bullied through by a reckless, dictatorial, constitution-shredding White House, almost all of them sat on their hands, not wanting to risk their ego-gratifying perches in the Washington pecking order, and revealed themselves as craven cowards and gutless conformists.
Posted by Mike G at September 16, 2007 02:48 PM
Soccerdad...
You are right on the money!
The problem is that the system is rotten to the core and the only way to fix it is cut off or remove major parts of it (if not all of it).
That won’t happen unless there is a major, really major upheaval in society. If that happens, the powers that be won’t tolerate it.
Those detention camps that some people say are being built, well you can guess the rest.
To all of those that think it cannot happen here, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
That road has already been paved; it just needs to be inaugurated.
parallax..right on the money....the war is a success...and anyone who happens to die is collateral damage...and the reasons for being there...fighting terrorism...as we were told..are a big fucking lie..
Posted by dennis at September 16, 2007 03:28 PMray l. hunt..is either a present or past director of halliburton...i'll give them this..they are transparent..it is fucking unreal
Posted by dennis at September 16, 2007 03:38 PMBut as every one knows people will continue to vote for the delusion of "lesser evilism"
That's something that has been really getting under my skin lately. I've been wondering what the heck to do about it. I see so many anti-war lefties bitching and moaning, but then they go right off on how the're going to support Dem so and so, making it clear to so and so that s/he doesn't have to do anything for that endorsement-- there's no mystery in how they're going to vote. That's called enabling. It's no better to vote for the lesser of two evils than it is for the family of an alcoholic to cover for and make excuses for their drunk, over and over and over again. How many times does it take for people to get the picture? If these assholes are going to talk the talk, we need to make them walk the walk, and to do that we need to get their attention.
I saw somewhere, can't remember where, someone suggesting that pissed voters should support new Dem candidates against incumbent Dems. That's fine, but it sounds like weak strategy to me, totally ineffective most likely. And voting third party is the same. It never works.
Keeping strategy and perception in mind, I've been mulling something else. For quite a while, maybe a very long time, Republicans have been fucking with the Iowa Dem caucuses, as told to me by a local Repub friend. That gave me an idea. Our usual Dem candidates continue to disregard us because they PERCEIVE that they hold our vote captive. What would happen if we were to change that perception? And how? The other two ideas, voting for non-incumbents and going third-party both require impossible numbers to be effective. So, what other strategies are out there in which one or two percent would be an effective number for change?
I'm not saying that I'm going to do this, but I'm just thinking out loud. What would happen if a chunk of Dem voters were to officially switch parties, maybe even on the same day? What would happen if a large number of Dems, whether switched or not, were to poll for a moderate Republican when they call? Screw this voing for a moderate Dem--those Bluedog Dems are a part of the problem. I have to say that I'm so pissed at Tom Harkin, one of my Senators, that I would vote for anti-war Republican Jim Leach if he were running against Harkin today. But I don't think the strategy has to go so far as actually voting for a Republican.
But if people are going to continue to support people who are totally out of step with them on very important issues, then they should stfu and stop bitching.
Posted by Julie at September 16, 2007 04:15 PMAw, nevermind, that would probably convince them (the candy-dates) that they were being too liberal, unless it were for an anti-war Repub.
My point though, is that we have to get creative.
Posted by Julie at September 16, 2007 04:36 PMBlack flag ops, indeed. I have bet a Whopper against a buddy that elections will be suspended. My buddy, a 30 something polysci grad, just chuckles. I'm an old fart college dropout so what do I know.
The bet may be diminutive but I'm saving the rest of my meagre income for some silver coins, rice and winter clothing.
Posted by Jimmy at September 16, 2007 06:34 PMI don't know, Jimmy. They already have it so good, and it would unlikely change much, even if a Dem won. Depends on who the Dem is, maybe. But why take the risk?
Although it never hurts to have a stash. Don't forget the garden seeds, and the whiskey for barter.
Posted by Julie at September 16, 2007 06:59 PMMaybe we should all change our party to Republican and vote for Ron Paul. Just a thought.
Posted by Trenton at September 16, 2007 08:40 PMNo home in the Democratic Party, so you're going to come home to the Republicans. Come on over folks, WE'VE got a big tent. We'll welcome your voice, just remember other people get to speak too.
French FM Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear program.
“We have decided to … prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it."
President Sarkozy is taking up the mantle.
Posted by peter at September 16, 2007 08:57 PMSarkozy, the new poodle? No, peter, you don't have a big tent. That's your problem.
"Our German friends proposed it." Angela Merkel more than Sarkozy. Two of them, maybe Brown will join them. That will make three European powers going after Iran. Oh the madness, European's acting like our president. Wonder how many others over there will join them. Poland will for sure, several in the Med. will too. I hear Spain's rethinking things too. What's a progressive to do? Europe following our president's leadership.
Posted by peter at September 16, 2007 09:21 PM“We have decided to … prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it."
So 'European sanctions' to you equals support for Oily Dick's Bombing Extravaganza?
Hey peter, remember when you said Betrayus's report to Congress would be soooo super-truthful and comprehensive because it would be in his own words? How'd that prediction work out for you? Which was more impressive - the non-existent written report or the Chimp-mouthpiece recycled pollyanna speech written by the White House?
You are too stupid to breathe.
Posted by Mike G at September 16, 2007 11:23 PMThe French and German view is not a prediction, but a statement. They are coming up with this without our involvment. Spain is reconsidering their positions. That is not a prediction either.
Your premise is all wrong too. General Petraeus did speak his own words. He was approved unanimously buy this senate for this mission of the 'surge'. He has shown that this senate's confidence in him was not misplaced. He came back with proposals for troop reduction that mirrored what Sen. Leahy was coming up with. The opposition's voice here is weak. They have little to stand on. We will continue to fund the WOT just as we have. The troops will continue to rebuild Iraq and the political's willget their act together. Maliki has done so much, not enough by his own admision, but he's working very hard to get where he needs to go.
We will have the possibility that should a Democrat win the WH, they will have to decide whether to follow the politics of winning the vote, or follow the conditions on the ground in Iraq. The incoming president will have that responsibility. If they want us to lose, it's on them, he or she. Will they be the duper's Democrats constantly follow? I'm very sure progressives will be disappointed, again, and this site will have another four years in opposition.
Democrats are in the majority and have been for nine months now, how's that working for ya?
Posted by peter at September 17, 2007 03:29 AMBut as every one knows people will continue to vote for the delusion of "lesser evilism". Others will use the excuse I didn't vote for them. Whatever that gets you through the day and helps you with self-absolution.
If you're arguing that it wouldn't have made any difference if Al Gore had been President for the past 6+ years, then there's not much to discuss here.
Most people won't get worked up about anything going on until it hits close to home. They're too busy trying to stay afloat. But if it's your kid being drafted (or you yourself), you'll speak up. If it's your job that's eliminated, or your mortgage that goes under, you'll be awakened. If it's your diagnosis that's dire, you'll pay attention. But you'll also be overwhelmed, vulnerable, and probably too traumatized to join a political movement. And because you know actors on TV shows better than your own neighbors, you'll be alone.
Can we have some concrete ideas for change? Or are we going to settle for blaming the victims?
Al Gore
How about dealing with the present and going forward instead of the past.
You have to ask yourself why the Dems have not made a major issue out of voter fraud, katrina, torture, military commission act, the Padilla travesty, domestic spying, etc etc etc You know the answer I know you do.
Here is a concrete idea. Kill (figuratively) the democratic party and be done with the fraud that passes for representative government in this country. Then maybe the sheeple will wake up.
Posted by soccerdad at September 17, 2007 05:14 AMIf you think the French or the Germans are going to participate in any form of military assault upon Iran you are a cretinous retard, petr. And you are grossly misrepresenting what the French actually said, no surprise there.
The endless hours gulping down GOoP propaganda have rendered you unfit to weigh language and make rational judgments---but then, you're a professional GOoPer clown suit wearin' stooge, first class, with Outhouse clusters. Is this "Europe supports Bushco attack on Iran!" BS what was in your RNC online-GOoP Brigade email blast this morning? No doubt, as you have no independent judgement whatever.
All that's interesting here is that the "Attack Iran" messages are clearly being drilled into the drooling, bovine blockheads of Team Conservative by the Noise Machine right now---just as many predicted. Product Rollout time, and the Repub Retards are always buyin'.
Posted by euzoius at September 17, 2007 05:43 AMNo surprise that neo-con psychopaths are lusting for war with Iran. And pant-pissing cowards like Peter are cheering them on (from their mommy's basement of course, they can't be expected to actually enlist for the latest war)
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 17, 2007 06:05 AMPants-Pissing Peter, the Republican't Chickenhawk, says:
No home in the Democratic Party, so you're going to come home to the Republicans. Come on over folks, WE'VE got a big tent. We'll welcome your voice as long as you're not gay, pro-choice, or anti-corporate welfare, just remember other people who have lots of money and power get to speak and have their opinions be taken seriously too, whereas you can speak all you like, but you won't be listened to.
Fixed it for you...
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 17, 2007 06:22 AMSoccerdad, you do excellent work; I foretold all of the present crap years ago, but reality checks are so painful. I always maintained: any pol who could stage and steal two.....TWO elections, is capable of ANYTHING. I've been proven right every damn day with every criminal action coming down from the WH and Congress. There is no hope for this country. You'd never know how bad off we are if you watch cable TV however; OJ is back!
I'm wondering if his latest antics in Las Vegas weren't as staged to detract us as the 9/11 attacks (which, oddly, in spite of evidence to the contrary, Americans REFUSE to acknowledge their government is capable of mass murder, that they're politicians are clever enough to plan such a catastrophe.
This country went bye-bye in 2000 and we'll never get it back. EVER!
Posted by Mal Feasance at September 17, 2007 06:35 AMYou have to ask yourself why the Dems have not made a major issue out of voter fraud, katrina, torture, military commission act, the Padilla travesty, domestic spying, etc etc etc You know the answer I know you do.
So I guess it was the Dems that impeached Clinton?
Will the Dems give Social Security to Wall Street?
Will Veterans benefit under the Dems more than the Republi-cons?
Will Unions try to be busted by Dems?
Will pensions be protected?
Will Roe v Wade stay?
Will we get the same Supreme Court justices nominated?
Is there a difference between Richard Mellon Scaife and George Soros?
Grow up...
I know there isn't much difference but there is some.
Posted by Seven of Six at September 17, 2007 07:27 AMThere's also an enormous difference between the parties on environmental and actual energy policy, SOS, which are the two most pressing issues of our time. Look at the votes on energy legislation and the Arctic Wildlife Reserve (for example) over the past decade.
The Dems are a militarist imperial party because the PEOPLE of BushAmerica are, at bottom, highly militarist and imperialist. A democracy cannot be better than the people of the democracy.
The Dems are a piss poor party, but they are all the beseiged environment and planet have right now, and there is little possibility of massive political change occurring within the crucial window of time. We either pass adequate global warming legislation within the next five years, or that's the end of the 11,000 year old climate, for good, period.
If Dems fail us on this, they should be destroyed forever. There's plenty of time in the future to destroy the Dem party, once everything has gone to shit permanently.
Our choices in '08 are bad: a party of slightly less rank imperialism who will likely protect the environment at the crucial, decisive moment, or complete failure and certain doom on all fronts. Perhaps others can show why those are not our options.
Posted by euzoius at September 17, 2007 08:27 AMThe Dems are a militarist imperial party because the PEOPLE of BushAmerica are, at bottom, highly militarist and imperialist. A democracy cannot be better than the people of the democracy.
Exactly.
You don't craft a platform around the electorate you wish you had. You craft a platform around the electorate you have.
It's a simple truism that I'm constantly shocked so many can overlook. Usually responded to with, "The polls show this, the polls show that..." bullshit. Ask people enough poll questions and they'll tie themselves up in contradictory knots. When it all comes down to it people's basic concern comes down to being safe and they don't give a crap if their safety means the US has to stomp all over the rest of the world.
The trick is seeing through the rhetoric and figuring out what a candidate will really do once in office.
Posted by snark at September 17, 2007 08:56 AMYou don't craft a platform around the electorate you wish you had. You craft a platform around the electorate you have.
They dont care about the electorate. Their agenda is set by the people who supply them with the money. Wall street has given more to the Dems than Repubs.
With never ending war and an escalating war climate change don't matter.
Posted by soccerdad at September 17, 2007 09:47 AMThey dont care about the electorate.
My comment didn't have anything to do with 'caring' about the electorate. That's part of your problem.
Posted by snark at September 17, 2007 10:08 AMHumans have weathered war after war after war, SD.
Millions of species and all future generations depend on our 11,000 year old stable climate, the only climate our civilization has ever known.
War is catastrophic hell, but it ebbs and flows over history without altering the world irreparably an making the world unlivable for its millions of species and beings.
10 generations from now, what do you think will be regarded as the greatest failure of our era---Bushco's invasions and disgusting imperial attacks or the failure to protect and save our earth's miraculous stable climate?
Posted by euzoius at September 17, 2007 10:36 AMDemocrats are in the majority and have been for nine months now, how's that working for ya?
"scummmmmmmmmmm" r-flat again.
It's actually working a bit better than the previous 12 with you scandalous r-tards. Hey, I know! Let's bet on whether the next republi-con scandal involes sex with children, sex with the same sex, sex with prostitutes, or just plain old money. "Republi-cons! Our entire party is a scandal!"
Posted by phidipides at September 17, 2007 01:15 PM