The More They Know Him....

Behind Obama's Wave of Victories: The More They Know Him...

by Paul Rogat Loeb | February 13, 2008 - 2:27pm | permalink
article tools: email | print | read more Paul Rogat Loeb

In a race where Clinton seemed to have every advantage, why has Barack Obama now won eight primaries and caucuses in a row? If you look at the rhythm of the campaign, this is the first point where most of America's voters have a chance to consider him as a candidate with a serious chance of victory, and to genuinely engage his message. Democrats passionately want a candidate they can believe in, but also one who can win--and reverse the Republican disasters. As the presumed nominee, Clinton did everything she could to play on this, proclaiming herself as tough, experienced, and capable of taking everything the Republicans could throw at her. She lined up massive insider support, including commitments from 154 superdelegates (versus 50 for Obama) before a single vote was cast.

But as Obama began winning, voters who'd been paying only peripheral attention have started taking him seriously. The more familiar they've become with him, the more they've liked his message and chances, while their reservations about Clinton have only grown. Now, she and her surrogates are in a position of trying to rationalize eight straight Obama wins, including his 29-point Virginia victory in a state where she was up by 24 points less than four months ago, and her-23 point loss in Maryland, which she also led by roughly the same margin.

» article continues...

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

American Corporation Workers' Conflict

The Dilemma of American Corporations and Workers

Richard Backus

American corporations have been moving their export-oriented jobs overseas and will not be hiring American workers until differential wage rates decrease substantially. U. S. wage rates, as well as EU wage rates, are considerably above the wage rates of those of workers in Asia. What is called for now are international minimum wage and working standards.

At the end of the second world war wage rate differentials were appropriate because the productivity of foreign workers was greatly diminished with the destruction of plant and equipment during the war. But things are different now. There is an abundance of capital throughout the world and foreign workers have access to the same advanced production technology and equipment previously enjoyed only by western workers. Low productivity of foreign workers had resulted in low wage rates in order for these workers to be competitive worldwide. Now, with foreign productivity nearly equal to that of western workers, these foreign workers should be paid more. But they are not. This results in the wage disparity between them and western workers, resulting in the movement of jobs overseas.

If this wage disparity is not corrected, all jobs which can be done by overseas workers will reside overseas. Now, after most blue collar production work has been moved overseas, white collar workers as well as many professionals in the U.S. will see their jobs disappearing as well. This group includes accountants, lawyers, researchers, engineers, scientists, microbiologists, biologists, and so on. Anything which a person can do at a desk in the U.S. can be done at a desk in Asia(and at a third of the cost in the U.S.), and any interaction with others can be done via teleconferencing or facs/telephone. The big questions are: how this occurred in the first place, what will be the consequences, and how it can be resolved to provide fair employment to American workers.

This problem started with the failure of the international exchange rates to adjust to
changes in the productivity of foreign workers. This was due to the failure of the U.S. government to allow the dollar exchange value to adjust properly to trade imbalances. After 1970, the exchange rates needed to float in order to prevent the loss of bank assets(especially gold) in the U.S . Floating exchange rates would have corrected the trade imbalances by a reduction in wage differential between U.S. and foreign workers and consequent enhanced price competitiveness of American-made goods.

Various administrations allowed increases in the dollars exchange rate, but stopped it from falling. A particularly egregious one occurred in 1980-1984 during the Reagan years. In effect, the dollar was allowed an unhampered rise but not allowed to fall to a "competitive" level, completely undermining the effectiveness of floating exchange rates. This caused substantial(international) price increases for U.S.-made goods. This period initiated the vast increases in trade deficits we are currently experiencing.

The foreign trade imbalances increased but the U.S. Federal Reserve was not required to give foreign dollar-holders gold to offset these imbalances. Instead, these foreign dollar-holders have accepted government IOU's(treasuries) and have been spending the remainder of the vast excess of dollars on U.S. real estate(causing the current bubble) and U.S. stocks and bonds(further exacerbating the stock market bubble and crash of 2001). But even real estate and stocks/bonds are not unlimited and these overseas buyers will soon run out of things to buy. In the meantime, jobs will be steadily ending up on foreign shores.

The ultimate consequence of these government policies will be a 'hollowing out" of the productive capabilities of the U.S. and the demise of the middle class(and serious damage to the profession classes). Worse yet, ultimately the U.S. will run out of assets to sell to foreigners and the dollar will will be bypassed as a hard currency. If this happens, the exchange rate will experience a drastic fall and the standard of living of all citizens will accompany it. But, unluckily for all, current government policy being what it is, this will occur only after the great majority of assets in the U.S. are foreign-owned.

Many workers in the U.S. do not care who they work for, but foreign ownership has many pitfalls. Foreign owners of large manufacturing facilities can simply slow down production improvements and efficiency in the U.S. so that manufacturers in their home country will have a competitive advantage over their U.S. counterparts. They may also move the company headquarters overseas, diminishing already insufficient U.S taxes collections. They could undermine wartime manufacturing to benefit their home countries.

These actions would cause: increased unemployment in the U.S., decrease social spending in the U.S., and increased production problems during potential world conflicts. For this reason, most foreign countries restrict foreign ownership of home corporations to less than 50 percent, and greatly limit the extent of foreign investment (to avoid stock market/real estate bubbles and a collapse in reserves during crises). They also severely restrict foreign ownership of a host of strategic manufacturing, mining, and petroleum-based businesses.

The U.S. government should be doing the same. I will leave what can be done to correct these circumstances for a future article. A good start would be to reverse those policies which have caused these problems, one of which is exchange rate manipulations which undermine U.S. worker's ability to earn a living. While China refuses to raise its exchange rate, the U.S. refuses to allow its to fall, which ultimately would have the same effect. Other policies which would enhance U.S. worker's chances to compete internationally would be the establishment of international minimum wage and work standards, and the establishment of penalties for non-compliance by our competitors.

The establishment of an international minimum wage would solve not only the American worker's dilemma, but would increase the standard of living of citizens throughout the world . The first step which should be taken, however, is to make the American public aware of those policies that have got us into this mess, and to encourage them to take action to prevent them from occurring again.

-###-

February 12, 2008 Richard Backus, author of this article, is a free-lance journalist specializing in political economy and politics. He resides in Miami Beach, Florida and his personal website is

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Nixon Land and The Politics Of Hate

I voted for Obama, as did a number of my friends. I voted for him, mainly because Edwards dropped out. I don't feel like part of a cult. Of course, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent and that may well shield me from political cults.

However, if there are supporters of Obama who are behaving ruthlessly (a la George Bush), especially people who are supposed to be relatively objective, like reporters, they are firing the first shots in a civil war that will destroy their own party and make it impossible for either Clinton or Obama to do what needs to be done to begin to get this country back on the right track.

I'm not fond of the Clintons. I make no secret of that. I don't believe that dynasties are good for the country. The two major, immovable, corrupt parties aren't good for America either, for that matter. Further, I believe it would be good to not only turn the page, but begin a whole new chapter, in which change leads to transformation in this country.

Nevertheless, If Hillary wins, as long as she does it sans shenanigans, I will vote for her in November.

We all have one thing in common (except for the super rich), we are facing nightmarish times in the very near future and I hope we can find it within us to face them together.

Hate Springs Eternal
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Monday 11 February 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent's vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming "a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland."

The quote comes from "Nixonland," a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of "Before the Storm." As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party's grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration - remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again.

What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" - the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multi-year, multi-million-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons' part, yet the "scandal" became a symbol of the Clinton administration's alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton's entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.'s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother's campaign - as adult children of presidential aspirants often do - asked, "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it's a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn't say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama's favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee - and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It's a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I'd like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush Administration Wants Gitmo trials Connected To Nuremberg

It's for Damn sure there is a connection, but it isn't what the Bushites want to push. We all know who the real war criminals are.

The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press says that execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted and points to the 1945-46 International Military Tribunals as an example. Twelve of Adolf Hitler's senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end.

The unclassified cable was sent by the State Department to all U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide late on Monday.

In it, the department advises American diplomats to refer to Nuremberg if asked by foreign governments or media about the legality of capital punishment in the 9/11 cases.

"International Humanitarian Law contemplates the use of the death penalty for serious violations of the laws of war," says the cable, which was written by the office of the department's legal adviser, John Bellinger.

"The most serious war criminals sentenced at Nuremberg were executed for their actions," it said.

The cable makes no link between the scale of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, which included the Holocaust that killed some 6 million European Jews and other minorities, and those allegedly committed by the Guantanamo detainees, who are accused of murder and war crimes in connection with 9/11, in which nearly 3,000 people died.

But it makes clear that the U.S. administration sees Nuremberg as a historic precedent in asking for the Sept. 11 defendants to be executed.

The decision to seek the death penalty for these defendants is likely to draw criticism from the international community. A number of countries, including U.S. allies, have said they would object to the use of capital punishment for their nationals held at Guantanamo.

The cable is written in a question-and-answer format in anticipation of inquiries that diplomats may get from foreigners about the Pentagon's Monday announcement of the trial and charges.

"Posts are asked to draw from the points provided below in responding to foreign government and media requests regarding this announcement," it says in a one-paragraph summary under the subject heading: "Q and A - Guantanamo Detainees Charged for 9/11."

Much of the cable is taken up with descriptions of the defendants and the allegations against them as well as assurances they will receive fair trials.

The Nuremberg reference is in the response offered to the sample question: "Doesn't the application of the death penalty to these defendants violate international law?"

The one-word answer provided before the explanation that invokes Nuremberg: "No."

The unprecedented proceeding will be the first capital trial under the terrorism-era U.S. military tribunal system.

Despite the confidence of military prosecutors, the case has been clouded by revelations that the key suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attacks in which hijackers flew planes into buildings in New York and Washington, was subjected to interrogation tactics that critics call torture.

The cable refers specifically to this and instructs diplomats to advise foreign governments that the tribunal will not accept evidence obtained through torture and that the defendants can raise objections to any statements they argue they made under coercion. Those decisions will be up to the judge, it says.

But it notes a distinction between torture and "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" that was outlawed by legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, now the leading Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination and a former prisoner of war during Vietnam.

The cable informs diplomats that statements made by defendants under such conditions before the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 may be considered by the court.

Of the accused, at least one, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was arrested and interrogated before that law was passed. At least one other, Mohammed al-Qahtani, who officials have labeled the 20th hijacker, claims to have been mistreated under questioning.

"For evidence obtained before the enactment of the McCain Amendment, where there is an allegation that evidence has been obtained through coercive means, it is inadmissible unless the judge" makes a specific determination that it is "reliable," "probative," and that "the interests of justice would best be served by the statement's admission," it says.

The cable adds that a decision to allow such evidence could be appealed to U.S. federal courts should a defendant be convicted.

The other four men being charged are: Ramzi Binalshibh, said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and al-Qaida leaders; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew and lieutenant of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; al-Baluchi's assistant, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi; and Waleed bin Attash, a detainee known as Khallad, who investigators say selected and trained some of the 19 hijackers.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department charges:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2008/d20080211chargesheet.pdf

Source: AP News

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Seems The Clintons Had No Plan B

At least, not one that anyone would recognize as fair and clean politics.

Overall, Barack Obama has won 23 of the 35 matchups between him and Clinton. "

"NYT: Obama’s triumphs capped a week in which he went undefeated in states across the country, in many cases by big margins, over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And his strength on Tuesday sliced across nearly every major demographic line, with one element standing out: in Virginia and Maryland, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls, he beat Mrs. Clinton among women. "

"CNN Projects Obama Now Ahead of Clinton in Total of Pledged and Superdelegates"

The Clinton campaign is still touting a last "Alamo" stand in Texas and Ohio, but as I noted in my blog the other day ,there are really two campaigns going on in each state and nationally: one for the perception battle and one for delegates. Obama is leading in both as of today, February 13.

It is far too early to declare a winner in the race for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination, but it is likely that Obama will win both Hawaii and Wisconsin next Tuesday. (Like Iowa, Wisconsin is contiguous to Illinois and the Obama campaign can send volunteers up from Chicago. It's just a short drive to Milwaukee and Madison.)

At that point, the momentum factor, the large margins that Obama is winning by, his encroachment into Hillary Clinton's base, will all likely snowball. Even if Clinton were to "win" Texas and Ohio, Obama might pick up enough delegates in each state to stay ahead. Furthermore, the superdelegates and Clinton donors are no doubt starting to worry about Clinton's viability.

Whether one supports Clinton or Obama, a few political realities have become clear over the past couple of weeks.

First, the Clinton campaign hierarchy consists of insiders from the '90s who have not adapted to changing campaign tactics. They ran with an "inevitability Rose Garden" strategy and had no plan "B." Since February 5, when Hillary had said it would all be "wrapped up," they have been frantically improvising. Obama risked his campaign on a consistent and unwavering message; the Clinton campaign has tried on several of them, discarding them when they didn't have resonance.

In short, the Obama narrative ended up beating -- as of now -- the Clinton narrative. As more people are exposed to the Obama narrative -- whether you are turned on by it or not -- more people have backed him. The Clinton narrative has been choppy and ad hoc since Super Tuesday, and has paid a price for it.

Secondly, one of the major themes of the Clinton campaign has been that the New York Senator is "battle-tested" and better prepared to take on McCain and the right wing attacks. But that has been turned on its head by the fact that a junior Senator from Illinois has ended up putting the Clinton campaign on the ropes. It's hard to argue that you can demolish John McCain when you can't decisively defeat an opponent who came from nowhere, with no national name recognition, in your own party's primary. That is just common sense.

Modern politics has a lot to do with brand awareness and identity. That is why Nixon was able to come back in 1968 and win the presidency, after losing to JFK in 1960 and losing the governorship of California a couple of years later. Our national political leaders are -- in our over-marketed society -- brands. Brand Clinton has as close to a 100% recognition factor in the United States as a name can get. And most people have decided one way or another about how they feel toward brand Clinton.

Obama, on the other hand, had to launch a whole new brand. He stayed disciplined to his message -- even when in tight spots -- and has run a modern, highly effective national campaign against an opponent who has been campaigning with her husband and on her own for some 30 years. That Obama is sweeping primary after primary and eating into Clinton's fixed base of support makes it extremely difficult for Clinton to claim that she can run a more effective campaign.

Thirdly, the Democrats have for decades been looking to expand their base and break out of the Red State, Blue State gridlock. Obama, whatever one thinks of his narrative, has shown that he can pull in Independent and Republican voters and expand the Democratic voter base, particularly among young people (who are not just supporting him, but showing up at caucuses and to vote.) Clinton has won the delegates that she has based on a fixed voter base of traditional Democratic support. Party leaders and superdelegates want someone who can pull in new voters and expand the party's power through coattails. Obama has shown that he can do that.

Perhaps, Hillary Clinton, who rarely makes a gaffe and is an enthusiastic and well-honed campaigner, finally revealed one of the key reasons that the Clinton campaign is faltering. As we noted in another blog, when asked her reaction to Obama winning so many states over the weekend (including Maine, where once she was way ahead, as she had been in most states), Clinton responded that caucuses aren't representative because everyone knows that they are dominated by "activists." Such an attitude is so self-destructive to a party as to be almost suicidal. Any campaign wants to energize activists, not dampen them down. It was the first major mistake that we have heard from Clinton this campaign. It could have just been a way of trying to explain away the worrisome problem of losing so many states by such wide margins. But caucuses are the most transparent forms of democracy, in which people are the ballots. Her statement revealed a certain hubris about grassroots campaigning and bringing in new voters. In essence, the Clinton campaign against Obama would rather rely on a fixed base of "New Deal" coalition voters than expand the numbers of people in that base.

As one of our favorite lighter side contributors, Don Davis, satirically wrote: "Hillary: ‘Obama Has Built-in Advantage in States That Vote’"

Finally, on a different note, one of the axioms in politics is if you are ahead, you try to avoid too many debates. If you are behind, you try to have as many debates as possible and call your opponent "scared" if he or she refuses your challenge. Right now, the Clinton campaign is demanding a whole series of debates, even though there has just been a whole series of debates. It's the surest sign yet that the internal polling in the Clinton campaign is trending south.

It's been, as we said, an unpredictable primary. Surprising things can still happen. Only a fool would declare a winner of the nomination at this point.

But it's clear that things are not going well when you're rallying cry becomes, "Debate!"

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Dysfunctional family = Dysfunctional Nation

Why, Oh why did we all have to get caught up in the tragedy of Oedipus Tex?

George Bush is always fond of saying that he had an "alcohol problem," whatever that is, but that he didn't need "no government program" to help him; nope, just a walk on the beach with Billy Graham and he was cured. But he sure pours our money into faith-based programs to the tune of billions, which, to me, is another reason for tax resistance.

If religion was the cure for alcoholism (which Bush has never admitted to) there never would have been much alcoholism in the world, especially the U.S., where their is a church on every corner of most small towns and cities.

Had junior gone to a good treatment program, which he could well afford, any counselor would have picked up on the conflicts and other issues in his life. He/she would have recommended that he seek continuing treatment on an out patient basis and get his butt to AA meetings.

Unless there is obvious danger of suicidal ideation, which would probably not be an issue for George, there probably would be no need for medication for at least 6 months to a year, if ever. It takes about a year for the toxicity of alcohol to finally leave the body and brain. Before that time, unless it's absolutely necessary, no other chemicals should be added in the kinds of treatment programs we have in the U.S., except maybe a very good vitamins. and mineral supplement.

By the end of a year, a good therapist would have had a good handle on his underlying pathology and maybe we wouldn't have to have been its victims, along with the Iraqi people and who knows who all else.

I sometimes wonder if Laura isn't far more psychologically abused in her marriage than Hillary was.

Both presidents had an addiction. Addictions, contrary to popular belief, are symptoms of a far greater underlying pathology. They are coping mechanisms for, sometimes, horrible psychic pain. Also, contrary to popular belief, addiction is not a moral failing and neither is the underlying pathology. If our society hadn't labeled addiction and mental illness so cruelly, we would be much further ahead in treating all of it.

Damn modern-day Puritans! I wonder how many people they have guilted right into their graves by ranting on about subjects about which they know nothing.

Unless someone is treated, and sometimes even if they are, if they find themselves under horrendous pressure, especially pressure that's tied to old, deep, psychological ruts (or brain habits) that person will likely return to his or her old coping mechanism.

Those of us who spent most of our professional lives working in mental health and addiction see the signs in George that he has returned to his old coping mechanism. Why would anyone be surprised by that? Bush was a binge drinker; a much harder form of alcoholism to treat, because the person only drinks ever so often, not every day, therefore he/she won't admit that they are alcoholics. You can't fix a problem if you won't admit that it exists. You certainly won't come anywhere near resolving the underlying conflicts/pathologies.

George II has certainly shown signs of delusions about himself but the biggest one of all is that he could handle the presidency. Whoever encouraged him to believe he could handle it ought to be horse-whipped. It would be like encouraging a man with two broken legs that had never been set or treated in any way by a physician to run a marathon.

No, not everyone can be president or, at least they shouldn't.

While we are on the topic, people who have been horribly tortured, leaving deep, irreparable, psychic scars for life, probably should not run for president and if he/she insists on doing so, should submit to a full battery of psychological testing. Psychological testing today is far more sophisticated than it was even ten years ago. We have scans, filtered EEGs and imaging, functional MRIs that tells us what the brain is doing under certain circumstances and if it is functioning within normal ranges.

We don't need any more psychological time bombs in the White House, PERIOD.

Oh, brother!

How George torpedoed Jeb's presidential hopes and sank the family's political dynasty.

Perhaps the old saying is true: No matter how bad things seem, something good is likely to come out of it all. If Junior has done to the Bush dynasty what he has done to Iraq, that is a good thing, for us and for the middle east.

By Jacob Weisberg
February 10, 2008

Will America close the books on the Bush dynasty when George W. leaves office in January? Or is it still possible that his younger brother, Jeb, will rise from the ashes of the second Bush presidency -- perhaps even as part of the Bush clan's ongoing duel with the House of Clinton?

While one should never say never in politics, such a rematch in 2012 or 2016 is beginning to seem extremely unlikely. Even Jeb himself apparently regards prospects for a Bush resurrection as largely hopeless. To understand why, one needs to look more closely at the relationship between George and Barbara Bush's two eldest sons.

George Walker, 61, and John Ellis Bush (who turns 55 Monday) have long been their family's principal rivals, and by various accounts they are not close. In 2004, George W. told Brit Hume of Fox News that he and Jeb speak by phone only about once a month. The competition is not always obvious because of the way George and Jeb function as allies when the family enterprise's collective interests are at stake, as they did in the 2000 Florida recount. But as a factor in George's own drive to succeed, sibling rivalry has been second only to his relationship with his father. And in a way, it is the primary expression of it, because the ultimate stake in the rivalry was inheritance of their father's mantle.

George W. was always keenly aware, according to friends and family members, that Jeb was viewed the smarter of the two. Jeb, for his part, has always known that the cousins, aunts and uncles like Junior better. Jeb is relentlessly focused, introverted and serious. Though his political future was regarded as the most promising by the rest of the family, he has never had the glib banter or the gift for friendship of his older brother.

Asked in 1987 how the brothers were different, Jeb responded: "George is the tightest with his money, that's for sure. He's always been very careful. Marvin [the youngest brother] is the most personable, and he has this great sense of humor. I'm the serious one."

That was in 1987: around the time of the Silverado meltdown, in which Neil Bush was involved. Of course he never lost a dime . The tax payers paid, once again, for Bush agreed. Note that Jeb doesn't mention Neil.

Jeb in many ways behaves more like a firstborn than a younger sibling. He was born into a more settled and established family that had moved beyond the crisis of their sister Robin's death from leukemia, an event that profoundly affected George. Jeb faced no apparent learning disabilities or struggles with self-control of the kind his older brother did. But somehow Jeb absorbed George's portion of care, while George pranced off with Jeb's share of worldly ease. Where George slacked, Jeb drove as hard as he could. Jeb has never played the game of diminishing expectations -- or many other games either.

Though both brothers tried to follow their father's example in various ways, Jeb's emulation appeared, for many years, far more successful. Jeb married young, as his father did, and got through the University of Texas in just 2 1/2 years. (Dad made it through Yale in three.) Married at 21, he was a father at 23. While George was floundering in the oil business, drilling dry holes back in the town where they grew up, Jeb was getting ahead in banking and real estate. In choosing Florida over Texas, he followed their father's script more cleverly. Miami in the early 1980s offered the kind of opportunity that Midland, Texas, had for his father in the 1950s.

Soon after his arrival there, Jeb tellingly described Miami as "the frontier" in relation to Texas, which had in the intervening decades become a place where social snobbery and established hierarchies made it hard for his wife, a Mexican immigrant, and his family to fit in.

Florida in the 1980s, like Texas in the 1960s, was a Democratic state poised to turn Republican, with a group of feverish conservatives -- the Cuban exiles -- leading the charge. Like his dad and unlike his impatient older brother, Jeb was happy to endure a dry policy discussion and a political slog. Rather than start with Congress, he ran in 1983 for Dade County Republican Party chairman, a position in which he served as a bridge between the new extremists and the national party establishment -- just as his father had for members of the John Birch Society in Harris County, Texas, in the early 1960s.

To ally himself with them, Jeb positioned himself well to the right. "I'm a hang-'em-by-the-neck conservative," he declared. When Bob Martinez was elected governor of Florida in 1986, Jeb moved to Tallahassee to become Florida's secretary of commerce.

By that point, the Bush parents had come to focus on Jeb as the family's next-generation political leader. After George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, they looked to Jeb as their best hope for vindication. Jeb's position as favorite son rankled his brother, and people I've spoken to who know the president well speculate that it was a factor in George's effort to pull his life together at age 40, when he found God and quit drinking.

Was God ever lost? I don't remember reading that in the newspapers and it would be newsworthy.

In politics, George would often drop comments that suggested he measured himself principally in relation to Jeb. Asked once on the campaign trail what he was going to do for "the little guy," he responded: "I am the little guy. Jeb is 6-4. I am only 5-11."

When George first proposed running for governor of Texas in 1990, his parents strongly opposed the idea. When he returned to the idea in 1994, they reacted the same way. Barbara Bush, in particular, worried that George's campaign would drain money and attention away from Jeb's contest for the governorship in Florida, according to Doug Wead, an aide to the father who became close to George around that time. When George chose to run despite their objections, the parents expected, as did others in the family, that he would lose to Ann Richards and that Jeb would defeat Lawton Chiles. When George won and Jeb lost, their positions were reversed.

In the hotel suite in Houston where George was celebrating, his aunt, Nancy Ellis, heard him speaking to his father over the phone. "Why do you feel bad about Jeb?" he asked his dad, according to one biography of the family. "Why don't you feel good about me?" Such feelings notwithstanding, primogeniture -- inheritance by the firstborn son -- was now restored. By the time Jeb was elected Florida governor in 1998, his brother was already planning his own presidential campaign.

As the second Bush presidency grinds to its dismal conclusion, both Jeb and his parents seem to think that George's mistakes have destroyed the second son's chances of ever occupying the White House, family friends say. Jeb was merely recognizing reality when he opted not to run for president in 2008. While a campaign in 2012 or beyond is theoretically possible, Jeb says he has no interest and complains that no one will believe him.

Among those who don't want to take no for an answer is his brother the president, for whom, ironically, Jeb's election would provide a measure of historical vindication.

While Jeb seems resigned to abandoning politics, family friends have described his parents as devastated that the older son spiked the chances of the younger one. In December 2006, the former president gave a glimpse of this when he paid tribute to his second son at a ceremony to mark the end of Jeb's two terms as governor. Bush began to crack when talking about Jeb's 1994 defeat, and how his son didn't whine or complain about the unfair attacks on him in the election. "The true measure of a man is ... " Bush tried to say, now openly sobbing as Jeb approached to comfort him, " ... is how you handle victory ... and also defeat."

Jeb, the obedient son, the one who was supposed to be president, who even after George Junior's election was regarded as a potential third in the line, now faces a political impasse. His older brother dashed ahead and blew up the bridge behind him. At this point, not many people inside or outside the family think it can be rebuilt.

Jacob Weisberg is the editor of Slate and the author of "The Bush Tragedy" (Random House).



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Obamania Continues and takes the Women's Vote

Obama Makes His Case as He Surges

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — The lopsided nature of Senator Barack Obama’s parade of victories on Tuesday gives him an opening to make the case that Democratic voters have broken in his favor and that the party should coalesce around his candidacy.

Mr. Obama’s triumphs capped a week in which he went undefeated in states across the country, in many cases by big margins, over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

And his strength on Tuesday sliced across nearly every major demographic line, with one element standing out: in Virginia and Maryland, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls, he beat Mrs. Clinton among women.

The sheer consistency of Mr. Obama’s victories over the last few days certainly suggests that many Democratic voters have gotten past whatever reservations they might have had about his electability or his qualifications to be president.

Mr. Obama, in his victory speech in Madison, Wis., acted almost as the primaries were behind him, offering a case against the probable Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, as he spoke disparagingly of “Bush-McCain Republicans.” It amounted to a preview of what an Obama-McCain race might be like, and it reduced Mrs. Clinton, at least for one night, to the role of bystander.

“John McCain is an American hero,” Mr. Obama said before a huge, cheering crowd. “We honor his service to our nation. But his priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.”

Mr. McCain picked up the challenge. While not mentioning Mr. Obama by name, he offered an unmistakable put-down of the theme that has become so closely identified with Mr. Obama.

“To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope,” he said. “It is a platitude.”

To make sure no one had missed the message, Mr. McCain appropriated Mr. Obama’s signature line with a sly farewell to his own audience in Alexandria, Va. “My friends,” he said. “I promise you, I am fired up and ready to go.”

If I hear John McCain call anyone "My Friends," again I think I might pull my hair out I doubt seriously doubt that he has more than one or two friends in that audience last night. Does he not know what a friend is? A friend is not someone who comes to your rallies, votes for you or even works for you. Friendship is far more personal and intimate than that. When he does that it really bugs me for some reason. Maybe it's because I think it disingenuous and I just don't think this country can stand much more of that.

Even before his latest victories, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had whittled away at the advantages amassed last year by Mrs. Clinton.

He now enjoys a big financial advantage. Her big lead in national polls is gone. By most counts, Mr. Obama can now claim more delegates pledged to him. He has won far more states than Mrs. Clinton, although she won some of the big prizes, like California and New Jersey.

For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had approached this race the same way: as state-by-state trench warfare, in the belief that the nomination would go to whoever got the most delegates.

But the latest results suggest that the race might be tilting back to a more normal form, where the goal is achieving a series of splashing victories and thus momentum. That has provided Mr. Obama with the opportunity, which he plans to seize in a more full-throated way starting on Wednesday, to argue that voters across a wide cross-section of the country have embraced his candidacy, and that the time has come for the group that could hold the balance of power, those 796 unpledged superdelegates — party leaders and elected officials who have an automatic seat at the national convention — to follow suit.

“We are in a momentum phase of the process now,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers dispute that, noting that his victories have come in relatively small states and that she has invested most of her attention in two big contests coming up on March 4: Ohio and Texas. Her aides have long argued that by the end of the voting, the difference between the two candidates in delegate count would be minimal, leaving the final decision to superdelegates, who in their view would favor Mrs. Clinton.

But if party leaders begin to think this is no longer simply a mathematical race to the 2,025-delegate line, that could have big consequences for Mrs. Clinton.

For one thing, if this is an election where a candidate wins by virtue of being seen as winning — a definition of momentum — that would mean that voters in coming states would be influenced by the outcome of earlier races. And Mr. Obama might then be in a position to encroach on Mrs. Clinton’s firewall of Texas and Ohio.

Perhaps most problematically, the delegate selection process — in which delegates are allocated to the candidates in proportion to how many votes they win — could now begin to work against Mrs. Clinton. Both candidates get a share of the delegates, even if one wins by a margin of 20 points. That is a reason Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had stayed so close on delegate numbers, and why it becomes harder for her to reclaim a lead.

But whatever challenges Mrs. Clinton faces, she has repeatedly proved to be a resourceful candidate with a sharp campaign organization and a passionate base of supporters. Should she win in Ohio and Texas, she could halt Mr. Obama’s claim to momentum and keep the race for pledged delegates from breaking against her. And there has been a history in this campaign of Mr. Obama winning, only to have Mrs. Clinton return and win.

“You can’t make a judgment until Ohio and Texas,” said Jonathan Prince, who was a senior adviser to John Edwards of North Carolina, who quit the race two weeks ago. “In this campaign, every time he has surged ahead, voters take a pause. If momentum keeps slamming into a wall, than you do have to come down to the numbers.”

Still, in the end, those two things are not unrelated. The next contest is Tuesday in Wisconsin, where some polls suggest that Mrs. Clinton is trailing, meaning it may be two weeks after that before she has a potential to put herself in a favorable light again.

At a time when Mr. Obama will be announcing that his train is leaving the station — and pointing to the relatively clear field that Mr. McCain has on the Republican side in urging Democrats to unite behind him — that could prove to be an awfully long two weeks for the Clinton campaign.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Donna Brazile Says She'll Quit The Dems If Super Delegates Decide

I don't blame you Donna. Everyone with any integrity and a belief in Democracy should resign, because the Democratic Party no longer believes in itself. They've become Gooper lite.

Let's see how many people in the Democratic Party still believe in Democracy and have the courage of their convictions! So far, One and counting.

Remember, you're always welcome with us, as long as you leave the spin behind. We see it as dangerous to democracy, like a political Ebola virus...Democracy simply bleeds to death from the inside out when spin is within.

With Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York nearly splitting the delegate count in the race for the Democratic nomination, party leaders have a major dilemma on their hands: a tie ballgame heading into the convention....

...CNN political analyst Donna Brazile railed against the scenario. "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said.

(She talking about super-delegates.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

I Don't Trust My Brother To Decide For me, Who Our Next President Will Be

By Ari Emanuel

My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.

(After all, American are too stupid for a real democracy)

After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.

Amen!

The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.

Or we could make it even uglier, in the coming days and weeks, if they don't pledge, now, to either advocate for the people's vote or resign

Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete.

Right On! Hillary Clinton did everything she could to campaign in those states without stepping over the line; she was reallt pushing the envelope. Yet, just yesterday she said that it was important for her to win those states that a Democrat could win in November, ticking off all the states that were not democratic territrory (states Obama won), and all the states she had won as states that were democratic territory (obviously, those states that she won.) So, why all the barely legal "campaigning" in Florida, a state the Democrats haven't won in years? Could this be a set-up?

Who is on the committee that certifies the delagates? How many of them are DLCers? This should be looked into.

We've been watching the GOP implode for years and yet it looks as though it may well be the Dem-bulbs that commit suicide first.

Here is another concern: Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't realize that there has been a sea change in the political landscape in the U.S. People in the southland who voted Bush/Cheney in 2004 have scraped their "W" stickers off their Mercedes long ago. In my lifetime, of 56 years, I've not seen anything like what's happening in the USA this election year. I can also say that it's not so much the politicians, nor the news media that's causing it. It's the people.

If Hillary Clinton doesn't see this, I'm not sure she is capable of governing all of the U.S. The right, blue and purple map used by news casters after the 2004 debacle is trash now. Much has happened since that horrible night when the vote flipped in Ohio. All that has happened has changed more than 9/11 did, as far as the people and politics are concerned.

After the democracy-snubbing arrogance of the Bush years, the last thing Democrats should be doing is wavering on our democratic principles on these issues. No super-power granted to superdelegates. And no backroom fudging on Florida and Michigan. Are you listening, bro?

He had damned well better be. The whole world is watching, including independents. The fight will be for independents. McCain can't win without us. He will only lose us to Obama. We don't like the Clintons anymore. Some of us used to. We don't like dynasties any more than our founders did.

No more Clintons and no more Bushes...pass it on! We've had enough of the funny business that seems to occur anytime they are around.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

How The Spooks manipulated The News

People still seem to think that the goal of this war was to win it quickly and get out, while every thing we've done points to just the opposite.

There's money in war, for some...and those people happen to either be in power or are supporting the party in power, all of whom should be in the dock at the Hague.

On the morning of 9 February 2004, The New York Times carried an exclusive and alarming story. The paper's Baghdad correspondent, Dexter Filkins, reported that US officials had obtained a 17-page letter, believed to have been written by the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war.

The letter argued that al-Qa'ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis."

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about The New York Times report: "We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously... It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society." The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake – and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it.

The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. I've spent the last two years researching a book about falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media.

The "Zarqawi letter" which made it on to the front page of The New York Times in February 2004 was one of a sequence of highly suspect documents which were said to have been written either by or to Zarqawi and which were fed into news media.

This material is being generated, in part, by intelligence agencies who continue to work without effective oversight; and also by a new and essentially benign structure of "strategic communications" which was originally designed by doves in the Pentagon and Nato who wanted to use subtle and non-violent tactics to deal with Islamist terrorism but whose efforts are poorly regulated and badly supervised with the result that some of its practitioners are breaking loose and engaging in the black arts of propaganda.

Like the new propaganda machine as a whole, the Zarqawi story was born in the high tension after the attacks of September 2001. At that time, he was a painful thorn in the side of the Jordanian authorities, an Islamist radical who was determined to overthrow the royal family. But he was nothing to do with al-Q'aida. Indeed, he had specifically rejected attempts by Bin Laden to recruit him, because he was not interested in targeting the West.

Nevertheless, when US intelligence battered on the doors of allied governments in search of information about al-Q'aida, the Jordanian authorities – anxious to please the Americans and perhaps keen to make life more difficult for their native enemy – threw up his name along with other suspects. Soon he started to show up as a minor figure in US news stories – stories which were factually weak, often contradictory and already using the Jordanians as a tool of political convenience.

Then, on 7 October 2002, for the first time, somebody referred to him on the record. In a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati, President George Bush spoke of "high-level contacts" between al-Q'aida and Iraq and said: "Some al-Q'aida leaders who fled Afghanistan, went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Q'aida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

This coincided with a crucial vote in Congress in which the president was seeking authority to use military force against Iraq. Bush never named the man he was referring to but, as the Los Angeles Times among many others soon reported: "In a speech [on] Monday, Bush referred to a senior member of al-Q'aida who received medical treatment in Iraq. US officials said yesterday that was Abu al Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian, who lost a leg during the US war in Afghanistan."

Even now, Zarqawi was a footnote, not a headline, but the flow of stories about him finally broke through and flooded the global media on 5 February 2003, when the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, addressed the UN Security Council, arguing that Iraq must be invaded: first, to stop its development of weapons of mass destruction; and second, to break its ties with al-Q'aida.

Powell claimed that "Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi"; that Zarqawi's base in Iraq was a camp for "poison and explosive training"; that he was "an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Q'aida lieutenants"; that he "fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago"; that "Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia".

Courtesy of post-war Senate intelligence inquiries; evidence disclosed in several European trials; and the courageous work of a handful of journalists who broke away from the pack, we now know that every single one of those statements was entirely false. But that didn't matter: it was a big story. News organisations sucked it in and regurgitated it for their trusting consumers.

So, who exactly is producing fiction for the media? Who wrote the Zarqawi letters? Who created the fantasy story about Osama bin Laden using a network of subterranean bases in Afghanistan, complete with offices, dormitories, arms depots, electricity and ventilation systems? Who fed the media with tales of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, suffering brain seizures and sitting in stationery cars turning the wheel and making a noise like an engine? Who came up with the idea that Iranian ayatollahs have been encouraging sex with animals and girls of only nine?

Some of this comes from freelance political agitators. It was an Iranian opposition group, for example, which was behind the story that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was jailing people for texting each other jokes about him. And notoriously it was Iraqi exiles who supplied the global media with a dirty stream of disinformation about Saddam Hussein.

But clearly a great deal of this carries the fingerprints of officialdom. The Pentagon has now designated "information operations" as its fifth "core competency" alongside land, sea, air and special forces. Since October 2006, every brigade, division and corps in the US military has had its own "psyop" element producing output for local media. This military activity is linked to the State Department's campaign of "public diplomacy" which includes funding radio stations and news websites. In Britain, the Directorate of Targeting and Information Operations in the Ministry of Defence works with specialists from 15 UK psyops, based at the Defence Intelligence and Security School at Chicksands in Bedfordshire.

In the case of British intelligence, you can see this combination of reckless propaganda and failure of oversight at work in the case of Operation Mass Appeal. This was exposed by the former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, who describes in his book, Iraq Confidential, how, in London in June 1998, he was introduced to two "black propaganda specialists" from MI6 who wanted him to give them material which they could spread through "editors and writers who work with us from time to time".

In interviews for Flat Earth News, Ritter described how, between December 1997 and June 1998, he had three meetings with MI6 officers who wanted him to give them raw intelligence reports on Iraqi arms procurement. The significance of these reports was that they were all unconfirmed and so none was being used in assessing Iraqi activity. Yet MI6 was happy to use them to plant stories in the media. Beyond that, there is worrying evidence that, when Lord Butler asked MI6 about this during his inquiry into intelligence around the invasion of Iraq, MI6 lied to him.

Ultimately, the US has run into trouble with its propaganda in Iraq, particularly with its use of the Zarqawi story. In May 2006, when yet another of his alleged letters was handed out to reporters in the Combined Press Information Centre in Baghdad, finally it was widely regarded as suspect and ignored by just about every single media outlet.

Arguably, even worse than this loss of credibility, according to British defence sources, the US campaign on Zarqawi eventually succeeded in creating its own reality. By elevating him from his position as one fighter among a mass of conflicting groups, the US campaign to "villainise Zarqawi" glamorised him with its enemy audience, making it easier for him to raise funds, to attract "unsponsored" foreign fighters, to make alliances with Sunni Iraqis and to score huge impact with his own media manoeuvres. Finally, in December 2004, Osama bin Laden gave in to this constructed reality, buried his differences with the Jordanian and declared him the leader of al-Q'aida's resistance to the American occupation.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Seems Some Scurrilous Emails Are Hitting InBoxes

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Lives On: Examine Your E-mails

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

by Christine Bowman

Democrats, examine your e-mails. Has disturbing stuff been popping into your inbox? (And I don't mean Viagra offers.)

Whether you're for Hillary or Barack, it's time to quit reading the junk that comes your way. It's emotional, it's scurrilous, and it's not designed to help you pick the best Democratic candidate.

It's not paranoia, but sensible skepticism, to assume that those emails aim to affect the vote count not in the primaries, but in November. The senders don't care which Democrat you vote for in a primary. They are just getting the jump on their Swiftboating for the general election. Wedge politics, pure and simple.

Turn up your racism radars, Democrats; and your sexism radars. These rumors, smears and exaggerated mischaracterizations are a tried and true, right-wing, divide and conquer strategy. Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in e-mails and Internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is.

Have you read any of the candidates' books? That could help you decide who gets your primary or caucus vote, and inspire confidence come November. Their books describe a lifetime of values and service.

Have you watched their many speeches? That could certainly help. Their speeches, by the way, avoid personal slurs while presenting a pathway out of the Bush conservatives' dismal era.

Have you visited their campaign Web sites? That will tell you how the two candidates differ on policy and in general outlook.

Have you seen them debate? The candidates have been describing policies, plans, and their personal values in the debates. That could help you choose the one closest to your values and your priorities.

Have you, yourself, researched their votes on any bill you care about? That's easy to do if you go right to the Senate Web site (for roll call votes) or to the Congressional Record (to read their arguments, pro or con). Don’t take some anonymous source for their positions. That could help.

But if your e-mails try to link Barack Obama to Louis Farrakhan, delete before reading. It just ain't so. It is a racist fear tactic to try to insinuate that a progressive, pro-unity, Protestant, multiracial presidential contender is secretly a black separatist Muslim.

And if someone rips Hillary Clinton apart for her "cackle," describes her as the devil incarnate, or says she had Vince Foster killed after having an affair with him (that made the rounds when Clinton was running for the Senate) – duck and cover! This stuff is crap, and it isn't coming from any Democrat.

Democrats, ask not, whether that stuff could be true. Ask, instead, who would want you to wonder?

If you have seen hate-filled, unfair reports on your candidate – and we all have – don't assume it's from the other Democrats' camp. Both our candidates want unity. They both want a landslide Democratic win in November. Both candidates represent a huge threat to the extremists on the other side. They both represent hope and change compared to the misery we've endured under the conservatives' anointed choice, George W. Bush.

Think about it. The extreme right wing has nothing. Divide and conquer is their last hope.

So go out and register your support in our Democratic primary. But base your vote on knowledge and on your progressive values. That's what Democrats are about. Not fear. Not ignorance Not racism. Not sexism.

Let's be proud of our votes, for whichever Democrat, and proud of our record number of voters. And then in November, let's show the racist, sexist fear-mongers that Americans are mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. Make yours a vote against the "vast right-wing conspiracy"* that fueled Bill Clinton's impeachment and crippled some of his administration's most ambitious initiatives. And stand strong together for a positive new era to come.

* "I do believe that this is a battle," the first lady said. "Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said. [1/27/98]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Jim Webb: Legal Action Against Bush

Sen. Jim Webb thinks legal action against the Bush administration may be needed if the president pursues a long-term military presence in Iraq without Congress' approval.

"I'm not convinced we don't need to have a lawsuit ready," Webb told the Huffington Post. "This is a classic separation of powers issue. I started to talk to people about this today."

In recent days the administration has seemingly backed away from attempting to secure extended military-to-military relationship with the Iraqi government to replace a current U.N. Mandate. Webb and others -- most notably Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Hillary Clinton -- have pushed legislation that would restrict federal money for any such agreement unless it came in the form of a congressional treaty. And while a victory on that front seems within grasp, the possibility still exists, Webb warned, for the administration to ultimately circumvent congressional input.

"They are characterizing this as within the authority of the Executive Branch. They will wait to August when everyone is at the conventions, and leave it on our doorstep," said the Virginia Democrat. "If the Senate hasn't acted by then, they are going to announce an agreement between the Executive Branch and Iraq."

The issue of a long-term military presence in Iraq reemerged on the political landscape today after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he may suspend the reduction of U.S. troops from the country depending on security considerations.

"A brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," Gates told reporters during a short stop at this U.S. base in southern Baghdad.

Earlier proclamations from Gates suggested that the U.S. would not pursue a policy of extended military presence and that conditions in Iraq would improve enough during the second half of 2008 to permit troop withdrawals.

Asked to respond to Gates' remarks, Webb cautioned that, before working off of one person's assessment, the Senate would best be served to get the input of generals on the ground. He also agreed that the statement fit into the greater context of the Bush administration and its congressional allies pushing to make America's presence in the region permanent.

"I think they are doing everything they can," said Webb. "And I don't think there is any secret to the fact that Sen. Mitch McConnell and John McCain and most of the people in the Republic Party are comfortable with the fact that we will be in Iraq for the next 50 years."

The issue of permanency has been a focal point of the Democratic presidential campaign. On the campaign trail, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, asked her challenger, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, to co-sponsor her bill that would prevent the president from entering into such a pact without approval from Congress. On Monday, the two candidates weighed in on the topic with each offering critical statements of Gates' proclamation.

"I strongly disagree with the Administration's plans to 'pause' the long overdue removal of our combat brigades from Iraq," said Obama. "We cannot wage war without end in Iraq while ignoring mounting costs to our troops and their families, our security and our economy... Instead of false promises and a faulty strategy, the American people need a rapid and responsible removal of our combat brigades that relieves the burden on our military."

Added Clinton: "This means that we will have as many troops in Iraq in the summer of 2008 as we had at the beginning of 2007. I continue to call on the President to end the war he started, to take responsibly for bringing our young men and women home... The whole idea behind this so-called surge was to give the Iraqi government the space and time to make the tough decisions that only they can make for themselves and the future of their country."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.