Exit Strategies

I recently read James Edward’s book, Racism, Schmacism: How Liberals Use the 'R' Word to Push the Obama Agenda. I was quite interested in it because in his three-hour weekly radio show, The Political Cesspool, James’ treatment of the racism smear is not dissimilar to my own.

The book is – as you might expect from its author – a short, easy, and especially funny read, being comprised mostly of James’ witty commentary on the last few years’ worth of news stories covering alleged White racism. Said stories are discussed very much like in James’ show, and an abundance of internet sources are provided to facilitate independent investigation. Needless to say that the stories are absolutely ridiculous, defying belief in some cases, even for someone whose inbox is flooded daily with the reports of White ‘racism’ collected by Google’s news alerts. A reader can expect to roll his eyes, shake his head, and / or find his trachea rippling with laughter practically on every page.

There is the case, why not, of the federal hate crime investigation triggered by a ham sandwich; and there is the case of a mayor’s lengthy written apology to a Black citizen for allowing police officers to eat bananas in public. There are also several examples of White so-called conservatives being far more paranoid, obnoxious, and vociferous in their denunciations of supposed White racism than the usual liberal suspects. I was astounded to read, for example, that in at least one case, said conservatives even complained about their not being condemned vigorously enough in the liberal media; and that a conservative radio talk show host branded high gasoline prices racist because they encouraged farmers to use corn for the production ethanol, when that corn could be going to feed African children.

I’m still not sure whether the recent Wikileaks scandal has proven the power of the Internet to bring the dark dealings of the Pentagon into the light and challenge government authority, or whether it has actually proven the impotence of “Web 2.0” vis-à-vis the state and political inertia. (Justin Raimondo has a wrap-up here; the Guardian has created an interactive map connected with the leaked documents, which can be explored here.)

I certainly didn’t need help from Wikileaks to conclude that Washington’s war aims are incoherent, that its soldiers are confused and demoralized, and that the national interest is not being served in the land of the Afghans. All of these things have been abundantly clear for years. Moreover, most of the people fascinated with the Wikileak revelations are antiwar anyway, and it’s not certain whether the conservative push-back against Afghanistan, launched by Ann Coulter and (shockingly) World Net Daily super-hawk and Christian Zionist Joseph Farah, will be much affected by the revelations, which are easy to classify as “anti-military.” (The leaked documents could even conceivably be spun as a call to expand the war into Pakistan...)

The reality is, the American public doesn’t care about the Afghan War enough for it to be an election issue. Most everyone outside deluded Weekly Standard subscribers feel in their guts that Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t going well, and that we’re taking far too long to be done with them. But with job loss and the sustained recession, Americans would rather let these concerns be muffled by the calm reassurance of “the Surge is working!” The only way Afghanistan could become a political issue would be if Obama ended both wars and the neocons and conservative movement reacted by howling about national pride and Democrat surrender monkeys. As Austin Bramwell put it recently,

Obama doesn’t really care about Afghanistan and probably sees the occupation as pointless. Still, he supports it because it keeps Afghanistan boring and therefore off the front page. Rather than order of withdrawal, in other words, Obama prefers to buy an option at $70+ billion a year that lets him pursue his domestic agenda without distraction. … [N]o President would have the courage to make Afghanistan policy based on what’s actually best for America. The paramount concern is public relations.

Obama seems incapable of confronting, 1) the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon, whereby Afghanistan will be fought much like Washington’s other endless wars on drugs and poverty, 2) the ideological inertia of his conservative critics, who will attack anything mildly antiwar as an insult to the troops, and 3) the largely invisible Power Elite, which is interested in Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as well as having American military bases stationed around the world.

The Imperial Presidency ain’t what it used to be. 

A question I’ve been thinking about for some time is as follows: Where on the American political spectrum would it be proper to place strong supporters of Israel, including American partisans of Israel’s present nationalist government? What complicate this question are the support patterns for the Israelis and the Palestinians. They cut across conventional ideological divisions.

While the Republican Party and the media-promoted conservative movement are unconditionally pro-Israel and lean heavily toward Israel’s now ruling, hard-line Likud coalition, the overwhelming majority of American Jews are Democrats, but emotionally attached to the Jewish state. Despite the tensions between the Obama government and Premier Netanyahu’s coalition, American Jews show greater fondness for the Obama administration than does any other ethnic group, save for blacks. Obama’s reduced popularity among Jews, which fell from 83 percent in January 2009 to 64 percent last month, doesn’t change the relative standing of his Jewish supporters. His popularity among Hispanic voters, another group with which he did well in 2008, has dipped to below 60 percent.

With the exception of the Orthodox, most American Jews combine their financial and other forms of assistance to Israel with unmistakably left-of-center views about American politics. Despite the attempts by some Jewish groups to be more “even-handed” in the Middle Eastern conflict, most American Jews find no contradiction between being on the social and cultural left in the U.S. and remaining ardent Zionists and, in effect, Israeli nationalists.

The common themes of Mark Hackard’s informative articles are that the US elites oppose the spirit of the East due to liberal ideology and old school national interests. The former argument I agree with; the latter, on the other hand, seems to imply that those ruling America actually care about its citizens, or at least those which happen to be corporate shareholders. One will search in vain for a “rational”-that is, economic-reason for the Iraq War, which couldn’t be paid for if you stole all the country’s oil for a hundred years.  As for the petroleum companies, The Israel Lobby revealed that they have actually traditionally opposed a bellicose foreign policy in the Middle East, preferring to peacefully conduct business with whoever happens to be in power

Now the website thinkprogress.org puts forth evidence that Big Oil has been lobbying against sanctions on Iran.

The recent revelations about BP’s alleged rolein pressing for the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in order to secure valuable oil concessions in Libya provides a potent reminder of the influence oil companies and other major corporations exert over foreign policy.  New evidence uncovered by ThinkProgress shows that America’s own oil giants are also trying to shape U.S. foreign policy to protect or enhance their own profits, even if it puts American security at risk.

Lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate this week show that the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Halliburton lobbied the House, Senate, and various executive branch agencies on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act during the first half of the year as the bill was being debated in the Senate.

Big Oil’s interest in weakening the law is obvious.  Among other things, the new law, signed by President Obama on July 1, imposes significant new sanctions on individuals and corporations “that directly and significantly contribute to Iran’s ability to develop petroleum resources” and that sell more than $200,000 in fuel or other refined petroleum products to Iran.  The new sanctions are important because “although Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the world, it lacks refining capacity and relies on foreign suppliers for nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline a day.”  In addition, the country’s energy industry is “a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,” which “oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.”…

• ExxonMobil, which spent $2.5 million on lobbying last quarter, currently enjoys $4.9 billion in revenues from federal oil and gas leases and sold fuel additives to Iran until 2006.
• Shell, which spent $4 million on lobbying last quarter, has $11.9 billion in revenues and benefits from the U.S. government, a wide variety of business relationships with Iran, and is alleged to be in violation of the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act—the very law amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act.
• ConocoPhillips, which spent $5.5 million lobbying last quarter, accrues $1.7 billion in revenue from federal grants and oil and gas leases and still actively profits from selling gasoline to Iranvia Lukoil, in which it holds a minority stake.
• Halliburton has a whopping $27.1 billion in government contracts and, until 2007, provided oil and gas drilling services to Iran through a foreign subsidiary…

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act passed the House 412-12 and the Senate 99-0, so it’s not surprising that Big Oil’s activities in Iran are not very popular. 

Think about that for a moment. The bill passed the Senate 99-0, despite only opposition from big business. There goes the myth of plutocracy.

Not that oil companies are angels; as the article reveals they lobby for subsidies just as hard as they fight for the opening up of foreign markets. In both cases they’re looking out for their interests, as is to be expected. Sometimes this is a good thing (trying to remove sanctions) and sometimes bad (looking for taxpayer funding).

Think Progress wants us to believe that we’re just lucky to have such an altruistic government. A full 100% of the Senate and 97% of the House was able to resist oil company lobbying to instead look out for the national interests and protect us from the menace of Iran. How fortunate we are to have such selfless public servants in office! 

Those of us of a more cynical bent may be forgiven for suspecting that it’s far more likely that there’s actually another lobby out there having a countervailing effect, one that in the minds of Congressmen relegates the wishes of Big Oil and their paltry tens of millions spent a year  to a mere afterthought. If our representatives only cared about the wishes of BP and Exxon Mobile it would actually be an improvement-the interests of these corporations at least sometimes accidentally converge with those of the nation as a whole.

I suspect the same factors are behind policy towards Russia, which opposed the Iraq War and is trying to put the breaks on any kind of similar strike on Iran. To the extent that the US government cares about controlling oil and gas reserves it’s only to be in a better position to spread liberalism and defend Israel. 

Warsaw has witnessed all variations of heroism and infamy through its seven centuries of existence. Yet it can now mark a new milestone, since the Polish capital just played official host to the 2010 EuroPride Parade, an annual ritual in celebration of homosexual practices, along with ever so desperately-needed “tolerance” and “equal rights”. Next year’s event will take place in Rome, as if to drive home just who runs the show in the Eternal City. Poles who suffered for their nation and faith in the fight against Communism should by now be having second thoughts on the regime established after its fall.

What may seem just another nauseating spectacle well-rehearsed throughout the West is nonetheless significant in its political and strategic context. The parade is the Polish state’s coming-out party as a constituent nation of the Brave New World. Only two weeks prior, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited Poland to affirm the strong alliance ties between Washington and Warsaw and praise the country “as a model of democratic and free market transformation”. And indeed it is, as showcased by Europride 2010- though it’s in sore need of more abortions and immigrants from wildly incompatible cultures like those of Pakistan or Morocco. Poland is still in the earlier stages of social chaos, insolvency and spiritual collapse that the liberal order brings, but the State Department, Brussels and supporting NGOs like Freedom House and the Open Society Institute have ready-made solutions to speed the journey to Progress.

The recent events in Kyrgyzstan can teach us a few lessons. First, the brief civil war and a second massacre of Uzbeks by Kyrgyz in the city of Osh are the result of another color-coded revolution.  This Tulip Revolution overthrew longtime president Akayev.  His mild crackdowns on corrupt troublemakers masquerading as democracy activists and the refusal to turn against Russia raised the ire of the usual suspects:  the EU commissariat, the State Department’s paladins of international democracy, and the Russophobes from the international NGOs.  Akayev was replaced by the hapless Bakiyev who was himself overthrown in April. So much for democracy = stability + prosperity.

Second, the massacre in Osh was the result of the Soviets’ tinkering with the ethnic balance in the volatile Ferghana Valley.  This area, populated by Tajiks (ethnically identical to Iranians who speak a dialect of Farsi), Uzbeks (Turkic Eurasians who consider themselves to be descended from Tamerlane), and Kyrgyz (Mongoloid descendants of Genghis Khan) was ruled as a single administrative area by the czars. The Soviets divided it among three different republics thereby including a large Uzbek minority in the Osh area.  It was only a matter of time until blood would spill. Something for us to think about when we’re trying to make bickering nations live together in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Third, Russia’s reluctance to rush in troops to quell the Kyrgyz civil war is commendable foreign-policy realism.  After all, Medvedev and Putin have their hands more than full with the Islamist terrorists in the Caucasus.  If only our decision-makers were so reluctant to get involve in Central Asian and Middle Eastern trouble spots. Don’t hold your breath on it though. To the Beltway boys, Russia is just an object of hate and derision.

The “Moderates” we all love so much recently made a trip to show solidarity with their masters.

 There is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, “through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must,” visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said Wednesday in Jerusalem.

Lieberman, flanked at a Jerusalem press conference by his senate colleagues John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), used very tough language, saying the words “military action” in regards to stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Most US officials opt to tiptoe around the subject, saying “no options are off the table.”

Lieberman said that “a certain trumpet needs to sounded here for the Iranian regime to hear.”...

Graham was even blunter.

“The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said, “and never misunderstand that. Whatever relationship problems we have had in the past, it has never seeped over into Congress. The Congress has been united in protection of one of our best allies in the world, the State of Israel.”

Graham really likes this particular metaphor.  This isn’t the first time he used it.

Remember when the Russian Czars had to actually fabricate meetings showing Jews controlling the actions of great powers?  

If you have the stomach to actually watch the video, you'll hear something very revealing.  Graham calls the night a "celebration" because it's a meeting with the one group that every member of congress bows before.  To those of us who haven't gained fame and power by being subservient to Jewish interests, it, and all gatherings like it, are symbols of what's gone wrong in the Republic.  

For all their faults, how can not one admire the Iranians and especially Palestinians, when one considers that these poor third worlders stand up to Israel while the leaders of the biggest empire the world has ever seen can't? Best of luck to them in confronting American/Zionist aggression.  

Is Ann Coulter going antiwar?

Bill Kristol Must Resign

07/07/2010

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" -- as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that -- even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.  […]

Having some vague concept of America's national interest -- unlike liberals -- the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

The FBI’s recent arrest of several alleged deep-cover Russian intelligence officers, also known as “illegals”, has provoked astonishment in the media. As if U.S. intelligence agencies would never dream of carrying out covert work in Russia! Since the memory span of reporters and pundits rarely extends beyond a few weeks, perhaps this is understandable. But it should come as no surprise that spying remains an important tool of statecraft. As exemplified by the illegals, the Russians are top players in the game of human intelligence.

Since the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia has been an espionage superpower. The reasons for Russian excellence at spying lie deep in the nation’s culture and history, factors which suited the eventual development of a world-class intelligence service. Centuries of dynastic rule, the Byzantine nature of the Russian state and attendant intrigue sharpened the skills of deception necessary in the struggle for power.

The mobilization political culture that led to the creation of the Russian secret services stretches back a thousand years. The feuding medieval principalities of Rus’ formed alliances and betrayed each other with regularity. To centralize his power Ivan IV, “The Dread”, formed a precursor to the secret police, the black-clad Oprichniki, to wipe out opposition and sow terror among enemies real and imagined. The Romanov Tsars, meanwhile, maintained all manner of secret chancelleries that culminated in the Third Section of Nicolas I[i]. Through the Third Section, Nicolas established a security service his successors presided over until the autocracy’s overthrow in the Russian Revolution.

Over the course of the 19^th century, political opposition was made to match wits with the Tsar’s gendarmes, and this circumstance laid the foundations for the more ruthless and sophisticated Soviet secret police. Marxist and anarchist radicals lived a twilight existence punctuated by flashes of revolutionary violence. The assumption of false identities, organization into cells, and covert means of communication became the means to survive and advance the cause against the Tsarist state. These tactics formed the tradecraft of secret operations, known as konspiratsia in Russian.

Here’s an insane article from some madman at the American Spectator fantasizing about Israel striking Iran. The conclusion is below.

"We apparently have lost four F-15s and three F-16s, all to unknown causes.

"But that is not the worst. Al-Jazeera is already broadcasting reports from Iran. They are saying we haven't done any significant damage to any of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and only killed innocent civilians in towns and cities across Iran. Hizballah will soon launch everything they have in Lebanon at us. Gaza will erupt in missile launches."

Netanyahu closed his eyes briefly. "Avi, how soon can we expect the UN's condemnation, sanctions, and so forth?"

Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister, shrugged. "Probably later today. I have already received a note from Hillary Clinton condemning the attack. The Americans may sponsor a Security Council resolution condemning us. You can expect a call from Obama himself any minute."

"Will anyone stand with us?"

"No, Prime Minister, we are alone."

Poor Israel!  All they want to do is burn women and children alive and nobody will stand with them!

The paranoia is what’s frightening.  The US has used its veto power at the UN to shield Israel from sanctions 40 times since 1972.  And in the fantasies of Zionists America is getting ready to sponsor resolutions against Israel.  What would neo-cons advocate the Israelis do if the US actually took a balanced position on the Middle East?  Lob a nuke at the East coast?  The author of this article actually worked in the Pentagon! Lunatics like this, not "Islamo-fascism," should keep us up at night.  

It’s not fair to blame Israelis for the nuttiness of American neo-cons but it matters to us as this Jew worship is what passes for conservatism today and may inflame the world.  If the Republicans regain power in 2012, we may or may not see a repeal of Obamacare, tax cuts, lower spending, etc. but we’re guaranteed to see the US do Israel’s bidding (more so than now).  It’s not just another foreign country; it is the master of a movement ostensibly dedicated to defending of the West and therefore if not our enemy, at least a nation whose interests diverge from ours. 

The comments are almost as frightening.

Yes, guys, Yes, you are quite correct and, since BARAK INSANE OBAMA refused to reveal where the vast bulk of the contributions to his campaign came from, it's my guess that they came from ARAB nations.

FURTHER, I AM CALLING FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT of THIS PRESIDENT and, the COMPLETE REMOVAL OF ALL OF HIS REGIME AND THE OVERTURNING OF EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION HE AND HIS REGIME HAVE FORCED THROUGH CONGRESS !! ---- JT ----

Oh yea, all that Arab money in politics.  It’s about time the Jews stopped being so passive and made their voices heard.

Of course Iran will use nuclear weapons against the US; at the first opportunity.

But of course!  Just remember all those wars Iran’s started in the last thousand years or so.

I happen to be one of those Christians who believes we will meet Jesus in the air...and if you belong to Him (saved by grace) you won't be here to for the yucky stuff. Because...first, there is now no condenation to those who are in Christ Jesus Rom 8:1 and lastly, the church is mentioned over and over in Rev. chpts 1-4. No more mention of the church after chpt 4. , and hell doesn't break loose until after chpt 4. However, like you, no matter where I am when those dreadful days begin, I know that Jesus Christ is on my side and I will not be ashamed of Him....

AND GOD BLESS ISRAEL!

This is one of the more reasonable ones.