Indistinct Union

Lew Rockwell Podcast

cjsmith — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:18:01 +0000

If you have ever been thinking to yourself, “self the US Constitution was hijacked and the real libertarian cred belongs to the Articles of Confederation” (Word!!!), then this Lew Rockwell podcast is just for you. One takeaway from it: you’ll never bother listening to one of those useless right-wing tirades about how liberal activist judges have destroyed the Constitution (both Democrats and Republicans have pretty well trashed the thing, “dead letter” document as they describe it in the talk).

But that Articles of Confederation argument. That’s hardcore.

My New Passport

cjsmith — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:12:39 +0000

My new passport came in the mail the other day. Gotta say–it’s slick. I dig the eagle. I guess that’s the upshot of being able to be tracked electronically worldwide. Viva the National Surveillance State–a little piece of which is sitting in my underwear drawer right now.

Heckling in a Church

cjsmith — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00:45 +0000

This is what it has come to in my sad Anglican Church.

The man being heckled is Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire around whom most of the controversy swells. He was not invited to the current Lambeth Conference as would have been in order given his episcopal status. The Conference has been boycotted by over 200 bishops mostly over the question of gays and lesbians. [Robinson is the first openly gay bishop in the Communion; I guarantee by no means the first one or only currently one--simply the only openly one].

Good stiff upper lip Brits just sing over the guy with a rousing old number (#4 in the English Hymn Book “Thine Be the Glory, Risen Conquering Son”).

I could use a stiff drink and a gun.

John Cole Quote of the Day

cjsmith — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:04:42 +0000

I know I link to him pretty regularly, but nobody does perfect sardonic humor like this guy (especially when responding to the craptacular McCain campaign). The punchline for today is:

“Nothing says peace, prosperity, and optimism like fire-red skies and fighter planes.”

To see the referent of his snark, go here.

[Bonus reference to a pink-colored #2].

And check out his Update II–McCain schedules a big talk on an oil rig to push for off-shore drilling and a giant OIL SPILL near NEW ORLEANS is closing down the Mississippi River. You can’t make this s–t up. Talk about some bad m—af–king karma.

Further News: The Oil Rig Speech is off. Ya think?

Paging Dr. Freud

cjsmith — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:58:44 +0000

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor (doesn’t that sound so superior to “Prime Minister”) about Sen. Obama (my boldface):

“I would say that he is well-equipped — physically, mentally and politically,” adding that she “wouldn’t resist” a Bush-style back rub from the Land of Lincolner.

I report you decide.

Looks like Merkel might be a fan of Dewey Cox.

Update I: How quickly does this get turned Der Spiegel-like into a “translation issue?”

Down the Toliet: Washington Post Edition

cjsmith — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:05 +0000

Well at least the Washington Post editorial board is honest (my emphasis)–it’s all about US control of the ME and the black gold sucka:

Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama’s antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Translation: How are we going to unilaterally own the Middle East and all its oil once we leave our occupation from its center point?

Wow.

McCain’s Self-Contradictory Imperialism on Iraq

cjsmith — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:59:56 +0000

As Eric Martin (along with others) has pointed out the McCain campaign has officially come out in favor of the neocon/neo-paleocon position of outright colonialism in Iraq.

From Michael Goldfarb, McCain’s blogger/spokesman:

The deputy director of communications for the McCain 2008 campaign, Michael Goldfarb, yesterday said, “John McCain has said he will only support a withdrawal based on conditions on the ground. It is our belief that the Iraqi leaders share that view. The disposition of a sovereign, democratically elected government is one of the conditions that will be taken into account.” [emphasis added]

The term for this setup is satrapy. It is exactly the same thing that the British tried in Iraq–to smashing success.

But I haven’t seen any bloggers point to an even deeper inconsistency/out-right contradiction in this statement by McCain. Namely McCain is on record (via the Fred Kagans of the world) as defining victory in Iraq as a “democratically elected trans-ethnic stable strong central government in Iraq that is an American ally/Iranian foe in the war on terror and a beacon of hope to the Middle East.”

Forget for the moment that such a dream is in fact a utopia (i.e. exists nowhere), notice how McCain’s own downgrading of the importance of the Iraqi government can’t work with his goal of a strong Iraqi government. In other words, McCain’s own campaign/policy undercuts his own goal in the region.

At the very least, the definition of the right on victory should be redefined as everything above plus “and agrees with the right-wing US policy stance.” Even more utopian in nature, but reality won’t stop McCain & Co., because they have a strategy of “victory”.

Yet again the neocon right can not come to grips with the fact that the US can not simply make people do what it wants–especially by writing more op-eds and going on Cable News–that others have their own interests (not always aligned with ours), and will act in a rational manner relative to their own interests. They will act in ways that they think best help achieve their goals (which are not our goals). Which yes (horror of horrors) may involve using others (like say the US) and telling them what they want to hear but not actually having the same set of objectives.

The ISCI/Dawa relationship to the US has always been to get training, arm them, have them kill some Sunnis, help with their takeover of Baghdad, force them to install a pro-Shia government (Sistani’s call for elections), so that they can then go about their dominance of the place. And they want to both stay allied to Iran and yet not become a pure Iranian puppet–and have at times played the US to decrease Iranian influence and Iran to decrease/diminish US influence. In other words, they have played a fairly smart game. See how little of their goals line up with Bush/McCain’s goals for Iraq. And you see why at some point, the house of cards was going to get called by the Shia and that time has come.

Which is why Max Boot’s inanity in today’s Washington Post (as further evidence of the new neocon meme of imperialism) doesn’t get off the ground.

Rather than seeing a pattern of “ambiguous statements” by Maliki and foolish public posturing, you see a guy who has continually wanted the US out and is closer to Iran than the US, always has been, always will. And given that Maliki has always seen himself as the protector of the Shia (not the Prime Minister of Iraq) this would suggest that this has consistently been the view of the majority of Iraqi Shia (i.e. US out).

Jay Cost on Ohio Map

cjsmith — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:22:13 +0000

Jay Cost does an excellent analysis of Obama’s and McCain’s strengths/weaknesses and the look of the map of Ohio for the 2008 Election. See here.

The most recent poll has Obama up 8 in Ohio, but I can’t imagine that number holding (minus an absolute landslide victory) in November. I think the advantage is still Obama’s, but not that wide of a margin and McCain is not without the possibility of an upset here.

One of the keys to watch will be (as Cost correctly notes) if Obama can minimize his damage or even possibly pull even (in which case he wins for sure) in the suburbs of Cincinnati and Columbus. Obama will have trouble in Southeastern Ohio (where Hillary was super-strong). McCain could likely poach there.

The X Factor for Obama is going to face is that in his base areas around Cleveland thousands are now living in homeless shelters as a result of one of the biggest outbreaks of foreclosures in the country. Entire neighborhoods in the Cleveland suburbs are now vacant. Getting voters in the midst of massive life crisis/transition will be very difficult and could seriously undermine his efforts. If it’s close already this could spell trouble for him.

Follow up on War on Terror Legal Frame and Congress

cjsmith — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:41:14 +0000

As if on cue, following on Wittes’ book, AG Michael Mukasey calls on Congress to set the framework for detainee trials. Also true to form and per my prediction, the Democrats balk and suggest that right belongs to the Courts.

Today’s Scare the Bleep Out of You Opinion on Bombing Iran

cjsmith — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:21:11 +0000

A twofer today one from Marty Peretz in The New Republic who links to this op-ed in the NyTimes by Benny Morris.

Both articles assert that Israel is heading towards an attack with Iran. That the consensus across the Israeli political spectrum is bombs away. [There are other reports which state that the Israelis are hampered by needing US air-space which the US may not grant.]

There a number of assumptions, each and every one of which you must think correct go down the bombs away road of Peterz/Morris.

1)Iran isn’t doing what they say they are doing (which is build peaceful nuclear energy not a bomb).

MP:

No one is especially eager for a military assault on Iran’s maturing nuclear capacity. But almost no one doubts that Iran wants that capacity to be military, and so everyone rational is forced into thinking about how to curb–better yet, destroy–that appetite.

Starting off a sentence with “no one is especially eager for a military assault” inevitably leads to “but I will lay out the case for doing so nonetheless.” True to form is Peretez. Now the “almost no one” who doubts Iran’s nuclear ambition would be The UN Atomic Energy Agency and the US National Intelligence Estimate, but never mind that.

2)So assuming one is true (FSOA) the next assumption is economic sanctions won’t work (which I actually think is correct). Because there is no carrot involved. The sticks are either sanctions are we bomb you. Not exactly a great bargaining offer.

3)Taking regime change off the table, i.e. Grand Diplomatic Bargain could never work. They don’t even raise the possibility that this could even be countenanced, much less the need to criticize this approach, assuming as all like-minded “rational” people pushing civilian deaths as a way to stop er civilian deaths

4)A bombing could work:

MP:

Bombing the atomic facilities, dispersed and underground, would not be easy. But my information tells me that it is eminently doable.

Ah yes that great font of (secret) knowledge: my information. But two can play at the this game for “my information” (which I got from The Google) tells me differently.

Moreover:

The consensus of which I write has emerged due to the failure of international diplomacy and coercion to do the job. The Israeli consensus is also exactly what a consensus is supposed to be: more or less, across the board.

In true hawk fashion the “international diplomacy” in question consisted of essentially all sticks (no carrots) and never bargaining in good faith. Never dealing with the issues the countries actually have to deal with–in other words, there was no diplomacy. It was never tried with any effort or intention. Other than do what we say and then we won’t sanction and/or bomb you to smithereens.

Morris has a decidedly even more deranged/pessimistic view of the matter.

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

But he still says they should give it the green light. (No matter!!!). The results of which are (I s–t you not) the double bank shot theory that this failed first bombing run will bring forth a massive Iranian counter attack which will then give Israel the grounds to (wait for it) DROP NUKES ON IRAN. [Remembering this is the "liberal" NyTimes that printed this horror].

The other option after the failed bombing would be like every other country in the post-nuclear age to live with MAD (mutually assured destruction). Nukes=ending great power war.

But that leads to Assumption #5, the Iranian regime consists of crazy irrational Muslims so this won’t work (they are too mad for MAD as it were):

Benny Morris (my italics):

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Yeah those rational men like Khruschev who smacked a shoe on the desk and yelled “We will bury you.” If only we some rational dudes like that in Iran things would be peachy. WTF? Double and Triple WTF?

I mean, gee whiz if only….

Alternatively, if the views of Benny Morris do in fact in any way shape or form mirror those of the supposed Israeli gov’t/military consensus, then buy your stock in oil now (it’s gonna jump big time) and get Rapture Ready for the apocalypse will be at hand.

–

Update I: For the reader wanting more, I recommend Joe Klein’s takedown of Morris.