By MARC MCDONALD
At first glance, it might appear that we on the left don't have much to celebrate this Thanksgiving. After all, the country is ruled by a criminal Republican administration. Young working-class Americans are dying daily in Iraq for an illegal and immoral war. And America seems to be going to hell in a hand basket (made, of course, in China--the same nation that is financing our nation's nightmarish trade and fiscal deficits).
But this Thanksgiving, it's important to remember that, despite all that is wrong in Bush's America, we progressives still have a number of things to be thankful for:
1. Cindy Sheehan. When you gather today with your family to celebrate Thanksgiving, give a word of thanks for this brave mother of a fallen soldier, who is once again returning to Crawford. Sheehan stood up to the forces of the right and demanded accountability from Bush over his immoral war when no one else would, including our gutless mainstream media.
2. U.S. Rep. John Murtha. He was a brave soldier who served in Vietnam and he continues to show his bravery as a politician, daring to speak the painful truth about the Iraq war. His wise words carry weight, too, (as indeed they should coming from a twice-wounded retired Marine Corps colonel).
3. BuzzFlash and the rest of the growing progressive online media. These might not be the best of times for the American left, but I'll say one thing: today, we are more networked and informed than ever, thanks to online alternative media. With the rise of the Internet, the media is splintering into thousands of independent voices, that corporate America (much to its horror) cannot control.
4. The prospect of impeachment. Granted, this one probably has a remote chance of ever happening, at least as long as the GOP controls Congress. But admit it, it's something that is at least fun to fantasize about, as we watch the ongoing TreasonGate investigation unfold.
5. Tom DeLay's indictment. Delay is the first House leader to be indicted while in office in at least a century and, man, has this case been entertaining to watch.
6. Bev Harris. The director of Black Box Voting (which refers to voting on electronic machines that do not print paper ballots) is still out there on the front lines, working to make America's elections fair.
7. Air America. A breath of fresh air on the nation's airwaves, this growing radio network is a slap in the face to right-wing commentators who previously had arrogantly assured us that liberal talk radio would never fly.
8. John Conyers. Back in June, the Democrats finally re-discovered their backbone when Conyers kicked off a lonely fight against long odds to investigate the Downing Street memo.
9. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Some of the smartest, and funniest, progressive discussions on the boob tube happen on Maher's HBO show. His only rival is the incredibly incisive and right-on-target political humor on Stewart's "The Daily Show."
10. Noam Chomsky. After all these years, this activist, author and national treasure is still telling the truths that America needs to hear. Chomsky's inspiring words of wisdom are more important than ever today.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Despite Cheney Claim, Iraq Documented That It Had No WMDs in 2002
By MARC MCDONALD
As he continued to accuse war critics of "revisionism," Dick Cheney insisted that the "burden of proof" was on Saddam Hussein to show that Iraq had no WMDs.
Actually, it is Cheney who is engaging in revisionism. The fact is, Iraq went to great pains in 2002 to document that it had no WMDs.
For example, on Dec. 7, 2002, Iraqi officials presented the U.N. with a 12,000-page dossier disclosing Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction (as demanded by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441). Also, on that day, Iraqi officials agreed to open the country to another round of U.N. weapons inspections.
No one could accuse Iraq of skimping on details in the dossier. The declaration included 11,807 pages of information, with 1,334 pages devoted to biological weapons and 1,823 pages devoted to chemical weapons and 12 CD-ROMs containing 529 megabytes of information, according to a CNN report.
At the time, Iraqi General Hasam Amin said the dossier shows "that Iraq is empty of weapons of mass destruction. I reiterate Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."
Of course, the Bush White House denounced the dossier--but offered no evidence to show that the document was in any way inaccurate.
On Dec. 5, 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ridiculed the idea that Iraq might not have WMDs after all:
"President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq says they don't. You can choose who you want to believe."
In hindsight, I suppose it's quite predictable that the Bush White House would casually dismiss Iraq's accounting of its WMDs in its reckless rush to war.
But one point that has been overlooked in this whole episode is that when Iraq presented its dossier to the U.N. in December 2002, its information was actually not much different than that which had been presented by the Bush White House the previous year.
Colin Powell made this clear when he praised the U.N. sanctions as effective during a Feb. 24, 2001 press conference.
"(Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
As it turns out, Iraq was telling the truth after all in 2002 when it declared that it had no WMDs. It was the Bush White House that was lying to the American people and the world.
As he continued to accuse war critics of "revisionism," Dick Cheney insisted that the "burden of proof" was on Saddam Hussein to show that Iraq had no WMDs.
Actually, it is Cheney who is engaging in revisionism. The fact is, Iraq went to great pains in 2002 to document that it had no WMDs.
For example, on Dec. 7, 2002, Iraqi officials presented the U.N. with a 12,000-page dossier disclosing Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction (as demanded by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441). Also, on that day, Iraqi officials agreed to open the country to another round of U.N. weapons inspections.
No one could accuse Iraq of skimping on details in the dossier. The declaration included 11,807 pages of information, with 1,334 pages devoted to biological weapons and 1,823 pages devoted to chemical weapons and 12 CD-ROMs containing 529 megabytes of information, according to a CNN report.
At the time, Iraqi General Hasam Amin said the dossier shows "that Iraq is empty of weapons of mass destruction. I reiterate Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."
Of course, the Bush White House denounced the dossier--but offered no evidence to show that the document was in any way inaccurate.
On Dec. 5, 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ridiculed the idea that Iraq might not have WMDs after all:
"President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq says they don't. You can choose who you want to believe."
In hindsight, I suppose it's quite predictable that the Bush White House would casually dismiss Iraq's accounting of its WMDs in its reckless rush to war.
But one point that has been overlooked in this whole episode is that when Iraq presented its dossier to the U.N. in December 2002, its information was actually not much different than that which had been presented by the Bush White House the previous year.
Colin Powell made this clear when he praised the U.N. sanctions as effective during a Feb. 24, 2001 press conference.
"(Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
As it turns out, Iraq was telling the truth after all in 2002 when it declared that it had no WMDs. It was the Bush White House that was lying to the American people and the world.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Hard Truth From Murtha, More Ludicrous Lying From Cheney
By MANIFESTO JOE
It looks like the gloves, at long last, may finally be off. And the fellow now leading the charge against a tragic and needless war is an unlikely one.
U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania is a Democrat, but a very hawkish one. He's a retired Marine Corps colonel who was wounded twice in Vietnam. He was an early supporter of the Iraq war.
But after 32 months and the loss of over 2,000 American lives, it was time at last for someone of his background to state the obvious.
"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said. "It is time to bring them (the troops) home."
This came just after our "vice president," Dick Cheney, said that accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy. He went on to call Democrats "opportunists" who are peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain advantage while U.S. troops are dying in Iraq.
Cheney's absurd venom would be laughable if it weren't so audacious. It comes from the quintessential political opportunist, and someone whose approval rating in one poll has plummeted to 19 percent -- probably a little higher than Lyndon LaRouche's.
Cheney's habitual lying about Iraq is well-documented. AMERICAblog.com has a link to an online document, prepared for U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., presenting 51 instances of Cheney misleading the country about Iraq. And the contradictions, one upon another, over time, are so blatant that it would be a sick joke to try to pass this stuff off as lapses of memory, a la Karl Rove's ostensible defense over Leakgate.
The "vice president" has also been a shameless prevaricator about other things. During his debate with John Edwards in 2004, the perpetually sneering Cheney apparently lied in his snide, petty comments about never having met Edwards. The idea, it would seem, was to cast aspersions on Edwards' attendance record in the Senate. The fact is that they were photographed together more than once, years before the debate. The proof surfaced the next day.
Unfortunately, Edwards is a nice guy who decided to keep the gloves on. He didn't call Cheney a liar right on the spot. He just showed the news media the pictures the next day. But the damage had been done. And this graciousness is a mistake Democrats have been making for decades.
But now an unlikely Democrat, an ex-Marine with views similar to the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, has his knuckles out. And he seems ready to decorate them with a little brass.
He said sardonically of chickenhawk Cheney, "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
It is sad that our political discourse has degenerated so much into the muck of ad hominem attacks. But hey, newsflash -- this whole thing got far too personal long ago. When one is dealing with foes as unscrupulous and disingenuous as the perpetually sneering Herr Cheney, dirty, ruthless and mean fighting is somewhat necessary.
It is not the way we would normally choose. And I'm not talking about stooping all the way down to their pond-scum level. (That would actually be hard to do.) But the gloves have to come off, and stay off.
All Democrats, and all Republicans who still have half a brain and half a conscience, should follow Murtha's example. One way or another, it is imperative to put an end to this administration's brazen contempt for public responsibility, honesty and just plain decency.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.
It looks like the gloves, at long last, may finally be off. And the fellow now leading the charge against a tragic and needless war is an unlikely one.
U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania is a Democrat, but a very hawkish one. He's a retired Marine Corps colonel who was wounded twice in Vietnam. He was an early supporter of the Iraq war.
But after 32 months and the loss of over 2,000 American lives, it was time at last for someone of his background to state the obvious.
"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha said. "It is time to bring them (the troops) home."
This came just after our "vice president," Dick Cheney, said that accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy. He went on to call Democrats "opportunists" who are peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain advantage while U.S. troops are dying in Iraq.
Cheney's absurd venom would be laughable if it weren't so audacious. It comes from the quintessential political opportunist, and someone whose approval rating in one poll has plummeted to 19 percent -- probably a little higher than Lyndon LaRouche's.
Cheney's habitual lying about Iraq is well-documented. AMERICAblog.com has a link to an online document, prepared for U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., presenting 51 instances of Cheney misleading the country about Iraq. And the contradictions, one upon another, over time, are so blatant that it would be a sick joke to try to pass this stuff off as lapses of memory, a la Karl Rove's ostensible defense over Leakgate.
The "vice president" has also been a shameless prevaricator about other things. During his debate with John Edwards in 2004, the perpetually sneering Cheney apparently lied in his snide, petty comments about never having met Edwards. The idea, it would seem, was to cast aspersions on Edwards' attendance record in the Senate. The fact is that they were photographed together more than once, years before the debate. The proof surfaced the next day.
Unfortunately, Edwards is a nice guy who decided to keep the gloves on. He didn't call Cheney a liar right on the spot. He just showed the news media the pictures the next day. But the damage had been done. And this graciousness is a mistake Democrats have been making for decades.
But now an unlikely Democrat, an ex-Marine with views similar to the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, has his knuckles out. And he seems ready to decorate them with a little brass.
He said sardonically of chickenhawk Cheney, "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
It is sad that our political discourse has degenerated so much into the muck of ad hominem attacks. But hey, newsflash -- this whole thing got far too personal long ago. When one is dealing with foes as unscrupulous and disingenuous as the perpetually sneering Herr Cheney, dirty, ruthless and mean fighting is somewhat necessary.
It is not the way we would normally choose. And I'm not talking about stooping all the way down to their pond-scum level. (That would actually be hard to do.) But the gloves have to come off, and stay off.
All Democrats, and all Republicans who still have half a brain and half a conscience, should follow Murtha's example. One way or another, it is imperative to put an end to this administration's brazen contempt for public responsibility, honesty and just plain decency.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Did U.S. Forces Seize Fallujah Hospital to Conceal Evidence of White Phosphorus Attacks?
By MARC MCDONALD
The recent revelation that U.S. forces used white phosphorus weapons during its assault on Fallujah raises questions about the seizing of Fallujah's general hospital early in the campaign.
U.S. military officials have recently admitted using white phosphorus weapons in Fallujah after long denying it. The devastating chemical weapons melt human flesh and can burn through skin, right down to the bone.
When the U.S. military forces bombarded Fallujah in November 2004, their first act was to seize the city's main hospital and arrest the doctors. U.S. officials claimed at the time that the hospital was selected as an early target because it was a "center of propaganda."
Author Noam Chomsky has pointed out that the hospital seizure was a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. The treaties state that "medical units and transports shall be respected and protected at all times and shall not be the object of attack."
Chomsky notes that after the U.S. military's seizure of Fallujah's general hospital, "patients were kicked out of their beds and doctors and patients were forced to lie on the floor, handcuffed."
And it raises an interesting question: did the U.S. military seize the hospital to suppress news about the use of its white phosphorus attacks in Fallujah? After all, the U.S. official's stated rationale for seizing the hospital was to control the flow of information. And what better way to conceal reports of civilian casualties bearing telltale white phosphorus burns than to seize Fallujah's hospital?
The recent revelation that U.S. forces used white phosphorus weapons during its assault on Fallujah raises questions about the seizing of Fallujah's general hospital early in the campaign.
U.S. military officials have recently admitted using white phosphorus weapons in Fallujah after long denying it. The devastating chemical weapons melt human flesh and can burn through skin, right down to the bone.
When the U.S. military forces bombarded Fallujah in November 2004, their first act was to seize the city's main hospital and arrest the doctors. U.S. officials claimed at the time that the hospital was selected as an early target because it was a "center of propaganda."
Author Noam Chomsky has pointed out that the hospital seizure was a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. The treaties state that "medical units and transports shall be respected and protected at all times and shall not be the object of attack."
Chomsky notes that after the U.S. military's seizure of Fallujah's general hospital, "patients were kicked out of their beds and doctors and patients were forced to lie on the floor, handcuffed."
And it raises an interesting question: did the U.S. military seize the hospital to suppress news about the use of its white phosphorus attacks in Fallujah? After all, the U.S. official's stated rationale for seizing the hospital was to control the flow of information. And what better way to conceal reports of civilian casualties bearing telltale white phosphorus burns than to seize Fallujah's hospital?
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Republicans Don't Understand Capitalism
By MARC McDONALD
If you're a progressive, you know how tedious it can be to engage in an argument with a Republican these days. Conservatives delight in rambling on about topics that they believe they understand (but are actually clueless about). "American values" for one thing.
But no topic gets Republicans more passionate than "capitalism." After all, the GOP is supposed to be the party of capitalism, free markets, and unbridled free enterprise.
It's interesting, though, how little Republicans seem to know about capitalism. It's probably just as well, because if they delved into the history of capitalist theory, they'd likely have a heart attack.
Take, for example, the bible of capitalism, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Smith wrote this book after an extended visit to Paris in the 1760s in which he met with French economic thinkers and listened to their theories about laissez faire.
Therefore, much of what we identify as "capitalism" these days originated in France, of all places. So the next time your conservative brother-in-law starts bending your ear about capitalism, free markets, and economic competition, you might point out to him that he's supporting French ideas.
This really shouldn't be surprising, though. I mean, what could be more French than George W. Bush taking a 5-week vacation?
When I hear the likes of Bush and Dick Cheney talking about capitalism and free markets, I have to laugh. Neither man would know capitalism if it ran over him on the highway.
For example, Bush was a total failure in the business world. He drove three companies he founded into the ground (despite the fact that his daddies' rich friends gave him financial backing).
Bush only became rich when his daddies' wealthy friends linked him up with a sweetheart deal: The Ballpark stadium in Arlington, Texas. The stadium was funded by taxpayers. It was hardly an example of "capitalism". In fact, it was the very definition of corporate welfare.
It's obvious that Bush knows nothing about capitalism, or what it takes to survive and prosper in the private sector. But that, of course, doesn't keep him from constantly rambling on as though he were a seasoned expert on topics like capitalism, the private sector and free markets.
It's clear that Bush's idea of "capitalism" consists of socialism for the rich, and brutal, dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us.
As a result, in Bush's America, U.S. corporations pocket over $300 billion a year in corporate welfare. And over 60 percent of corporations pay zero income taxes.
Meanwhile, small mom-and-pop businesses across the land are struggling to compete with the likes of corporate-welfare-collecting giants like Wal-Mart. As a result, Wal-Mart's success in crushing its smaller rivals has nothing to do with "the free market" or "capitalism."
Republicans know nothing about capitalism. And the fact that they control all the levers of power in this country at the moment is worrying for anyone who's concerned about America's economic health.
A big problem is Bush's lackadaisical attitude toward deficits. America's trade deficits and government deficits are both at unprecedented levels and are soaring into the stratosphere.
If Bush was a seasoned, experienced businessman with real-world success in the private sector, he might be alarmed at the deficits he's racking up.
People like George Soros (who have real-world experience in the dog-eat-dog capitalist jungle) ARE alarmed. They realize that America's nightmarish deficits are unsustainable. In fact, to a growing number of economic commentators, America's mammoth deficits are by far the biggest threat facing America these days.
I believe that Bush & Co. not only don't understand capitalism, but that their ignorance is responsible for an unfolding economic train wreck that will end America's dominance in the world.
One might wonder: why ISN'T Bush alarmed at America's deficits? After all, we're talking about deficits that are unprecedented in world history. We're talking about a government deficit so massive that it costs the U.S. over $300 billion a year just to service the debt interest.
As author Gerald J. Swanson pointed out in his recent book, America the Broke, our nation's total future obligation, in current dollars, now totals at least $44.2 trillion. (That's trillion, with a "T").
Actually, there's a simple reason for Bush's complacency. He's confident that other nations will always be happy to finance our debt. Republicans in general have a "don't worry, be happy" approach to this crisis.
To Republicans, it's perfectly rational to dole out billions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich, while launching two costly wars. They give little thought to where all this money is coming from. They're quite confident that the likes of China and Japan will always be happy to dole out billions to finance our deficits.
Republicans remind me of wealthy, naive, trust-fund-collecting kids who regularly jump into their BMWs and drive up to their ATM machines to withdraw money. They never give a second's thought about where that money is coming from.
To those of us who actually understand capitalism, though, we have reason for alarm about America's future.
We understand what it takes to run a successful business and balance our books. And we know that America's soaring deficits are simply unsustainable.
We understand that the nations that finance America's debt could get cold feet at any moment and yank the rug out from underneath the U.S. With the dollar already in steady decline, investing in the U.S. Treasury bills is an increasingly unattractive option for the likes of Japan and China these days.
Unlike the Bush & Co., anyone with even a passing knowledge of capitalism understands that the U.S. dollar is headed for meltdown. And the era of U.S. economic global dominance is about to end.
People born with a silver spoon in their mouth like Bush & Co. and their smug wealthy supporters are about to get a harsh dose of cold reality in the lessons of Basic Capitalism 101.
Unfortunately, it'll be the American people who pay the price for Republicans' ignorance about the fundamentals of capitalism.
If you're a progressive, you know how tedious it can be to engage in an argument with a Republican these days. Conservatives delight in rambling on about topics that they believe they understand (but are actually clueless about). "American values" for one thing.
But no topic gets Republicans more passionate than "capitalism." After all, the GOP is supposed to be the party of capitalism, free markets, and unbridled free enterprise.
It's interesting, though, how little Republicans seem to know about capitalism. It's probably just as well, because if they delved into the history of capitalist theory, they'd likely have a heart attack.
Take, for example, the bible of capitalism, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Smith wrote this book after an extended visit to Paris in the 1760s in which he met with French economic thinkers and listened to their theories about laissez faire.
Therefore, much of what we identify as "capitalism" these days originated in France, of all places. So the next time your conservative brother-in-law starts bending your ear about capitalism, free markets, and economic competition, you might point out to him that he's supporting French ideas.
This really shouldn't be surprising, though. I mean, what could be more French than George W. Bush taking a 5-week vacation?
When I hear the likes of Bush and Dick Cheney talking about capitalism and free markets, I have to laugh. Neither man would know capitalism if it ran over him on the highway.
For example, Bush was a total failure in the business world. He drove three companies he founded into the ground (despite the fact that his daddies' rich friends gave him financial backing).
Bush only became rich when his daddies' wealthy friends linked him up with a sweetheart deal: The Ballpark stadium in Arlington, Texas. The stadium was funded by taxpayers. It was hardly an example of "capitalism". In fact, it was the very definition of corporate welfare.
It's obvious that Bush knows nothing about capitalism, or what it takes to survive and prosper in the private sector. But that, of course, doesn't keep him from constantly rambling on as though he were a seasoned expert on topics like capitalism, the private sector and free markets.
It's clear that Bush's idea of "capitalism" consists of socialism for the rich, and brutal, dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us.
As a result, in Bush's America, U.S. corporations pocket over $300 billion a year in corporate welfare. And over 60 percent of corporations pay zero income taxes.
Meanwhile, small mom-and-pop businesses across the land are struggling to compete with the likes of corporate-welfare-collecting giants like Wal-Mart. As a result, Wal-Mart's success in crushing its smaller rivals has nothing to do with "the free market" or "capitalism."
Republicans know nothing about capitalism. And the fact that they control all the levers of power in this country at the moment is worrying for anyone who's concerned about America's economic health.
A big problem is Bush's lackadaisical attitude toward deficits. America's trade deficits and government deficits are both at unprecedented levels and are soaring into the stratosphere.
If Bush was a seasoned, experienced businessman with real-world success in the private sector, he might be alarmed at the deficits he's racking up.
People like George Soros (who have real-world experience in the dog-eat-dog capitalist jungle) ARE alarmed. They realize that America's nightmarish deficits are unsustainable. In fact, to a growing number of economic commentators, America's mammoth deficits are by far the biggest threat facing America these days.
I believe that Bush & Co. not only don't understand capitalism, but that their ignorance is responsible for an unfolding economic train wreck that will end America's dominance in the world.
One might wonder: why ISN'T Bush alarmed at America's deficits? After all, we're talking about deficits that are unprecedented in world history. We're talking about a government deficit so massive that it costs the U.S. over $300 billion a year just to service the debt interest.
As author Gerald J. Swanson pointed out in his recent book, America the Broke, our nation's total future obligation, in current dollars, now totals at least $44.2 trillion. (That's trillion, with a "T").
Actually, there's a simple reason for Bush's complacency. He's confident that other nations will always be happy to finance our debt. Republicans in general have a "don't worry, be happy" approach to this crisis.
To Republicans, it's perfectly rational to dole out billions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich, while launching two costly wars. They give little thought to where all this money is coming from. They're quite confident that the likes of China and Japan will always be happy to dole out billions to finance our deficits.
Republicans remind me of wealthy, naive, trust-fund-collecting kids who regularly jump into their BMWs and drive up to their ATM machines to withdraw money. They never give a second's thought about where that money is coming from.
To those of us who actually understand capitalism, though, we have reason for alarm about America's future.
We understand what it takes to run a successful business and balance our books. And we know that America's soaring deficits are simply unsustainable.
We understand that the nations that finance America's debt could get cold feet at any moment and yank the rug out from underneath the U.S. With the dollar already in steady decline, investing in the U.S. Treasury bills is an increasingly unattractive option for the likes of Japan and China these days.
Unlike the Bush & Co., anyone with even a passing knowledge of capitalism understands that the U.S. dollar is headed for meltdown. And the era of U.S. economic global dominance is about to end.
People born with a silver spoon in their mouth like Bush & Co. and their smug wealthy supporters are about to get a harsh dose of cold reality in the lessons of Basic Capitalism 101.
Unfortunately, it'll be the American people who pay the price for Republicans' ignorance about the fundamentals of capitalism.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
An Open Letter: Don't Be a Coward Again, Mr. Bush, Meet With Cindy
By MARC MCDONALD
Cindy Sheehan is planning to resume her protest during the Thanksgiving holiday at Bush's Crawford ranch. So I figured this would be as good a time as any to send an open letter to Bush:
Mr. Bush, we all know you were a coward who ran like a little girl from serving in combat when our nation was at war in Vietnam. But I urge you not to be a coward this time. Please go ahead and meet with Cindy Sheehan. She doesn't bite.
I don't know if you're aware of this, Mr. Bush, but the United States is not a monarchy. And you are not a king. Instead, you are merely a government employee. You work for the taxpayers (like Cindy and myself) who pay your salary.
So please don't be a coward, Mr. Bush. Go ahead and meet with Cindy---you owe it to her, as she lost her son in your illegal invasion of Iraq. This war, which was based on lies, has led to the senseless deaths of more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers, as well as 100,000 Iraqis.
I find it interesting, Mr. Bush, how you don't have time to meet with Cindy---and yet you've always found time to warmly receive Saudi princes at your Crawford ranch. (You know, the same Saudis who have admitted that they funded Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. The same Saudis who have steadfastly refused to cooperate in any way with U.S. 9/11 investigators).
Granted, unlike the Saudis, Cindy doesn't have billions of dollars to give you, your family, and your business associates. But I still urge you to meet with her and hear what she has to say. Please, I urge you. Don't be a coward again, Mr. Bush.
Cindy Sheehan is planning to resume her protest during the Thanksgiving holiday at Bush's Crawford ranch. So I figured this would be as good a time as any to send an open letter to Bush:
Mr. Bush, we all know you were a coward who ran like a little girl from serving in combat when our nation was at war in Vietnam. But I urge you not to be a coward this time. Please go ahead and meet with Cindy Sheehan. She doesn't bite.
I don't know if you're aware of this, Mr. Bush, but the United States is not a monarchy. And you are not a king. Instead, you are merely a government employee. You work for the taxpayers (like Cindy and myself) who pay your salary.
So please don't be a coward, Mr. Bush. Go ahead and meet with Cindy---you owe it to her, as she lost her son in your illegal invasion of Iraq. This war, which was based on lies, has led to the senseless deaths of more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers, as well as 100,000 Iraqis.
I find it interesting, Mr. Bush, how you don't have time to meet with Cindy---and yet you've always found time to warmly receive Saudi princes at your Crawford ranch. (You know, the same Saudis who have admitted that they funded Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. The same Saudis who have steadfastly refused to cooperate in any way with U.S. 9/11 investigators).
Granted, unlike the Saudis, Cindy doesn't have billions of dollars to give you, your family, and your business associates. But I still urge you to meet with her and hear what she has to say. Please, I urge you. Don't be a coward again, Mr. Bush.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Bush White House Borrows A Trick From Nixon In Altering Transcripts
By MARC MCDONALD
It's clear that we're dealing with a corrupt administration when the White House can't even be trusted to provide accurate transcripts of its own statements. In altering the words of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the Bush White House is taking a cue from the Nixon administration, which resorted to the same dirty trick in its embattled final days.
The Web site Think Progress has documented how the Bush White House altered the transcript of McClellan's words from an Oct. 31, 2004 press conference.
From Think Progress:
There is a brewing controversy about what exactly was said at the White House press conference on October 31. Everyone agrees NBC’s David Gregory said this:
Q: Whether there’s a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.
Both Congressional Quarterly and FNS transcribed McClellan’s answer as "That’s accurate." The White House transcript lists McClellan’s answer as "I don't think that’s accurate."
This episode is likely to trigger a sense of deja vu among those of us who recall a similar controversy that emerged during the Watergate scandal.
In his book, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon, author Anthony Summers documents how the Nixon White House also altered transcripts, which it released in lieu of the Watergate tapes that were subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee. When the latter compared the transcribed conversations to several that the panel had already received in audio form, it discovered a number of troubling discrepancies.
One example cited by Summers:
Transcript for March 22, 1973, as released by Nixon:
PRESIDENT: Well, all John Mitchell is arguing then, is that now we use flexibility in order to get off the cover-up line.
Judiciary Committee transcript:
PRESIDENT: But now--what--all that John Mitchell is arguing, then, is that now, we, we use flexibility.
JOHN DEAN: That's correct.
PRESIDENT: In order to get on with the cover-up plan.
Summers notes that the Nixon White House also made other alterations in the transcripts, including the deletion of the now-infamous passage in which Nixon ordered: "I want you all to stonewall it...cover up, or anything else."
It's clear that we're dealing with a corrupt administration when the White House can't even be trusted to provide accurate transcripts of its own statements. In altering the words of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the Bush White House is taking a cue from the Nixon administration, which resorted to the same dirty trick in its embattled final days.
The Web site Think Progress has documented how the Bush White House altered the transcript of McClellan's words from an Oct. 31, 2004 press conference.
From Think Progress:
There is a brewing controversy about what exactly was said at the White House press conference on October 31. Everyone agrees NBC’s David Gregory said this:
Q: Whether there’s a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.
Both Congressional Quarterly and FNS transcribed McClellan’s answer as "That’s accurate." The White House transcript lists McClellan’s answer as "I don't think that’s accurate."
This episode is likely to trigger a sense of deja vu among those of us who recall a similar controversy that emerged during the Watergate scandal.
In his book, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon, author Anthony Summers documents how the Nixon White House also altered transcripts, which it released in lieu of the Watergate tapes that were subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee. When the latter compared the transcribed conversations to several that the panel had already received in audio form, it discovered a number of troubling discrepancies.
One example cited by Summers:
Transcript for March 22, 1973, as released by Nixon:
PRESIDENT: Well, all John Mitchell is arguing then, is that now we use flexibility in order to get off the cover-up line.
Judiciary Committee transcript:
PRESIDENT: But now--what--all that John Mitchell is arguing, then, is that now, we, we use flexibility.
JOHN DEAN: That's correct.
PRESIDENT: In order to get on with the cover-up plan.
Summers notes that the Nixon White House also made other alterations in the transcripts, including the deletion of the now-infamous passage in which Nixon ordered: "I want you all to stonewall it...cover up, or anything else."
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Torture Is As American As Apple Pie
By MARC MCDONALD
George W. Bush raised a lot of eyebrows when he emphatically stated that the U.S. does not engage in torture. It was an ironic comment, especially in view of the White House's recent fierce lobbying against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.
I'm not sure how Bush defines "torture." But, as journalist Seymour Hersh has pointed out, the U.S. government has videos that depict children being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The White House has fought to prevent the public release of these videos.
As Hersh noted:
"...the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking."
I have to admit, I was a bit baffled at Bush's "we do not torture" comment. Torture has been well documented at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other U.S. facilities. Torture techniques range from the practice of "water boarding" (which simulates the effect of drowning) to vicious beatings. Other torture techniques include the pressing of lit cigarettes against detainees' flesh. Prisoners were also reportedly forced to walk on broken glass and barbed wire.
Although the Bush White House has embraced torture and vigorously defended the practice, it's important to note that torture is nothing new in American history.
For example, torture was widely employed by the Reagan-backed Central American death squads, which massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua in the 1980s. One secret CIA manual, from 1983, offered advice in various torture techniques.
If Bush really believes the U.S. doesn't engage in torture, he really ought to bone up on his history. Bush wouldn't have to venture far from his Crawford ranch to find ample evidence---after all, nearby Waco knows a thing or two about torture.
For example, in 1916, a mentally retarded African-American youth, Jesse Washington, was arrested on the flimsiest of evidence in the murder of a Waco-area woman. After a short sham trial, the 17-year-old youth was dragged out of a courtroom by the trial spectators. He was slashed repeatedly with knives, castrated, and had his fingers and toes cut off. Then, before a crowd of 15,000 in downtown Waco, he was burned alive at the stake. City officials did nothing to stop the lynching, which was observed by the mayor and chief of police.
But I suppose it's unfair to single out Waco for this atrocity. In fact, Washington's torture-murder was only one of tens of thousands of lynchings that occurred during what historians have referred to as the era of "spectacle lynchings" from the 1880s to the 1920s. In many cases, the victims were tortured for hours, before they were soaked with kerosene and set on fire by cheering mobs. Like the Washington murder, many of the lynchings occurred in broad daylight, in crowded downtown areas, while city officials looked on, or even participated.
This ugly chapter of widespread torture has been largely forgotten by Americans today. Taking a cue from Stalinist Russia, the U.S. has carefully airbrushed away its atrocities when presenting the official, sanitized version of American history.
Some people might argue that, although thousands of lynchings did occur, they all happened a long time ago. They might wish to tell this to the family of James Byrd, Jr. In 1998, Byrd was chained to a pickup by three white supremacists and dragged to his death in Jasper, Texas.
In the aftermath of the Jasper lynching, a grass-roots effort in Texas urged the state to pass a hate crimes act to help prevent future atrocities. However, the bill failed to pass in the Texas Legislature after then-Governor George W. Bush refused to support the bill.
When Bush claims that the U.S. doesn't engage in torture, he's simply carrying on a rich tradition of denial and suppression of the truth that is as American as apple pie.
George W. Bush raised a lot of eyebrows when he emphatically stated that the U.S. does not engage in torture. It was an ironic comment, especially in view of the White House's recent fierce lobbying against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.
I'm not sure how Bush defines "torture." But, as journalist Seymour Hersh has pointed out, the U.S. government has videos that depict children being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The White House has fought to prevent the public release of these videos.
As Hersh noted:
"...the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking."
I have to admit, I was a bit baffled at Bush's "we do not torture" comment. Torture has been well documented at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other U.S. facilities. Torture techniques range from the practice of "water boarding" (which simulates the effect of drowning) to vicious beatings. Other torture techniques include the pressing of lit cigarettes against detainees' flesh. Prisoners were also reportedly forced to walk on broken glass and barbed wire.
Although the Bush White House has embraced torture and vigorously defended the practice, it's important to note that torture is nothing new in American history.
For example, torture was widely employed by the Reagan-backed Central American death squads, which massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua in the 1980s. One secret CIA manual, from 1983, offered advice in various torture techniques.
If Bush really believes the U.S. doesn't engage in torture, he really ought to bone up on his history. Bush wouldn't have to venture far from his Crawford ranch to find ample evidence---after all, nearby Waco knows a thing or two about torture.
For example, in 1916, a mentally retarded African-American youth, Jesse Washington, was arrested on the flimsiest of evidence in the murder of a Waco-area woman. After a short sham trial, the 17-year-old youth was dragged out of a courtroom by the trial spectators. He was slashed repeatedly with knives, castrated, and had his fingers and toes cut off. Then, before a crowd of 15,000 in downtown Waco, he was burned alive at the stake. City officials did nothing to stop the lynching, which was observed by the mayor and chief of police.
But I suppose it's unfair to single out Waco for this atrocity. In fact, Washington's torture-murder was only one of tens of thousands of lynchings that occurred during what historians have referred to as the era of "spectacle lynchings" from the 1880s to the 1920s. In many cases, the victims were tortured for hours, before they were soaked with kerosene and set on fire by cheering mobs. Like the Washington murder, many of the lynchings occurred in broad daylight, in crowded downtown areas, while city officials looked on, or even participated.
This ugly chapter of widespread torture has been largely forgotten by Americans today. Taking a cue from Stalinist Russia, the U.S. has carefully airbrushed away its atrocities when presenting the official, sanitized version of American history.
Some people might argue that, although thousands of lynchings did occur, they all happened a long time ago. They might wish to tell this to the family of James Byrd, Jr. In 1998, Byrd was chained to a pickup by three white supremacists and dragged to his death in Jasper, Texas.
In the aftermath of the Jasper lynching, a grass-roots effort in Texas urged the state to pass a hate crimes act to help prevent future atrocities. However, the bill failed to pass in the Texas Legislature after then-Governor George W. Bush refused to support the bill.
When Bush claims that the U.S. doesn't engage in torture, he's simply carrying on a rich tradition of denial and suppression of the truth that is as American as apple pie.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Bush White House Gives Conspiracy Theories a Good Name
By MARC MCDONALD
Years ago, conspiracy theories were usually only embraced by wacky people who were beyond the fringe. But after five years of George W. Bush in the White House, some conspiracies don't seem that wacky after all.
In a way, this reminds me of Conspiracy Theory, a 1997 film in which Mel Gibson portrayed Jerry Fletcher, a paranoid cab driver who is consumed with dark visions of shadowy CIA plots and black helicopters.
Although initially no one takes Fletcher seriously, as the film progresses, we learn that Gibson's character isn't really crazy after all. The wild conspiracies that he's constantly rambling on about turn out to be true.
I think a similar situation exists in the real world today. Even before the 9/11 attacks launched a thousand conspiracy theories, the Bush White House was already operating in the sort of shadowy nether world that's always been a hallmark of this administration. It's the sort of secrecy that's long fueled conspiracy theories.
Until recently, I was never that big a proponent of conspiracy theories. It seemed to me that the simplest explanation was always likely to be the truth and that a mundane explanation was more plausible than a complex conspiracy.
However, with Bush in the White House, I've come to the opposite conclusion over the past few years. These days, the most plausible explanation IS a conspiracy.
Take for example the event that put Bush in the White House in the first place: the highly disputed 2000 election. To this day, there is still a great deal that is unanswered about this election. A lot of people continue to believe that there was a GOP conspiracy to steal the vote. And the 2004 election was even more controversial and shrouded in mystery.
Although the mainstream media never took an in-depth look at the unanswered questions surrounding the 2004 election, a number of notable books have examined it, including Mark Crispin Miller's just-released Fooled Again. The book examines a number of factors in the election that will warm the heart of any conspiracy buff. These include voter disenfranchisement, mysterious computer glitches and exit poll discrepancies.
To me, the scariest part of the 2004 election isn't the possibility that the Bush people stole it. It's the fact that the media refuses to examine this possibility. After all, this indicates a conspiracy on a much more grand scale than simply a corrupt administration trying to steal votes.
Conventional wisdom has long been that conspiracies on a vast scale are generally implausible, simply because they're too complex to successfully pull off. However, in the aftermath of the Judith Miller/New York Times case, it's become clear that no conspiracy involving the media in this country is too far out to be implausible.
At one time, America's once-credible mainstream media itself made the idea of grand conspiracies implausible. But in the past few years, the U.S. media's credibility has crumbled. No serious person these days believes that a conspiracy is unlikely simply because it hasn't been reported by the mainstream U.S. media.
Because it holds few press conferences and operates in shadowy secrecy, the Bush White House has spawned many conspiracy theories in recent years. Given the corrupt nature of this administration, a lot of conspiracy theories are frighteningly plausible. During a previous era in our nation's history, we could have depended on the media to act as a watchdog. But those days are over. Indeed, Big Media's eerie silence itself seems to give credence to even some of the wildest conspiracy theories these days.
Years ago, conspiracy theories were usually only embraced by wacky people who were beyond the fringe. But after five years of George W. Bush in the White House, some conspiracies don't seem that wacky after all.
In a way, this reminds me of Conspiracy Theory, a 1997 film in which Mel Gibson portrayed Jerry Fletcher, a paranoid cab driver who is consumed with dark visions of shadowy CIA plots and black helicopters.
Although initially no one takes Fletcher seriously, as the film progresses, we learn that Gibson's character isn't really crazy after all. The wild conspiracies that he's constantly rambling on about turn out to be true.
I think a similar situation exists in the real world today. Even before the 9/11 attacks launched a thousand conspiracy theories, the Bush White House was already operating in the sort of shadowy nether world that's always been a hallmark of this administration. It's the sort of secrecy that's long fueled conspiracy theories.
Until recently, I was never that big a proponent of conspiracy theories. It seemed to me that the simplest explanation was always likely to be the truth and that a mundane explanation was more plausible than a complex conspiracy.
However, with Bush in the White House, I've come to the opposite conclusion over the past few years. These days, the most plausible explanation IS a conspiracy.
Take for example the event that put Bush in the White House in the first place: the highly disputed 2000 election. To this day, there is still a great deal that is unanswered about this election. A lot of people continue to believe that there was a GOP conspiracy to steal the vote. And the 2004 election was even more controversial and shrouded in mystery.
Although the mainstream media never took an in-depth look at the unanswered questions surrounding the 2004 election, a number of notable books have examined it, including Mark Crispin Miller's just-released Fooled Again. The book examines a number of factors in the election that will warm the heart of any conspiracy buff. These include voter disenfranchisement, mysterious computer glitches and exit poll discrepancies.
To me, the scariest part of the 2004 election isn't the possibility that the Bush people stole it. It's the fact that the media refuses to examine this possibility. After all, this indicates a conspiracy on a much more grand scale than simply a corrupt administration trying to steal votes.
Conventional wisdom has long been that conspiracies on a vast scale are generally implausible, simply because they're too complex to successfully pull off. However, in the aftermath of the Judith Miller/New York Times case, it's become clear that no conspiracy involving the media in this country is too far out to be implausible.
At one time, America's once-credible mainstream media itself made the idea of grand conspiracies implausible. But in the past few years, the U.S. media's credibility has crumbled. No serious person these days believes that a conspiracy is unlikely simply because it hasn't been reported by the mainstream U.S. media.
Because it holds few press conferences and operates in shadowy secrecy, the Bush White House has spawned many conspiracy theories in recent years. Given the corrupt nature of this administration, a lot of conspiracy theories are frighteningly plausible. During a previous era in our nation's history, we could have depended on the media to act as a watchdog. But those days are over. Indeed, Big Media's eerie silence itself seems to give credence to even some of the wildest conspiracy theories these days.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Bush's Failed Border Policy Screws Taxpayers
By MANIFESTO JOE
By signing the new Homeland Security bill last week, George W. Bush ensures that the United States will keep throwing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money at an illegal immigration problem that's as intractable as that other perennial money pit, the war on drugs.
It won't matter in the long run how much money goes to the border patrol, or to any other "enforcement" campaign. There are two root causes of illegal border-crossing that neither the U.S. nor Mexican power elites are willing to address.
The first cause should be obvious. About half of Mexicans live in hopeless, abject poverty. Robbed and exploited by corrupt officials and a rich ruling class that is almost feudal in arrogance, the Mexican worker has no incentive to stay home, however dearly he or she loves his or her homeland. Desperation has driven millions north to a strange land filled with unsympathetic English-speakers. And unless there is ever real socio-economic reform south of our border, we will see millions more of them.
The second cause is that many thousands of U.S. employers are most happy to hire illegal aliens, especially Mexicans. They work cheap. They don't usually make waves because they don't want to draw attention to themselves. They can't demand paid vacations. And -- here's the real payoff for scofflaw employers -- they aren't necessarily covered by any kind of health insurance or workers comp, nor can they generally demand it.
Unofficially, there's a cozy arrangement between the rich and powerful of both countries.
In Mexico, there's a distant memory of what can happen when millions of angry peasants unite. Ninety years ago, the country was in the middle of a bloody 10-year revolution. I suspect that at some point it occurred to Mexico's elite that every time a poor worker heads north, that means one less potential troublemaker. It's a way to get rid of their surplus of low-wage laborers and subsistence farmers.
Here, for scofflaw employers, every undocumented worker is a living subsidy. He or she is corporate welfare with arms and legs. If the worker is unfortunate enough to get hurt or sick, that generally means a trip to the nearest charity hospital -- courtesy, for the most part, of U.S. citizen taxpayers. You, Mr. and Ms. U.S. taxpayer, are paying for all these trips to the ER.
Low wages, no health care costs, obedient and quiet workers, no possibility of unionization, undercutting the wages of American workers both union and "non" -- Dude! Business has never been better!
And if the immigrants don't like the deal, maybe they can go back to their side of the border and work at a maquiladora, where pay and safety standards are even worse.
What is even more enraging about this is that, instead of Mexico becoming more like America, America is slowly becoming more like Mexico. Wal-Mart, for example, has a business plan that gets 'em coming and going.
First, they hire desperate workers at wages so low, they often qualify for food stamps. This is a public subsidy that we, the taxpayers, are paying indirectly to the company. Then, because their payroll is low, they sell cheap, undercutting competitors dumb enough to pay better wages. They don't offer some of their workers health insurance, so the public charity hospital gets even more business. And since their "associates" are so poor, where do they shop? (Duh!)
Wal-Mart, the corporation, is like a big, private-sector Mexico. It has adopted poverty as its corporate culture. No wonder their international division, Wal-Mart de Mexico, is doing a booming business.
True, we've got a long way to go to get in a hole as deep as Mexico's. But believe this: Our corporate rulers, with the Bush administration's help, are steadily digging. It means richer rich people, while the ranks of the poor grow. "Tinkle-down" economics is the all-too-familiar formula. And as long as you're among those doing the "tinkling," hey, it works.
Meanwhile, U.S. taxpayers are screwed yet again, with our government hurling money quite futilely at the immigration problem. It's like heroin or cocaine -- but in this case, it is greedy, venal employers who are hooked. They are addicted to cheap, docile labor -- and you, Mr. and Ms. "Murkan" Taxpayer, are subsidizing their habit. The "enforcement" is just a ludicrous show.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.
By signing the new Homeland Security bill last week, George W. Bush ensures that the United States will keep throwing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money at an illegal immigration problem that's as intractable as that other perennial money pit, the war on drugs.
It won't matter in the long run how much money goes to the border patrol, or to any other "enforcement" campaign. There are two root causes of illegal border-crossing that neither the U.S. nor Mexican power elites are willing to address.
The first cause should be obvious. About half of Mexicans live in hopeless, abject poverty. Robbed and exploited by corrupt officials and a rich ruling class that is almost feudal in arrogance, the Mexican worker has no incentive to stay home, however dearly he or she loves his or her homeland. Desperation has driven millions north to a strange land filled with unsympathetic English-speakers. And unless there is ever real socio-economic reform south of our border, we will see millions more of them.
The second cause is that many thousands of U.S. employers are most happy to hire illegal aliens, especially Mexicans. They work cheap. They don't usually make waves because they don't want to draw attention to themselves. They can't demand paid vacations. And -- here's the real payoff for scofflaw employers -- they aren't necessarily covered by any kind of health insurance or workers comp, nor can they generally demand it.
Unofficially, there's a cozy arrangement between the rich and powerful of both countries.
In Mexico, there's a distant memory of what can happen when millions of angry peasants unite. Ninety years ago, the country was in the middle of a bloody 10-year revolution. I suspect that at some point it occurred to Mexico's elite that every time a poor worker heads north, that means one less potential troublemaker. It's a way to get rid of their surplus of low-wage laborers and subsistence farmers.
Here, for scofflaw employers, every undocumented worker is a living subsidy. He or she is corporate welfare with arms and legs. If the worker is unfortunate enough to get hurt or sick, that generally means a trip to the nearest charity hospital -- courtesy, for the most part, of U.S. citizen taxpayers. You, Mr. and Ms. U.S. taxpayer, are paying for all these trips to the ER.
Low wages, no health care costs, obedient and quiet workers, no possibility of unionization, undercutting the wages of American workers both union and "non" -- Dude! Business has never been better!
And if the immigrants don't like the deal, maybe they can go back to their side of the border and work at a maquiladora, where pay and safety standards are even worse.
What is even more enraging about this is that, instead of Mexico becoming more like America, America is slowly becoming more like Mexico. Wal-Mart, for example, has a business plan that gets 'em coming and going.
First, they hire desperate workers at wages so low, they often qualify for food stamps. This is a public subsidy that we, the taxpayers, are paying indirectly to the company. Then, because their payroll is low, they sell cheap, undercutting competitors dumb enough to pay better wages. They don't offer some of their workers health insurance, so the public charity hospital gets even more business. And since their "associates" are so poor, where do they shop? (Duh!)
Wal-Mart, the corporation, is like a big, private-sector Mexico. It has adopted poverty as its corporate culture. No wonder their international division, Wal-Mart de Mexico, is doing a booming business.
True, we've got a long way to go to get in a hole as deep as Mexico's. But believe this: Our corporate rulers, with the Bush administration's help, are steadily digging. It means richer rich people, while the ranks of the poor grow. "Tinkle-down" economics is the all-too-familiar formula. And as long as you're among those doing the "tinkling," hey, it works.
Meanwhile, U.S. taxpayers are screwed yet again, with our government hurling money quite futilely at the immigration problem. It's like heroin or cocaine -- but in this case, it is greedy, venal employers who are hooked. They are addicted to cheap, docile labor -- and you, Mr. and Ms. "Murkan" Taxpayer, are subsidizing their habit. The "enforcement" is just a ludicrous show.
MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Miller Case Shows That Media, Not Bush, Is America's Biggest Problem
By MARC MCDONALD
Over the years, there has been a long list of Republicans that Democrats love to hate: Richard Nixon. Newt Gingrich. Bill O'Reilly. Kenneth Starr. Tom DeLay. Rush Limbaugh. Ad nauseam.
But of all the GOP figures in the history of the Republic, I'd say that none inspires more intense loathing than George W. Bush.
I have to admit, I myself am a fully-paid-up, card-carrying member of the Bush-hater's club. I despise Bush with every fiber of my being. I have a difficult time watching his smirking face on TV, without feeling a powerful need to smash the screen.
But on the other hand, I sometimes wonder if we progressives are directing our rage and anger to the right target.
Sure, Bush is evil. He has the blood of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children on his hands, all for a war that was based on lies. He is a puppet in the most corrupt administration in the history of America. He shamelessly wraps himself in the American flag and the Bible. He is a coward, who refused to serve his country in Vietnam. He always had everything handed to him on a silver platter by his rich, powerful family and yet never tires of advocating "rugged individualism" and "self reliance" for everyone else. Etc. Etc.
But shouldn't it be the U.S. mainstream media that our anger is directed toward?
After all, you really can't blame Bush for being Bush. I mean, lying, cheating, stealing and corruption is what this man is all about. What else do you expect from a Bush? Blaming Bush for the way he acts is like blaming a tiger for eating a small child that wandered into its zoo cage.
On the other hand, we should be blaming the media for a multitude of sins. The media in this country is supposed to have a watchdog role. It's supposed to keep an eye on our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions. Above all, the media is supposed to tell America the truth (even if the truth hurts).
At one time in our nation's history, our media did all of the above. The Fourth Estate was an institution that we could all be proud of. It was widely emulated and admired around the world. It was a mover and shaker in American affairs and it worked hard to draw attention to America's problems.
But today, the media itself is clearly the problem. I'd venture to say that the mainstream media is America's biggest problem today---and it poses the biggest obstacle to this nation returning to a democracy that represents the people.
The Judith Miller case sums up much of what is wrong with the media today. When Bush was peddling his case for war, many of us at the time figured it was based on pack of lies.
What did the media do in the build-up to the Iraq war? Did it investigate Bush's case for war? Did it bring a healthy skepticism to this story?
No. It simply parroted the Bush White House's lies, thus actually giving them a veneer of credibility. Later, the media also stood on the sidelines and acted as a cheerleader as our armed forces rolled into Iraq.
The U.S. mainstream media has probably reached its lowest point ever, for truthfulness and credibility. The same media that gave the Monica Lewinsky case 18 months of around-the-clock saturation coverage, has become nothing less than the mouthpiece of the Bush White House.
The same media that did hard-hitting, exhaustive investigative coverage of overblown "scandals" like Whitewater has snoozed through one Bush White House outrage after another, from Jeff Gannon, to the Downing Street Memo.
The fact, is the U.S. media has been handling Bush with kid-gloves since Day One. I have yet to see Bush get a hard-ball question in a U.S. press conference. Bush can lie through his teeth all day and never face a challenge from the press.
Remember when Bush was interviewed by the Irish journalist Carol Coleman last year? Bush seemed to be taken aback by her hard-hitting questions. Bush was actually offended that Coleman wasn't lobbing the usual softball fluff questions that he'd gotten used to from the U.S. press corps.
Bush has always gotten an easy ride from the U.S. media. Remember, this is a man who to this day has never been called to task by the mainstream media for the lies he told way back in the 2000 election campaign.
"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," Bush said at the time. I'm still waiting for the media to challenge that 5-year-old whopper.
So the next time you simmer with anger over Bush's latest outrage, be sure to remember the U.S. mainstream media's role in allowing the horrors of the past few years to happen. The fact is, if Bush was really held accountable for his crimes by the media, there would have been a popular outcry for his impeachment a long time ago.
Over the years, there has been a long list of Republicans that Democrats love to hate: Richard Nixon. Newt Gingrich. Bill O'Reilly. Kenneth Starr. Tom DeLay. Rush Limbaugh. Ad nauseam.
But of all the GOP figures in the history of the Republic, I'd say that none inspires more intense loathing than George W. Bush.
I have to admit, I myself am a fully-paid-up, card-carrying member of the Bush-hater's club. I despise Bush with every fiber of my being. I have a difficult time watching his smirking face on TV, without feeling a powerful need to smash the screen.
But on the other hand, I sometimes wonder if we progressives are directing our rage and anger to the right target.
Sure, Bush is evil. He has the blood of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children on his hands, all for a war that was based on lies. He is a puppet in the most corrupt administration in the history of America. He shamelessly wraps himself in the American flag and the Bible. He is a coward, who refused to serve his country in Vietnam. He always had everything handed to him on a silver platter by his rich, powerful family and yet never tires of advocating "rugged individualism" and "self reliance" for everyone else. Etc. Etc.
But shouldn't it be the U.S. mainstream media that our anger is directed toward?
After all, you really can't blame Bush for being Bush. I mean, lying, cheating, stealing and corruption is what this man is all about. What else do you expect from a Bush? Blaming Bush for the way he acts is like blaming a tiger for eating a small child that wandered into its zoo cage.
On the other hand, we should be blaming the media for a multitude of sins. The media in this country is supposed to have a watchdog role. It's supposed to keep an eye on our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions. Above all, the media is supposed to tell America the truth (even if the truth hurts).
At one time in our nation's history, our media did all of the above. The Fourth Estate was an institution that we could all be proud of. It was widely emulated and admired around the world. It was a mover and shaker in American affairs and it worked hard to draw attention to America's problems.
But today, the media itself is clearly the problem. I'd venture to say that the mainstream media is America's biggest problem today---and it poses the biggest obstacle to this nation returning to a democracy that represents the people.
The Judith Miller case sums up much of what is wrong with the media today. When Bush was peddling his case for war, many of us at the time figured it was based on pack of lies.
What did the media do in the build-up to the Iraq war? Did it investigate Bush's case for war? Did it bring a healthy skepticism to this story?
No. It simply parroted the Bush White House's lies, thus actually giving them a veneer of credibility. Later, the media also stood on the sidelines and acted as a cheerleader as our armed forces rolled into Iraq.
The U.S. mainstream media has probably reached its lowest point ever, for truthfulness and credibility. The same media that gave the Monica Lewinsky case 18 months of around-the-clock saturation coverage, has become nothing less than the mouthpiece of the Bush White House.
The same media that did hard-hitting, exhaustive investigative coverage of overblown "scandals" like Whitewater has snoozed through one Bush White House outrage after another, from Jeff Gannon, to the Downing Street Memo.
The fact, is the U.S. media has been handling Bush with kid-gloves since Day One. I have yet to see Bush get a hard-ball question in a U.S. press conference. Bush can lie through his teeth all day and never face a challenge from the press.
Remember when Bush was interviewed by the Irish journalist Carol Coleman last year? Bush seemed to be taken aback by her hard-hitting questions. Bush was actually offended that Coleman wasn't lobbing the usual softball fluff questions that he'd gotten used to from the U.S. press corps.
Bush has always gotten an easy ride from the U.S. media. Remember, this is a man who to this day has never been called to task by the mainstream media for the lies he told way back in the 2000 election campaign.
"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," Bush said at the time. I'm still waiting for the media to challenge that 5-year-old whopper.
So the next time you simmer with anger over Bush's latest outrage, be sure to remember the U.S. mainstream media's role in allowing the horrors of the past few years to happen. The fact is, if Bush was really held accountable for his crimes by the media, there would have been a popular outcry for his impeachment a long time ago.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Will Saddam Trial Reveal Deep, Dark Secrets About U.S.?
By MARC MCDONALD
For the Bush White House, the trial of Saddam Hussein can't start soon enough. The Bush team is eager to steer the focus of the world's media away from the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war to the crimes of Saddam.
Given that the Iraq war has been an unmitigated catastrophe, the Saddam trial is the final fig leaf the Bush White House can use to try to justify the whole god-awful mess. And what better way to expose to the world the crimes of Saddam than a high-profile trial that'll be broadcast around the world?
The Bush White House is eager for the world to know all the details of Saddam's crimes over the years. But the Bush people ought to be careful what they wish for.
For a start, if Saddam receives anything remotely resembling a fair trial, then the world will not only learn about the dictator's crimes, it'll also learn the deep, dark secrets about America's relationship with Saddam over the years.
It's clear that Saddam was an evil dictator. However, I've long believed that the U.S. really doesn't have a moral leg to stand on when it criticizes Saddam's crimes. After all, two decades ago, when Saddam was at the zenith of his power and was committing his worst atrocities, the U.S. was funding and supporting him.
The U.S., in fact, had a cozy relationship with Saddam that lasted for decades. How many Americans are aware that, in 1959, the CIA hired the then-22-year-old Saddam to carry out a plot to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister, General Abd al-Karim Qasim? (Saddam's assassination attempt failed when he fired too soon and he only wound up killing Qasim's driver).
Bush has long condemned Saddam for crimes such as gassing the Kurds in the town of Halabjah in 1988. But how many Americans know that the U.S. in fact sold materials to Saddam for creating biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s?
As Craig Unger reported in his 2004 book, House of Bush, House of Saud,:
"Beginning in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control began providing Saddam's Iraq with biological materials--including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, fungi, and even tissue that was infected with bubonic plague."
Unger notes that the latter exchange may have been initiated in the spirit of an "innocent" transfer of scientific information. But as he points out: "It is not difficult to argue against giving bubonic-plague-infected tissues to Saddam Hussein."
Unger quotes former Senate investigator James Tuite: "We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program."
The fact is that Saddam was a monster---but he was a Frankenstein of America's own making. I'd suspect that if Saddam's trial truly delves into the truth of Saddam's crimes, there will be quite a few nasty, embarrassing episodes involving the U.S. that will come to light.
In short, before the U.S. gets on its high horse in condemning Saddam for crimes like torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, we need to remember that we tortured people there, too. The problem is the U.S. spends too much time pointing the finger at the crimes of other nations and not enough time reflecting on our own crimes.
For the Bush White House, the trial of Saddam Hussein can't start soon enough. The Bush team is eager to steer the focus of the world's media away from the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war to the crimes of Saddam.
Given that the Iraq war has been an unmitigated catastrophe, the Saddam trial is the final fig leaf the Bush White House can use to try to justify the whole god-awful mess. And what better way to expose to the world the crimes of Saddam than a high-profile trial that'll be broadcast around the world?
The Bush White House is eager for the world to know all the details of Saddam's crimes over the years. But the Bush people ought to be careful what they wish for.
For a start, if Saddam receives anything remotely resembling a fair trial, then the world will not only learn about the dictator's crimes, it'll also learn the deep, dark secrets about America's relationship with Saddam over the years.
It's clear that Saddam was an evil dictator. However, I've long believed that the U.S. really doesn't have a moral leg to stand on when it criticizes Saddam's crimes. After all, two decades ago, when Saddam was at the zenith of his power and was committing his worst atrocities, the U.S. was funding and supporting him.
The U.S., in fact, had a cozy relationship with Saddam that lasted for decades. How many Americans are aware that, in 1959, the CIA hired the then-22-year-old Saddam to carry out a plot to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister, General Abd al-Karim Qasim? (Saddam's assassination attempt failed when he fired too soon and he only wound up killing Qasim's driver).
Bush has long condemned Saddam for crimes such as gassing the Kurds in the town of Halabjah in 1988. But how many Americans know that the U.S. in fact sold materials to Saddam for creating biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s?
As Craig Unger reported in his 2004 book, House of Bush, House of Saud,:
"Beginning in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control began providing Saddam's Iraq with biological materials--including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, fungi, and even tissue that was infected with bubonic plague."
Unger notes that the latter exchange may have been initiated in the spirit of an "innocent" transfer of scientific information. But as he points out: "It is not difficult to argue against giving bubonic-plague-infected tissues to Saddam Hussein."
Unger quotes former Senate investigator James Tuite: "We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program."
The fact is that Saddam was a monster---but he was a Frankenstein of America's own making. I'd suspect that if Saddam's trial truly delves into the truth of Saddam's crimes, there will be quite a few nasty, embarrassing episodes involving the U.S. that will come to light.
In short, before the U.S. gets on its high horse in condemning Saddam for crimes like torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, we need to remember that we tortured people there, too. The problem is the U.S. spends too much time pointing the finger at the crimes of other nations and not enough time reflecting on our own crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
