Will Cheney Attack Iran?

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Will Cheney Attack Iran?

Blair's legacy lies in the Baghdad morgue

Johann Hari: Blair's legacy lies in the Baghdad morgue:

Blair knew suprisingly little about American power and its purposes. In a conversation with John Snow, he revealed he had never heard of Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratic leader of Iran who was toppled by the CIA in 1953 because he wanted to control his own country's oil supplies. As recently as 2005, he had never even heard of the Project for a New American Century.

Good god almighty, how can such a downright ignorant, persistently ignorant, man get and hold the highest office, and take his country to war in a critical region of the world?

Previously I had regarded Blair as an actor, a liar, a kind of high-class conman. We all know that Reagan and 'Dubya' Bush are completely ignorant, ignorant by design. Perhaps Blair is in the same category.

One friend of Blair's recently told me she was shocked in 1997 when she saw Blair welcoming Henry Kissinger into Downing Street and lauding him as a great statesman and friend of democracy. She challenged him over it, but discovered "he just doesn't know about this history - how the Americans toppled democratic governments in Latin America and the Middle East. He really didn't know anything about it. It was shocking."

Shocking it is indeed, and virtually unbelievable. Could Blair truly be that ignorant? This is a major story, unless I've been duped. I always regarded Blair as somewhat more intelligent and eloquent than Bush, at least.

If for no other reason than cynical realpolitik, someone should know something about fact, history and reality. Is the Reagan model of democratic government the universal future? An empty headed actor/conman who reads the lines he is fed, and makes decisions concerning things he knows nothing about?

Johann Hari: Blair's legacy lies in the Baghdad morgue:

Blair knew suprisingly little about American power and its purposes. In a conversation with John Snow, he revealed he had never heard of Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratic leader of Iran who was toppled by the CIA in 1953 because he wanted to control his own country's oil supplies. As recently as 2005, he had never even heard of the Project for a New American Century.

Good god almighty, how can such a downright ignorant, persistently ignorant, man get and hold the highest office, and take his country to war in a critical region of the world?

Previously I had regarded Blair as an actor, a liar, a kind of high-class conman. We all know that Reagan and 'Dubya' Bush are completely ignorant, ignorant by design. Perhaps Blair is in the same category.

One friend of Blair's recently told me she was shocked in 1997 when she saw Blair welcoming Henry Kissinger into Downing Street and lauding him as a great statesman and friend of democracy. She challenged him over it, but discovered "he just doesn't know about this history - how the Americans toppled democratic governments in Latin America and the Middle East. He really didn't know anything about it. It was shocking."

Shocking it is indeed, and virtually unbelievable. Could Blair truly be that ignorant? This is a major story, unless I've been duped. I always regarded Blair as somewhat more intelligent and eloquent than Bush, at least.

If for no other reason than cynical realpolitik, someone should know something about fact, history and reality. Is the Reagan model of democratic government the universal future? An empty headed actor/conman who reads the lines he is fed, and makes decisions concerning things he knows nothing about?

Blair's legacy lies in the Baghdad morgue

American Taliban leader Jerry Falwell Dead

Hitchens has some fun:

COOPER: Author and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens is about as far from Jerry Falwell in his beliefs as one could get. Christian fundamentalists are a major target of his new book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." He joins me now from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Christopher, I'm not sure if you believe in heaven, but, if you do, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "VANITY FAIR": No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.

COOPER: What is it about him that brings up such vitriol?

HITCHENS: The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're -- we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.

How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like (INAUDIBLE) radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?

Do you get an idea now of what I mean to say?

COOPER: Yes, no, I think -- I think you're making yourself very clear.

I mean, I...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: How dare he say, for example, that the Antichrist is already present among us and is an adult male Jew, while, all the time, fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends Robertson and Graham?

COOPER: And, yet, there are...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: ... encouraging -- encouraging -- encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of was holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democratic and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God?

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: This is -- this is -- he's done us an enormous, enormous disservice by this sort of demagogy.

COOPER: What do you think it says about America that -- and politics in America, that he was so successful in mobilizing huge swathes of the country to come out and vote?

HITCHENS: I'm not certain at all that he did deserve this reputation. And I... COOPER: You don't think he does?

HITCHENS: Well, I'm not certain that he was a mobilizer. He certainly hoped to be one.

Well, the fact is that the country suffers, to a considerable extent, from paying too much, by way of compliment, to anyone who can describe themselves as a person of faith, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Chaucerian frauds, people who are simply pickpockets, who -- and frauds -- who prey on the gullible and...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Do you believe he believed what he spoke?

HITCHENS: Of course not. He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.

COOPER: You think he was a complete fraud, really?

HITCHENS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You don't believe that, I mean, in his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in his -- whether you agree or not with his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in what he spoke?

HITCHENS: No. I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.

And I think, if he read the Bible at all -- and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of -- at all -- that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.

I'm going to repeat what I said before about the Israeli question. It's very important. Jerry Falwell kept saying to his own crowd, yes, you have got to like the Jews, because they can make more money in 10 minutes than you can make in a lifetime. He was always full, as his friends Robertson and Graham are and were, of anti- Semitic innuendo.

Yet, in the most base and hypocritical way, he encouraged the worst elements among Jewry. He got Menachem Begin to give him the Jabotinsky Medal, celebrating an alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fanaticism that has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East.

Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith.

Look, the president endangers us this way. He meets a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin, and, because he is wearing a crucifix around his neck, says, I'm dealing with a man of faith. He's a man of goodwill.

Look what Putin has done to American and European interests lately. What has the president said to take back this absurd remark? It's time to stop saying that, because someone preaches credulity and credulousness, and claims it as a matter of faith, that we should respect them.

The whole life of Falwell shows this is an actual danger to democracy, to culture, to civilization. That's what my book is all about.

It seems to me that if you read carefully it is clear enough that the Antichrist is a false preacher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, like Falwell or Oral Robertson, who publicly called for murder on national television (the murder of Chavez). Just as it is clear that The Beast is none other than the Emperor himself - Nero back in the day but Bush is the man in our time. At any rate these people have certainly got nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus as might be found in the Gospels.

These false preachers betray the true message of Jesus and give over religion, morality and Christ himself to the service of the Beast. Its no accident they support and gather support for imperialism, militarism, colonialism, racism, fascism, injustice and inequality. That's the whole point.

Of course, the Republican party and ruling corporate elite couldn't care less about either religion or truth and laugh behind the back of these fanatics, fundamentalists and half-witted evolution-deniers. The only role these preachers have is to herd the rubes into the voting booth to vote Bush or whatever other puppet it put up. Good job Jerry, and here's all your money, more than even the goddam jews make.

Its nothing different from all history. The purpose of teachers and prophets is to critique the system and enlighten the oppressed. The purpose of organised religion is to traduce the message and induce the masses to vote for their own chains.

Hitchens has some fun:

COOPER: Author and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens is about as far from Jerry Falwell in his beliefs as one could get. Christian fundamentalists are a major target of his new book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." He joins me now from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Christopher, I'm not sure if you believe in heaven, but, if you do, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "VANITY FAIR": No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.

COOPER: What is it about him that brings up such vitriol?

HITCHENS: The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're -- we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.

How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like (INAUDIBLE) radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?

Do you get an idea now of what I mean to say?

COOPER: Yes, no, I think -- I think you're making yourself very clear.

I mean, I...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: How dare he say, for example, that the Antichrist is already present among us and is an adult male Jew, while, all the time, fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends Robertson and Graham?

COOPER: And, yet, there are...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: ... encouraging -- encouraging -- encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of was holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democratic and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God?

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: This is -- this is -- he's done us an enormous, enormous disservice by this sort of demagogy.

COOPER: What do you think it says about America that -- and politics in America, that he was so successful in mobilizing huge swathes of the country to come out and vote?

HITCHENS: I'm not certain at all that he did deserve this reputation. And I... COOPER: You don't think he does?

HITCHENS: Well, I'm not certain that he was a mobilizer. He certainly hoped to be one.

Well, the fact is that the country suffers, to a considerable extent, from paying too much, by way of compliment, to anyone who can describe themselves as a person of faith, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Chaucerian frauds, people who are simply pickpockets, who -- and frauds -- who prey on the gullible and...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Do you believe he believed what he spoke?

HITCHENS: Of course not. He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.

COOPER: You think he was a complete fraud, really?

HITCHENS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You don't believe that, I mean, in his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in his -- whether you agree or not with his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in what he spoke?

HITCHENS: No. I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.

And I think, if he read the Bible at all -- and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of -- at all -- that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.

I'm going to repeat what I said before about the Israeli question. It's very important. Jerry Falwell kept saying to his own crowd, yes, you have got to like the Jews, because they can make more money in 10 minutes than you can make in a lifetime. He was always full, as his friends Robertson and Graham are and were, of anti- Semitic innuendo.

Yet, in the most base and hypocritical way, he encouraged the worst elements among Jewry. He got Menachem Begin to give him the Jabotinsky Medal, celebrating an alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fanaticism that has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East.

Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith.

Look, the president endangers us this way. He meets a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin, and, because he is wearing a crucifix around his neck, says, I'm dealing with a man of faith. He's a man of goodwill.

Look what Putin has done to American and European interests lately. What has the president said to take back this absurd remark? It's time to stop saying that, because someone preaches credulity and credulousness, and claims it as a matter of faith, that we should respect them.

The whole life of Falwell shows this is an actual danger to democracy, to culture, to civilization. That's what my book is all about.

It seems to me that if you read carefully it is clear enough that the Antichrist is a false preacher, a wolf in sheep's clothing, like Falwell or Oral Robertson, who publicly called for murder on national television (the murder of Chavez). Just as it is clear that The Beast is none other than the Emperor himself - Nero back in the day but Bush is the man in our time. At any rate these people have certainly got nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus as might be found in the Gospels.

These false preachers betray the true message of Jesus and give over religion, morality and Christ himself to the service of the Beast. Its no accident they support and gather support for imperialism, militarism, colonialism, racism, fascism, injustice and inequality. That's the whole point.

Of course, the Republican party and ruling corporate elite couldn't care less about either religion or truth and laugh behind the back of these fanatics, fundamentalists and half-witted evolution-deniers. The only role these preachers have is to herd the rubes into the voting booth to vote Bush or whatever other puppet it put up. Good job Jerry, and here's all your money, more than even the goddam jews make.

Its nothing different from all history. The purpose of teachers and prophets is to critique the system and enlighten the oppressed. The purpose of organised religion is to traduce the message and induce the masses to vote for their own chains.

American Taliban leader Jerry Falwell Dead

Hoon: Its All About Cheney

Hoon admits fatal errors in planning for postwar Iraq | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited: You might have to take Hoon's remarks with a certain piece of salt, but they do make classic entry in Ron Beasley's series "Its All About Cheney"

Geoff Hoon reveals that Britain disagreed with the US administration over two key decisions in May 2003, two months after the invasion - to disband Iraq's army and 'de-Ba'athify' its civil service. Mr Hoon also said he and other senior ministers completely underestimated the role and influence of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

'Sometimes ... Tony had made his point with the president, and I'd made my point with Don [Rumsfeld] and Jack [Straw] had made his point with Colin [Powell] and the decision actually came out of a completely different place. And you think: what did we miss? I think we missed Cheney.'..."

Of the summary dismissal of Iraq's 350,000-strong army and police forces, Mr Hoon said the Americans were uncompomising: "We certainly argued against [the US]. I recall having discussions with Donald Rumsfeld, but I recognised that it was one of those judgment calls. I would have called it the other way. His argument was that the Iraqi army was so heavily politicised that we couldn't be sure that we would not retain within it large elements of Saddam's people.... "

The dismantling of several ministries and removal from office of all state employees with Ba'ath party membership was also an error, Mr Hoon says.

Hoon admits fatal errors in planning for postwar Iraq | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited: You might have to take Hoon's remarks with a certain piece of salt, but they do make classic entry in Ron Beasley's series "Its All About Cheney"

Geoff Hoon reveals that Britain disagreed with the US administration over two key decisions in May 2003, two months after the invasion - to disband Iraq's army and 'de-Ba'athify' its civil service. Mr Hoon also said he and other senior ministers completely underestimated the role and influence of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

'Sometimes ... Tony had made his point with the president, and I'd made my point with Don [Rumsfeld] and Jack [Straw] had made his point with Colin [Powell] and the decision actually came out of a completely different place. And you think: what did we miss? I think we missed Cheney.'..."

Of the summary dismissal of Iraq's 350,000-strong army and police forces, Mr Hoon said the Americans were uncompomising: "We certainly argued against [the US]. I recall having discussions with Donald Rumsfeld, but I recognised that it was one of those judgment calls. I would have called it the other way. His argument was that the Iraqi army was so heavily politicised that we couldn't be sure that we would not retain within it large elements of Saddam's people.... "

The dismantling of several ministries and removal from office of all state employees with Ba'ath party membership was also an error, Mr Hoon says.

Hoon: Its All About Cheney

Patrick Cockburn Reviews the Iraq Disaster

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, Iraq Dismantled:

There was a central lesson of four years of war which Bush and Tony Blair never seemed to take on board, though it was obvious to anybody living in Iraq: the occupation was unpopular and becoming more so by the day....

It is this lack of political support that has so far doomed all U.S. political and military actions in Iraq. It makes the country very different from Afghanistan where foreign troops are far more welcome. Opinion polls consistently show this trend. A comprehensive Iraqi survey has been conducted by ABC News, USAToday, the BBC, and ARD annually over the last three years. Its findings illuminate the most important trends in Iraqi politics. They show that, by March 2007, no less than 78% of Iraqis opposed the presence of U.S. forces, compared to 65% in November 2005 and 51% in February 2004. In the latter year, only 17% of the population thought that violence against U.S. forces was acceptable, while by 2007 the figure had risen to 51%. This pool of people sympathetic to Sunni insurgents and Shia militias was so large as to make it difficult to control and impossible to eliminate them....

Again and again, assassinations and bombs showed that the Iraqi army and police were thoroughly infiltrated by militants from all sides.... Some American soldiers see that the problem is not about a few infiltrators. "Any Iraqi officer who hasn't been assassinated or targeted for assassination is giving information or support to the insurgents," one US marine was quoted as saying. "Any Iraqi officer who isn't in bed with the insurgents is already dead."

Time to give up, Cheney. Your attempt to seize by force Middle East oil reserves has failed.

The nightmare for Washington was to find that it had conquered Iraq only to install black-turbaned clerics in power in Baghdad, as they already were in Tehran. At first, the U.S. tried to postpone elections, claiming that a census had to be held. It was only on the insistence of the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that two elections were held in 2005, in which the Shia religious parties triumphed.

A point often overlooked: the great proponent of 'democracy' held elections in Iraq only when forced to by indigenous clerical forces.

The poll cited above showed that by Spring 2007 only 34% of Iraqis thought their country was being run by their own government; 59% believed the U.S. was in control. The Iraqi government had been robbed of legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.

Good god now, we're not really serious about democracy. As Chomsky has said, its hard to understand "how anybody can talk about democracy promotion by the United States with a straight face." That's the power of propaganda. 'Democracy' is ritually incanted to such an extent that for the unwary it is literally a form of brainwashing, and so it can come as a surprise that the promotion of democracy in reality is not actually done, rather the opposite.

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, Iraq Dismantled:

There was a central lesson of four years of war which Bush and Tony Blair never seemed to take on board, though it was obvious to anybody living in Iraq: the occupation was unpopular and becoming more so by the day....

It is this lack of political support that has so far doomed all U.S. political and military actions in Iraq. It makes the country very different from Afghanistan where foreign troops are far more welcome. Opinion polls consistently show this trend. A comprehensive Iraqi survey has been conducted by ABC News, USAToday, the BBC, and ARD annually over the last three years. Its findings illuminate the most important trends in Iraqi politics. They show that, by March 2007, no less than 78% of Iraqis opposed the presence of U.S. forces, compared to 65% in November 2005 and 51% in February 2004. In the latter year, only 17% of the population thought that violence against U.S. forces was acceptable, while by 2007 the figure had risen to 51%. This pool of people sympathetic to Sunni insurgents and Shia militias was so large as to make it difficult to control and impossible to eliminate them....

Again and again, assassinations and bombs showed that the Iraqi army and police were thoroughly infiltrated by militants from all sides.... Some American soldiers see that the problem is not about a few infiltrators. "Any Iraqi officer who hasn't been assassinated or targeted for assassination is giving information or support to the insurgents," one US marine was quoted as saying. "Any Iraqi officer who isn't in bed with the insurgents is already dead."

Time to give up, Cheney. Your attempt to seize by force Middle East oil reserves has failed.

The nightmare for Washington was to find that it had conquered Iraq only to install black-turbaned clerics in power in Baghdad, as they already were in Tehran. At first, the U.S. tried to postpone elections, claiming that a census had to be held. It was only on the insistence of the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that two elections were held in 2005, in which the Shia religious parties triumphed.

A point often overlooked: the great proponent of 'democracy' held elections in Iraq only when forced to by indigenous clerical forces.

The poll cited above showed that by Spring 2007 only 34% of Iraqis thought their country was being run by their own government; 59% believed the U.S. was in control. The Iraqi government had been robbed of legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.

Good god now, we're not really serious about democracy. As Chomsky has said, its hard to understand "how anybody can talk about democracy promotion by the United States with a straight face." That's the power of propaganda. 'Democracy' is ritually incanted to such an extent that for the unwary it is literally a form of brainwashing, and so it can come as a surprise that the promotion of democracy in reality is not actually done, rather the opposite.

Patrick Cockburn Reviews the Iraq Disaster

These lies will end in our misery

Clive Hamilton criticises the Howard Government's global warming policy - smh.com.au:

Propaganda often works through fabrications so audacious that it is hard to know how to respond. This technique has been adopted by the federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in his frequent claim that Australia is "leading the world" in the response to the climate crisis.

To counter the view at home and abroad that Australia is a pariah in efforts to tackle global warming, the Government has campaigned relentlessly to persuade voters the opposite is the case. To succeed it must somehow undo the hold of the facts.

The first fact that had to be countered was that Australia did extraordinarily well out of the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. After playing diplomatic hard-ball, Australia was conceded a very generous deal. Yet the Howard Government soon began to portray that great victory as a bad deal which would wreck the Australian economy. This repudiation of a gift from the rest of the world created widespread resentment.

The Government's various voluntary greenhouse programs with industry can be understood as publicity stunts rather than real efforts to cut emissions. When the Government early in its term commissioned a review of its flagship greenhouse challenge program, the results showed that only a sixth of the emission cuts claimed for the program were real. Now the Government refuses any independent scrutiny of its programs.

Irrespective of a few minor green policies announced in last night's federal budget, the failure of the Government to take effective measures to cut Australia's emissions is well understood by experts and policy makers abroad. When a team of German researchers asked hundreds of experts around the world to score industrialised countries according to their commitment to tackle climate change, Australia ranked second last, with only the US doing worse.

But we need not rely on expert testimony to disprove the Government's climate change fabrication. There is a simple and incontrovertible test of whether Australia is a leader or a laggard: are we reducing, or at least slowing the growth, of our greenhouse emissions?

Since the Howard Government came to power, Australia's emissions have increased by 19 per cent, a growth rate more than double the average of all other industrialised countries. And the Government expects them to grow by another 25 per cent by 2020. This is at a time when the world's climate scientists say we must reduce our emissions to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

When deploying the big-lie technique there are rules to be followed: be audacious; never admit fault; never accept the possibility of alternatives; and repeat the falsehood so often that people end up accepting it as truth. This describes the Government's approach, one now articulated with renewed vigour by Turnbull.

The strategy to avoid responsibility has two prongs: displace and defer. The Government has repeatedly displaced responsibility from itself, first by fingering developing countries as being "exempted" from Kyoto (itself a lie, as almost all developing counties have ratified the treaty). More recently it has shifted the blame to China, stating there is no point acting if China "pollutes the environment to its heart's content", in the words of Alexander Downer.

The Europeans have also been blamed. They are pretending to cut emissions to impose a cost on Australia, goes the argument. Most recently, the bizarre policy of allocating $200 million to reduce logging in the Third World is another attempt to shift responsibility from the need to reduce fossil emissions at home.

The second prong is to defer action. While imposing no effective measures to cut emissions now, the Government has put its faith in the development of "clean coal" technologies and nuclear power, the most important features of which are that neither would have a significant effect on our greenhouse emissions for at least 15 to 20 years.

In the public mind the facts are often weak in the face of persistent and passionate fabrications by figures of authority. In the 1930s the leaders of Europe, still traumatised by the Great War, wanted to believe that the rise of fascism did not mean another war, that it was possible to appease an expansionist dictator and live in peace. Winston Churchill was one of the few with a clear-eyed understanding of Nazi aggression, yet his warnings were ignored. There are parallels with Al Gore's long crusade.

But truth frequently gains a momentum of its own. The question then is how much damage will be done before it prevails. In the case of climate change the answer is "a great deal". The 10 years lost will translate into enormous additional human misery later this century. If Turnbull perseveres with the lies, the misery will only accumulate and add to the imbalance on his karmic ledger.

One can only conclude that the Howard Government either doesn't believe or doesn't care about the issue of global warming; it is only interested in playing political games to get itself re-elected and to serve the big corporate emitters which are its backers.

Clive Hamilton criticises the Howard Government's global warming policy - smh.com.au:

Propaganda often works through fabrications so audacious that it is hard to know how to respond. This technique has been adopted by the federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in his frequent claim that Australia is "leading the world" in the response to the climate crisis.

To counter the view at home and abroad that Australia is a pariah in efforts to tackle global warming, the Government has campaigned relentlessly to persuade voters the opposite is the case. To succeed it must somehow undo the hold of the facts.

The first fact that had to be countered was that Australia did extraordinarily well out of the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. After playing diplomatic hard-ball, Australia was conceded a very generous deal. Yet the Howard Government soon began to portray that great victory as a bad deal which would wreck the Australian economy. This repudiation of a gift from the rest of the world created widespread resentment.

The Government's various voluntary greenhouse programs with industry can be understood as publicity stunts rather than real efforts to cut emissions. When the Government early in its term commissioned a review of its flagship greenhouse challenge program, the results showed that only a sixth of the emission cuts claimed for the program were real. Now the Government refuses any independent scrutiny of its programs.

Irrespective of a few minor green policies announced in last night's federal budget, the failure of the Government to take effective measures to cut Australia's emissions is well understood by experts and policy makers abroad. When a team of German researchers asked hundreds of experts around the world to score industrialised countries according to their commitment to tackle climate change, Australia ranked second last, with only the US doing worse.

But we need not rely on expert testimony to disprove the Government's climate change fabrication. There is a simple and incontrovertible test of whether Australia is a leader or a laggard: are we reducing, or at least slowing the growth, of our greenhouse emissions?

Since the Howard Government came to power, Australia's emissions have increased by 19 per cent, a growth rate more than double the average of all other industrialised countries. And the Government expects them to grow by another 25 per cent by 2020. This is at a time when the world's climate scientists say we must reduce our emissions to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

When deploying the big-lie technique there are rules to be followed: be audacious; never admit fault; never accept the possibility of alternatives; and repeat the falsehood so often that people end up accepting it as truth. This describes the Government's approach, one now articulated with renewed vigour by Turnbull.

The strategy to avoid responsibility has two prongs: displace and defer. The Government has repeatedly displaced responsibility from itself, first by fingering developing countries as being "exempted" from Kyoto (itself a lie, as almost all developing counties have ratified the treaty). More recently it has shifted the blame to China, stating there is no point acting if China "pollutes the environment to its heart's content", in the words of Alexander Downer.

The Europeans have also been blamed. They are pretending to cut emissions to impose a cost on Australia, goes the argument. Most recently, the bizarre policy of allocating $200 million to reduce logging in the Third World is another attempt to shift responsibility from the need to reduce fossil emissions at home.

The second prong is to defer action. While imposing no effective measures to cut emissions now, the Government has put its faith in the development of "clean coal" technologies and nuclear power, the most important features of which are that neither would have a significant effect on our greenhouse emissions for at least 15 to 20 years.

In the public mind the facts are often weak in the face of persistent and passionate fabrications by figures of authority. In the 1930s the leaders of Europe, still traumatised by the Great War, wanted to believe that the rise of fascism did not mean another war, that it was possible to appease an expansionist dictator and live in peace. Winston Churchill was one of the few with a clear-eyed understanding of Nazi aggression, yet his warnings were ignored. There are parallels with Al Gore's long crusade.

But truth frequently gains a momentum of its own. The question then is how much damage will be done before it prevails. In the case of climate change the answer is "a great deal". The 10 years lost will translate into enormous additional human misery later this century. If Turnbull perseveres with the lies, the misery will only accumulate and add to the imbalance on his karmic ledger.

One can only conclude that the Howard Government either doesn't believe or doesn't care about the issue of global warming; it is only interested in playing political games to get itself re-elected and to serve the big corporate emitters which are its backers.

These lies will end in our misery

Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, The Prize of Iraqi Oil

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, The Prize of Iraqi Oil: "According to Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil companies estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1…. This is similar to production costs in Saudi Arabia and lower than virtually any other country."

That's $63 dollars a barrel of economic rent, ie pure profit or surplus value above necessary costs. And the price can only go higher due to peak oil at the same time it is discovered Iraq might have the largest remaining oil reserves on the planet.

This is kapitalism, rent-seeking, land monopoly, colonialism, and imperialism in the tiniest and purest little nutshell that you could ever hope to find. Let's hope with this striking and final example the world population wakes up to what this system truly is and how it works.

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, The Prize of Iraqi Oil: "According to Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil companies estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1…. This is similar to production costs in Saudi Arabia and lower than virtually any other country."

That's $63 dollars a barrel of economic rent, ie pure profit or surplus value above necessary costs. And the price can only go higher due to peak oil at the same time it is discovered Iraq might have the largest remaining oil reserves on the planet.

This is kapitalism, rent-seeking, land monopoly, colonialism, and imperialism in the tiniest and purest little nutshell that you could ever hope to find. Let's hope with this striking and final example the world population wakes up to what this system truly is and how it works.

Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, The Prize of Iraqi Oil

Python's Terry Jones: Saved by the bomb

Guardian | Saved by the bomb: "Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, 'Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran', to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism."

This is another in a series of funny and cutting articles by Jones. I read somewhere (forget where) that cartoonist Tom Tomorrow was going the way of Mark Twain - an exhaustion of humour to be replaced by bitterness and despair in the face of grim and hopeless reality. Let's hope Jones doesn't also succumb - although lord knows any of us could easily suffer the same.

Guardian | Saved by the bomb: "Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, 'Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran', to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism."

This is another in a series of funny and cutting articles by Jones. I read somewhere (forget where) that cartoonist Tom Tomorrow was going the way of Mark Twain - an exhaustion of humour to be replaced by bitterness and despair in the face of grim and hopeless reality. Let's hope Jones doesn't also succumb - although lord knows any of us could easily suffer the same.

Python's Terry Jones: Saved by the bomb

Uri Avnery dumps on Dan Halutz - wicked stuff

Israel's Exercise in Escapism - by Uri Avnery:

Dan Halutz has already drawn the conclusion and resigned. True, in the Book of Proverbs (24:17) the Bible commands us: "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth," but, frankly, I permitted myself to rejoice and verily mine heart was gladdened.

The story started when Halutz was commander of the Air Force. In order to kill the Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh, he ordered the dropping of a one-ton bomb on his house, which also killed 15 civilians, including nine children.

We sent him and his colleagues letters, warning them that we may sue them for war crimes. When Halutz was asked how he feels when releasing such a bomb, he answered that he feels a slight bump on his wing. He added that we were traitors, and that we should be brought to trial. (Treason is the only crime still punishable by death under Israeli law.)

When Halutz was appointed chief of staff, we protested in front of the General Staff building. The protest was not only motivated by moral considerations, profound as they were. We also warned against giving the command of the army to a person whose boastful style testified to his being reckless, irresponsible, and devoid of judgment.

Now comes the Winograd commission and repeats almost the same words. But in the meantime 119 Israeli soldiers, 40 Israeli civilians, and about a thousand Lebanese have been killed – because the pitiful political leadership was mesmerized by this winged nincompoop.

Of course, all this only reminds us of the unutterably terrible deathbed statement of the Swedish statesman Oxenstierna as quoted by Barbara Tuchman, "Know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed."

Israel's Exercise in Escapism - by Uri Avnery:

Dan Halutz has already drawn the conclusion and resigned. True, in the Book of Proverbs (24:17) the Bible commands us: "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth," but, frankly, I permitted myself to rejoice and verily mine heart was gladdened.

The story started when Halutz was commander of the Air Force. In order to kill the Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh, he ordered the dropping of a one-ton bomb on his house, which also killed 15 civilians, including nine children.

We sent him and his colleagues letters, warning them that we may sue them for war crimes. When Halutz was asked how he feels when releasing such a bomb, he answered that he feels a slight bump on his wing. He added that we were traitors, and that we should be brought to trial. (Treason is the only crime still punishable by death under Israeli law.)

When Halutz was appointed chief of staff, we protested in front of the General Staff building. The protest was not only motivated by moral considerations, profound as they were. We also warned against giving the command of the army to a person whose boastful style testified to his being reckless, irresponsible, and devoid of judgment.

Now comes the Winograd commission and repeats almost the same words. But in the meantime 119 Israeli soldiers, 40 Israeli civilians, and about a thousand Lebanese have been killed – because the pitiful political leadership was mesmerized by this winged nincompoop.

Of course, all this only reminds us of the unutterably terrible deathbed statement of the Swedish statesman Oxenstierna as quoted by Barbara Tuchman, "Know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed."

Uri Avnery dumps on Dan Halutz - wicked stuff

Henderson: Al-Qaeda, not US, is to blame for Iraq disaster

Blinkers on in the killing fields - smh.com.au Henderson makes the best case he can for the war in this article, critiquing the 'left' for its opposition and lamenting the horror of Al-Qaeda terrorism. Its very much in the grand style of condemning the historic crime of Hitler's Holocaust (not to mention the shocking acts of Genghis Khan) but having nothing to say about the evils for which we today, right now, are responsible, and could stop if we were minded to.

I suppose the most interesting thing about it is that he no longer seeks to deny the war has slaughtered 650,000 (and counting) Iraqis, he just attempts to pin the blame on Al-Qaeda and the insurgency. The US and its miserable Anglo-Saxon 'allies' Blair and Howard, who are just valiantly striving to promote democracy, apparently don't have anything to do with it.

Lets hope he's reading UK General Rose, who bluntly declared the war is lost, we have to admit defeat and leave, and that the insurgency is right to attack US forces. Henderson might get a clue but I doubt it. He long ago sold his soul to the neo-liberal, neo-conservative, pseudo-fascist governments we labour under. Henderson is billed as the 'executive director of the Sydney Institute', one of those phony academies cum-propaganda-outfits that are a defining feature of the right wing reaction to the sixties. Usually described as 'think tanks', these places have degenerated into being all tank and no think. Naturally a tool like Henderson doesn't know exactly who or when the next country it is that is going to be attacked, only that when the attack comes in, he has to propagandise for it as best he can.

The Iraq war is a modern watershed. There were those who recognised it as an immoral, illegal act of aggressive war and thus opposed it, even before it started; and then there were those who recognised it as an immoral, illegal act of aggressive war and supported it, to the bitter genocidal end. There were only 25 million people in Iraq to start with. We are now heading towards one million killed and another four million refugees. Another ten or twenty years and the place will be depopulated.

Perhaps that is the plan? Genocide the natives and work the fields with imported slave labour. Its reminiscent of the Irish famine: why don't these people just die or can I put them on a coffin ship to the New World? Capitalism wont be able to advance if we can't clear the land and make a profit from modern farming.

If democracy is to be saved and psuedo-fascism defeated, this latter category of war supporters will have to be driven out of public life and public discourse. People who really believed or still believe the silly lies about weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Qaeda, and promotion of democracy are an insignificant minority. These lies would have done Himmler and Heydrich proud, which is exactly why no decent person these days would want to admit being duped by them.

A word about Pilger: he is one of Australia's great journalists, simply because he takes a moral stance, unlike Henderson who is nothing but a propagandist hacking away in a modern day Ministry of Propaganda. Certainly Pilger is correct in assessing the influence of the insurgency. They have halted the Bush plan of aggressive imperium, for which much of the world might be thankful. Another way of putting it is that 650,000 Iraqi people have paid with their lives so that Syria and Iran could be spared attack (sorry about Somalia).

However the phrase 'supporting the insurgency' is problematic. What exactly is meant by this? That one should send money and guns, perhaps volunteers, to the insurgency? I doubt many antiwar people (or Pilger) would actually agree with this, unlike warmongers of the Henderson variety who are doing all they can to keep the flow of political support, guns, money and soldiers into the warzone. Pilger's use of the word 'support' is probably more like the meaning of 'barracking' for the underdog in a movie at the cinema. You want to see the military machine defeated so that it cannot kill again. Ideally, the American people exercising democracy would halt the war and dismantle the Pentagon themselves, finishing the job Bin Laden started (non-violently, of course). But where democracy and the Republic have failed and been replaced by militarism and imperialism, the only check is military defeat and moral, political, and financial bankruptcy, which, for the sake of the world, cannot come quickly enough.

A couple of other points about Henderson's article: the whole theme of this article is that the immoral 'left' does not condemn terrorist killing, and yet in the very statement from Pilger that Henderson himself quoted Pilger says "we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq". No decent and fair minded person would doubt that that is the genuine motive and feeling of John Pilger. So what is this, cognitive dissonance? Henderson or his propaganda line manager need to review this crap before it goes to print lest it collapse under its own self-refuting idiocy.

Secondly, Henderson say baldly: "Whatever a person's position on the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that most Iraqi deaths are being caused by members of the Iraqi insurgency - Sunni and Shiite alike - as well as by the radical Islamists who comprise al-Qaeda in Iraq." Evidence please? Even if this were true, it does not absolve the US and its allies of responsibility for the disaster which the invasion has imposed on Iraq. But, IIRC, the Lancet guys indicated that most of the deaths were caused by airpower - the vast, great unpunished warcrime of the modern world.

From the slaughter of the Germans (600,000) to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of two other cities, to the monstrous Indo-China bombardment, to the slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis in the First Gulf Massacre, through to this contemporary Second Gulf Massacre, what would Henderson know or care about that? Picasso's Guernica is nice, but its ok if we do it. The shame is revealed, however, when they put a blanket over it.

Blinkers on in the killing fields - smh.com.au Henderson makes the best case he can for the war in this article, critiquing the 'left' for its opposition and lamenting the horror of Al-Qaeda terrorism. Its very much in the grand style of condemning the historic crime of Hitler's Holocaust (not to mention the shocking acts of Genghis Khan) but having nothing to say about the evils for which we today, right now, are responsible, and could stop if we were minded to.

I suppose the most interesting thing about it is that he no longer seeks to deny the war has slaughtered 650,000 (and counting) Iraqis, he just attempts to pin the blame on Al-Qaeda and the insurgency. The US and its miserable Anglo-Saxon 'allies' Blair and Howard, who are just valiantly striving to promote democracy, apparently don't have anything to do with it.

Lets hope he's reading UK General Rose, who bluntly declared the war is lost, we have to admit defeat and leave, and that the insurgency is right to attack US forces. Henderson might get a clue but I doubt it. He long ago sold his soul to the neo-liberal, neo-conservative, pseudo-fascist governments we labour under. Henderson is billed as the 'executive director of the Sydney Institute', one of those phony academies cum-propaganda-outfits that are a defining feature of the right wing reaction to the sixties. Usually described as 'think tanks', these places have degenerated into being all tank and no think. Naturally a tool like Henderson doesn't know exactly who or when the next country it is that is going to be attacked, only that when the attack comes in, he has to propagandise for it as best he can.

The Iraq war is a modern watershed. There were those who recognised it as an immoral, illegal act of aggressive war and thus opposed it, even before it started; and then there were those who recognised it as an immoral, illegal act of aggressive war and supported it, to the bitter genocidal end. There were only 25 million people in Iraq to start with. We are now heading towards one million killed and another four million refugees. Another ten or twenty years and the place will be depopulated.

Perhaps that is the plan? Genocide the natives and work the fields with imported slave labour. Its reminiscent of the Irish famine: why don't these people just die or can I put them on a coffin ship to the New World? Capitalism wont be able to advance if we can't clear the land and make a profit from modern farming.

If democracy is to be saved and psuedo-fascism defeated, this latter category of war supporters will have to be driven out of public life and public discourse. People who really believed or still believe the silly lies about weapons of mass destruction, links to Al-Qaeda, and promotion of democracy are an insignificant minority. These lies would have done Himmler and Heydrich proud, which is exactly why no decent person these days would want to admit being duped by them.

A word about Pilger: he is one of Australia's great journalists, simply because he takes a moral stance, unlike Henderson who is nothing but a propagandist hacking away in a modern day Ministry of Propaganda. Certainly Pilger is correct in assessing the influence of the insurgency. They have halted the Bush plan of aggressive imperium, for which much of the world might be thankful. Another way of putting it is that 650,000 Iraqi people have paid with their lives so that Syria and Iran could be spared attack (sorry about Somalia).

However the phrase 'supporting the insurgency' is problematic. What exactly is meant by this? That one should send money and guns, perhaps volunteers, to the insurgency? I doubt many antiwar people (or Pilger) would actually agree with this, unlike warmongers of the Henderson variety who are doing all they can to keep the flow of political support, guns, money and soldiers into the warzone. Pilger's use of the word 'support' is probably more like the meaning of 'barracking' for the underdog in a movie at the cinema. You want to see the military machine defeated so that it cannot kill again. Ideally, the American people exercising democracy would halt the war and dismantle the Pentagon themselves, finishing the job Bin Laden started (non-violently, of course). But where democracy and the Republic have failed and been replaced by militarism and imperialism, the only check is military defeat and moral, political, and financial bankruptcy, which, for the sake of the world, cannot come quickly enough.

A couple of other points about Henderson's article: the whole theme of this article is that the immoral 'left' does not condemn terrorist killing, and yet in the very statement from Pilger that Henderson himself quoted Pilger says "we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq". No decent and fair minded person would doubt that that is the genuine motive and feeling of John Pilger. So what is this, cognitive dissonance? Henderson or his propaganda line manager need to review this crap before it goes to print lest it collapse under its own self-refuting idiocy.

Secondly, Henderson say baldly: "Whatever a person's position on the invasion of Iraq, the fact is that most Iraqi deaths are being caused by members of the Iraqi insurgency - Sunni and Shiite alike - as well as by the radical Islamists who comprise al-Qaeda in Iraq." Evidence please? Even if this were true, it does not absolve the US and its allies of responsibility for the disaster which the invasion has imposed on Iraq. But, IIRC, the Lancet guys indicated that most of the deaths were caused by airpower - the vast, great unpunished warcrime of the modern world.

From the slaughter of the Germans (600,000) to the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of two other cities, to the monstrous Indo-China bombardment, to the slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis in the First Gulf Massacre, through to this contemporary Second Gulf Massacre, what would Henderson know or care about that? Picasso's Guernica is nice, but its ok if we do it. The shame is revealed, however, when they put a blanket over it.

Henderson: Al-Qaeda, not US, is to blame for Iraq disaster

UK and US must admit defeat and leave Iraq, says British general: Insurgents justified in opposing the occupation

General Sir Michael Rose on the Iraq war: "A retired British army general says Iraq's insurgents are justified in opposing the occupation, arguing that the US and its allies should 'admit defeat' and leave Iraq before more soldiers are killed.

"According to the Guardian, General Sir Michael Rose told the BBC's Newsnight programme: 'It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved.'

"Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: 'Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in north America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened.

"'The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq.'"

A refreshingly frank statement. Of course it is the truth, but UK/US/A will find it very hard to admit.

General Sir Michael Rose on the Iraq war: "A retired British army general says Iraq's insurgents are justified in opposing the occupation, arguing that the US and its allies should 'admit defeat' and leave Iraq before more soldiers are killed.

"According to the Guardian, General Sir Michael Rose told the BBC's Newsnight programme: 'It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved.'

"Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: 'Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in north America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened.

"'The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq.'"

A refreshingly frank statement. Of course it is the truth, but UK/US/A will find it very hard to admit.

UK and US must admit defeat and leave Iraq, says British general: Insurgents justified in opposing the occupation

Foy: The Kissinger Connection

Taki's Top Drawer: The Kissinger Connection Kissinger is condemned as the world's biggest living war criminal due to the huge scale of the Indo-china atrocity and the fact Nixon is now dead. But according to this article it turns out he played a key role in the Iraq disaster as well.

Garner drew up detailed plans and, at his first briefing with President Bush, outlined three essential “musts” that would, he asserted, ensure a smooth transition after the war. The first “must”, he said, was that the Iraqi military should not be disbanded. The second “must” was that the 50,000-strong Ba’ath party machine that ran government services should not be broken up or its members proscribed. If either were to happen, he warned, there would be chaos compounded by thousands of unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. And the third “must”, he insisted, was that an interim Iraqi leadership group, eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term, should be kept on-side.

Initially, no one disagreed, according to State of Denial, the new book by the veteran Washington reporter, Bob Woodward. But within weeks of the invasion, Garner’s tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner’s “musts”. [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: “There is still time to rectify this,” Rumsfeld refused to do so.

There's little doubt that all this is an extraordinary, epic bungle, but the writer's thesis that the bungle is 'deliberate' seems a conspiratorial stretch to me.

Taki's Top Drawer: The Kissinger Connection Kissinger is condemned as the world's biggest living war criminal due to the huge scale of the Indo-china atrocity and the fact Nixon is now dead. But according to this article it turns out he played a key role in the Iraq disaster as well.

Garner drew up detailed plans and, at his first briefing with President Bush, outlined three essential “musts” that would, he asserted, ensure a smooth transition after the war. The first “must”, he said, was that the Iraqi military should not be disbanded. The second “must” was that the 50,000-strong Ba’ath party machine that ran government services should not be broken up or its members proscribed. If either were to happen, he warned, there would be chaos compounded by thousands of unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. And the third “must”, he insisted, was that an interim Iraqi leadership group, eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term, should be kept on-side.

Initially, no one disagreed, according to State of Denial, the new book by the veteran Washington reporter, Bob Woodward. But within weeks of the invasion, Garner’s tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner’s “musts”. [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: “There is still time to rectify this,” Rumsfeld refused to do so.

There's little doubt that all this is an extraordinary, epic bungle, but the writer's thesis that the bungle is 'deliberate' seems a conspiratorial stretch to me.

Foy: The Kissinger Connection

A New History?

Global Guerrillas: "In this essay, [Fukuyama's End of History] he made a convincing case that we are in a post-historical epoch that is devoid of ideological struggle. Liberal capitalist democracy has won and it is only a matter of time before we all live under its roof. That claim has proven generally true since that writing."

I guess this is one of the areas where we have to part company with John Robb. Apart from the silliness of 'open source warfare' (if we dont believe in 'open source', perhaps there could be 'free software warfare'?), there is nothing more ludicrous than Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis since Hegel protested the Prussian Kingdom comprised something similar.

Robb's analysis is sometimes interesting but the weakness it seems to me is that there is a nearly complete lack of class analysis or the material basis of history. In other words there is almost no political analysis at all.

Global Guerrillas: "In this essay, [Fukuyama's End of History] he made a convincing case that we are in a post-historical epoch that is devoid of ideological struggle. Liberal capitalist democracy has won and it is only a matter of time before we all live under its roof. That claim has proven generally true since that writing."

I guess this is one of the areas where we have to part company with John Robb. Apart from the silliness of 'open source warfare' (if we dont believe in 'open source', perhaps there could be 'free software warfare'?), there is nothing more ludicrous than Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis since Hegel protested the Prussian Kingdom comprised something similar.

Robb's analysis is sometimes interesting but the weakness it seems to me is that there is a nearly complete lack of class analysis or the material basis of history. In other words there is almost no political analysis at all.

A New History?

Zawahiri mocks failure of US in Iraq war

Zawahiri prays for US bloodbath in Iraq: In the video aired Saturday, Zawahiri reacts to the legislation passed by the US Congress in late April to force a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq starting in October and concluding by early 2008.

"Zawahiri said that the legislation "reflects American failure and frustration". He lamented that it would "deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces, which we have caught in a historic trap".

""We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 troops ... in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson, which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic, criminal Crusader-Zionist entity," Zawahiri said."

Zawahiri prays for US bloodbath in Iraq: In the video aired Saturday, Zawahiri reacts to the legislation passed by the US Congress in late April to force a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq starting in October and concluding by early 2008.

"Zawahiri said that the legislation "reflects American failure and frustration". He lamented that it would "deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces, which we have caught in a historic trap".

""We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 troops ... in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson, which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic, criminal Crusader-Zionist entity," Zawahiri said."

Zawahiri mocks failure of US in Iraq war

Howard: Are you listening?

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

Howard: Are you listening?

The Concept of Rent Seeking

Concepts & Issues: Rent Seeking: "To avoid misunderstandings, “rent” in this context has nothing to do with “rent” in the sense of rent for land or property. In the modern context of “rent seeking”, rent strictly speaking means financial income which is not matched by corresponding labour."

The author provides in this article a useful explanation of the concept of rent seeking except that tax-free land or property yielding a pure profit, surplus value, disposable surplus, or economic rent is the quintessential form of rent seeking and rent taking and the obvious original source of the concept.

In Marxist theory this is known as the 'primitive accumulation of capital'; in geonomics it is described as land monopoly or enclosurism.

'Rent', or profit above all costs, or income without work, is certainly the holy grail of capitalism and indeed of all privileged systems throughout history. It is of course, merely the institutionalised appropriation of the product of others' labor, ie slavery. This income, when transferable, becomes capitalised into what I call 'kapital' (assets, property) which i define as 'the kapitalised (or exchange-value) of a politically guaranteed unearned income (rent)'.

The push by corporations, industry, ideologists and major political parties for carbon trading and simultaneous resistance to the carbon tax is a major contemporary example of rent seeking. In effect, the corporations to which the 'carbon credits' ('license to pollute') are issued will achieve the virtual enclosure of the atmosphere. What was previously common will become the corporations' 'private property', and you will have to pay for access. This is a truly vast new global enclosure movement which will create a vast new pool of oppressive and exploitative kapital.

The carbon tax idea as an alternative is directly analagous to the idea of a land tax in dealing with land monopoly or land enclosure. It is at once both more equitable in explicitly recognising the equal right of all people to the natural common; and more efficient in realising the best and safest use of the common resource. For all these reasons, the introduction of the carbon tax is unfortunately unlikely as we can clearly see as we follow the debate. 'Kapital' controls the consciousness of the public, and must do so if it is to continue to exist.

Concepts & Issues: Rent Seeking: "To avoid misunderstandings, “rent” in this context has nothing to do with “rent” in the sense of rent for land or property. In the modern context of “rent seeking”, rent strictly speaking means financial income which is not matched by corresponding labour."

The author provides in this article a useful explanation of the concept of rent seeking except that tax-free land or property yielding a pure profit, surplus value, disposable surplus, or economic rent is the quintessential form of rent seeking and rent taking and the obvious original source of the concept.

In Marxist theory this is known as the 'primitive accumulation of capital'; in geonomics it is described as land monopoly or enclosurism.

'Rent', or profit above all costs, or income without work, is certainly the holy grail of capitalism and indeed of all privileged systems throughout history. It is of course, merely the institutionalised appropriation of the product of others' labor, ie slavery. This income, when transferable, becomes capitalised into what I call 'kapital' (assets, property) which i define as 'the kapitalised (or exchange-value) of a politically guaranteed unearned income (rent)'.

The push by corporations, industry, ideologists and major political parties for carbon trading and simultaneous resistance to the carbon tax is a major contemporary example of rent seeking. In effect, the corporations to which the 'carbon credits' ('license to pollute') are issued will achieve the virtual enclosure of the atmosphere. What was previously common will become the corporations' 'private property', and you will have to pay for access. This is a truly vast new global enclosure movement which will create a vast new pool of oppressive and exploitative kapital.

The carbon tax idea as an alternative is directly analagous to the idea of a land tax in dealing with land monopoly or land enclosure. It is at once both more equitable in explicitly recognising the equal right of all people to the natural common; and more efficient in realising the best and safest use of the common resource. For all these reasons, the introduction of the carbon tax is unfortunately unlikely as we can clearly see as we follow the debate. 'Kapital' controls the consciousness of the public, and must do so if it is to continue to exist.

The Concept of Rent Seeking

IPCC Report: Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap

Reason Magazine - Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap: "Even the most stringent goal of following a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction trajectory that aims to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at around 535 parts per million (ppm) would reduce annual GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percent per year by 2030. In that scenario, global GDP in 2030 would be 3 percent lower than it would otherwise have been without emissions reductions. The current world GDP is around $47 trillion, and in 23 years, at 3 percent per year growth rate, it would double to about $94 trillion without any emissions reductions. A 3 percent GDP reduction in 2030 implies that world GDP would drop to $91.3 trillion. In other words, putting humanity on a path to stabilizing GHG concentrations to below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cost humanity an average of $117 billion per year in lost economic growth for the next 23 years."

"The summary projects that keeping GHG concentrations below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide would eventually raise global average temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above current temperatures, keeping in mind that average global temperature today is estimated to be 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above what it was in 1850. In order to stabilize GHG at 535 ppm, emissions will have to peak before 2020 and must fall by 2050 to 30 to 60 percent below what they were in 2000."

"Yale economist William Nordhaus suggests that the optimal carbon tax trajectory balancing costs and benefits would start with a tax of about $17 per ton of carbon rising to $84 per ton in 2050 and $270 in 2100. But what if climate change is not predictably gradual? As the SPM3 notes, "if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified." Doesn't the remote chance of climatic catastrophe suggest that humanity might want to purchase some extra insurance against that possibility?"

"In any case, the range of proposed policy interventions in the SPM3 report including renewable energy mandates, producer subsidies, mandatory fuel economy standards, subsidies to public transportation, appliance and building standards, energy efficiency tax credits, and so forth leave a lot of scope for counterproductive government meddling and rent-seeking. The simplest policy aimed at reducing GHG emissions would be an internationally harmonized carbon tax. Increasing the price of carbon-based energy would encourage transport, industry, and residential fuel efficiency. There would be no need to set appliance or building code standards or offer subsidies to companies and consumers to switch to low-carbon sources of energy. Furthermore, subsidies or tax credits for companies to develop new low-carbon technologies would not be necessary-higher carbon energy prices by themselves will encourage energy supply innovation."

The case for the carbon tax seems convincing to me. The problem is lack of political will, or the fact that in our degenerate corporate/liberal democracy, the major political parties are controlled not by the public or the common good but by the short term profit interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Reason Magazine - Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap: "Even the most stringent goal of following a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction trajectory that aims to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at around 535 parts per million (ppm) would reduce annual GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percent per year by 2030. In that scenario, global GDP in 2030 would be 3 percent lower than it would otherwise have been without emissions reductions. The current world GDP is around $47 trillion, and in 23 years, at 3 percent per year growth rate, it would double to about $94 trillion without any emissions reductions. A 3 percent GDP reduction in 2030 implies that world GDP would drop to $91.3 trillion. In other words, putting humanity on a path to stabilizing GHG concentrations to below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cost humanity an average of $117 billion per year in lost economic growth for the next 23 years."

"The summary projects that keeping GHG concentrations below the equivalent of 535 ppm of carbon dioxide would eventually raise global average temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above current temperatures, keeping in mind that average global temperature today is estimated to be 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above what it was in 1850. In order to stabilize GHG at 535 ppm, emissions will have to peak before 2020 and must fall by 2050 to 30 to 60 percent below what they were in 2000."

"Yale economist William Nordhaus suggests that the optimal carbon tax trajectory balancing costs and benefits would start with a tax of about $17 per ton of carbon rising to $84 per ton in 2050 and $270 in 2100. But what if climate change is not predictably gradual? As the SPM3 notes, "if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified." Doesn't the remote chance of climatic catastrophe suggest that humanity might want to purchase some extra insurance against that possibility?"

"In any case, the range of proposed policy interventions in the SPM3 report including renewable energy mandates, producer subsidies, mandatory fuel economy standards, subsidies to public transportation, appliance and building standards, energy efficiency tax credits, and so forth leave a lot of scope for counterproductive government meddling and rent-seeking. The simplest policy aimed at reducing GHG emissions would be an internationally harmonized carbon tax. Increasing the price of carbon-based energy would encourage transport, industry, and residential fuel efficiency. There would be no need to set appliance or building code standards or offer subsidies to companies and consumers to switch to low-carbon sources of energy. Furthermore, subsidies or tax credits for companies to develop new low-carbon technologies would not be necessary-higher carbon energy prices by themselves will encourage energy supply innovation."

The case for the carbon tax seems convincing to me. The problem is lack of political will, or the fact that in our degenerate corporate/liberal democracy, the major political parties are controlled not by the public or the common good but by the short term profit interests of the fossil fuel industry.

IPCC Report: Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap

"These People Frighten Me"

Margaret Kimberly: The Candor of Mike Gravel: "During the first Democratic presidential debate a little known candidate, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, ended up with one of the most memorable lines of the evening:

"And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me--they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices.

"I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States, there will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral, and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy."

"Of the eight candidates on that stage in South Carolina, only Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich will say that there is no reason for the American people to incinerate the Iranian people with nuclear weapons."

Margaret Kimberly: The Candor of Mike Gravel: "During the first Democratic presidential debate a little known candidate, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, ended up with one of the most memorable lines of the evening:

"And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me--they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices.

"I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States, there will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral, and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy."

"Of the eight candidates on that stage in South Carolina, only Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich will say that there is no reason for the American people to incinerate the Iranian people with nuclear weapons."

"These People Frighten Me"

www.killinghope.org

Blum: Appealing to the United States is not very appealing

Shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, informed Washington, through a Lebanese-American businessman, that they wanted the United States to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts and "2000 FBI agents" to conduct a search. The Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. The Iraqis, moreover, pledged to hold UN-supervised free elections; surely free elections is something the United States believes in, the Iraqis reasoned, and will be moved by. They also offered full support for any US plan in the Arab-Israeli peace process. "If this is about oil," said the intelligence official, "we will talk about US oil concessions." These proposals were portrayed by the Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein.(4) The United States completely ignored these overtures.

Of course. The US is not interested in democracy, it's predetermined intention was to remove the regime and establish direct control of the country and its oil fields. In fact countries like Iraq, if they are able to think of the future while facing death, ought take more care in the submission of the most detailed and cooperative proposals. In confidence at first, but openly published if the proposals are scorned.

The above incidents reflect Third World leaders apparent belief that the United States was open to negotiation, to discussion, to being reasonable. Undoubtedly, fear and desperation played a major role in producing this mental state, but also perhaps the mystique of America, which has captured the world's heart and imagination for two centuries. In 1945 and 1946, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh wrote at least eight letters to US President Harry Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French. He wrote that world peace was being endangered by French efforts to reconquer Indochina and he requested that "the four powers" (US, Soviet Union, China, and Great Britain) intervene in order to mediate a fair settlement and bring the Indochinese issue before the United Nations....

His pleas following the Second World War were likewise ignored, with consequences for Vietnam, the rest of Indochina, and the United States we all know only too well. Ho Chi Minh's pleas were ignored because he was, after all, some sort of communist; yet he and his Vietminh followers had in fact been long-time admirers of the United States. Ho trusted the United States more than he did the Soviet Union and reportedly had a picture of George Washington and a copy of the American Declaration of Independence on his desk. According to a former American intelligence officer, Ho sought his advice on framing the Vietminh's own declaration of independence. The actual declaration of 1945 begins: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Of course it is always good to make the representations, if for no other reason than to put the matter on the public record.

Now comes the president of Iran with a lengthy personal letter to President Bush. It has the same purpose as the communications mentioned above: to dissuade the American pit bull from attacking and destroying, from adding to the level of suffering in this sad old world. But if the White House has already decided upon an attack, Ahmadinejad's letter will have no effect. Was there anything Czechoslovakia could have done to prevent a Nazi invasion in 1938? Or Poland in 1939?

Blum: Appealing to the United States is not very appealing

Shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, informed Washington, through a Lebanese-American businessman, that they wanted the United States to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts and "2000 FBI agents" to conduct a search. The Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. The Iraqis, moreover, pledged to hold UN-supervised free elections; surely free elections is something the United States believes in, the Iraqis reasoned, and will be moved by. They also offered full support for any US plan in the Arab-Israeli peace process. "If this is about oil," said the intelligence official, "we will talk about US oil concessions." These proposals were portrayed by the Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein.(4) The United States completely ignored these overtures.

Of course. The US is not interested in democracy, it's predetermined intention was to remove the regime and establish direct control of the country and its oil fields. In fact countries like Iraq, if they are able to think of the future while facing death, ought take more care in the submission of the most detailed and cooperative proposals. In confidence at first, but openly published if the proposals are scorned.

The above incidents reflect Third World leaders apparent belief that the United States was open to negotiation, to discussion, to being reasonable. Undoubtedly, fear and desperation played a major role in producing this mental state, but also perhaps the mystique of America, which has captured the world's heart and imagination for two centuries. In 1945 and 1946, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh wrote at least eight letters to US President Harry Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French. He wrote that world peace was being endangered by French efforts to reconquer Indochina and he requested that "the four powers" (US, Soviet Union, China, and Great Britain) intervene in order to mediate a fair settlement and bring the Indochinese issue before the United Nations....

His pleas following the Second World War were likewise ignored, with consequences for Vietnam, the rest of Indochina, and the United States we all know only too well. Ho Chi Minh's pleas were ignored because he was, after all, some sort of communist; yet he and his Vietminh followers had in fact been long-time admirers of the United States. Ho trusted the United States more than he did the Soviet Union and reportedly had a picture of George Washington and a copy of the American Declaration of Independence on his desk. According to a former American intelligence officer, Ho sought his advice on framing the Vietminh's own declaration of independence. The actual declaration of 1945 begins: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Of course it is always good to make the representations, if for no other reason than to put the matter on the public record.

Now comes the president of Iran with a lengthy personal letter to President Bush. It has the same purpose as the communications mentioned above: to dissuade the American pit bull from attacking and destroying, from adding to the level of suffering in this sad old world. But if the White House has already decided upon an attack, Ahmadinejad's letter will have no effect. Was there anything Czechoslovakia could have done to prevent a Nazi invasion in 1938? Or Poland in 1939?

www.killinghope.org

Analysts: US strategy on Iran may have backfired:

Elements of Iran's government, painted as a rogue state for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program, responded forcefully to the U.S.-led challenge.

It is the US, not Iran, that is a rogue state. Iran has adhered to the NPT, while the US has practiced aggressive war based on lies that would do Hitler proud.

The clang and clatter of military hardware and rhetoric from all sides has trickled into Iran's daily discourse. Ordinary residents say they fear a U.S. attack is imminent and that they are powerless to prevent it. "Will the Americans attack?" is the question on the lips of every Iranian who meets a foreign reporter.

An entirely reasonable and obvious question, which should also be the top item of discussion in world diplomacy and the media. The world must unite to deter the US from any such aggression. It must not happen.

Of course, the Bush/Cheney administration has learnt from the staggering diplomatic defeat of the Iraq war, and will not seek permission from the UN or attempt to persuade the public directly of the 'imminent threat'. If it were to attack, it will simply proceed in contempt and defiance of world legal and popular opinion, with bland lies as required.

Analysts: US strategy on Iran may have backfired:

Elements of Iran's government, painted as a rogue state for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program, responded forcefully to the U.S.-led challenge.

It is the US, not Iran, that is a rogue state. Iran has adhered to the NPT, while the US has practiced aggressive war based on lies that would do Hitler proud.

The clang and clatter of military hardware and rhetoric from all sides has trickled into Iran's daily discourse. Ordinary residents say they fear a U.S. attack is imminent and that they are powerless to prevent it. "Will the Americans attack?" is the question on the lips of every Iranian who meets a foreign reporter.

An entirely reasonable and obvious question, which should also be the top item of discussion in world diplomacy and the media. The world must unite to deter the US from any such aggression. It must not happen.

Of course, the Bush/Cheney administration has learnt from the staggering diplomatic defeat of the Iraq war, and will not seek permission from the UN or attempt to persuade the public directly of the 'imminent threat'. If it were to attack, it will simply proceed in contempt and defiance of world legal and popular opinion, with bland lies as required.

Howard's Betrayal

Given that David Hicks was a former kangaroo skinner, perhaps the Howard Government thinks it is a kind of poetic justice that he should be tried by a kangaroo court. As it happens, the kangaroos were pressing for nothing less than a two-digit sentence, but many observers argue that political intervention got Hicks out and home early enough to neutralise an increasingly embarrassing issue for the Howard Government. A twelve month gag has been placed on Hicks. What possible point is there to that apart from concern about the upcoming election later this year?

In previous testimony when he tried to obtain British citizenship in the hope that Blair would show more backbone than Howard (how humiliating for Howard - to be more spineless than the proven liar, conman and poodle Blair), Hicks alleged that he was badly tortured including beatings and sodomisation. Now as part of the plea deal he must not make any such allegations or sue for damages. How convenient. The whole process is a farce.

Howard has made a direct denial that political pressure produced this convenient result in the case, but how much credibility does he have? It could just be an example of barefaced lying on TV at the highest level. That's how its done, kids.

For the rest of the civilised world, Guantanamo bay is a disgrace and a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It is disturbing how many people in parliament, the media and elsewhere are apparently entirely willing to accept or even embrace this. I am reminded that in the Weimar republic, nearly a full third of the German population freely voted for an outright fascist. The mentality of such voters is that we need a strong leader, fix the economy, get the trains to run on time, restore pride in the nation, eliminate enemies. At the best of times all too many people wouldnt know whether habeas corpus was Latin or Greek, and would agree 'terrorists' should be tortured or executed. It is therefore breathtaking folly and irresponsibility to encourage the latent authoritarian tendencies. Democracy and the rule of law, as ever, hang by a thread. All the more responsibility, therefore, that we all have to oppose encroaching authoritarianism and defend the rule of law.

Habeas corpus and trial by jury are the most basic protections against tyrannical government. In fact, tyranny could be defined as the ability of the state security apparatus to seize a person at will, to be detained, tortured or executed without appeal or accountability. And the purpose of such seizure, torture, detention and execution, of course, is not to obtain information, but to terrorise the population, thereby suppressing dissent or rebellion against the current regime.

The enemies of freedom are not Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but our own governments. Bin Laden simply has no capability to end freedom in Australia, the United States, or any country (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, assuming Bin Laden overthrew the Saudis and he was less free than the current regime). All Bin Laden can do is murder people, and he should be treated like the criminal and murderer that he is. But our own treacherous governments have every capacity to threaten freedom and have been proceeding forthwith.

Given that David Hicks was a former kangaroo skinner, perhaps the Howard Government thinks it is a kind of poetic justice that he should be tried by a kangaroo court. As it happens, the kangaroos were pressing for nothing less than a two-digit sentence, but many observers argue that political intervention got Hicks out and home early enough to neutralise an increasingly embarrassing issue for the Howard Government. A twelve month gag has been placed on Hicks. What possible point is there to that apart from concern about the upcoming election later this year?

In previous testimony when he tried to obtain British citizenship in the hope that Blair would show more backbone than Howard (how humiliating for Howard - to be more spineless than the proven liar, conman and poodle Blair), Hicks alleged that he was badly tortured including beatings and sodomisation. Now as part of the plea deal he must not make any such allegations or sue for damages. How convenient. The whole process is a farce.

Howard has made a direct denial that political pressure produced this convenient result in the case, but how much credibility does he have? It could just be an example of barefaced lying on TV at the highest level. That's how its done, kids.

For the rest of the civilised world, Guantanamo bay is a disgrace and a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It is disturbing how many people in parliament, the media and elsewhere are apparently entirely willing to accept or even embrace this. I am reminded that in the Weimar republic, nearly a full third of the German population freely voted for an outright fascist. The mentality of such voters is that we need a strong leader, fix the economy, get the trains to run on time, restore pride in the nation, eliminate enemies. At the best of times all too many people wouldnt know whether habeas corpus was Latin or Greek, and would agree 'terrorists' should be tortured or executed. It is therefore breathtaking folly and irresponsibility to encourage the latent authoritarian tendencies. Democracy and the rule of law, as ever, hang by a thread. All the more responsibility, therefore, that we all have to oppose encroaching authoritarianism and defend the rule of law.

Habeas corpus and trial by jury are the most basic protections against tyrannical government. In fact, tyranny could be defined as the ability of the state security apparatus to seize a person at will, to be detained, tortured or executed without appeal or accountability. And the purpose of such seizure, torture, detention and execution, of course, is not to obtain information, but to terrorise the population, thereby suppressing dissent or rebellion against the current regime.

The enemies of freedom are not Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but our own governments. Bin Laden simply has no capability to end freedom in Australia, the United States, or any country (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, assuming Bin Laden overthrew the Saudis and he was less free than the current regime). All Bin Laden can do is murder people, and he should be treated like the criminal and murderer that he is. But our own treacherous governments have every capacity to threaten freedom and have been proceeding forthwith.

Howard's Betrayal

Once Upon a Time...: Sleepwalking to the End of the World: Arthur Silber hitting his straps now with some powerful and distinctive writing. Good stuff! and of course, all too true.

There is a saying in anarchist circles which is equivalent to Arthur's argument, that parliament never introduces reform, reform has to be imposed on parliament from without. There is far too much naivete in the 'blogosphere' and elsewhere about what the Democrats or the opposition can or will do. Obviously, not much. They are the problem.

Once Upon a Time...: Sleepwalking to the End of the World: Arthur Silber hitting his straps now with some powerful and distinctive writing. Good stuff! and of course, all too true.

There is a saying in anarchist circles which is equivalent to Arthur's argument, that parliament never introduces reform, reform has to be imposed on parliament from without. There is far too much naivete in the 'blogosphere' and elsewhere about what the Democrats or the opposition can or will do. Obviously, not much. They are the problem.

Kissinger's extradition to Uruguay sought over Operation Condor: Since the death of Nixon, Kissinger would be the world's biggest living anti-humanity criminal, due primarily to the huge scale of the Indo-china atrocity. Even little George Dubya Bush has got a way to go to match that yet.

Kissinger's extradition to Uruguay sought over Operation Condor: Since the death of Nixon, Kissinger would be the world's biggest living anti-humanity criminal, due primarily to the huge scale of the Indo-china atrocity. Even little George Dubya Bush has got a way to go to match that yet.

Jeff Vail: Stormy Weather: Jeff Vail is getting concerned about a possible attack on Iran. my god, its starting to look inevitable. Jeff is also concerned about the housing boom going bust, with the fabled 'financial weapons of mass destruction' bringing down the whole house of cards.

Jeff Vail: Stormy Weather: Jeff Vail is getting concerned about a possible attack on Iran. my god, its starting to look inevitable. Jeff is also concerned about the housing boom going bust, with the fabled 'financial weapons of mass destruction' bringing down the whole house of cards.

Gabriel Kolko: Israel's Last Chance: The clock is ticking for the 'Jewish State'. You negotiate from a position of strength. Israel needs to cut a comprehensive peace deal now, or face collapse from corruption, military defeat and social disintegration.

Gabriel Kolko: Israel's Last Chance: The clock is ticking for the 'Jewish State'. You negotiate from a position of strength. Israel needs to cut a comprehensive peace deal now, or face collapse from corruption, military defeat and social disintegration.

Climate Change: John 'Neville' Howard Still Doesnt Get It

It is interesting to contrast the global warming 'initiatives' of the Howard Government as announced over the last few days with the coincident visit of Nicholas Stern, the economist who has put the problem of global warming in terms, one might say, that even a conservative politician could understand. If we invest now, we will save a lot in the future. If we dont pay now, we will pay hugely in the future, "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."

One can only conclude that Howard simply has no intention of stopping or reducing emissions, but will spend taxpayer's money to give the impression that he is doing something. It is politics of the lowest and lousiest sort, the apotheosis of 11 years of the meanness and lack of vision of Howardism.

Emissions are killing the planet, and what is needed is to dramatically cut emissions in a specified timeframe, by 30% from 1990 levels by 2020, according to Stern; and by 60-90% by the year 2050, again according to Stern. But the Prime Minister is flatly declaring he will do no such thing. I didn't think that Howard could ever top the folly of Iraq, but perhaps on this issue he can. It would be hard to imagine a more irresponsible stance, and a person more unfit for leadership in the 21th Century.

Its like Europe in 1939: Hitler has already invaded Poland, and John 'Neville' Howard is saying, 'dont worry, it'll be all right, we dont have to do anything, we have environment in our time'.

At least Chamberlain did finally declare war on Hitler. Howard is effectively promising to do nothing at all, other than vote-catching cosmetic gestures, no matter what the evidence.

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

It is interesting to contrast the global warming 'initiatives' of the Howard Government as announced over the last few days with the coincident visit of Nicholas Stern, the economist who has put the problem of global warming in terms, one might say, that even a conservative politician could understand. If we invest now, we will save a lot in the future. If we dont pay now, we will pay hugely in the future, "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."

One can only conclude that Howard simply has no intention of stopping or reducing emissions, but will spend taxpayer's money to give the impression that he is doing something. It is politics of the lowest and lousiest sort, the apotheosis of 11 years of the meanness and lack of vision of Howardism.

Emissions are killing the planet, and what is needed is to dramatically cut emissions in a specified timeframe, by 30% from 1990 levels by 2020, according to Stern; and by 60-90% by the year 2050, again according to Stern. But the Prime Minister is flatly declaring he will do no such thing. I didn't think that Howard could ever top the folly of Iraq, but perhaps on this issue he can. It would be hard to imagine a more irresponsible stance, and a person more unfit for leadership in the 21th Century.

Its like Europe in 1939: Hitler has already invaded Poland, and John 'Neville' Howard is saying, 'dont worry, it'll be all right, we dont have to do anything, we have environment in our time'.

At least Chamberlain did finally declare war on Hitler. Howard is effectively promising to do nothing at all, other than vote-catching cosmetic gestures, no matter what the evidence.

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Climate Change: John 'Neville' Howard Still Doesnt Get It

War with Iran?: "The baseless claims being made about Iran are if anything far more extreme than most of what was said about Saddam Hussein. Not only that they have a nuclear weapons programme, but that they are a natural enemy, would risk substantial destruction to themselves for the chance to wipe out Israel, are actively participating in the Iraqi insurgency (on wafer-thin evidence), and so on. It's a ferocious, ceaseless, concerted effort, and it suggests that preparations for a military attack quite soon are underway. It was suggested in the newspapers not long ago that the US could attack by Spring if it wanted to. This is Spring, and they want to."

It still seems improbable that the US would actually attack Iran, but it is remarkable, given the likely consequences of such a war, how little attention is given to this topic by the political and media system.

War with Iran?: "The baseless claims being made about Iran are if anything far more extreme than most of what was said about Saddam Hussein. Not only that they have a nuclear weapons programme, but that they are a natural enemy, would risk substantial destruction to themselves for the chance to wipe out Israel, are actively participating in the Iraqi insurgency (on wafer-thin evidence), and so on. It's a ferocious, ceaseless, concerted effort, and it suggests that preparations for a military attack quite soon are underway. It was suggested in the newspapers not long ago that the US could attack by Spring if it wanted to. This is Spring, and they want to."

It still seems improbable that the US would actually attack Iran, but it is remarkable, given the likely consequences of such a war, how little attention is given to this topic by the political and media system.

At last, first Howard Minister sacked

AdelaideNow... Burke affair sparks ministry reshuffle: Stepping into action after an inspirational meeting with the toughest lawman in the West, Wyoming's Deadeye Dick Cheney, PM John Howard opened up and.... gunned down one of his own ministers.

Yes that's right. Howard gunned down one of his own ministers. Good job, PM. Do you need some more ammo?

After years of the most tremendous scandals, including 'children overboard', refugees in prisons and concentration camps, children in prisons and concentration camps, Australian citizens in prisons and concentration camps, Iraq war, $300m bribe to Saddam Hussein etc the Opposition had been unable to get a single scalp. But thanks to the PM's deadly blast now they have.

I guess you have to take your scalps anyway you can.

I can see Howard's loyal followers and heirs apparent Abbott, Costello and Turnbull quietly taking a further step backward from the Prime Minister. You wouldn't want another accident now, would you? Or maybe it wasnt an accident, from the 'cleverest politician of his generation.'

And as for Kevin Rudd, I imagine that right now he is trying to arrange meetings with all of the biggest crooks, spivs and lowlifes in the country in an effort to stimulate the PM into further action. In the words of John 'Dubya' Howard's hero, the Great Dubya himself, Bring it On!

AdelaideNow... Burke affair sparks ministry reshuffle: Stepping into action after an inspirational meeting with the toughest lawman in the West, Wyoming's Deadeye Dick Cheney, PM John Howard opened up and.... gunned down one of his own ministers.

Yes that's right. Howard gunned down one of his own ministers. Good job, PM. Do you need some more ammo?

After years of the most tremendous scandals, including 'children overboard', refugees in prisons and concentration camps, children in prisons and concentration camps, Australian citizens in prisons and concentration camps, Iraq war, $300m bribe to Saddam Hussein etc the Opposition had been unable to get a single scalp. But thanks to the PM's deadly blast now they have.

I guess you have to take your scalps anyway you can.

I can see Howard's loyal followers and heirs apparent Abbott, Costello and Turnbull quietly taking a further step backward from the Prime Minister. You wouldn't want another accident now, would you? Or maybe it wasnt an accident, from the 'cleverest politician of his generation.'

And as for Kevin Rudd, I imagine that right now he is trying to arrange meetings with all of the biggest crooks, spivs and lowlifes in the country in an effort to stimulate the PM into further action. In the words of John 'Dubya' Howard's hero, the Great Dubya himself, Bring it On!

At last, first Howard Minister sacked

10 Institutions That Ruin The World - #5: Lord knows how I came across this, but here we have an authentic rightie who thinks that the Social Justice movement, the Peace movement and the Environmental movement are among the top 10 institutions that ruin the world but the Pentagon (which has MILLIONS of victims to its credit) and the fossil fuel industry (which is literally killing the planet) don't even rate a mention.

Perhaps this line sums up better than anything the utter wrongheadedness of the writer: "Try finding a mainstream media organisation that hasn't bought into the Global Warming debate on the side of 'the science is settled'."

The science IS settled, and has been for some years now; and it is the corporate media which has been retailing the 'jury not in' line for many years in the face of the scientific consensus.

In the case of governments like the Bush/Cheney administration or corporations like Halliburton (hey, its that man Cheney again!), greed and lust for power conventionally provide and explain the motive for their criminal and inhuman acts. But in the case of the these righties and warbloggers, who presumably get none of the spoils in either riches, power or glory, what excuse or explanation is there for moral depravity? Do they ENJOY war and mass killing as a spectator sport, and LOOK FORWARD to the destruction of the planet?

Update: Language of post modified.

10 Institutions That Ruin The World - #5: Lord knows how I came across this, but here we have an authentic rightie who thinks that the Social Justice movement, the Peace movement and the Environmental movement are among the top 10 institutions that ruin the world but the Pentagon (which has MILLIONS of victims to its credit) and the fossil fuel industry (which is literally killing the planet) don't even rate a mention.

Perhaps this line sums up better than anything the utter wrongheadedness of the writer: "Try finding a mainstream media organisation that hasn't bought into the Global Warming debate on the side of 'the science is settled'."

The science IS settled, and has been for some years now; and it is the corporate media which has been retailing the 'jury not in' line for many years in the face of the scientific consensus.

In the case of governments like the Bush/Cheney administration or corporations like Halliburton (hey, its that man Cheney again!), greed and lust for power conventionally provide and explain the motive for their criminal and inhuman acts. But in the case of the these righties and warbloggers, who presumably get none of the spoils in either riches, power or glory, what excuse or explanation is there for moral depravity? Do they ENJOY war and mass killing as a spectator sport, and LOOK FORWARD to the destruction of the planet?

Update: Language of post modified.

A 'warblogger' repents

What Went Wrong?: Normally I dont read these 'warbloggers' - even when 'repenting' it is virtually unreadable, delusional nonsense. But I struggled through to the end of the article and a few of the comments.

The Iraq war was an illegal, criminal act of aggression based on a pretext of ludicrous lies against a virtually defenceless nation the purpose of which was to establish a reliable client state and seize direct control of the region's oil reserves.* There were no weapons, no links to Al-Qaeda, and no concern for democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). The propaganda was fixed around the policy decision to invade which had been taken somewhat earlier in the piece.

All this was obvious at the time to any observer with a computer and a modem connection, and if a person could not or cannot perceive this (either then or now) then that is a subject worth examining. Anyone familiar with either history (especially war and imperialism) or political science (especially either clasical liberalism or anarchism - not to mention common sense understanding of human nature) could see at once what was happening and how it could not be any other way.

Its back to elementary education and a probable 'deprogramming' if an intelligent, educated person did not or cannot see this.

* Yes that's right. After reading or skimming the article and comments I did a search on 'oil' and could not find a single mention, either in the article itself or in the comments. How can anyone think like this? We've got 15,000 plus words of twaddle on the biggest international issue of the modern world, and not a single mention, direct or indirect, or even by way of denial, of the crucial factor underlying the whole affair. How's that for ideological discipline?

What Went Wrong?: Normally I dont read these 'warbloggers' - even when 'repenting' it is virtually unreadable, delusional nonsense. But I struggled through to the end of the article and a few of the comments.

The Iraq war was an illegal, criminal act of aggression based on a pretext of ludicrous lies against a virtually defenceless nation the purpose of which was to establish a reliable client state and seize direct control of the region's oil reserves.* There were no weapons, no links to Al-Qaeda, and no concern for democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). The propaganda was fixed around the policy decision to invade which had been taken somewhat earlier in the piece.

All this was obvious at the time to any observer with a computer and a modem connection, and if a person could not or cannot perceive this (either then or now) then that is a subject worth examining. Anyone familiar with either history (especially war and imperialism) or political science (especially either clasical liberalism or anarchism - not to mention common sense understanding of human nature) could see at once what was happening and how it could not be any other way.

Its back to elementary education and a probable 'deprogramming' if an intelligent, educated person did not or cannot see this.

* Yes that's right. After reading or skimming the article and comments I did a search on 'oil' and could not find a single mention, either in the article itself or in the comments. How can anyone think like this? We've got 15,000 plus words of twaddle on the biggest international issue of the modern world, and not a single mention, direct or indirect, or even by way of denial, of the crucial factor underlying the whole affair. How's that for ideological discipline?

A 'warblogger' repents

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

The countdown to climate change: "Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, in his report to the British Government last year, which warned that the world has only 10 to 15 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. As Greens senator Christine Milne points out, the fact of the matter is that neither the nuclear nor geosequestration options will deliver any cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in the next 15 years.

"According to Stern, it is likely that within 15 years, with "business as usual", global warming will reach a "tipping point" where global warming will be positively reinforced by a series of related events such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, so that global warming will spiral out of control irrespective of what measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases."

"Geosequestration is further away and arguably more unsafe than the nuclear option. Its problems include: there is no evidence to show it can be done on a commercial scale; nobody knows what it will cost; and it can't be retrofitted, so all existing coal-fired power stations would be redundant."

"While the chances of accidents are low, and nuclear power plants have a better safety record than coalmines, there is the possibility of a catastrophic accident. Which means plants are uninsurable.

"Last week the Greens published a research paper on nuclear risk, which showed that Australian insurers have nuclear exclusion clauses. Nuclear power reactors are so risky that companies won't build them without government indemnities. In other countries, where indemnities are granted, the government accepts financial responsibility by removing the requirement to prove negligence in common law cases involving nuclear damages. In Australia the Government has failed to do this (Lucas Heights), in effect pushing the risk onto home owners.

"The paper reached the tart conclusion that "the coal industry has prospered by not paying for its pollution; now it seems the nuclear industry will not pay for its risk"."

"Taking real steps to deal with climate warming before 2020 doesn't require multibillion-dollar investments in nuclear power or geosequestration. It requires relatively conservative tax and subsidy changes to modify household and business behaviour to flatten the demand for electricity... savings could be expedited by a carbon tax or "cap and trade" to boost the price of electricity, backed up, if necessary, by regulation."

This is a real crisis and the policy response of both Government and Opposition is pathetically inadequate. They are playing 'politics as usual' in the face of disaster. They are serving their corporate masters in the coal, uranium and mining industries, and not the public. Neither party is prepared to confront the coal industry and tell the public the truth: coal is killing the planet and has to be phased out in a specific timeframe. Neither party is willing to immediately introduce a carbon tax to start sending price signals; neither is prepared to commit to the steps necessary to achieve major reductions in energy consumption, and rapid uptake in renewable energy production.

'Clean Coal' and 'Safe Nuclear' both non-existent and no use even if they did exist

Odom: Congressional testimony - What Can Be Done in Iraq?

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions: Gen Odom has emerged as one of the more interesting senior US military commentators on the war, which he memorably described early in the piece as "the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the US". As Zeese points out, Odom "Supports the US Empire, But Opposes the War", and objects that "The biggest threat to the U.S. empire is incompetent U.S. leadership."

There is a lot of discussions along these lines, that it is the incompetence of Bush that angers people, rather than war or imperialism or militarism itself, as if the problem could be fixed by the appointment of a competent imperial manager such as Clinton in place of Bush/Cheney.

Gordon Craig wrote a fine work on the Prussian Officer corps which contained a devastating exposure of the essential conceit of the corps, that it was a 'guardian' of Germany and would act to protect her. But in the face of the greatest need (Hitler), it proved incapable of acting at all, and thereby condemned itself to liquidation (along with much of Germany and Europe) at the hands of Hitler himself following the unsuccesful plot of July 20. Craig argues that Hitler's complete liquidation of the corps and its tradition was a positive outcome, although of course at monstrous cost.

As Albright said to Powell in one or her memorable indiscretions, what is the use of the fine military if you dont use it? (Or in the blunter and more cynical words of Kissinger: military men are dumb animals etc) Powell was reportedly apoplectic, but the question is inevitable. And at the fringes of power will be all manner of Alexander-types who dream of conquest, plunder, glory and empire. It is inevitable that at some point in space or time mad or reckless but ambitious people will succeed in gaining control of the military. As WEB DuBois said plainly, "the cause of war is preparation for war". Therefore, nothing can be done with the General Staff or the Pentagon system except to dismantle it, hopefully before a disastrous war rather than after it as in the case of the German General Staff and Prussian militaristic tradition.

The US spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined, an appalling and intrinsically dangerous state of affairs. It spends over $500b pa whereas Russia and China spend $50bpa each.

US 'defence' spending must be slashed by at least 90%, which would only bring it down towards the level of its rivals, already too much. Until such time as that is done, the US military is a standing threat to the Republic at home and a danger to the entire world.

Back to some of Odom's testimony:

The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al Qaeda, not American interests. We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq. To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Baathist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shiite groups. The Baathist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran. At the same time, our democratization policy has installed Shiite majorities and pro-Iranians groups in power in Baghdad, especially in the ministries of interior and defense. Moreover, our counterinsurgency operations are, as unintended (but easily foreseeable) consequences, first, greater Shiite openness to Iranian influence and second, al Qaeda's entry into Iraq and rooting itself in some elements of Iraqi society.

This doesnt strike me as exactly the strongest argument against 'siding with the Sunnis'. We are touching here on what Cutler describes as an intense Washington factional fight between what he calls 'Right Zionist' and 'Right Arabist' groupings. The goal is the same - domination of the Gulf - but the means are different. The 'Zionist' (also neocon) group seeks to use Israel, a 'democratic' Shia Iraq and insurgent Shias in Iran as the key allies (the Saudis are enemies); while the 'Arabists' (James Baker etc) hope to use Saudi and Iraqi Sunnis as the clients, to some extent discounting the value of Israel as a strategic asset and declining to enter into over-ambitious plans for 'regime-change' in Iran. The 'Zionists', however, appear to be winning the factional fight and might end up driving Bush into war with Iran with the aid of 'democratic' Iraqi Shias and a popular rebellion in Iran against the mullahs. Doesnt seem very realistic....

As long as US forces remained engaged Iraq, not only will the military costs go up, but also the incentives will decline for other states to cooperate with Washington to find a constructive outcome. This includes not only countries contiguous to Iraq but also Russia and key American allies in Europe. In their view, we deserve the pain we are suffering for our arrogance and unilateralism....

Overthrowing the Iraqi regime in 2003 insured that the country would fragment into at least three groups; Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. In other words, the invasion made it inevitable that a civil war would be required to create a new central government able to control all of Iraq. Yet a civil war does not insure it. No faction may win the struggle. A lengthy stalemate, or a permanent breakup of the country is possible. The invasion also insured that outside countries and groups would become involve. Al Qaeda and Iran are the most conspicuous participants so far, Turkey and Syria less so. If some of the wealthy oil-producing countries on the Arabian Peninsula are not already involved, they are most likely to support with resources any force in Iraq that opposes Iranian influence....

Many critics argue that, had the invasion been done "right," such as sending in much larger forces for re-establishing security and government services, the war would have been a success. This argument is not convincing. Such actions might have delayed a civil war but could not have prevented it....

I know of no historical precedent to suggest that any of [the proposals] will succeed. The problem is not the competency of Iraqi forces. It is political consolidation and gaining the troops' loyalties to the government and their commanders as opposed to their loyalties to sectarian leaders, clans, families, and relatives....

As a military planner working on the pacification programs in 1970-71 in Vietnam, I had the chance to judge the results of training both regular South Vietnamese forces and so-called "regional" and "popular" forces. Some were technically proficient, but that did not ensure that they would always fight for the government in Saigon. Nor were they always loyal to their commanders. And they occasionally fought each other when bribed by Viet Cong agents to do so. The "popular forces" at the village level often failed to protect their villages. The reasons varied, but in several cases it was the result of how their salaries were funded. Local tax money was not the source of their pay; rather it was US-supplied funds....

US military assistance training in El Salvador is often cited as a successful case. In fact, this effort amounted to letting the old elites, who used death squads to impose order, come back to power in different guises. And death squads are again active there. The real cause of the defeat of the Salvadoran insurgency was Gorbachev's decision to cut off supplies to it, as he promised President George H. Bush at the Malta summit meeting. Thus denied their resource base, and having failed to create a self-supporting tax regime in the countryside as the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, they could not survive for long....

These are interesting remarks and one wonders to what extent they might be true. More comments on the taxation issue:

Such [countersinsurgency] wars are about "who will rule," and who will rule depends on "who can tax" and build an effective state apparatus down to the village level.

The taxation issue is not even on the agenda of US programs for Iraq.

In the sense he is talking about Odom is right of course, but in another sense he is quite wrong. The 'taxation issue' or (neo-liberal market fundamentalist economics) is at the heart of the Iraq adventure and the core of much of its problems. There is no direct taxation by choice and not even much in the way of income taxation, in addition to privatisation, deregulation etc. Its a case where the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology is so far out of touch with reality that it meets violent popular rebellion. The ideological crisis for the US is that in many cases people 'believe' in this ideology and dont see it for what it is, a massive and corrupt failure, serving only the interests of a narrow elite (if even them). This makes imperial managers blind to reality and unable to predict, recognise or respond to the development of events. Only a nutjob ideological fanatic would start a World War and invade the Soviet Union, so, logically, said nutjob is head of the German government. Something the same with Bush/Cheney....

Nor was it a central focus in Vietnam, El Salvador, the Philippines, and most other cases of US-backed governments embroiled in internal wars. Where US funding has been amply provided to those governments, the recipient regime has treated those monies as its tax base while failing to create an indigenous tax base. In my own study of three counterinsurgency cases, and from my experience in Vietnam, I discovered that the regimes that received the least US direct fiscal support had the most success against the insurgents. Providing funding and forces to give an embattled regime more "time" to gain adequate strength is like asking a drunk to drink more whiskey in order to sober up.

Saddam's regime lived mostly on revenues from oil exports. Thus it never had to create an effective apparatus to collect direct taxes. Were US forces and counterinsurgency efforts to succeed in imposing order for a time, the issue of who will control the oil in Iraq would become the focus of conflict for competing factions. The time would not be spent creating the administrative capacity to keep order and to collect sufficient taxes to administer the country. At best, the war over who will eventually rule country would only be postponed.

This is the crux of the dilemma facing all such internal wars. I make this assertion not only based on my own study, but also in light of considerable literature that demonstrates that the single best index of the strength of any state is its ability to collect direct taxes, not export-import tax or indirect taxes. The latter two are relatively easy to collect by comparison, requiring much weaker state institutions.

By 'direct' taxation Odom presumably means land or property taxation, and it is a most interesting suggestion that this is the key to victory. Is this occurring in Iraq now? Militias could do it: it would be similar to a kind of 'protection'. Gunmen would go door to door and collect the 'tax'. If this system was fairly and non-corruptly administered, then it could indeed be the basis of local and eventually state government.

This analyis resolves imperialist or guerilla wars to class actions with taxation as the key. The imperialist or oligarchist naturally seeks to acquire property by conquest and throw off all taxes; but the people benefit from direct taxation through safe access to land and government which serves them rather than absentee or overseas landlords.

The neocon error:

The Bush Administration has broken with this strategy by invading Iraq and also by threatening the existence of the regime in Iran. It presumed that establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq would lead to regional stability. In fact, the policy of spreading democracy by forces of arms has become the main source of regional instability.

This not only postponed any near-term chance of better relations with Iran, but also has moved the United States closer to losing its footing in the Arab camp as well. That, of course, increases greatly the threats to Israel's security, the very thing it was supposed to improve, not to mention that it makes the military costs rise dramatically, exceeding what we can prudently bear, especially without the support of our European allies and others.

Odom closes with the argument for withdrawal:

Several critics of the administration show an appreciation of the requirement to regain our allies and others' support, but they do not recognize that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the sine qua non for achieving their cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse for them than for the United States, and they know that without US participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional stability. Until we understand this critical point, we cannot design a strategy that can achieve what we can legitimately call a victory.

Any new strategy that does realistically promise to achieve regional stability at a cost we can prudently bear, and does not regain the confidence and support of our allies, is doomed to failure. To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.

This testimony is a stinging rebuke to the neocons/neoliberals and their deluded ideas, which still seem to be right in the driving seat as Bush/Cheney prepare for war with Iran.

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions: Gen Odom has emerged as one of the more interesting senior US military commentators on the war, which he memorably described early in the piece as "the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the US". As Zeese points out, Odom "Supports the US Empire, But Opposes the War", and objects that "The biggest threat to the U.S. empire is incompetent U.S. leadership."

There is a lot of discussions along these lines, that it is the incompetence of Bush that angers people, rather than war or imperialism or militarism itself, as if the problem could be fixed by the appointment of a competent imperial manager such as Clinton in place of Bush/Cheney.

Gordon Craig wrote a fine work on the Prussian Officer corps which contained a devastating exposure of the essential conceit of the corps, that it was a 'guardian' of Germany and would act to protect her. But in the face of the greatest need (Hitler), it proved incapable of acting at all, and thereby condemned itself to liquidation (along with much of Germany and Europe) at the hands of Hitler himself following the unsuccesful plot of July 20. Craig argues that Hitler's complete liquidation of the corps and its tradition was a positive outcome, although of course at monstrous cost.

As Albright said to Powell in one or her memorable indiscretions, what is the use of the fine military if you dont use it? (Or in the blunter and more cynical words of Kissinger: military men are dumb animals etc) Powell was reportedly apoplectic, but the question is inevitable. And at the fringes of power will be all manner of Alexander-types who dream of conquest, plunder, glory and empire. It is inevitable that at some point in space or time mad or reckless but ambitious people will succeed in gaining control of the military. As WEB DuBois said plainly, "the cause of war is preparation for war". Therefore, nothing can be done with the General Staff or the Pentagon system except to dismantle it, hopefully before a disastrous war rather than after it as in the case of the German General Staff and Prussian militaristic tradition.

The US spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined, an appalling and intrinsically dangerous state of affairs. It spends over $500b pa whereas Russia and China spend $50bpa each.

US 'defence' spending must be slashed by at least 90%, which would only bring it down towards the level of its rivals, already too much. Until such time as that is done, the US military is a standing threat to the Republic at home and a danger to the entire world.

Back to some of Odom's testimony:

The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al Qaeda, not American interests. We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq. To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Baathist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shiite groups. The Baathist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran. At the same time, our democratization policy has installed Shiite majorities and pro-Iranians groups in power in Baghdad, especially in the ministries of interior and defense. Moreover, our counterinsurgency operations are, as unintended (but easily foreseeable) consequences, first, greater Shiite openness to Iranian influence and second, al Qaeda's entry into Iraq and rooting itself in some elements of Iraqi society.

This doesnt strike me as exactly the strongest argument against 'siding with the Sunnis'. We are touching here on what Cutler describes as an intense Washington factional fight between what he calls 'Right Zionist' and 'Right Arabist' groupings. The goal is the same - domination of the Gulf - but the means are different. The 'Zionist' (also neocon) group seeks to use Israel, a 'democratic' Shia Iraq and insurgent Shias in Iran as the key allies (the Saudis are enemies); while the 'Arabists' (James Baker etc) hope to use Saudi and Iraqi Sunnis as the clients, to some extent discounting the value of Israel as a strategic asset and declining to enter into over-ambitious plans for 'regime-change' in Iran. The 'Zionists', however, appear to be winning the factional fight and might end up driving Bush into war with Iran with the aid of 'democratic' Iraqi Shias and a popular rebellion in Iran against the mullahs. Doesnt seem very realistic....

As long as US forces remained engaged Iraq, not only will the military costs go up, but also the incentives will decline for other states to cooperate with Washington to find a constructive outcome. This includes not only countries contiguous to Iraq but also Russia and key American allies in Europe. In their view, we deserve the pain we are suffering for our arrogance and unilateralism....

Overthrowing the Iraqi regime in 2003 insured that the country would fragment into at least three groups; Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. In other words, the invasion made it inevitable that a civil war would be required to create a new central government able to control all of Iraq. Yet a civil war does not insure it. No faction may win the struggle. A lengthy stalemate, or a permanent breakup of the country is possible. The invasion also insured that outside countries and groups would become involve. Al Qaeda and Iran are the most conspicuous participants so far, Turkey and Syria less so. If some of the wealthy oil-producing countries on the Arabian Peninsula are not already involved, they are most likely to support with resources any force in Iraq that opposes Iranian influence....

Many critics argue that, had the invasion been done "right," such as sending in much larger forces for re-establishing security and government services, the war would have been a success. This argument is not convincing. Such actions might have delayed a civil war but could not have prevented it....

I know of no historical precedent to suggest that any of [the proposals] will succeed. The problem is not the competency of Iraqi forces. It is political consolidation and gaining the troops' loyalties to the government and their commanders as opposed to their loyalties to sectarian leaders, clans, families, and relatives....

As a military planner working on the pacification programs in 1970-71 in Vietnam, I had the chance to judge the results of training both regular South Vietnamese forces and so-called "regional" and "popular" forces. Some were technically proficient, but that did not ensure that they would always fight for the government in Saigon. Nor were they always loyal to their commanders. And they occasionally fought each other when bribed by Viet Cong agents to do so. The "popular forces" at the village level often failed to protect their villages. The reasons varied, but in several cases it was the result of how their salaries were funded. Local tax money was not the source of their pay; rather it was US-supplied funds....

US military assistance training in El Salvador is often cited as a successful case. In fact, this effort amounted to letting the old elites, who used death squads to impose order, come back to power in different guises. And death squads are again active there. The real cause of the defeat of the Salvadoran insurgency was Gorbachev's decision to cut off supplies to it, as he promised President George H. Bush at the Malta summit meeting. Thus denied their resource base, and having failed to create a self-supporting tax regime in the countryside as the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, they could not survive for long....

These are interesting remarks and one wonders to what extent they might be true. More comments on the taxation issue:

Such [countersinsurgency] wars are about "who will rule," and who will rule depends on "who can tax" and build an effective state apparatus down to the village level.

The taxation issue is not even on the agenda of US programs for Iraq.

In the sense he is talking about Odom is right of course, but in another sense he is quite wrong. The 'taxation issue' or (neo-liberal market fundamentalist economics) is at the heart of the Iraq adventure and the core of much of its problems. There is no direct taxation by choice and not even much in the way of income taxation, in addition to privatisation, deregulation etc. Its a case where the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology is so far out of touch with reality that it meets violent popular rebellion. The ideological crisis for the US is that in many cases people 'believe' in this ideology and dont see it for what it is, a massive and corrupt failure, serving only the interests of a narrow elite (if even them). This makes imperial managers blind to reality and unable to predict, recognise or respond to the development of events. Only a nutjob ideological fanatic would start a World War and invade the Soviet Union, so, logically, said nutjob is head of the German government. Something the same with Bush/Cheney....

Nor was it a central focus in Vietnam, El Salvador, the Philippines, and most other cases of US-backed governments embroiled in internal wars. Where US funding has been amply provided to those governments, the recipient regime has treated those monies as its tax base while failing to create an indigenous tax base. In my own study of three counterinsurgency cases, and from my experience in Vietnam, I discovered that the regimes that received the least US direct fiscal support had the most success against the insurgents. Providing funding and forces to give an embattled regime more "time" to gain adequate strength is like asking a drunk to drink more whiskey in order to sober up.

Saddam's regime lived mostly on revenues from oil exports. Thus it never had to create an effective apparatus to collect direct taxes. Were US forces and counterinsurgency efforts to succeed in imposing order for a time, the issue of who will control the oil in Iraq would become the focus of conflict for competing factions. The time would not be spent creating the administrative capacity to keep order and to collect sufficient taxes to administer the country. At best, the war over who will eventually rule country would only be postponed.

This is the crux of the dilemma facing all such internal wars. I make this assertion not only based on my own study, but also in light of considerable literature that demonstrates that the single best index of the strength of any state is its ability to collect direct taxes, not export-import tax or indirect taxes. The latter two are relatively easy to collect by comparison, requiring much weaker state institutions.

By 'direct' taxation Odom presumably means land or property taxation, and it is a most interesting suggestion that this is the key to victory. Is this occurring in Iraq now? Militias could do it: it would be similar to a kind of 'protection'. Gunmen would go door to door and collect the 'tax'. If this system was fairly and non-corruptly administered, then it could indeed be the basis of local and eventually state government.

This analyis resolves imperialist or guerilla wars to class actions with taxation as the key. The imperialist or oligarchist naturally seeks to acquire property by conquest and throw off all taxes; but the people benefit from direct taxation through safe access to land and government which serves them rather than absentee or overseas landlords.

The neocon error:

The Bush Administration has broken with this strategy by invading Iraq and also by threatening the existence of the regime in Iran. It presumed that establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq would lead to regional stability. In fact, the policy of spreading democracy by forces of arms has become the main source of regional instability.

This not only postponed any near-term chance of better relations with Iran, but also has moved the United States closer to losing its footing in the Arab camp as well. That, of course, increases greatly the threats to Israel's security, the very thing it was supposed to improve, not to mention that it makes the military costs rise dramatically, exceeding what we can prudently bear, especially without the support of our European allies and others.

Odom closes with the argument for withdrawal:

Several critics of the administration show an appreciation of the requirement to regain our allies and others' support, but they do not recognize that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the sine qua non for achieving their cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse for them than for the United States, and they know that without US participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional stability. Until we understand this critical point, we cannot design a strategy that can achieve what we can legitimately call a victory.

Any new strategy that does realistically promise to achieve regional stability at a cost we can prudently bear, and does not regain the confidence and support of our allies, is doomed to failure. To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.

This testimony is a stinging rebuke to the neocons/neoliberals and their deluded ideas, which still seem to be right in the driving seat as Bush/Cheney prepare for war with Iran.

Odom: Congressional testimony - What Can Be Done in Iraq?

PRSA comments on Sen Faulkner remarks

Sen Faulkner made some notable remarks in Oct 2005:: “In Australia today there is a dangerous indifference to politics accompanied by a simmering resentment of politicians. Citizens who haven't enough interest in the democratic process to stay even vaguely informed of the issues of the day have only one profound political conviction: that politicians can't be trusted. Politicians show reciprocal cynicism in an electoral climate where a lie about mortgage rates has more impact than the truth about lies. Our democracy is drowning in distrust.”

“Undemocratic practices are often blamed on factions and factionalism. There is nothing inherently wrong or undemocratic about like-minded people voting together to maximise their chances of success. It is, after all, the principle of Party politics. When such groupings are based not on shared beliefs but on shared venality, factionalism goes bad. When factional interests are put ahead of the Party's interests, the Party rots.

"As Party membership declines, the influence of factional warriors increases. They maximise their influence by excluding those who disagree, not through leadership and persuasion. Those who defer to the powerbrokers are rewarded with positions in the Party and with employment. This is not factionalism. It is feudalism, and it is killing the ALP.”

“Today, as trash tabloids and opinion-for-hire commentators destroy any semblance of a debate of ideas, the principle of informed decision-making at the heart of the ideal of democracy drowns beneath racy headlines and print-now, retract-later coverage. Radio shock-jocks and shallow television infotainment do the same.”

PRSA comment: "Many supporters of proportional representation are motivated by the fairness of balanced outcomes everywhere accurately reflecting voters’ views. Most Hare-Clark advocates especially value the importance of voter influence on election day. Because there are no safe seats to be allocated through backroom deals, and hence no guaranteed short-cuts into Parliament under Hare-Clark, there are no incentives for branch stacking and other unsavoury practices that regularly go hand-in-hand with single-member electorates."

As many positions as practically possible should be elected by PR including Robson rotation with no 'above the line' voting. The latter two provisions put the power of the vote in the hands of the voters where it belongs, and removes the tremendous importance of internal party preselection or pre-positioning on the party list. This simple reform of itself would go a long way to combatting the evils of factionalism and 'backroom boys' that Sen Faulkner spoke of.

Sen Faulkner made some notable remarks in Oct 2005:: “In Australia today there is a dangerous indifference to politics accompanied by a simmering resentment of politicians. Citizens who haven't enough interest in the democratic process to stay even vaguely informed of the issues of the day have only one profound political conviction: that politicians can't be trusted. Politicians show reciprocal cynicism in an electoral climate where a lie about mortgage rates has more impact than the truth about lies. Our democracy is drowning in distrust.”

“Undemocratic practices are often blamed on factions and factionalism. There is nothing inherently wrong or undemocratic about like-minded people voting together to maximise their chances of success. It is, after all, the principle of Party politics. When such groupings are based not on shared beliefs but on shared venality, factionalism goes bad. When factional interests are put ahead of the Party's interests, the Party rots.

"As Party membership declines, the influence of factional warriors increases. They maximise their influence by excluding those who disagree, not through leadership and persuasion. Those who defer to the powerbrokers are rewarded with positions in the Party and with employment. This is not factionalism. It is feudalism, and it is killing the ALP.”

“Today, as trash tabloids and opinion-for-hire commentators destroy any semblance of a debate of ideas, the principle of informed decision-making at the heart of the ideal of democracy drowns beneath racy headlines and print-now, retract-later coverage. Radio shock-jocks and shallow television infotainment do the same.”

PRSA comment: "Many supporters of proportional representation are motivated by the fairness of balanced outcomes everywhere accurately reflecting voters’ views. Most Hare-Clark advocates especially value the importance of voter influence on election day. Because there are no safe seats to be allocated through backroom deals, and hence no guaranteed short-cuts into Parliament under Hare-Clark, there are no incentives for branch stacking and other unsavoury practices that regularly go hand-in-hand with single-member electorates."

As many positions as practically possible should be elected by PR including Robson rotation with no 'above the line' voting. The latter two provisions put the power of the vote in the hands of the voters where it belongs, and removes the tremendous importance of internal party preselection or pre-positioning on the party list. This simple reform of itself would go a long way to combatting the evils of factionalism and 'backroom boys' that Sen Faulkner spoke of.

PRSA comments on Sen Faulkner remarks

Double Down

Generals wary of troop 'surge':

Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, said Tuesday he believes the chances that adding 20,000 or so U.S. troops for several months would stabilize Baghdad are "slim and none."

Little George Bush, representing America, is a Big Player in the Big Game at the Main Table, secretly aided by a crack team of cardcounting neocons headed by Big Dick Cheney.

But after a few lucky wins (assisted by pop's connections to some crooks in the House) Little George's big pile of chips is starting to diminish, and he is sweating and moving in his chair, as the other more or less openly hostile players look on. The dealer has been sending aces and tens everywhere, except to Little George, and he needs one bad, almost as bad as he needs that drink.

"Dont worry", signals Cheney, "I've been counting cards and there's one more ace in the shoe." So Little George, cussing out and snarling, pushing out of his mind the wife back home, the House, the Senate, the Troops, the GOP and those shady foreigners he owes a lot of money too, pushes in a whole half of his remaining chips, and then doubles down on an eight. "Failure is not an option", he says to himself with a hint of desperation he can no longer conceal , "this is an ace strategery for victory, I know it".

But Cheney miscalculated. There are no more aces in the shoe. And even if there were, this is not exactly the right time to bet up and double down. Bush is bust, and so is America.

Generals wary of troop 'surge':

Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, said Tuesday he believes the chances that adding 20,000 or so U.S. troops for several months would stabilize Baghdad are "slim and none."

Little George Bush, representing America, is a Big Player in the Big Game at the Main Table, secretly aided by a crack team of cardcounting neocons headed by Big Dick Cheney.

But after a few lucky wins (assisted by pop's connections to some crooks in the House) Little George's big pile of chips is starting to diminish, and he is sweating and moving in his chair, as the other more or less openly hostile players look on. The dealer has been sending aces and tens everywhere, except to Little George, and he needs one bad, almost as bad as he needs that drink.

"Dont worry", signals Cheney, "I've been counting cards and there's one more ace in the shoe." So Little George, cussing out and snarling, pushing out of his mind the wife back home, the House, the Senate, the Troops, the GOP and those shady foreigners he owes a lot of money too, pushes in a whole half of his remaining chips, and then doubles down on an eight. "Failure is not an option", he says to himself with a hint of desperation he can no longer conceal , "this is an ace strategery for victory, I know it".

But Cheney miscalculated. There are no more aces in the shoe. And even if there were, this is not exactly the right time to bet up and double down. Bush is bust, and so is America.

Double Down

BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC "MALPRACTICE" ON IRAN - EXPERT

Interview with Flynt Everett, former member of the National Security Council:

We [US] haven’t been hit because the Jihadists themselves have decided that, at this point in their strategy, they don’t think it is advantageous for them to strike at the United States. They would rather focus on going after our allies in the region and in Europe, and then they would come back at us. I think we are not really doing well in the war on terror.

EurasiaNet: What you just said about Jihadist strategy, is it speculation, or is your opinion based on hard intelligence?
Leverett: No, this is the internet age. All kinds of documents… are available on the internet and other places. This is a major theme of the Jihadist discourse -- that they don’t want to go after the United States right now.

This is a rare reference to 'jihadist discourse', in spite of its obvious importance. I'm an Australian, I'm a citizen, I'm a target of these murderous extremists. What is the level of risk that I currently face? I deserve to know. Does the media, academia, the defence force, the intelligence agencies, the parliament, the government, have any assessment about these matters? Do they even read 'jihadist discourse'?

At this point I am guessing, but perhaps the failure of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is in effect serving to increase the security of persons such as myself. The humiliation of the United States in Iraq, combined with the target-rich environment in Iraq of US personnel may be sufficient to satisfy the jihadist impulse for revenge for the time being.

Certainly it is obvious that the aggression against Iraq has only increased the risk of attack against Western targets.

I think this administration is dysfunctional in some unique ways. There can be splits in any administration; it certainly isn’t unique to this one. But the level of division within this administration is more profound, and what’s more, there isn’t any real inclination to resolve the divisions to produce coherent policy.

Everett is here referring to the fundamental characteristic of the Bush Administration, its capture by Cheney and the neoconservatives. They are a driving force who attempt to cut off options for Bush who appears to be a complete tool (unfortunately, as his weeping father might feel).

I think the grand bargain is the only way to forestall Iran’s nuclearization. Given the potential consequences of Iranian nuclearization, why should the United States not do that? It is so manifestly in our interest to do it that not doing it is the strategic equivalent of medical malpractice. It is a real failure of leadership by the United States.

Everett is suggesting (same as the ISG) that negotiations and concessions to Iran could produce satisfactory results for the US. But again Cheney is working day and night to block that option. Instead of diplomacy, softpower and hegemony, Cheney and the neocons' concept of empire is brute force. People are either under attack or under threat of attack. You never 'negotiate with enemies'. This is a frankly stupid and disastrous concept of power and empire. But the neocons are relatively inexperienced in the game and perhaps could hardly be expected to be other than foolish and hubristic. Let's hope China and India have greater wisdom as they gain the power in the 21st Century.

I agree that a military strike by the United States is a bad idea. But at some point, probably in the next 12 months, the president’s current efforts in the Security Council will have played out. What we would get out of UN is certainly not going to be enough to leverage the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. At that point, this president would face a very stark, binary choice. He could either stand by and let Iran continue to cross significant thresholds in the development of its nuclear capability, or he could order military strikes to try to delay that development. I think that, with this president, when he is faced with that choice, the chances that he might take the military option are not trivial. It is a real risk. It is not going to happen tomorrow, or next week. We would be still working on the diplomatic route. But a year or so from now when the diplomacy has failed, the risks of a military strike are not trivial.

Everett is making the argument better than nearly anyone that Cheney and the neocons are and have been systematically cutting off the tool/fool Bush's options in favour of war and thus it becomes a possibility in spite of the fact that war with Iran is almost universally regarded as more disastrous than the failed and disastrous Iraq war.

Interview with Flynt Everett, former member of the National Security Council:

We [US] haven’t been hit because the Jihadists themselves have decided that, at this point in their strategy, they don’t think it is advantageous for them to strike at the United States. They would rather focus on going after our allies in the region and in Europe, and then they would come back at us. I think we are not really doing well in the war on terror.

EurasiaNet: What you just said about Jihadist strategy, is it speculation, or is your opinion based on hard intelligence?
Leverett: No, this is the internet age. All kinds of documents… are available on the internet and other places. This is a major theme of the Jihadist discourse -- that they don’t want to go after the United States right now.

This is a rare reference to 'jihadist discourse', in spite of its obvious importance. I'm an Australian, I'm a citizen, I'm a target of these murderous extremists. What is the level of risk that I currently face? I deserve to know. Does the media, academia, the defence force, the intelligence agencies, the parliament, the government, have any assessment about these matters? Do they even read 'jihadist discourse'?

At this point I am guessing, but perhaps the failure of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is in effect serving to increase the security of persons such as myself. The humiliation of the United States in Iraq, combined with the target-rich environment in Iraq of US personnel may be sufficient to satisfy the jihadist impulse for revenge for the time being.

Certainly it is obvious that the aggression against Iraq has only increased the risk of attack against Western targets.

I think this administration is dysfunctional in some unique ways. There can be splits in any administration; it certainly isn’t unique to this one. But the level of division within this administration is more profound, and what’s more, there isn’t any real inclination to resolve the divisions to produce coherent policy.

Everett is here referring to the fundamental characteristic of the Bush Administration, its capture by Cheney and the neoconservatives. They are a driving force who attempt to cut off options for Bush who appears to be a complete tool (unfortunately, as his weeping father might feel).

I think the grand bargain is the only way to forestall Iran’s nuclearization. Given the potential consequences of Iranian nuclearization, why should the United States not do that? It is so manifestly in our interest to do it that not doing it is the strategic equivalent of medical malpractice. It is a real failure of leadership by the United States.

Everett is suggesting (same as the ISG) that negotiations and concessions to Iran could produce satisfactory results for the US. But again Cheney is working day and night to block that option. Instead of diplomacy, softpower and hegemony, Cheney and the neocons' concept of empire is brute force. People are either under attack or under threat of attack. You never 'negotiate with enemies'. This is a frankly stupid and disastrous concept of power and empire. But the neocons are relatively inexperienced in the game and perhaps could hardly be expected to be other than foolish and hubristic. Let's hope China and India have greater wisdom as they gain the power in the 21st Century.

I agree that a military strike by the United States is a bad idea. But at some point, probably in the next 12 months, the president’s current efforts in the Security Council will have played out. What we would get out of UN is certainly not going to be enough to leverage the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. At that point, this president would face a very stark, binary choice. He could either stand by and let Iran continue to cross significant thresholds in the development of its nuclear capability, or he could order military strikes to try to delay that development. I think that, with this president, when he is faced with that choice, the chances that he might take the military option are not trivial. It is a real risk. It is not going to happen tomorrow, or next week. We would be still working on the diplomatic route. But a year or so from now when the diplomacy has failed, the risks of a military strike are not trivial.

Everett is making the argument better than nearly anyone that Cheney and the neocons are and have been systematically cutting off the tool/fool Bush's options in favour of war and thus it becomes a possibility in spite of the fact that war with Iran is almost universally regarded as more disastrous than the failed and disastrous Iraq war.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC "MALPRACTICE" ON IRAN - EXPERT

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

"Premier Morris Iemma has wedged himself with his statement that climate change is a key issue in this campaign, while at the same time overseeing the biggest expansion of the coal industry ever witnessed in NSW," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The 22 new coal projects proposed for NSW would have a combined capacity of 56.9 million tonnes of coal a year. This would result in the emission of 136.56 million tones of carbon dioxide every year.

"The Stern Review put a social cost on every tonne of carbon of $85. Applying this formula, the new proposals alone would have a social cost of over $11.5 billion.

"The Greens would prefer to work with Labor to tackle climate change. But if Premier Iemma and Planning Minister Sartor are not going to stop the Anvil Hill coal mine and the other new coal projects we will make coal an election issue.

"Coal is the elephant in the room. The NSW government is busy ignoring the major contribution that coal combustion makes to climate change.

"Talking about climate change without mentioning coal is like talking about obesity without mentioning junk food.

"The Greens Climate Futures Bill will place a moratorium on new coal projects. It will direct the NSW government to provide a transition package of retraining and jobs for coal communities, and to fast track the development of a renewable energy industry in NSW."

The Iemma Government's response indicates what could unfortunately be the reality of Government response to global warming: namely to admit the problem but fail to address it effectively because it is contrary to corporate interests to which the Government is beholden.

The debate has reached the point at which the scientific consensus on global warming, can no longer be denied, but not yet the point where Governments are obliged to take truly effective action. Yet time is running out, we have about a decade in which to take action lest the problem runaway from us.

The Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, and therefore it has taken a decade for Governments such as John Howard's to even recognise the reality of the crisis. Will it take the only remaining decade before such Governments realise that action must be taken as well?

Governments and leaders have to speak honestly to industry and the public in relation to this crisis. The coal industry is killing the planet, and emissions have to be cut by 80% by the year 2050. The sooner some frank talking and serious policy initiatives are embraced the easier it will be to face the real problem.

Labor’s climate change plan meaningless without a coal moratorium

What is Labor's policy on nuclear power?

Beazley and Rudd must declare nuclear stance before leadership ballot

"Labor's position on expanding uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the nuclear waste is two-faced, the Australian Greens said today."

"Labor's duplicity on this issue was demonstrated when ALP senators failed to support the Greens when we called for the rejection of uranium enrichment, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors in the Senate this week."

"Australians deserve an answer from both leadership candidates to these questions:
- Do they support expanded uranium mining?
- Do they support uranium enrichment in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the waste?
- Do they support high-level nuclear waste dumps in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear reactors for power generation?"

Instead of 'horserace' reporting on the Beazley/Rudd issue (or indeed, the Beazley/Howard or Howard/Costello question), what is the policy position held by each of these?

A strong argument can be made against nuclear energy, namely that it is costly, toxic, weaponistic, non-renewable and not the answer.

The policy of the Australian Greens and the NSW Greens at least is clear: opposition to the entire nuclear cycle in Australia, and a focus instead on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Beazley and Rudd must declare nuclear stance before leadership ballot

"Labor's position on expanding uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the nuclear waste is two-faced, the Australian Greens said today."

"Labor's duplicity on this issue was demonstrated when ALP senators failed to support the Greens when we called for the rejection of uranium enrichment, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors in the Senate this week."

"Australians deserve an answer from both leadership candidates to these questions:
- Do they support expanded uranium mining?
- Do they support uranium enrichment in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear fuel leasing and taking back the waste?
- Do they support high-level nuclear waste dumps in Australia?
- Do they support nuclear reactors for power generation?"

Instead of 'horserace' reporting on the Beazley/Rudd issue (or indeed, the Beazley/Howard or Howard/Costello question), what is the policy position held by each of these?

A strong argument can be made against nuclear energy, namely that it is costly, toxic, weaponistic, non-renewable and not the answer.

The policy of the Australian Greens and the NSW Greens at least is clear: opposition to the entire nuclear cycle in Australia, and a focus instead on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

What is Labor's policy on nuclear power?

Coup against Maliki reported in the making: Maliki and the Iraqi government would be replaced by an army junta or dictator who would better follow US orders.

Covert operations, they aint what the used to be, are they? Now discussed in the pages of major newspapers and bloggers all over the world. Anyone can chip their two cents into the plot.

The mean part of me wants the US to go ahead with this coup. The country is in ruins and heading for dismemberment, with the 'government' having virtually no authority. But despite efforts by the US to install puppets like Chalabi or Allawi, and in large part because of the determination of Sistani and the Shiites, the Iraqi government, such as it is, is in fact 'democratic', with elections, a parliament, a constitution and ministries.

If this was swept away in a US-orchestrated coup, probably futile anyway, the last shreds of US credibility would be gone with it. Weapons of mass destruction? Nothing. Links to al-Qaeda? Zilch. Democracy? Abolished. Stay the course, Dubya, Mission Accomplished, bring 'em on, don't cut and run, finish the job.

Billmon also posts on what a dumb idea a coup would be and the seeming obliviousness of the US ruling elite to the further damage to their shattered credibility.

Coup against Maliki reported in the making: Maliki and the Iraqi government would be replaced by an army junta or dictator who would better follow US orders.

Covert operations, they aint what the used to be, are they? Now discussed in the pages of major newspapers and bloggers all over the world. Anyone can chip their two cents into the plot.

The mean part of me wants the US to go ahead with this coup. The country is in ruins and heading for dismemberment, with the 'government' having virtually no authority. But despite efforts by the US to install puppets like Chalabi or Allawi, and in large part because of the determination of Sistani and the Shiites, the Iraqi government, such as it is, is in fact 'democratic', with elections, a parliament, a constitution and ministries.

If this was swept away in a US-orchestrated coup, probably futile anyway, the last shreds of US credibility would be gone with it. Weapons of mass destruction? Nothing. Links to al-Qaeda? Zilch. Democracy? Abolished. Stay the course, Dubya, Mission Accomplished, bring 'em on, don't cut and run, finish the job.

Billmon also posts on what a dumb idea a coup would be and the seeming obliviousness of the US ruling elite to the further damage to their shattered credibility.

Hezbollah: "We would now dare say the obvious - if and when such an attack [on Iran] comes, the United States will be defeated.

"The victory of Hezbollah in its recent conflict with Israel is far more significant than many analysts in the United States and Europe realize. The Hezbollah victory reverses the tide of 1967 - a shattering defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan that shifted the region's political plates, putting in place regimes that were bent on recasting their own foreign policy to reflect Israeli and US power. That power now has been sullied and reversed, and a new leadership is emerging in the region."

Hezbollah: "We would now dare say the obvious - if and when such an attack [on Iran] comes, the United States will be defeated.

"The victory of Hezbollah in its recent conflict with Israel is far more significant than many analysts in the United States and Europe realize. The Hezbollah victory reverses the tide of 1967 - a shattering defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan that shifted the region's political plates, putting in place regimes that were bent on recasting their own foreign policy to reflect Israeli and US power. That power now has been sullied and reversed, and a new leadership is emerging in the region."

New Lancet Survey: Massive Death toll in Iraq following invasion: They are now calculating 655,000 'excess deaths' - 500 per day.

The dismal reality is that the US/UK/Aus war and occupation is worse than Saddam's regime - Saddam's regime under sanctions, that is. But what could one expect from the 'supreme crime' of aggressive war? That is why it is called the supreme crime.

Hopefully this incident will put an end to the concept of 'humanitarian war', or 'war for democracy', one of the most cynical ideas ever inflicted on the population by the decadent, corrupt and violent Anglo-saxon 'democratic' governments.

New Lancet Survey: Massive Death toll in Iraq following invasion: They are now calculating 655,000 'excess deaths' - 500 per day.

The dismal reality is that the US/UK/Aus war and occupation is worse than Saddam's regime - Saddam's regime under sanctions, that is. But what could one expect from the 'supreme crime' of aggressive war? That is why it is called the supreme crime.

Hopefully this incident will put an end to the concept of 'humanitarian war', or 'war for democracy', one of the most cynical ideas ever inflicted on the population by the decadent, corrupt and violent Anglo-saxon 'democratic' governments.

Levy: The mystery of America: "Rice has been [to Israel several] times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself?

"It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?"

One could say about Rice/Bush/Cheney that they are corrupt, ignorant, incompetent etc. But US policy is disgraceful, inhumane and dangerous. Why do they do it? There are two usual explanations: the Israel lobby, and regional hegemony. Neither (or both) seem wholly satisfactory. It is folly.

Levy: The mystery of America: "Rice has been [to Israel several] times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself?

"It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?"

One could say about Rice/Bush/Cheney that they are corrupt, ignorant, incompetent etc. But US policy is disgraceful, inhumane and dangerous. Why do they do it? There are two usual explanations: the Israel lobby, and regional hegemony. Neither (or both) seem wholly satisfactory. It is folly.

North Korea detonates nuclear device: This is an outrage! - President Bush will have to respond forcefully, probably by attacking Iran. After all, he attacked Iraq when Bin Ladin struck from Afghanistan, didn't he?

North Korea detonates nuclear device: This is an outrage! - President Bush will have to respond forcefully, probably by attacking Iran. After all, he attacked Iraq when Bin Ladin struck from Afghanistan, didn't he?

Terrorism and Fascism on the rise in the UK: Intimidation, hatespeech and violence. One wonders whether Mr Blair is paying attention to the inherent 'threat to our values.'

Terrorism and Fascism on the rise in the UK: Intimidation, hatespeech and violence. One wonders whether Mr Blair is paying attention to the inherent 'threat to our values.'

London August Terror Bomb plot a hoax: Another article questioning this plot. Naturally this has the most serious implications. It would appear to be the case under late Western democracy that many fundamental institutions have been politicised and corrupted. Not only the Government, but also the intelligence agencies, the Defence Force, the police, the bureacracy, the corporate media cannot or ought not be trusted. The judiciary and the scientific community in the form of the university system is under sustained attack as well by a right wing that is unprincipled and unscrupulous - just a mechanical reflection of power and wealth in the political and societal spheres.

London August Terror Bomb plot a hoax: Another article questioning this plot. Naturally this has the most serious implications. It would appear to be the case under late Western democracy that many fundamental institutions have been politicised and corrupted. Not only the Government, but also the intelligence agencies, the Defence Force, the police, the bureacracy, the corporate media cannot or ought not be trusted. The judiciary and the scientific community in the form of the university system is under sustained attack as well by a right wing that is unprincipled and unscrupulous - just a mechanical reflection of power and wealth in the political and societal spheres.