An Accountability Moment That Must Not End

By John Nichols
Published by The Nation
February 14, 2008

There have been far too few accountability moments since Democrats retook control of the U.S. House and Senate in January, 2007.

But one came Thursday, when the House voted 223-32 to hold former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas to testify before Congress in relation to the firing of nine United States Attorneys in 2006.

A pair of resolutions -- one that directs the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. to bring criminal contempt charges against Bolten and Miers to a grand jury and another that authorizes the House general counsel to bring a civil suit against the White House to settle the question of whether the testimony of Bolten and Miers should be covered by executive privilege -- received the backing of 220 Democrats and three anti-war Republicans (Ron Paul, the renegade presidential candidate from Texas; Wayne Gilchrest, who lost his seat in a Maryland primary Tuesday; and Walter Jones of North Carolina).

The move was opposed by 31 Republicans and one Democrat (Texan Henry Cuellar, who backed Bush for reelection in 2004 and this year backs Hillary Clinton.) At the behest of House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, 163 Republicans were recorded as "not voting." Ten Democrats did the same.

Thursday's House decision was historic, not just for its specific response to the lawlessness of two prominent members of the Bush-Cheney administration but for its broader message. With this action, Congress is beginning to reassert itself as a separate and equal branch of the federal government.

READ MORE

Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?

By Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
Published by the San Francisco Chronicle
February 4, 2008

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

READ MORE

Money Is the Real Green Power: The Hoax of Eco-Friendly Nuclear Energy

By Karl Grossman
FAIR Extra
January-February 2008

Nuclear advocates in government and the nuclear industry are engaged in a massive, heavily financed drive to revive atomic power in the United States—with most of the mainstream media either not questioning or actually assisting in the promotion.

“With a very few notable exceptions, such as the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. media have turned the same sort of blind, uncritical eye on the nuclear industry’s claims that led an earlier generation of Americans to believe atomic energy would be too cheap to meter,” comments Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The nuclear industry’s public relations effort has improved over the past 50 years, while the natural skepticism of reporters toward corporate claims seems to have disappeared.”

The New York Times continues to be, as it was a half-century ago when nuclear technology was first advanced, a media leader in pushing the technology, which collapsed in the U.S. with the 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accidents. The Times has showered readers with a variety of pieces advocating a nuclear revival, all marbled with omissions and untruths. A lead editorial headlined “The Greening of Nuclear Power” (5/13/06) opened:

Not so many years ago, nuclear energy was a hobgoblin to environmentalists, who feared the potential for catastrophic accidents and long-term radiation contamination. . . . But this is a new era, dominated by fears of tight energy supplies and global warming. Suddenly nuclear power is looking better.

READ MORE

Foreign Policy Goes Local

By Karen Dolan
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus
January 31, 2008


The scene is the floor of the Chicago city council chambers. The meeting is unusually passionate. The floor speeches are particularly charged, even by the Chicago city council’s turbulent standards.

“Had this resolution not been introduced, we would have been accused of being morons, amoral. If we don’t speak out for the people – who will?” demands one of the council’s more conservative members, Alderman Bernard Stone.

The date is January 16, 2003, and the Chicago city council is in the midst of passing a resolution denouncing the drive toward war with Iraq. The author and principal sponsor of this resolution is Alderman Joe Moore from Chicago’s 49th Ward. Unsure that such a resolution will fly in a council controlled by Chicago’s powerful Mayor Richard M. Daley, Moore drafts it anyway, hoping that Chicago will join the close to 100 cities in a growing movement voicing local opposition to Bush’s impending war with Iraq. The resolution passes 46-to-1 and sent a loud message reverberating through the mainstream media and Congress that folks in the heart of America’s Midwest aren’t happy with the direction Bush’s administration is taking in the Middle East.

The passion of the council debate didn’t arise out of a pro-con debate. Liberals and conservatives agreed: U.S. foreign policy was heading in a reckless direction. Over the last five years, citizens and local leaders have increasingly added their voices to the national debate over the Iraq War through municipal institutions like city councils. Even before the costs of war began to hit home, these local voices warned of the risks of war and occupation.

The idea of municipal foreign policy draws on such experiences as the Cities for Peace movement, the anti-Apartheid municipal movement of the 1980s, and the nuclear-free zone movement of the 1970s. It asserts that politicians who are most accessible and accountable to their citizens are in the best position to represent positions that challenge the political status quo and the large corporate powers to which national lawmakers and policymakers usually answer. Locally elected officials are certainly susceptible to moneyed interests, particularly in many large cities. But the more local the office, the greater the accountability to the public and public sentiment.

The War

In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. citizens filled hundreds town hall meetings with reasoned, rational, responsible discussion and said “No” to preemptive war. By the time of the March invasion, 170 municipalities and two state houses had approved anti-war resolutions, which foretold the disaster, destruction and cost such a policy, would bring to Iraq and the United States. This local resolution movement has been dubbed the Cities for Peace movement nation-wide. Since the invasion, the Cities for Peace movement has grown to include over 270 municipalities, 12 mayors, and 17 states, representing fully half of the U.S. population.

At the time of the 2006 elections, polls found that disapproval of Bush’s Iraq policy stood at about 65%. These high figures reflect the sentiment that made the Iraq War the number one issue in the last election, catapulting the Democrats to power on Capitol Hill. No one can predict the tipping point, but it seems safe to assume that as these numbers increase, pressure for lawmakers of both parties to end the war also increases.

The expressions of the local governments on this issue have proven the more judicious and wise. The resolutions prior to the invasion cited a disbelief that Iraq posed any immediate threat to the United States; they cited the violation of international law such a preemptive attack on Iraq would perpetrate; they cited the enormous long-term cost in lives and money; they cited environmental and moral concerns such a strike posed.

The post-invasion resolutions reiterated many of these concerns and wisely called for a prudent and swift end to the disaster.

Wal-Mart

In addition to his anti-war position, Chicago Alderman Joe Moore was also one of the most outspoken opponents of Wal-Mart’s entry into Chicago. He led the battle to deny Wal-Mart their requests for zoning changes. In April 2005, spurred by the Wal-Mart battle, Moore introduced a Living Wage Ordinance that would effectively increase the wages and health benefits of employees of Big Box retailers within Chicago’s city limits. The Wal-Mart and living wage campaigns were designed to improve the standards for American workers that had been steadily eroded by free trade agreements and corporate outsourcing.

READ MORE

Something Had to Give: How Oil Burst the American Bubble

By Michael Klare
Published by Tom Dispatch
January 31, 2007

The economic bubble that lifted the stock market to dizzying heights was sustained as much by cheap oil as by cheap (often fraudulent) mortgages. Likewise, the collapse of the bubble was caused as much by costly (often imported) oil as by record defaults on those improvident mortgages. Oil, in fact, has played a critical, if little commented upon, role in America's current economic enfeeblement -- and it will continue to drain the economy of wealth and vigor for years to come.

The great economic mega-bubble arose in the late 1990s, when oil was cheap, times were good, and millions of middle-class families aspired to realize the "American dream" by buying a three (or more) bedroom house on a decent piece of property in a nice, safe suburb with good schools and various other amenities. The hitch: Few such affordable homes were available for sale -- or being built -- within easy commuting range of major metropolitan areas or near public transportation. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, for example, the median sale price of existing homes rose from $290,000 in 2002 to $446,400 in 2004; similar increases were posted in other major cities and in their older, more desirable suburbs.

This left home buyers with two unappealing choices: Take out larger mortgages than they could readily afford, often borrowing from unscrupulous lenders who overlooked their overstretched finances (that is, their "subprime" qualifications); or buy cheaper homes far from their places of work, which ensured long commutes, while hoping that the price of gasoline remained relatively low. Many first-time home buyers wound up doing both -- signing up for crushing mortgages on homes far from their places of work.

The result was metastasizing exurban home developments along the beltways that surround major American cities and along the new feeder roads that now stretched into the distant countryside beyond. In some cases, those new homeowners found themselves 30, 40, even 50 miles or more from the urban centers in which their only hope of employment lay. Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004 showed that virtually all of the fastest growing counties in the country -- those with growth rates of 10% or more -- were located in exurban areas like Loudoun County, Virginia (35 miles west of Washington, D.C.) or Henry County, Georgia (30 miles south of Atlanta).

At the same time, cheap oil and changing consumer tastes -- pushed along by relentless advertising campaigns -- led many of the same Americans to trade in their smaller, lighter cars for heavy SUVs or pickup trucks, which, of course, meant only one thing -- a significant increase in oil consumption. According to the Department of Energy, total petroleum use rose from an average of 17 million barrels per day in 1990 to 21 million barrels in 2004, an increase of 24% -- most of it being burned up on American roads. This left home buyers with two unappealing choices: Take out larger mortgages than they could readily afford, often borrowing from unscrupulous lenders who overlooked their overstretched finances (that is, their "subprime" qualifications); or buy cheaper homes far from their places of work, which ensured long commutes, while hoping that the price of gasoline remained relatively low. Many first-time home buyers wound up doing both -- signing up for crushing mortgages on homes far from their places of work.

READ MORE




Posted by Mark Haim

I hope this finds all well and keeping warm. At least here in mid-Missouri it's a cold, snowy night. It seems that for many of us in the peace camp, this winter has been a difficult season. Last summer it seemed that the country had finally "got it." The predictions made by peace advocates before this disastrous war began had come true, one after another, and, as the conflict escalated with no resolution in sight, many who were previously detached started paying attention and telling pollsters that they wanted the war to end.

Now, many of our fellow citizens seem thoroughly distracted again. The presidential race--with no "end-the-war-now" advocates given the political space to compete--has much of everyone's attention, as does the economy. The so-called "Surge" is widely credited with the reduction in violence. Those of us paying attention understand that it is more the combination of the completion of ethnic cleansing/separation, the project of paying off some of the insurgents, and the temporary truce by others that has led to a reduced level of violence, albeit without any real political reconciliation.

Meanwhile, Bush's aggression is stoking anti-American and anti-western feelings across the Islamic world. Far from having resolved any conflict, the administration's push for a permanent military presence and economic concessions in Iraq, its bellicosity toward Iran, its ongoing aggression in Afghanistan, its moves to spread the campaign from Afghanistan across the border into Pakistan, as well as its unrelenting support for expansionist parties and policies in Israel, while the Palestinians continue to face abysmal conditions, all sets the stage for a protracted war without end. This might just be what some in the military industrial complex want. As we were told right after 9-11, we are in for a "long war"--like the Cold War--one that will last decades.

Those of us determined to avert this massive misdirection of our nation's--and our whole planet's--energies need to stay strong, focused and hopeful, despite the frustrations. There is just too much at stake here to give up. Our country is now spending close to three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on war and the preparation for war. This money--which should be getting invested in creating a future that works for us, for our children, our grandchildren and those who come after--is instead being squandered in the most destructive fashion imaginable. A handful are profiting from massive suffering, death and destruction. The media frames the issues in ways that distort reality. We must stand up, say "no," and share a truthful understanding of what's coming down. Moreover, as this political year moves forward, whoever the nominees are, they need to hear from us, loud and clear, that we will not accept a permanent war. This insanity must end. If enough of us insist upon it, we most definitely can turn things around.

A big part of what's needed is truth telling. We need to share information and analysis that informs and empowers. We need to support the alternative media, be it web-based, periodicals, community radio or national projects like Pacifica and Democracy Now!

One good source of news and analysis you might not have yet encountered is War Times/Tiempo de Guerras. Each month they put out an excellent overview, usually written by Max Elbaum. I'm pasting in an excerpt from their January post below. I hope you will follow the link to the full article. While somewhat lengthy, it does a good job of putting the pieces of where we stand today together and is worth the read.


BIG MUDDY THERE,
FANTASY & DENIAL HERE
by Max Elbaum
War Times/Tiempo de Guerras
January 2008

Across the Middle East Bush’s “war on terror” has led to a rolling catastrophe.

The administration is settling in to permanent occupation of Iraq while one-third of Iraqis need humanitarian aid and four million have been forced to flee their homes. Washington sends 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan as civilian deaths from U.S. bombs turn Afghans against the West. Top officials of the U.S.-backed dictatorship in Pakistan admit that their secret service has “lost control” of insurgents it trained and financed. In response to Israel’s “collective punishment” residents of Gaza blew up and surged across the Gaza/Egypt border wall in the largest prison break in world history. Arab newspapers – including mouthpieces of pro-U.S. regimes – call Bush’s warmongering against Iran “sad and depressing” while Arab governments normalize relations with Tehran.

It’s a reprise of Pete Seeger’s anthem from Vietnam days: Washington is knee-deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on.

But almost none of this registers in mainstream U.S. politics. Occasionally a symptom of these disasters gets newspaper coverage or is mentioned in a TV spot before Britney Spears’s latest scandal. But for the most part, the U.S. media operate as if “the surge is a success” or what’s happening in Israel-Palestine is a “peace process.”

On the electoral front, Republican presidential hopefuls prattle on about “victory” (and Mike Huckabee threatens to stick a pole up the butt of anyone who wants to take down a Confederate flag). The main Democratic hopefuls tone down their criticism of the Iraq disaster for fear of being seen as “weak on national defense.” The latest example of this fantasyland dance comes from this week’s Republican frontrunner, John McCain. McCain (who wants to stay in Iraq for 1,000 years) proclaimed (Jan. 24) that Hillary Clinton (who wants to stay in Iraq at least through 2012) “has called for surrender and waving the white flag.”

It’s not new for there to be a disconnect between what’s really happening in most of the world and the illusions, denial and elite-driven misinformation that prevails inside this country. But rarely has that gap been as wide – or as dangerous – as it is today.

The challenge before the antiwar movement in 2008 is to narrow that gap.

READ MORE

On What the Candidates Say: Peace, or Counter-Insurgency Without End?

By Tom Hayden
San Francisco Gate
Thursday, January 24, 2008

Pushed by powerful voter sentiment, the leading Democratic presidential candidates all talk of ending the Iraq war, and the November election seems headed toward a showdown with a Republican committed to a long-term war and occupation.

But it's not necessarily true.

The press, the politicians and much of the public have embraced a paradigm that equates ending the Iraq war with the phased withdrawal of American troops from combat roles, a position favored by the top Democratic candidates. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to her campaign statements, would withdraw most or all of them in five years though she "hopes" to withdraw them sooner, and Sen. Barack Obama would do the same in 18 months. Former Sen. John Edwards has recently espoused a more rapid and complete withdrawal timetable.

Overlooked is the fact that if and when those combat troops withdraw, U.S. counter-terrorism units will remain indefinitely to fight the Iraq-based al Qaeda along with other undefined "terrorists." There also are American advisers who will continue training roles for the Iraqi army and police, and will be embedded in the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a Shiite stronghold widely criticized for torture, detention without charges, and other human-rights violations. There will be armed forces to protect the diplomats in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest embassy in the world. Finally, these units will require "force protection" by additional American troops.

To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central America in the '70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program.

This, in fact, already is happening. The Baghdad regime is described by a source in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship. The recent lessening of violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni population. At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or trial dates. The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air by fivefold since last year.

READ MORE

U.S. War Costs In Iraq Up: Report

By REUTERS
New York Times
January 23, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card.

"Funding for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities in the war on terrorism expanded significantly in 2007," the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released on Wednesday.

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

"It keeps going up, up and away," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.

"We're seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs," said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has written checks for $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the CBO said.

READ MORE


November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008