Showing posts with label McCain and Altzheimers'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain and Altzheimers'. Show all posts

Friday, August 29, 2008

And things continue to surprise me?












Illustrations: John McCain's Vice Presidential Running "Mate" After all, I did post Biden's photo.

THE ABSURD TIMES


This looks like a good book to get:

Book review: War on Terror, Inc. Corporate profiteering from the politics of fear by Solomon Hughes

In his 1961 farewell address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned that the United States "must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex." In War on Terror, Inc investigative journalist Solomon Hughes updates Eisenhower's advice for the 21st century, noting that we now face an increasingly powerful "security-industrial complex".

Since 9/11, Hughes argues private companies have played a growing role in the "war on terror". Through extensive lobbying and intimate links with the UK and US governments, these corporations have been able to push for "militaristic and authoritarian responses to the threat of terrorism", a course of action they have a keen financial interest in.

While Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater focus on the American experience, Hughes describes how the disastrous privatisations of the prison system and immigration centres in the UK in the 80s and 90s allowed governments - both Conservative and Labour - to experiment with the transfer of power over people to private firms. Since then commercial interests have taken the lead in a variety of roles that were previously the sole preserve of the state, including the ‘war on drugs' in Columbia, spying on progressive activist groups and setting up ‘database states‘.

However, with the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation, it is Iraq that has the dubious honour of being "the most massive experiment in the privatisation of the battlefield and the contracting out of military occupation." According to a survey by the US Army Central Command, by December 2005 there were 100,000 contractors in Iraq (including 20,000 private soldiers), occupying a legal limbo land which gives them exemption from both Iraqi law, and the US military courts too.

With sources ranging from obscure titles such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to the mainstream media, Hughes relentlessly details all the sordid scandals, corruption and plain incompetence that has plagued the private companies operating in Iraq. And although the book is generally well-referenced, many interesting points are, frustratingly, not sourced, making further research more difficult.

Overall, War on Terror, Inc is a treasure trove of damning quotes and hair raising stories - a great muckraking account of these shadowy businesses, which have so far received little public attention. Although the book only explores what is wrong, rather than what is to be done, the facts contained within are sure to anger those who read it, and will hopefully encourage people to take action to reduce the power of the "security-industrial complex".

This review originally appeared in Peace News. ian_js@hotmail.com.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Kieth Olbermann on McCain

Olbermann chastises McCain: Grow up!
Senator is acting like a child, needs immediate attitude adjustment
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
updated 8:24 p.m. CT, Mon., Aug. 18, 2008

Four times in just two days, Sen. McCain’s campaign managers have, simply, hung him out to dry.

First, trying to scapegoat the media, in the exact way that has spelled doom for other presidential candidates already watching from the sidelines.

Second, doing so with a petulant statement so full of holes that it virtually confirms that which was reported, and which set off this pointless temper tantrum in the first place.

Third, sending the candidate out to speak before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, even as the millstones of a series of disastrous, anti-veteran votes, still figuratively dangled from around his neck.

And fourth, encouraging Sen. McCain, while there, to address his opponent in the language of unseemly contempt, undignified calumny, and holier-than-thou persiflage unsupported by reality, near-nonsensical bluster that at best makes the speaker look like a dyspeptic grouchy neighbor shouting “Hey you kids, get out of my yard.”

“Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight,” you told the VFW today, Sen. McCain, “a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Sen. Obama.”

The shifting positions of Sen. Obama?

Sen. McCain, on the 22nd of May, 2003, you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, “We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.”

Senator, you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.

Today you say, “victory in Iraq is finally in sight?”

The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?

Are we going back in time Sir?

If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting “many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn’t over,” you answered, “Well, then why was there a banner that said ‘Mission Accomplished’ on the aircraft carrier? Look, I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict, the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it’s very appropriate.”

In 2003, your war was won, because somebody was putting up a banner.

In 2008, your war might finally be won, because you are putting up a campaign based on the mirage that Iraq is winnable.

And yet it is Obama shifting positions on Iraq?

Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago just on their face, your remarks today at the VFW, Senator, are nonsensical.

“Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory.”

This construction, Senator, is extremely simple.

If your surge worked, the troops would be home from Iraq. Or most of them, would be. Or all of them who were surged, would be. Or at least we’d have the same number of troops in Iraq now, as we did then. Or maybe one or two guys would be out of harm’s way.

Please, Sen. McCain, stop! This is embarrassing. Whether on his own impetus or an advisor’s, the Senator also foolishly invoked his opponent in that speech today.

Previous political careers have foundered on the rocks of the VFW Convention: The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, the very viability of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, began to unravel at this convention two years ago—that was the venue for the first of Rumsfeld’s two references to Bush critics as Nazi Appeasers.

Prudence and judgment, demanded that Sen. McCain tred lightly. Instead he told the convention, “I suppose from my opponent’s vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage.”

This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill.

“As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I’m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.”


Sen. McCain spoke out against that very bill last May on the asinine premise that the rewards to our heroes were so good that it didn’t encourage them to stay in the service. Or perhaps force them. More over, Sen. McCain missed 10 of the 14 Senate votes on Iraq up to the middle of last year. This year, he has missed them all including one to honor the sacrifice of the fallen.

He has voted to table or oppose:

  • $20 million for veteran’s health care facilities
  • $322 million for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq
  • $430 million for veterans outpatient care
  • $1 billion in new equipment for the National Guard
  • And, in separate votes:

  • $1,500,000,000 in additional Veterans’ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes
  • $1,800,000,000 in additional Veterans’ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes
  • And yet, Sir, you have the audacity to stand in front of the very Veterans you repeatedly and consistently sell out, and claim it is your opponent who has put politics first, and country second.

    “Behind all of these claims and positions by Sen. Obama lies the ambition to be president,” you said, with a straight face, today. “What’s less apparent is the judgment to be commander-in-chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.”

    Senator, three points:

  • Your increasingly extremist and reactionary language towards Sen. Obama really the method by which you want to try to achieve the Presidency or perhaps split the country if you succeed?
  • Criticizing a man for having quote “the ambition to be president?” Seriously? You do realize you are currently running for president, as well, right? That either you also have “ambition to be president” or, what?, somebody’s blackmailing you into it?
  • You might want to ask somebody, somebody other than say, your Foreign Policy Advisor, Randy Scheunemann whether or not you are making a jackass out of yourself every time you bring up the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
  • The Georgians have paid Mr. Scheunemann and his companies 800-thousand dollars over the last several years to lobby for them. It’s pretty clear the Georgians have bought Mr. Scheunemann. And, Sen. McCain, it sure as hell looks like the Georgians thought they had bought you.

    When you had the tastelessness to paraphrase the rallying cry of 9/11 and say that we are now all Georgians, that nation’s President called you out. He said that your words were very nice, but he needed action not a verbal receipt from a lobbyist and his pet Senator!

    Going back to the beginning of this sad 48 hours of paranoia from the McCain Campaign.

    We have manager Rick Davis’s unfortunate letter to NBC News, about Andrea Mitchell’s reporting on the possibility that Sen. McCain violated the so-called “Cone of Silence” for the Rick Warren Presidential Forum over the weekend.

    The coverage of this detail, and that forum in general, is, to start with, overwrought. But Mr. Davis has elevated them to the ridiculous.

    As Nate Silver at the website 538.com noted, Andrea’s reporting, reporting of what the Obama camp claimed, included two essential observations:

  • “McCain may not have been in the cone of silence” and that he
  • “May have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.”
  • Rick Davis writes to NBC: “The fact is that during Senator Obama’s segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”

    As Silver astutely notes, for roughly the first half of Obama’s participation, his own campaign manager places McCain in a car where he could have been made aware of the questions to Sen. Obama. “In a motor vehicle,” Silver writes, “one may use the radio, a cell phone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Sling box, and perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported. Silver also tripped over Mr. Davis’s strange observation that for roughly the second half of Obama’s participation, his own campaign places McCain “in a green room with no broadcast feed.” Not a green room without cell service or internet, nor without a closed-circuit feed, nor, for that matter, without a guy running back from the audience with notes, written in crayon.

    Rick Davis’s argument is, in short, illegitimate.

    It is an attempt to pick a fight with the media, over the journalistic equivalent of chewing gum in class.

    “This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle,” he writes.

    “We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.”

    What Davis is really saying here, of course, is that he wants no level of objectivity, that the only campaign he wants questioned is Obama, and that “partisan coverage” consists of questioning whether McCain or his campaign support the stage whispers branding Obama as somehow ‘foreign,’ or whether McCain is to be inoculated from all criticism by dint of his military service.

    Sen. McCain, did you pay any attention to the Democratic primaries?

    Did you notice the hair-pulling frenzy of some of Sen. Clinton’s supporters who could not face the possibility that her loss might have been her fault or theirs and thus it must be ours?

    Do you remember the apoplexy of a washed up Republican operative named Ed Gillespie, writing a furious letter to NBC on behalf of President Bush?

    Mr. Bush’s support has since dropped.

    And Sen. Clinton’s supporters have now relocated to such a degree that her “eighteen million voices” first re-counted themselves as “two million” and were then unable to get even 250 people to show up at a meeting.

    The public sees through this nonsense, Senator, they see through it quickly.

    NBC and MSNBC do not have the power to seriously impact an election.

    If we did, Sen. Pat Buchanan would already be serving with you.

    Besides which, Senator, who in your camp thought it was a good idea to take a shot at NBC and MSNBC during the Olympics on NBC and MSNBC?!?

    During the Olympics, Sen. McCain, on which you have already run millions of dollars’ worth of McCain Campaign commercials on NBC and MSNBC!?!

    Senator, let me wrap this up. You and your campaign need a serious and immediate attitude adjustment. Despite what you may think, Sen. McCain, this is not a coronation. Despite how you have acted, Sen. McCain, you have no automatic excuse to politicize anything you want.

    Despite how you have whined, Sen. McCain, you have no entitlement to only sycophantic, deceptive, air-brushed coverage in the media. And despite how you have strutted, Sen. McCain, you have no God-given right to the Presidency.

    Let’s have an adult campaign here, in other words and I am embarrassed to have to say this to a man who turns 72 at the end of this month Senator, grow up!

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26271658/


    © 2008 MSNBC.com

    Thursday, July 31, 2008

    Camp-Pain



    THE ABSURD TIMES
    I never did get around to commenting on the cartoon cover for the New Yorker magazine, but Keith did. In case you missed it, this is what the New York magazine published:
    I didn't think much of it because, after all, it did come from New York.
    The Campain has become so absurd that I'm just about ready to pack this whole thing in.
    For example, last week McCain made the old GOP promise not to raise taxes. He then appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows and said that payroll taxes should be increased to help out Social Security. His campaign then snapped into action, saying that McCain does not speak for his campaign Comittee. Say what?
    A recent ad by McCain shows Obama in Germany talking to the 200,000, and then Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton. See the connection? In defending this ad, one of his campaign advisors said that "Obama spoke to a lot of leftist Europeans." Hunh? In Germany? The country that gave us such leftists as Hitler and Merkel? Are Republicans really that afraid of the Left? Obama is left-handed, maybe that's what they meant?
    Anyway, here is a nice article with gook links from TOMGRAM:

    Tom Dispatch
    posted 2008-07-29 16:22:07

    Tomgram: Ira Chernus, Will Culture War Overshadow Real War in 2008?
    All agree that this is (or should be) the year of the Democrats. But
    with candidate Barack Obama still leading, on average, in national polls
    by only about <http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php>
    two to five percentage points, depending on the day, and the media
    proclaiming
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/26/ST2008072602046.html>
    "oil" now a "Republican" issue, there's certainly a long way to go to
    that prospective Democratic victory on November 4th. Still, in
    retrospect, this last week may be seen as the one in which Senator
    McCain's campaign concluded that this might not only be the year of the
    Democrat, but of the Obamacrat as well, and went for the jugular.
    Gallup polling, for instance, shows Obama making small but significant
    <http://www.gallup.com/poll/109036/Obama-Gains-Over-McCain-Swing-States-Since-June.aspx>
    gains in every kind of state (red, purple, and blue) over the last two
    months. At the same time, Obama's world tour -- the one McCain and the
    neocons practically egged him into taking, with all those online tickers
    showing
    <http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/days-barack-obama-visited-iraq-widget>
    just how many days since he had last been to Iraq -- left the McCain
    camp in full and bitter gripe mode. In the imagery of advisor and former
    Senator Phil Gramm, they had become a campaign of "whiners."
    <http://www.newsweek.com/id/145421> Meanwhile, the /Berlin bounce/
    finally showed up
    <http://www.gallup.com/poll/109102/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-40.aspx>
    in the polls.
    While Obama was wowing the Europeans, McCain managed to get an
    offshore-oil photo-op in the Gulf of Mexico wiped out by a somehow
    overlooked advancing hurricane. Instead, he ventured into a grocery
    store aisle in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, prepped on rising food prices,
    where he met <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/27/10633/> a
    "shopper planted by the local Republican Party" and experienced an
    unfortunate "applesauce avalanche."
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/25/john_mccain_and_the_applesauce.html>
    (/The Daily Show/ version
    <http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=177446>
    of this is not to be missed.) Not surprisingly, by week's end he was
    decisively skipping the "issues" and heading for "values" -- that is,
    directly for the throat in the style which Republicans have, in recent
    years, made their own.
    Earlier in the week, he had practically declared his opponent treasonous
    for supposedly putting his political campaign ahead of victory in Iraq
    -- "It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a
    political campaign?" -- and launched a classic Republican campaign
    attack on Obama's "character." His latest ad, which attacks Obama for
    supposedly going to the gym rather than visiting wounded American
    soldiers in Germany, typically ends
    <http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=679D4D79-3048-5C12-008AD444C373AA15>:
    "McCain, country first." (Versus? uh? Obama, country last?)
    It's not exactly surprising that candidate McCain headed for what he
    hoped was potential "values" and "character" pay dirt (emphasis on
    "dirt") in tough times. As Ira Chernus -- canny TomDispatch regular and
    author of Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin
    <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594512760/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> --
    points out, it may be his only chance. The question is: Will it work?
    Will "character," the culture wars, and security fears help elect the
    most woeful Republican candidate since Bob Dole -- and in a country that
    not only increasingly doesn't think much of Republicans, but has never
    cared to vote old? (Ronald Reagan was the exception to this rule, always
    running young and vigorous, whatever his age.) McCain, in a golf cart
    <http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/07/caption_contest_mccain_in_a_go.html>
    being piloted by 84-year-old George H.W. Bush, actually looked older
    than the former president. And, gee, you might go for the jugular early,
    too, in a year in which the Republicans don't even control the political
    machinery of the state of Ohio.
    Now, let Ira Chernus take you on a magical mystery tour of the strange
    world of American "values," American "values voters," and a mainstream
    media that values the value-voter story above all else. /Tom/

    War Meets Values on Campaign Trail
    *Will the Big Winner of 2008 Once Again Be a Conservative
    Culture-Wars Narrative?*
    By Ira Chernus
    While the Iraq war has largely faded from our TV screens, some 85%
    of all voters still call it an important issue. Most of them want
    U.S. troops home from Iraq within a couple of years, many of them
    far sooner. They support Barack Obama's position, not John McCain's.
    Yet when the polls ask which candidate voters trust more on the war,
    McCain wins almost every time.
    Maybe that's because, according to the Pew Center for the People and
    the Press, nearly 40% of the public doesn't know McCain's position
    on troop withdrawal. In a June Washington Post/ABC poll
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072401330.html>,
    the same percentage weren't sure he had a clear position. When that
    poll told voters that McCain opposed a timetable for withdrawal,
    support for his view actually shot up dramatically. It looks like a
    significant chunk of the electorate cares more about the man than
    the issue. Newer polls
    <http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/category/peter-brown/>
    suggest that McCain's arguments against a timetable may, in fact, be
    shifting public opinion
    <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/16/10393/> his way.
    *McCain's Only Chance: Values-plus Voters*
    Pundits and activists who oppose the war in Iraq generally assume
    that the issue has to work against McCain because they treat
    American politics as if it were a college classroom full of rational
    truth-seekers. The reality is much more like a theatrical spectacle.
    Symbolism and the emotion it evokes -- not facts and logic -- rule
    the day.
    In fact, the Pew Center survey found that only about a quarter of
    those who say they'll vote for McCain base their choice on issues at
    all. What appeals to them above all, his supporters say
    <http://www.gallup.com/poll/107671/General-Election-Shaping-Change-vs-Experience.aspx>,
    is his "experience," a word that can conveniently mean many things
    to many people.
    The McCain campaign constantly highlights its man's most emotionally
    gripping experience: his years of captivity in North Vietnam. Take a
    look at the McCain TV commercial
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/07/_while_this_message_delivers.html>
    entitled "Love." It opens with footage of laughing, kissing hippies
    enjoying the "summer of love," then cuts to the young Navy flier
    spending that summer of 1967 dropping bombs on North Vietnam and
    soon to end up a tortured prisoner of those he was bombing.
    McCain believed in "another kind of love," the narrator explains, a
    love that puts the "country and her people before self." Oh, those
    selfish hippies, still winning votes for Republicans -- or so
    McCain's strategists hope.
    Obama agrees that the symbolic meanings of Vietnam and the "love
    generation" still hang heavy over American politics. The debate
    about patriotism, he observed
    <http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/30/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_83.php>,
    "remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s? a fact most
    evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq."
    Obama is right -- sort of. The so-called culture wars have shifted
    away from social issues to war, terrorism, and national security.
    The number of potential voters who rate abortion or gay rights as
    their top priority now rarely exceeds 5%; in some polls it falls
    close to zero. Meanwhile, Republicans are nine times as likely
    <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192> as Democrats,
    and far more likely than independents, to put terrorism at or near
    the top of their most-important list. And Republican voters are much
    more likely to agree with McCain that Iraq is, indeed, the "the
    central front in the war on terrorism."
    Sociologists tell us, however, that the "culture wars" so
    assiduously promoted by conservatives are mostly smoke and mirrors.
    Despite what media pundits may say, the public is /not/ divided into
    two monolithic values camps. Voters are much less predictable than
    that. And few let values issues trump their more immediate problems
    -- especially economic ones -- when they step into the voting booth.
    The almighty power of the monolithic "values voters" is largely a
    myth invented by the media.
    Yet, the "culture war" story does impact not only debates about the
    war in Iraq, as Obama said, but all debates about national security.
    Beyond the small minority who are strict "values voters," there are
    certainly millions of "values plus" voters. Though they can be
    swayed by lots of issues, they hold essentially conservative social
    values and would like a president who does the same. This time
    around, it's a reasonable guess that they, too, are letting war and
    security issues symbolize their "values" concerns. Put in the
    simplest terms: They are the McCain campaign's only chance.
    So just how much of a chance does he really have? At this point,
    only two-thirds of those who say they trust him most on Iraq plan to
    vote for him. That means less than 30% of all voters are solidly
    prowar and pro-McCain. But another 12% or so who do not trust McCain
    on Iraq say they'll vote for him anyway, keeping him competitive
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/28web-nagourney.html>
    in polling on the overall race. Most of them are surely part of the
    huge majority who, whatever they think of his Iraq specifics, trust
    McCain most to protect us from terrorism and see him as the person
    most desirable as commander-in-chief. (There's that "experience"
    again.)
    The crucial voters are the 10% to 20% who want troops out of Iraq
    soon, won't yet commit to McCain, but "trust him" most to do the
    right thing on Iraq and terrorism. They are choosing the man, not
    the policy position, on the war. A lot of them fall among the 5% to
    20% -- depending on the poll you pick -- who won't yet commit to
    either candidate.
    McCain can swing the election if his campaign can only convince
    enough of them to vote with their hearts, or their guts, for the
    "experienced" Vietnam war hero, the symbol of the never-ending
    crusade against "Sixties values." So he and his handlers naturally
    want to turn the campaign into a simple moral drama: Sixties values
    -- or the nation's security and your own? Take your pick.
    *Obama's American Values*
    Could that "values" script get a Republican elected, despite the
    terrible damage the Republicans have done -- and for which voters
    blame them -- in the last eight years? Many Democrats apparently
    think it might. They're afraid, says Senator Russ Feingold
    <http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3691/why_democrats_wont_stop_the_war/>,
    that "the Republicans will tear you apart" if you look too weak and
    soft. That's why the Democratic Congress, weakly and softly,
    continues to give the Bush administration nearly everything it wants
    when it comes to funding the war in Iraq, as well as eavesdropping
    on citizens at home. And the Democratic presidential candidate now
    goes along, with little apology.
    The Obama campaign recognizes the larger "values" frame at work
    here. Look at the commercial
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/19/obama_launches_nationwide_ad_c.html>
    its operatives made to kick off the general election campaign. In
    it, Obama says not a word about issues. He starts off by announcing:
    "America is a country of strong families and strong values." From
    then on, it's all values all the time.
    And the "strong values" the commercial touts are not the ones that
    won him the nomination either. Not by a long shot. You'll find
    nothing about "change" or "hope" there. It's all about holding fast
    to the past. Nor is there a thing about communities uniting to help
    the neediest. America's "strong values" -- "straight from the Kansas
    heartland" -- are "accountability and self-reliance? Working hard
    without making excuses." You're on your own. It's all individualism
    all the time.
    Sandwiched between self-reliance and hard work is the only community
    value that apparently does count: "love of country."
    Obama's second ad
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/07/obamas_working_class_pitch.html>
    (which /Newsweek/ described as "largely a 30-second version" of the
    first) features images of the candidate warmly engaging hard-hatted
    and hair-netted workers, all of them with middle-aged wrinkles, blue
    collars, and white skins. Both commercials ran in seven
    traditionally Republican states as well as 11 swing states. As they
    were released, Obama gave major speeches supporting patriotism and
    faith-based initiatives.
    As Republican consultant Alex Castellanos put it
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062201964.html>,
    the Obama campaign made "an aggressive leap across the 50-yard line
    to play on Republican turf." Before they sent their man around the
    world to focus on war and foreign policy, to meet the troops in
    Afghanistan and General Petraeus in Baghdad, they felt they had to
    assure the "Kansas heartland" that he shares true American values.
    And Obama's message-makers know where that mythical "heartland"
    really lies: not in Kansas, Dorothy, but on a yellow brick road to
    an imagined past. The America conjured up in his commercials is a
    Norman Rockwell fiction that millions still wish they could live in
    because they feel embittered (as Obama so infamously said) by a
    world that seems out of control. They prefer a fantasy version of a
    past America where so many, who now feel powerless, imagine they
    might actually have been able to shape their own destinies.
    Perhaps the frustrated do cling to "guns or religion or antipathy to
    people who are not like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
    anti-trade sentiment," as Obama suggested
    <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html>.
    But his ad-smiths know that they cling far more to illusions of a
    secure past, when (they imagine) everyone could count on clear,
    inviolable boundary lines -- between races and genders, between
    competitive individuals in the marketplace, between the virtuous
    self and the temptations of the flesh, between the U.S. and other
    nations, between civilization and the enemies who would destroy it.
    All of these boundaries point to the most basic one of all: the
    moral boundary between good and evil. McCain and Obama are both
    wooing the millions who imagine an absolute chasm between good and
    evil, know just where the good is (always "made in America"), and
    want a president who will stand
    <http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80822/how_mccain_stays_popular_despite_supporting_disastrous_wars/>
    against evil no matter what the cost. They want, in short, a world
    where everyone knows their place and keeps to it, and where wars, if
    they must be fought, can still be "good" and Americans can still win
    every time.
    The Republicans have a code word for that illusory past:
    "experience." Their "Sixties versus security" script offers a stark
    choice: The candidate who clearly symbolizes the crossing of
    boundaries, most notably the American racial line, versus the
    candidate whose "experience" and mythic life story are built on the
    same mantra as his Iraq policy: "No surrender."
    The McCain campaign is not about policies that can ensure national
    security by reaching out and making new friends. It's about a man
    who can offer a feeling of psychological security by standing firm
    against old and new enemies
    <http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html>.
    *The Media's "Ordinary American"*
    Who would choose psychological security over real security? The
    mainstream media have an answer: "the ordinary American." Now that
    the "values voter" of the 2004 election has largely disappeared, the
    media have come up with this new character as the mythic hero for
    their election-year story.
    It began, of course, with Hillary Clinton's primary campaign
    comeback -- portrayed as a revolt of those "ordinary people," who
    might once have been Reagan Democrats (and might soon become McCain
    Democrats), against the "elitists" -- or so the media story went.
    Her famous "phone call at 3 AM" ad
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/02/clinton_invokes_your_kids_in_n.html>
    suggested that "ordinary people" value a president tough enough to
    protect their children. As her husband once put it
    <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004926,00.html>:
    "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who is
    strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right."
    Now the "elitist" Obama still has a "potentially critical
    vulnerability," according to the /Washington Post's/ veteran
    political reporter Dan Balz
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062201964.html>:
    "Voters do not know whether he shares the values and beliefs of
    ordinary Americans."
    Balz's colleague, /Post/ media critic Howard Kurtz
    <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/30/obamas_working_class_pitch.html>,
    called the second Obama commercial a "White Working-Class Pitch"
    designed to show that Obama is "on the side of average workers." The
    /New York Times's/ Jeff Zeleny
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/politics/10obama.html> echoed
    that view: "One of his most pressing challenges is to assure voters
    that he is one of them."
    The centrist and even liberal media are as busy as conservatives
    propagating the idea that, to be one of the average, ordinary
    Americans, you have to prize (white) working-class values considered
    "Republican turf" since the late 1960s: individualism,
    self-reliance, hard work for "modest" (which means stagnant or
    falling) wages, faith, and a patriotism so strong that it will never
    surrender.
    The American Everyman, the hero of this year's media story, is an
    underpaid worker who may very well vote Republican against his or
    her own economic interests, and all too often against the interests
    of loved ones who hope to come home alive from Iraq or Afghanistan.
    What about all those Democrats who voted for Obama because he
    offered a vision of a new politics, a way out of Iraq, and a new
    path for the United States? What about all those who earn too much
    or too little, or have too much or too little education, or the
    wrong skin color, to be part of the white working class? Evidently,
    they are all extra-ordinary Americans; "outside the mainstream," as
    media analysts sometimes put it. They may represent a majority of
    the voters, but they just don't count the same way. They don't fit
    this year's plot line.
    Of course it may turn out that the old melodrama of an "experienced"
    Vietnam hero against the "summer of love" no longer draws much of an
    audience, even with both campaigns and the mainstream media so
    focused on it. No matter how things turn out on Election Day,
    however, it's beginning to look like the big winner will -- yet
    again -- be the conservative "culture war" narrative that has
    dominated our political discourse, in one form or another, for four
    decades now. With Obama and both Clintons endorsing it, who will
    stand against it?
    For the foreseeable future, debates about cultural values are going
    to be played out fiercely on the symbolic terrain of war and
    national security issues. The all-too-real battlefields abroad will
    remain obscured by the cultural battlefields at home and by the
    those timeless "ordinary American values" embedded in the public's
    imagination. It's all too powerful a myth -- and too good an
    election story -- to go away anytime soon.
    *Creating New Stories*
    Yet there is no law of nature that says the "ordinary American,"
    white working class or otherwise, /must/ value individualism,
    self-reliance, patriotism, and war heroics while treating any value
    ever associated with the 1960s as part of the primrose path to
    social chaos. In reality, of course, the "ordinary American" is a
    creature of shifting historical-cultural currents, constantly being
    re-invented.
    But the 1960s does indeed remain a pivotal era -- not least because
    that is when liberal, antiwar America largely did stop caring much
    about the concerns and values of working-class whites. Those workers
    were treated as an inscrutable oddity at best, an enemy at worst.
    Liberals didn't think about alternative narratives of America that
    could be meaningful across the political board. Now, they reap the
    harvest of their neglect.
    It does no good to complain about "spineless Democrats" who won't
    risk their political careers by casting courageous votes against
    war. Their job is to win elections. And you go to political war with
    the voters you have. If too many of the voters are still trapped in
    simplistic caricatures of patriotism and national security created
    40 years ago -- or if you fear they are -- that's because no one has
    offered them an appealing alternative narrative that meets their
    cultural needs.
    It does no good to complain that such working-class views are
    illogical or stupid or self-destructive. As long as progressives
    continue to treat "ordinary Americans" as stupid and irrelevant,
    progressives will find themselves largely irrelevant in U.S.
    politics. And that's stupid, because it doesn't have to be that way.
    What can be done to change this picture? Facts and logic are rarely
    enough, in themselves, to persuade people to give up the values
    narratives that have framed their lives. They'll abandon one
    narrative only when another comes along that is more satisfying.
    Democrats started looking for a new narrative after the 2004
    election, when the media told them that "values voters" ruled the
    roost and cared most about religious faith. The result? Democrats,
    some of them quite progressive, are creating effective
    faith-oriented frames for their political messages.
    No matter who wins this year's election, the prevalence of the
    "ordinary American" voter story should be a useful wakeup call: It's
    time to do something similar on a much broader scale. This election
    year offers an invaluable opportunity to begin to grasp some of the
    complexities of culturally conservative Americans. Equipped with a
    deeper understanding, progressives can frame their programs of
    economic justice and cultural diversity within new narratives about
    security, patriotism
    <http://www.alternet.org/election08/86816/?ses=5d88b64ec3d34318b2f62f2b0d581a73>,
    heroism, and other traditionally American values.
    That will take some effort. But it will take a lot more effort to
    stave off the next Republican victory -- or the next war -- if the
    project of creating new, more broadly appealing narratives continues
    to be ignored.
    /Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of
    Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters to Destroy: The
    Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin
    <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594512760/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>.
    His email address is: chernus@colorado.edu./
    Copyright 2008 Ira Chernus

    Wednesday, July 23, 2008

    McCain's Genius

    THE ABSURD TIMES


    Illustration: The Decider is now contemplating his "legacy" and library. Should there be books in it? Maybe Laura knows. Why did Aschcroft quit and say he couldn't take it anymore? How about a bust of Cheney next to a cross?


    But the real genius is McCain. He discovered Checkeslovakia.

    He found the Iraq-Afghanistan border when no one else in the world knows where it is.

    It was his idea for Obama to visit Iraq where he was cheered by troops and hit a three-pointer on the first try.

    Thursday, May 22, 2008

    McCain -- It Never Ends

    THE ABSURD TIMES




    Illustration: From Keith Tucker at www.whatnowtoons.com: This illustration is right on target. McCain, the great Maverick (even James Garner should turn his head away), the "reform" candidate (never support any "reform") just announced his independence for getting rid of five lobbysts running his campaign. I never saw one of them carrying his briefcase. He is the one independent of "special interests."
    McCain's spiritual supporter Hagee once said that Hitler was send by God to create the holocaust so the Jews would go back to Israel, and he was quoting the Bible to do so. McCain has not renounced him even yet. Of course, it is God's will, according to this bunch. See, you gotta have all the Jews in one place so they can be destroyed, "obliterated" to use a favorite of Hillary Clinton, and sent to hell during a great "rapture" that will mark Jesus' return, impossible without Hitler paving the way. So . . . um . . . as I have been led to understand, God works in mysterious ways. Um, how many lobbyists did Hitler have in the U.S.?
    ****************************************
    I've come across two interesting articles. One on the cost of "free speech." We talk about that all the time, free speech, that is, but have all sorts of ways to make one pay for exercising it.
    The other one is by Ralph Nader discussion a possibility than the internet, via Google, will be able to break the monopoly the Republicans and Democrats have on Presidential Debates.
    ***************************************

    When Free Speech Doesnt Come Free
    May 21, 2008 By *Remi Kanazi*

    Remi Kanazi's ZSpace Page </zspace/remikanazi>
    Free speech is not without consequence*.* In the United States, for
    example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US
    President Jimmy* *Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the
    release of his book,/ Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/, which condemned
    Israel's apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian
    territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by
    many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist.
    Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago
    professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two
    co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse
    effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an
    esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling
    book, /The Holocaust Industry/, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign
    mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of
    Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel's human
    rights abuses* *and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan
    Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure
    campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied
    tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul. **

    The attacks against Carter, Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer serve as a
    few well-known examples of the consequences writers and intellectuals
    face when they breach the line and criticize Israel. Furthermore, the
    condemnation writers and intellectuals of Arab descent face are
    invariably higher than Jews of conscience, former presidents, and highly
    regarded academics. As a result, many writers often acquiesce to the
    demands of the mainstream. Their self-censorship usually appears in the
    form of "toning down the message," be it to please editors or
    critics—essentially to conform to the reality of purported pragmatism.
    Yet, this "pragmatism" is a euphemism for acceptance of a repressive
    status quo and is analogous to the "necessary" practical thinking that
    silenced a multitude of commentators during the Oslo years—the supposed
    time of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold Palestinian suffering followed as
    a result of increased settlement expansion, land confiscation,
    checkpoints and seizures, and the ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.
    Shying away from perceived controversial matters may help to protect a
    mainstream career, but the intent of a political analyst should not be
    to produce works of fiction*. *The vast majority of Americans weren't
    open to criticism of US policy during the run-up to the war on Iraq,
    mainly due to the media's complicity in promoting the war, but criticism
    was still the appropriate course of action based on the facts, and
    Americans would have been better off for it today.**
    * *
    A man who combined principle, activism, and human appeal quite
    masterfully was distinguished educator and commentator, Edward Said. In
    the realm of academia and Middle East analysis, Said was by no means
    viewed as the quintessential radical. Nonetheless, his positions were
    radical when juxtaposed with "conventional wisdom": he was a proponent
    of the one-state solution, an unwavering critic of the Israeli
    government, and an ardent supporter of the ostensibly controversial
    right of return. Said was still heavily criticized throughout his career
    and endured incessant attacks by his detractors, yet his* *accessible
    personality and articulate message kept him relevant.
    Sadly, Said's relative acceptance has been the exception rather than the
    rule. In recent years, there has been increased* *emphasis on putative
    pragmatic dialogue. However, this accentuation on so-called rational and
    balanced thinking has proven to be little more than a sinister means*
    *to pressure the oppressed to accept the position of the oppressor. The
    greatest leaders of the last hundred years didn't shy away from
    controversy; they remained persistent, and saw their visions brought to
    fruition; be they Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi.
    Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that even paramount figures have been
    castigated for "overstepping" their boundaries, namely Martin Luther
    King who was chided for speaking out against the war in Vietnam,
    imperialism, and social injustices that plagued the US.
    This week, Palestinians across the US commemorated 60 years of
    displacement. Yet, the lens the Palestinian people are expected to look
    through under the pragmatist vision is one that sees a dispossessed
    people as necessary victims for a righteous state to take form*.
    *Unfortunately, waves of writers and commentators continue to adopt this
    line in fear of retribution, in exchange for nicer houses and
    comfortable livings, or a combination of both.* *That is their free
    will. Free speech is not without consequence. Nonetheless, losing piece
    of mind is the only repercussion a writer should fear.
    Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, /Poets
    For Palestine/, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com
    <http://www.poetsforpalestine.com/>. Remi can be contacted at
    remroum@gmail.com <mailto:remroum@gmail.com>.
    ***************************************************************************

    Can the Company Break the Political Gridlock?
    May 21, 2008 By *Ralph Nader*

    Ralph Nader's ZSpace Page </zspace/ralphnader>
    An invitation to visit Google's headquarters and meet some of the people
    who made this ten year old giant that is giving Microsoft the nervies
    has to start with wonder.
    The "campus" keeps spreading with the growth of Google into more and
    more fields, even though advertising revenue still comprises over 90
    percent of its total revenues. The company wants to "change the world,"
    make all information digital and accessible through Google. Its company
    motto—is "Do No Evil," which comes under increasing scrutiny, especially
    in the firm's business with the national security state in Washington,
    D.C. and with the censors of Red China.
    Google's two founders out of Stanford graduate school—Sergey Brin and
    Larry Page—place the highest premium on hiring smart, motivated people
    who provide their own edge and work their own hours.
    We were given "the tour" before entering a large space to be asked and
    answer questions before an audience of wunderkinds. E-mail traffic was
    monitored worldwide with a variety of electronic globes with various
    lights marking which countries were experiencing high or low traffic.
    Africa was the least lit. One of our photographers started to take a
    picture but was politely waved away with a few proprietary words. A new
    breed of trade secrets.
    I noticed all the places where food—free and nutritious—was available.
    The guide said that food is no further than 150 feet from any workplace.
    "How can they keep their weight down with all these tempting repasts?" I
    asked.
    "Wait," he said, leading us toward a large room where an almost eerie
    silence surrounded dozens of exercising Googlelites going through their
    solitary motions at 3:45 in the afternoon.
    "How many hours do they work?" one of my colleagues asked.
    "We don't really know. As long as they want to," came the response.
    In the amphitheatre, the director of communications and I started a Q
    and A, followed by more questions from the audience. It was followed by
    a YouTube interview. You can see both of them on: (Q&A
    <http://youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU>) and (Interview
    <http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzUrUNhIj4c&feature=related>).
    Google is a gigantic information means, bedecked with ever complex
    software, to what end? Information ideally leads to knowledge, then to
    judgment, then to wisdom and then to some action. As the ancient Chinese
    proverb succinctly put it—"To know and not to do is not to know."
    But what happens when a company is riding an ever rising crest of
    digitized information avalanches without being able to catch its breath
    and ask, "information for what?" I commented that we have had more
    information available in the last twenty five years, though our country
    and world seem to be getting worse overall; measured by indicators of
    the human condition. With information being the "currency of democracy,"
    conditions should be improving across the board.
    "Knowledge for what?" I asked.
    Well, for starters, Google is trying to figure out how to put on its own
    Presidential debates, starting with one in New Orleans in the autumn.
    Certainly it can deliver an internet audience of considerable size. But
    will the major candidates balk if there are other candidates meeting
    criteria such as a majority of Americans wanting them to participate?
    The present Commission on Presidential Debates <http://opendebates.org/>
    is a private nonprofit corporation created and controlled by the
    Republican and Democratic Parties. They do not want other seats on the
    stage and the television networks follow along with this exclusionary
    format.
    Google, with its own Foundation looking for creative applications that
    produce results for the well-being of people, should hold regular public
    hearings on the ground around the country for ideas. They may be
    surprised by what people propose.
    In any event, the examples of knowing but not doing are everywhere. More
    people succumbed to tuberculosis in the world last year than ten years
    ago. Medical scientists learned how to treat TB nearly fifty years ago.
    Knowledge alone is not enough.
    For years the technology to present the up-to-date voting record of each
    member of Congress has been available. Yet only about a dozen
    legislators do so, led by Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Chris Shays
    (R-CT). Recalcitrant power blocks what people most want directly from
    their lawmakers' website. Here Google can make the difference with
    Capitol Hill, if it wants to connect information technology to informed
    voters.
    When the internet began, some of us thought that it would make it easy
    and cheap for people to band together for bargaining and lobbying as
    consumers. At last, the big banks, insurance companies, credit card
    companies, automobile firms and so forth would have organized
    countervailing consumer power with millions of members and ample full
    time staffs. It has not happened.
    Clearly technology and information by themselves do not produce
    beneficial change. That depends on how decentralized political, economic
    and social power is exercised in a corporate society where the few
    decide for the many.
    I left Google hoping for a more extensive follow-up conversation,
    grounded in Marcus Cicero's assertion, over 2000 years ago, that
    "Freedom is participation in power." That is what connects knowledge to
    beneficial action, if people have that freedom.
    I hope my discussions with the Google staff produced some food for
    thought that percolates up the organization to Google's leaders.
    *Ralph Nader* is running for president as an independent.

    Thursday, April 10, 2008

    No to McCain

    THE ABSURD TIMES





    One of you posted an excellent comment and I thought it deserved a more prominent place.
    I agree with all of it, although much of it has to do with his murders. The most absurd thing about McCain, as our contirbuter notes, is his own decision, we are told, to remain a prisoner of war. What is to stop him from saying "I did it, why not other U.S. Citizens?"
    My comment is about McCain. In Viet Nam he was one of those fly boys who dropped millions of bombs on the north VN population, right? And they did it for quite a while with impunity until finally China or russia supplied the north with missles to bring down the bombers, right? And so they got a few prisoner airboys before they changed strategy to high altitude bombing. Since they were just bombing civilians and not strategic targets, that worked fine. So, how does that make him a war hero??? Then he doesn't have sense enough to use his get out of jail card. Does that show good judgement?? He speaks with this phoney soft voice while privately he is known to have anger management issues.
    Meanwhile, he is an article about another Iriqi leader who actually deserves respect. When Saddam learned that his eldest son killed this man's father, Saddam almost killed him (Uday) and said "You might just as well killed me." This is the one Shia leader who did not hide out in Iran.

    Muqtada al-Sadr and the American Dilemma in Iraq
    April 09, 2008 By *Patrick Cockburn*
    Source: TomDispatch <http://www.tomdispatch.com>
    Patrick Cockburn's ZSpace Page </zspace/patrickcockburn>
    Muqtada al-Sadr is the most important and surprising figure to emerge in
    Iraq since the U.S. invasion. He is the Messianic leader of the
    religious and political movement of the impoverished Shia underclass
    whose lives were ruined by a quarter of a century of war, repression,
    and sanctions.
    From the moment he unexpectedly appeared in the dying days of Saddam
    Hussein's regime, U.S. emissaries and Iraqi politicians underestimated
    him. So far from being the "firebrand cleric" as the Western media often
    described him, he often proved astute and cautious in leading his
    followers.
    During the battle for Najaf with U.S. Marines in 2004, the U.S. "surge"
    of 2007, and the escalating war with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council,
    he generally sought compromise rather than confrontation. So far from
    being the inexperienced young man whom his critics portrayed -- when he
    first appeared they denigrated him as a /zatut/ (an "ignorant child," in
    Iraqi dialect) -- he was a highly experienced political operator who had
    worked in his father's office in Najaf since he was a teenager. He also
    had around him activist clerics, of his own age or younger, who had
    hands-on experience under Saddam of street politics within the Shia
    community. His grasp of what ordinary Iraqis felt was to prove far surer
    than that of the politicians isolated in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
    *A Kleptocracy Comparable to the Congo*
    Mass movements led by Messianic leaders have a history of flaring up
    unexpectedly and then subsiding into insignificance. This could have
    happened to Muqtada and the Sadrists but did not, because their
    political and religious platform had a continuous appeal for the Shia
    masses. From the moment Saddam was overthrown, Muqtada rarely deviated
    from his open opposition to the U.S. occupation, even when a majority of
    the Shia community was prepared to cooperate with the occupiers.
    As the years passed, however, disillusion with the occupation grew among
    the Shia until, by September 2007, an opinion poll showed that 73% of
    Shia thought that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq made the security
    situation worse, and 55% believed their departure would make a
    Shia-Sunni civil war less likely. The U.S. government, Iraqi
    politicians, and the Western media habitually failed to recognize the
    extent to which hostility to the occupation drove Iraqi politics and, in
    the eyes of Iraqis, delegitimized the leaders associated with it.
    All governments in Baghdad failed after 2003. Almost no Iraqis supported
    Saddam Hussein as U.S. troops advanced on Baghdad. Even his supposedly
    loyal Special Republican Guard units dissolved and went home. Iraqis
    were deeply conscious that their country sat on some of the world's
    largest oil reserves, but Saddam Hussein's Inspector Clouseau-like
    ability to make catastrophic errors in peace and war had reduced the
    people to a state in which their children were stunted because they did
    not get enough to eat.
    The primal rage of the dispossessed in Iraq against the powers-that-be
    exploded in the looting of Baghdad when the old regime fell, and the
    same fury possessed Muqtada's early supporters. Had life become easier
    in Shia Iraq in the coming years, this might have undermined the Sadrist
    movement. Instead, people saw their living standards plummet as
    provision of food rations, clean water, and electricity faltered.
    Saddam's officials were corrupt enough, but the new government cowering
    in the Green Zone rapidly turned into a kleptocracy comparable to
    Nigeria or the Congo. Muqtada sensed the loathing with which the
    government was regarded, and dodged in and out of government, enjoying
    some of the fruits of power while denouncing those who held it.
    Muqtada's political intelligence is undoubted, but the personality of
    this highly secretive man is difficult to pin down. While his father and
    elder brothers lived he was in their shadow; after they were
    assassinated in 1999 he had every reason to stress his lack of ability
    or ambition in order to give the /mukhabarat/ [Saddam Hussein's secret
    police] less reason to kill him. As the son and son-in-law of two of
    Saddam Hussein's most dangerous opponents, he was a prime suspect and
    his every move was watched.
    When Saddam fell, Muqtada stepped forward to claim his forbears'
    political inheritance and consciously associated himself with them on
    every possible occasion. Posters showed Muqtada alongside Sadr I and
    Sadr II [Muqtada's father-in-law and father, both assassinated by
    Saddam] against a background of the Iraqi flag. There was more here than
    a leader exploiting his connection to a revered or respected parent.
    Muqtada persistently emphasized the Sadrist ideological legacy:
    puritanical Shia Islam mixed with anti-imperialism and populism.
    *Riding the Tiger of the Sadrist Movement*
    The first time I thought seriously about Muqtada was a grim day in April
    2003 when I heard that he was being accused of killing a friend of mine,
    Sayyid Majid al-Khoei, that intelligent and able man with whom I had
    often discussed the future of Iraq. Whatever the involvement of Muqtada
    himself, which is a matter of dispute, the involvement of the Sadrist
    supporters in the lynching is proven and was the start of a pattern that
    was to repeat itself over the years.
    Muqtada was always a man riding a tiger, sometimes presiding over,
    sometimes controlling the mass movement he nominally led. His words and
    actions were often far apart. He appealed for Shia unity with the Sunni
    against the occupation, yet after the bombing of the Shia shrine in
    Samarra in February 2006, he was seen as an ogre by the Sunni,
    orchestrating the pogroms against them and failing to restrain the death
    squads of the Mehdi Army. The excuse that it was "rogue elements" among
    his militiamen who were carrying out this slaughter is not convincing,
    because the butchery was too extensive and too well organized to be the
    work of only marginal elements. But the Sadrists and the Shia in general
    could argue that it was not they who had originally taken the offensive
    against the Sunni, and the Shia community endured massacres at the hands
    of al-Qaeda for several years before their patience ran out.
    Muqtada had repeatedly demanded that Sunni political and religious
    leaders unequivocally condemn al-Qaeda in Iraq's horrific attacks on
    Shia civilians if he was to cooperate with them against the occupation.
    They did not do so, and this was a shortsighted failure on their part,
    since the Shia, who outnumbered the Sunni Arabs three to one in Iraq,
    controlled the police and much of the army. Their retaliation, when it
    came, was bound to be devastating. Muqtada was criticized for not doing
    more, but neither he, nor anybody else could have stopped the killing at
    the height of the battle for Baghdad in 2006. The Sunni and Shia
    communities were both terrified, and each mercilessly retaliated for the
    latest atrocity against their community. "We try to punish those who
    carry out evil deeds in the name of the Mehdi Army," says Hussein Ali,
    the former Mehdi Army leader. "But there are a lot of Shia regions that
    are not easy to control and we ourselves, speaking frankly, are
    sometimes frightened by these great masses of people."
    American officials and journalists seldom showed much understanding of
    Muqtada, even after [U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority head] Paul
    Bremer's disastrous attempt to crush him [in 2004]. There were
    persistent attempts to marginalize him or keep him out of government
    instead of trying to expand the Iraqi government's narrow support base
    to include the Sadrists. The first two elected Shia prime ministers,
    Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Nouri al-Maliki, came under intense pressure from
    Washington to sever or limit their connection with Muqtada. But
    government officials were not alone in being perplexed by the young
    cleric. In a lengthy article on him published in its December 4, 2006,
    issue, /Newsweek/ admitted that "Muqtada al-Sadr may end up deciding
    America's fate in Iraq." But the best the magazine could do to assist
    its readers in understanding Muqtada was to suggest that they should
    "think of him as a young Mafia don."
    Of course, Muqtada was the complete opposite to the type of Iraqi leader
    who proponents of the war in Washington had suggested would take over
    from Saddam Hussein. Instead of the smooth, dark-suited,
    English-speaking exiles who the White House had hoped would turn Iraq
    into a compliant U.S. ally, Muqtada looked too much like a younger
    version of Ayatollah Khomeini.
    Muqtada epitomized the central dilemma of the United States in Iraq,
    which it has never resolved. The problem was that the overthrow of
    Saddam Hussein and his Sunni regime was bound to be followed by
    elections that would produce a government dominated by the Shia allied
    to the Kurds. It soon became evident that the Shia parties that were
    going to triumph in any election would be Islamic parties, and some
    would have close links to Iran.
    The Arab Sunni states were aghast at the sight of Iran's defeat in the
    Iran-Iraq war being reversed, and spoke of a menacing "Shia axis"
    developing in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon. Much of this was ignorance and
    paranoia on the part of the Arab leaders. Had the Iranians been tempted
    to make Iraq a client state they would have found the country as prickly
    a place for Iranians as it was to be for Americans. It was the U.S.
    attempt to create an anti-Iranian Iraq that was to play into Iranian
    hands and produce the very situation that Washington was trying to avoid.
    The more Washington threatened air strikes on Iran because of its
    nuclear program, the more the Iranians sought to make sure that it had
    the potential to strike back at American forces in Iraq. Before he was
    executed, Sadr I believed that he had been let down by Iran; Sadr II had
    bad relations with Tehran; and at first Muqtada denounced his Shia
    opponents in SCIRI and the Marji'iyyah as being Iranian stooges. But
    American pressure meant that the Sadrists had to look to Iran for help,
    and in a military confrontation the Mehdi Army saw Iran as an essential
    source of weapons and military expertise.
    *The New Iraqi Political Landscape*
    On reappearing after his four-month disappearance in May 2007, Muqtada
    called for a united front of Sunni and Shia and identified the U.S.
    occupation and al-Qaeda in Iraq as the enemies of both communities. The
    call was probably sincere, but it was also too late. Baghdad was now
    largely a Shia city, and people were too frightened to go back to their
    old homes. The U.S. "surge" had contributed to the sharp drop in
    sectarian killings, but it was also true that the Shia had won and there
    were few mixed areas left.
    The U.S. commander General David Petraeus claimed that security was
    improving, but only a trickle of Iraqis who had fled their homes were
    returning. Muqtada was the one Shia leader capable of uniting with the
    Sunni on a nationalist platform, but the Sunni Arabs of Iraq had never
    accepted that their rule had ended. If Sunni and Shia could not live on
    the same street, they could hardly share a common identity.
    The political and military landscape of Iraq changed in 2007 as the
    Sunni population turned on al-Qaeda. This started before the "surge,"
    but it was still an important development. Al-Qaeda's massive suicide
    bombs targeting civilians had been the main fuel for Shia-Sunni
    sectarian warfare since 2003. The Sunni Arabs and many of the insurgent
    groups had turned against al-Qaeda after it tried to monopolize power
    within the Sunni community at the end of 2006 by declaring the Islamic
    State of Iraq. Crucial in the change was al-Qaeda's attempt to draft one
    son from every Sunni family into its ranks. Sunni with lowly jobs with
    the government such as garbage collectors were killed.
    By the fall of 2007 the U.S. military command in Baghdad was trumpeting
    successes over al-Qaeda, saying it had been largely eliminated in Anbar,
    Baghdad, and Diyala. But the Sunni Arab fighters, by now armed and paid
    for by the United States, did not owe their prime loyalty to the Iraqi
    government. Muqtada might speak of new opportunities for pan-Iraqi
    opposition to the U.S. occupation, but many anti-al-Qaeda Sunni fighters
    had quite different ideas. They wanted to reverse the Shia victory in
    the 2006 battle of Baghdad.
    A new breed of American-supported Sunni warlords was emerging. One of
    them, Abu Abed, is a former member of the insurgent Islamic Army. He
    operates in the Amariya district of west Baghdad, where he is a
    commander of the U.S.-backed Amariya Knights, whom the U.S. calls
    Concerned Citizens. His stated objectives show that the rise of the new
    Sunni militias may mark only a new stage in a sectarian civil war.
    "Amariya is just the beginning," says Abu Abed. "After we finish with
    al-Qaida here, we will turn towards our main enemy, the Shia militias. I
    will liberate Jihad [the mixed Sunni-Shia area near Amariya taken over
    by the Mehdi Army], then Saadiya and the whole of west Baghdad."
    The al-Sadr family has an extraordinary record of resistance to Saddam
    Hussein, for which they paid a heavy price. One of the gravest errors in
    Iraq by the United States was to try to marginalize Muqtada and his
    movement. Had he been part of the political process from the beginning,
    the chances of creating a peaceful, prosperous Iraq would have been
    greater.
    In any real accommodation between Shia and Sunni, the Sadrists must play
    a central role. Muqtada probably represented his constituency of
    millions of poor Shia better than anybody else could have done. But he
    never wholly controlled his own movement, and never created as
    well-disciplined a force as Hezbollah in Lebanon. None of his ambitions
    for reconciliation with the Sunni could take wing unless the Mehdi Army
    ceased to be identified with death squads and sectarian cleansing.
    The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War I and, while violence
    diminished in the second half of 2007, nothing has been resolved. The
    differences between Shia and Sunni, the disputes within the respective
    communities, and the antagonism against the U.S. occupation are all as
    great as ever. The only way the Sadrists and the Mehdi Army could create
    confidence among the Sunni that Muqtada meant what he said when he
    called for unity, would be for them to be taken back voluntarily into
    the areas in Baghdad and elsewhere from which they have been driven. But
    there is no sign of this happening. The disintegration of Iraq has
    probably gone too far for the country to exist as anything more than a
    loose federation.
    /Patrick Cockburn is the Iraq correspondent for The Independent in
    London. He has visited Iraq countless times since 1977 and was recipient
    of the 2004 Martha Gellhorn Prize for war reporting as well as the 2006
    James Cameron Memorial Award. His book *The Occupation: War and
    Resistance in Iraq*, was short-listed for a National Book Critics Circle
    Award in 2007. This essay is the last chapter in his new book, Muqtada:
    Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq
    <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416551476/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>,
    just published by Scribner./
    *From Muqtada
    <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416551476/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> by
    Patrick Cockburn. Copyright © 2008 by Patrick Cockburn. Reprinted by
    permission of Scribner, an Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.*
    [This article first appeared on Tomdispatch.com
    <http://www.tomdispatch.com/>, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which
    offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news, and opinion from Tom
    Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing, /co-founder of the American
    Empire Project <http://www.americanempireproject.com/>/ and author of
    /The End of Victory Culture
    <http://www.amazon.com/dp/155849586X/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>
    (University of Massachusetts Press), which has just been thoroughly
    updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's
    crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq./]