"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
The real US - Iran situation and how the US can (can not) deal with it
Juan Cole's response to President Obama's speech on Tuesday. As noted and also all over the MSM it doesn't stop the Limbaugh/McCain/Bohener/Graham/Beck/Palin/Graham/Malkin... hate & lie machine.
But there are dangers here. Obama
will likely be as helpless before a crackdown by the Iranian regime as
Eisenhower was re: Hungary in 1956, Johnson was re: Prague in 1968, and
Bush senior was re: Tienanmen Square in 1989. George W. Bush, it should
remember, did nothing about Tehran's crackdown on student protesters in
2003 or about the crackdown on reformist candidates, which excluded
them from running in the 2004 Iranian parliamentary elections, or about
the probably fraudulent election of Ahmadinejad in 2005. It is hard to
see what he could have done, contrary to what his erstwhile supporters
in Congress now seem to imply. As an oil state, the Iranian regime does
not need the rest of the world and is not easy to pressure. So Obama
needs to be careful about raising expectations of any sort of practical
intervention by the US, which could not possibly succeed. (Despite the
US media's determined ignoring the the Afghanistan War, it is rather a
limiting factor on US options with regard to Iran.) Moreover, if the
regime succeeds in quelling the protests, however odious it is, it will
still be a chess piece on the board of international diplomacy and the
US will have to deal with it just as it deals with post-Tiananmen China.
And,
the more Obama speaks on the subject, even in these terms, the more he
risks associating the Mousavi supporters with a CIA plot. Iranian media
are already parading arrested protesters
who are 'confessing' that 'Western media' led them astray. In
nationalist and wounded Iran, if someone is successfully tagged as an
agent of foreign interests, it is the political kiss of death.
The
fact is that despite the bluster of the American Right that Something
Must be Done, the United States is not a neutral or benevolent player
in Iran. Washington overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953
over oil nationalization, and installed the megalomaniac and oppressive
Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, who gradually so alienated all social classes in
Iran that he was overthrown in a popular revolution in 1978-1979. The
shah had a national system of domestic surveillance and tossed people
in jail for the slightest dissidence, and was supported to the hilt by
the United States government. So past American intervention has not
been on the side of let us say human rights.
More recently, the
US backed the creepy and cult-like Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy
Warriors or MEK), which originated in a mixture of communist Stalinism
and fundamentalist Islam. The MEK is a terrorist organization and has
blown things up inside Iran, so the Pentagon's ties with them are wrong
in so many ways. The MEK, by the way, has a very substantial lobby in
Washington DC and has some congressmen in its back pocket, and is
supported by the less savory elements of the Israel lobbies such as
Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson. I am not saying they should be
investigated for material support of terrorism, since I am appalled by
the unconstitutional breadth of that current DOJ tactic, but I am
signalling that the US imperialist Right has been up to very sinister
things in Iran for decades. A person who worked in the Pentagon once
alleged to me that then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was
privately pushing for using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. And
Dick Cheney is so attached to launching war on Iran that he
characterized attempts to deflect such plans as a "conspiracy." Given
what the US did to Fallujah, it strikes me as unlikely that a military
invasion of Iran would be good for that country's civic life. And there
are rather disadvantages to being nuked, even by the kindliest of WASP
gentlemen of Mr. Rumsfeld's ilk.
Moreover, very unfortunately,
US politicians are no longer in a position to lecture other countries
about their human rights. The kind of unlicensed, city-wide
demonstrations being held in Tehran last week would not be allowed to
be held in the United States. Senator John McCain led the charge
against Obama for not having sufficiently intervened in Iran. At the
Republican National Committee convention in St. Paul, 250 protesters were arrested shortly before John McCain took the podium.
Most were innocent activists and even journalists. Amy Goodman and her
staff were assaulted. In New York in 2004, 'protest zones' were
assigned, and 1800 protesters were arrested, who have now been awarded
civil damages by the courts. Spontaneous, city-wide demonstrations
outside designated 'protest zones' would be illegal in New York City,
apparently. In fact, the Republican National Committee has undertaken
to pay for the cost of any lawsuits by wronged protesters, which many
observers fear will make the police more aggressive, since they will
know that their municipal authorities will not have to pay for civil
damages.
It must have killed AP's Ron Fournier (Karl Rove's pal who almost worked for McCain)
to write this article. But, the numbers are what they are -- and the
Americans are feeling better about the direction of the country. For
the first time in a long time, more Americans think we're going in the
right direction. That's the kind of change we needed:
[T]he
percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right
direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February.
Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.
Not
since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than
"wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long
in 2004.
And it doesn't happen much.
Other than that blip
five years ago, pessimism has trumped optimism in media polls since
shortly after the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003.
The
"right track" number topped "wrong direction" for a few months after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to non-AP media polls, and for
several months late in the Clinton administration.
So far, Obama has defied the odds by producing a sustained trend toward optimism. It began with his election.
In
October 2008, just 17 percent said the country was headed in the right
direction. After his victory, that jumped to 36 percent. It dipped a
bit in December but returned to 35 percent around the time of his
inauguration and has headed upward since.
That's quite a
turnaround. We have a president who appears to be working hard every
day for the American people. We'll see how long it lasts. It's almost
fitting that when Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are
re-rearing their ugly heads and looking backwards, the American people
are feeling hopeful and looking forward.
hmm, wingers at it on tape prior to the headshots taking out the pirates
They had nothing to say except whine about the Obama administration being weak, negotiating, special exceptions for pirates, whine, whine, whine...
I wonder what their lines will be now that the situation was resolved in what was their ultimate fantasy scenario.
So, remember how Newt and other right wingers were trashing Obama and
betting against the US when the pirates were holding the Captain of the
Maersk Alabama hostage? Jed got it on video:
Betting against America is, well, pretty un-American.
Now,
the surviving pirate is now in the US. And, he's going to be tried for
his crimes, via press release from the Department of Justice:
Muse,
who is over 18 years old, was presented in U.S. Magistrate Court and
ordered detained. Muse is charged with: (1) piracy under the law of
nations; (2) conspiracy to seize a ship by force; (3) discharging a
firearm, and aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm, during and
in relation to the conspiracy to seize a ship by force; (4) conspiracy
to commit hostage taking; and (5) brandishing a firearm, and aiding and
abetting the brandishing of a firearm, during and in relation to the
conspiracy to commit hostage taking. The first count carries a
mandatory term of life imprisonment; the second count carries a maximum
potential penalty of 20 years in prison; the third count carries a
maximum potential penalty of life imprisonment; the fourth count
carries a maximum potential penalty of life imprisonment; and the fifth
count carries a maximum potential penalty of life imprisonment.
Kinda shows that Gingrich and his ilk are even bigger idiots than we thought a couple weeks ago.
President Obama dealt with
Daniel Ortega’s harangue at the Summit of the Americas much in the same
way he dispatched Sec. Clinton in the Democratic primaries and Sen.
McCain n the general election - appealing to people’s need to move
forward and not get bogged down in the ridiculous past:
“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners
of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame
me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an
opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been
undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.”
The last administration tried to ignore the rest of the world or to
act like a belligerent asshat when they were forced to work in
international organizations. It didn’t work and made American interests
suffer for it. We live in the 21st century now and we’ve got a finally
got a president worthy of the bridge Bill Clinton began building a
decade ago.
"Its Totally Insane For U.S. Presidents To Meet With World Leaders We Don’t Agree With"
As Oliver Willis says (very sarcastically if you don't know him) "Its Totally Insane For U.S. Presidents To Meet With World Leaders We Don’t Agree With"
It's never easy following the twisted thinking of the right wing
extremists but they seem rather hot under the collar about Obama daring
to shake hands with the crazy Hugo Chavez. Clearly this means Obama is
planning on moving to assume power for life and install a socialist
dictatorship. He's the Manchurian Candidate, of course, and we will all
be sent to reeducation camps to learn the socialist message. In other
words, the extremists are nuts. They're barking mad. Tea, anyone?
Guess which one is dangerous in the minds of the wingnuts? AP
In spite of the cheesy arrival of the Obama pooch, I have a feeling
this Pete Souza photo might be one of the more significant he will take
in the White House given its "unbounded" quality.
There are all kinds of interesting elements here. Bo running free,
though leashed. Obama and the dog clearly relating to one another,
Obama looking back -- already creating a bond with the puppy. And
especially, the new President at full sprint -- completely off the
ground. (By the way, I tried pretty hard to ID that statue, but
couldn't. I was thinking Jefferson or a beardless Lincoln. Any help? It
certainly has a strong role, as well.)
One thing the photo does -- playing off an almost timeless domestic
activity: running with your dog -- is to capture Obama thoroughly free
of his often more self-contained manner. (SNL takes this feature to
extremes by making Fred Armisen slightly robotic and accentuating the staccato quality in Obama's sometimes overly mindful speech.)
Because we know Obama hardly has any relationship with the dog at
this point, it is that much more thrilling to see the President so
unbound. In graceful flight, the photo suggests any number of meanings,
including: vigor; drive, accelerated progress. (I should also add that
Obama still shows a wonderful balance, flying forward through the air
but, at the same time, investing attention sideways toward "his new
friend.")
But then, Souza wouldn't be worth his
salt if he wasn't also conscious, at some level -- while capturing the
shot, choosing it out, or both -- of how much it represented a color-,
right-to-left- and an indoor/outdoor reversal of that tremendously
romantic photo of RFK running on the beach with Freckles. Along those
lines, Bo-bama -- the dog, a gift from Ted Kennedy -- was already well
down the hall to Camelot.(link BagNewsNotes)
Is this email real? Is it a joke? I don't know. But it's funny as hell.
Ben & Jerry created "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama. They then asked people to fill in the blank for the following:
For George W. they created "_________".
Here are some of their favorite responses:
Grape Depression Abu Grape Cluster Fudge Nut'n Accomplished Iraqi Road Chock 'n Awe WireTapioca Impeach Cobbler Guantanmallow imPeachmint Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker... Swirl Heck of a Job, Brownie! Neocon Politan RockyRoad to Fascism The Reese's-cession Cookie D'oh! The Housing Crunch Nougalar Proliferation Death by Chocolate... and Torture Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder You're Shitting In My Mouth And Calling It A Sundae Credit Crunch Mission Pecanplished Country Pumpkin Chunky Monkey in Chief George Bush Doesn't Care About Dark Chocolate WMDelicious Chocolate Chimp Bloody Sundae Caramel Preemptive? Stripe
The current Oval Office rug cost over $60,000 and was designed by former first lady Laura Bush.
(CNN) — The Obamas are using their own money to
redecorate the White House residence and Oval Office, the White House
confirms, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally
allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.
The first couple — who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely
from book revenues — is also turning down money from the White House
Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of
china for the Bushes.
New presidents have traditionally undertaken extensive redecoration
efforts to their personal quarters reflect their own tastes, with a new
Oval Office rug tradition ringing in as the priciest item. Former
President George W. Bush spent over $60,000 on a new cream carpet
designed by Laura Bush in 2000 to replace the deep blue rug that
covered the space during the Clinton administration. Obama aides have
said the president likes the Bush rug, and does not plan to replace it.
The decision to forgo federal funds, first reported by New York Magazine,
is the president's latest belt-tightening move amid the sagging economy
and widespread outrage over corporate excesses. Late last month, White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced the administration had put
an order on hold for a fleet of new helicopters that will cost at least
$11 billion.
But it remains unclear just how much money the couple plan to spend
on redecorations. In January, the Obamas tapped high-profile interior
designer Michael Smith to spearhead the project.
In accepting the position, Smith said affordability would be one of the "guiding principles."
"The family's casual style, their interest in bringing 20th Century
American artists to the forefront and utilizing affordable brands and
products will serve as our guiding principles as we make the residence
feel like their home," he said. (link CNN)
From the Dept of Justice, a name that no longer carries so much irony:
In
a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of
Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the
government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay
Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s
authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific
authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the
statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals
who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the
support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase “enemy
combatant.” ... (link AMERICAblog)
He
called for reducing abortions and seeking common ground on one of the
nation’s most divisive issues — promises that led some on the right to
think maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama was a different kind of Democrat.
But no more
A series of decisions in the past two
months — capped by an announcement Monday that he’s abolishing Bush-era
limits on embryonic stem cell research — has led to a reassessment of
Obama by some Christian conservative and other religious leaders, who
now charge him with inflaming the very cultural divisions he once
pledged to heal.
They really are good, the Republicans.
Whether it's House Republican Whip Eric Cantor claiming that rescinding
Bush's stem cell ban "distracts" us from the economy, or the religious
right now claiming that lifting that particular ban somehow breaks some
promise Obama made during the campaign. Basically, they won't be happy
unless Obama becomes a Republican. And in the case of the Republican
party and the religious right, they won't be happy - period.
